[Federal Register: October 30, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61867-61903]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30oc03-18]
[[Page 61867]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron
Ore Processing; Final Rule
[[Page 61868]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR 2002-0039; FRL-7551-2]
RIN 2060-AJ02
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Taconite Iron Ore Processing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing
facilities. The final standards establish emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from new and existing ore
crushing and handling operations, ore dryers, indurating furnaces, and
finished pellet handling operations. The final standards will implement
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major
sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
The HAP emitted by taconite iron ore processing facilities include
metal compounds (such as manganese, arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium,
and mercury), products of incomplete combustion (including
formaldehyde), and the acid gases hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen
fluoride (HF). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to
cause adverse health effects, including chronic and acute disorders of
the blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive system, respiratory system and
central nervous system. Some of these substances are considered
carcinogens. However, it should be noted that the extent and degree to
which the health effects may be experienced depend on:
Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in
the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence); The ambient
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); The frequency and
duration of exposures; and Characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle),
which vary significantly within the general population.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Docket. The official public docket is the collection of
materials used in developing the final rule and is available for public
viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conrad Chin, Metals Group (C439-02),
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone number (919) 541-1512, electronic mail (e-mail) address, chin.conrad@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
Category \1\ Example of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................................. 21221 Taconite Iron Ore Processing
Facilities [taconite ore crushing and
handling operations, indurating
furnaces, finished pellet handling
operations, and ore dryers].
Federal government........................................ ............ Not affected.
State/local/tribal government............................. ............ Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry 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
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.9581 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0039 and Docket ID No. A-
2001-14. The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. All items may not be
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials
relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public docket is available for public viewing at the EPA
Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number. Although not all docket
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of
the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility in
the above paragraph entitled ``Docket.''
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. This action constitutes final administrative
action on the proposed NESHAP for taconite iron ore processing
facilities (67 FR 77562, December 18, 2002). Under CAA section
307(b)(1), judicial review of the final rule is available only by
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by December 29, 2003. Under
[[Page 61869]]
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements that are the subject of this
document may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Who must comply with the final rule?
B. What are the affected sources and emission points?
C. What are the emission limitations?
D. What are the operation and maintenance requirements?
E. What are the general compliance requirements?
F. What are the initial compliance requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
I. What are the compliance deadlines?
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. How did we revise the cost estimates and economic analysis?
B. How did we revise the performance testing requirements?
C. How did we revise the emission limitations?
D. How did we revise the continuous compliance requirements?
E. How did we revise the baseline emissions?
F. How did we select the pollutants?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
V. 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 & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us (the EPA) to establish
national emission standards for all categories and subcategories of
major sources of HAP and for area sources listed for regulation under
section 112(c). Major sources are those that emit or have the potential
to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or at least
25 tpy of any combination of HAP. Area sources are stationary sources
of HAP that are not major sources. Additional information on the NESHAP
development process can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule
(67 FR 77562).
We received a total of 29 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP
from industry, State agencies, Federal agencies, environmental groups,
and private citizens. We offered to provide interested individuals the
opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed rule, but a public hearing was not requested.
Today's final rule reflects our full consideration of all the
comments we received. Major public comments on the proposed rule along
with our responses to these comments are summarized in section III of
this document. A detailed response to all the comments is included in
the Background Information Document (BID) for the promulgated standards
(Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0039).
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Who Must Comply With the Final Rule?
Each owner or operator of an affected source at a taconite iron ore
processing plant that is (or is part of) a major source of HAP
emissions must comply with the final rule. A taconite iron ore
processing plant is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.
B. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
The affected sources are each new or existing ore crushing and
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, and finished pellet
handling operation at a taconite iron ore processing facility that is
(or is part of) a major source of HAP emissions. Emission limitations
apply to each ore crushing and handling operation, each ore dryer, each
indurating furnace, and each finished pellet handling operation. These
processes, as well as their emissions and controls, are described in
the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 77564-77566).
C. What Are the Emission Limitations?
The final rule includes particulate matter (PM) emission limits,
operating limits for control devices, and work practice standards.
Particulate matter emissions serve as a surrogate measure of HAP
emissions.
Ore Crushing and Handling
The PM emissions limits for ore crushing and handling are 0.008
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) for existing sources and
0.005 gr/dscf for new sources. Compliance with the PM emissions limits
for ore crushing and handling is determined based on the flow-weighted
mean concentration of emissions for all ore crushing and handling units
at the plant.
Ore Dryers
The PM emission limits for each individual ore dryer are 0.052 gr/
dscf for existing dryers and 0.025 gr/dscf for new dryers. Ore dryers
with multiple stacks calculate their PM emissions as a flow-weighted
mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks.
Indurating Furnaces
For each straight grate indurating furnace processing magnetite,
the PM emissions limits are 0.01 gr/dscf for existing straight grate
furnaces and 0.006 gr/dscf for new straight grate furnaces. For each
grate kiln indurating furnace processing magnetite, the PM emissions
limits are 0.01 gr/dscf for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.006 gr/
dscf for new grate kiln furnaces. For each grate kiln indurating
furnace processing hematite, the PM emissions limits are 0.03 gr/dscf
for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.018 gr/dscf for new grate kiln
furnaces. Indurating furnaces with multiple stacks calculate their PM
emissions as a flow-weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from
all stacks.
Finished Pellet Handling
The PM emissions limits for finished pellet handling operations are
0.008 gr/dscf for existing sources and 0.005 gr/dscf for new sources.
Compliance with the PM emissions limits for finished pellet handling is
determined based on the flow-weighted mean concentration of PM
emissions for all pellet handling units at the plant.
Operating Limits
For bag leak detection systems, we require that corrective actions
be initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm. For
dynamic wet scrubbers, the daily average scrubber water flow rate and
either the daily average fan amperage or the daily average pressure
drop must remain at or above the minimum levels established during the
initial performance test. For all other wet scrubbers, the daily
average pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate must
remain at or above the level established during the initial performance
test. Plants using a
[[Page 61870]]
dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) must either install and operate a
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) or maintain the daily
average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each
field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial
performance test. If demonstrating compliance using COMS, the average
opacity for each 6-minute period must remain at or below the level
established during the initial performance test. Plants using a wet ESP
must maintain the daily average secondary voltage for each field at or
above the minimum levels established during the initial performance
test; maintain the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below
the maximum levels established during the initial performance test; and
maintain the daily average water flow rate at or above the minimum
levels established during the initial performance test.
You must submit information on monitoring parameters if another
type of control device is used or if alternative monitoring parameters
are desired.
Work Practices
All plants subject to the final rule are required to prepare and
implement a written fugitive dust emissions control plan. The plan
describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to control
fugitive dust emissions from the following sources at a plant, as
applicable: stockpiles, material transfer points, plant roadways,
tailings basin, pellet loading areas, and yard areas. Existing fugitive
dust emission control plans that describe current measures to control
fugitive dust emission sources that have been approved as part of a
State implementation plan or title V permit would be acceptable,
provided they address the prior-listed fugitive dust emission sources.
D. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
All plants subject to the final rule must prepare and implement a
written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e). A written operation and maintenance
plan is also required for control devices subject to an operating limit
and indurating furnaces subject to good combustion practices (GCP).
This plan must describe the following: procedures for preventative
maintenance requirements for control devices, corrective action
requirements for baghouses and continuous parameter monitoring systems
(CPMS), and GCP for indurating furnaces. In the event of a bag leak
detection system alarm, the plan must include specific requirements for
initiating corrective action to determine the cause of the problem
within 1 hour, initiating corrective action to fix the problem within
24 hours, and completing all corrective actions needed to fix the
problem as soon as practicable. In the event you exceed an established
operating limit for an air pollution control device other than a
baghouse, you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of
the operating limit exceedance and complete the corrective action
within 10 calendar days. Corrective action procedures you take must be
consistent with the installation, operation, and maintenance procedures
listed in your site-specific CPMS monitoring plan. For indurating
furnaces, you must maintain a proper and efficient combustion process
through the implementation of GCP.
E. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires compliance with the emission limitations,
work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements at
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
as defined in 40 CFR 63.2. The owner or operator must develop and
implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according
to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
The final rule also requires keeping a log detailing the operation
and maintenance of the process and emission control equipment. This
requirement applies during the period between the compliance date and
the date that continuous monitoring systems are installed and any
operating limits set.
F. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires performance tests to demonstrate that each
affected source meets all applicable PM emission limits. The PM
concentration (front-half filterable catch only) is to be measured
using EPA Method 5, 5D, or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. All
initial compliance tests must be completed no later than 180 days
following the compliance date.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for
the ore crushing and handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Similarly, for the
finished pellet handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. In lieu of conducting
performance tests for all ore crushing and handling and finished pellet
handling emission units, the plant may elect to form groups of up to
six similar emission units and conduct initial performance tests on a
representative unit within each group. Each plant must submit a testing
plan to the permitting authority for approval. The testing plan must
identify the emission units that will be grouped as similar, identify
the representative unit that will be tested for each group, and present
the proposed schedule for testing.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for
each indurating furnace and each ore dryer, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of PM emissions of all stacks associated with each
furnace or each ore dryer must not exceed the applicable PM emission
limit.
The final rule also includes procedures for establishing site-
specific operating limits for control devices during the initial
performance test. To demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards, plants must prepare, submit, and implement a
fugitive dust emission control plan on or before the compliance date.
To demonstrate initial compliance with the operation and maintenance
requirements, plants must prepare the operation and maintenance plan
and certify in their notification of compliance status that they have
prepared the written plans and will operate control devices and
indurating furnaces according to the procedures in the plan.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
For ore crushing and handling, ore dryers, and finished pellet
handling units, you must conduct subsequent performance tests to
demonstrate continued compliance with the PM emission limits following
the schedule established in the title V permit for each plant. If a
title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and
schedule to the permitting authority for approval.
For each indurating furnace, you must conduct subsequent
performance testing of all stacks based on the schedule established in
each plant's title V operating permit, but no less frequently than
twice per 5-year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued,
then you must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting
authority for approval. The testing frequency in the testing plan must
provide for tests to be
[[Page 61871]]
conducted at least twice per 5-year period.
You are required to monitor operating parameters for control
devices subject to operating limits and carry out the procedures in
their fugitive dust emissions control plan and their operation and
maintenance plan. To demonstrate continuous compliance, you must keep
records documenting compliance with the rule requirements for
monitoring, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, the operation and
maintenance plan, and installation, operation, and maintenance of a
CPMS.
For baghouses, owners or operators are required to monitor the
relative change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and to
make inspections at specified intervals. The bag leak detection system
must be installed and operated according to the EPA guidance document
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-015,
September 1997. The document is available on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf.
If the system does not work based
on the triboelectric effect, it must be installed and operated
consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations. The basic inspection requirements include daily,
weekly, monthly, or quarterly inspections of specified parameters or
mechanisms with monitoring of bag cleaning cycles by an appropriate
method. To demonstrate continuous compliance, the final rule requires
records documenting conformance with the operation and maintenance
plan, as well as the inspection and maintenance procedures.
For dynamic wet scrubbers, you must use CPMS to measure and record
the daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average
fan amperage or the daily average pressure drop. For all other wet
scrubbers, you must use CPMS to measure and record the daily average
pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate.
For dry ESP, you must either use a COMS to measure and record the
average opacity of emissions exiting each stack of the control device
for each 6-minute period, or use CPMS to measure and record the daily
average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each
field. You must operate and maintain the COMS according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B. These requirements include a quality control
program including a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly
performance audit, and annual zero alignment.
For wet ESP, you must use CPMS to measure and record the daily
average secondary voltage for each field, the daily average stack
outlet temperature, and the daily average water flow rate.
The final rule requires you to prepare a site-specific monitoring
plan for CPMS that addresses installation, performance, operation and
maintenance, quality assurance, and recordkeeping and reporting
procedures. These requirements replace the more detailed performance
specifications contained in the proposed rule.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, you must keep records
documenting compliance with the monitoring requirements (including
installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for monitoring
systems) and the operation and maintenance plan.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are
based on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
Table 2 to subpart RRRRR of 40 CFR part 63 lists each of the
requirements in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec. 63.2 through 63.15)
with an indication of whether they apply.
You are required to submit each initial notification required in
the NESHAP General Provisions that applies to your plant. These include
an initial notification of applicability with general information about
the plant and notifications of performance tests and compliance status.
You are required to maintain the records required by the NESHAP
General Provisions that are necessary to document compliance, such as
performance test results; copies of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plans and associated corrective action records; monitoring data; and
inspection records. Except for the operation and maintenance plan, the
fugitive dust emissions control plan, and the testing plan, all records
must be kept for a total of 5 years, with the records from the most
recent 2 years kept onsite. The final rule requires that the operation
and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, and the
testing plan, be kept onsite and available for inspection upon request
for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no
longer subject to the final rule requirements.
Semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission
limitation (including an operating limit), or operation and maintenance
requirement. Each report is due no later than 30 days after the end of
the reporting period. If no deviation occurred, only a summary report
is required. If a deviation did occur, more detailed information is
required.
An immediate report is required if actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not consistent with the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
authority with delegation for enforcement that the source was operating
in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
An immediate report is required after the third consecutive and
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action for determining the cause of
exceedance of an operating limit for an air pollution control device
except for baghouses. The report must be submitted within 5 calendar
days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action. This
report must notify the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and
document the types of corrective measures taken to address the problem
that resulted in the deviation of established operating parameters and
the resulting operating limits.
You must also submit the fugitive dust emissions control plan,
testing plan, and all operation and maintenance plans to the
Administrator on or before the applicable compliance date.
I. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply by
October 30, 2006. An existing affected source is one constructed or
reconstructed before December 18, 2002. New or reconstructed sources
that startup on or before October 30, 2003 must comply by October 30,
2003. New or reconstructed sources that startup after October 30, 2003
must comply upon initial startup.
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. How Did We Revise the Cost Estimates and Economic Analysis?
Comment: Three commenters stated that the estimated total capital
cost impact of $47.3 million underestimates the cost to the industry.
One of the commenters stated that the costs for their plant were
underestimated.
Response: The capital equipment costs used in the cost analysis
conducted prior to proposal were based largely on historical industry
costs provided by industry and vendor estimates obtained by the EPA.
All of
[[Page 61872]]
the indurating furnace capital equipment replacement costs were based
on equipment and installation costs incurred by Minntac in 1991 to
install two new venturi scrubbers for furnace lines 4 and 5. For ore
crushing and handling and pellet handling units, the capital equipment
replacement costs were based on equipment costs obtained from two wet
scrubber vendors.
In follow-up discussions with the industry, industry
representatives indicated that the costs of purchasing and installing a
new wet scrubber were underestimated. For example, based on the cost
estimates provided by one plant, the installation of two new wet
scrubbers on their furnace would cost $18 million, not the $9.4 million
estimated by EPA. We asked each plant to provide an estimate of the
cost impact the limits in the final rule will have on their plant.
Overall, industry estimated a capital equipment and installation cost
of $57 million. The costs provided by industry are based on a
combination of costs estimated by plant engineers, previous equipment
replacement costs, and vendor cost estimates.
The EPA asserts that the impact estimate of $57 million provided by
the industry is a conservatively high estimate based on the fact that
some plants did not account for the averaging of the emissions for
those units within the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet
handling affected sources. However, in order to ensure that we fully
account for the cost impact to the industry, we used the conservatively
high estimates provided by the industry. Therefore, the capital cost
impact of the emission limits in the final rule was estimated to be
approximately $57 million, including emission control capital costs and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) capital costs. The
annual costs of the final rule are estimated to be $9 million per year,
including annualized capital and annual operational and MRR costs. For
more information on the industry provided costs and the revised cost
analysis, see the revised cost analysis memorandum in the docket.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the costs of the rule as
proposed are disproportionate to the reduction in HAP.
Response: The revised estimate of annual compliance costs for the
final rule is $9 million per year, and this expenditure is estimated to
result in the reduction of 270 tpy of HAP and 10,538 tpy of PM. The
corresponding cost per ton of HAP reduced is $33,333; the corresponding
cost per ton of PM reduced is $854. These values are similar to or
lower than those in other MACT standards. In addition, the emission
limits in the final rule are based on the MACT floor level of control.
The CAA does not give the EPA the discretion to consider costs for the
MACT floor level of control.
Comment: One commenter stated that the costs and resources
associated with the administrative requirements (e.g., continuous
monitoring, stack testing) of the final rule will pose a significant
additional burden on their operations. The commenter cited estimated
costs of $515,000 for the installation of additional instrumentation
and monitoring equipment, an additional cost of $100,000 for dust
collector monitoring maintenance, and an additional cost of $45,000 for
stack testing. The commenter stated that their plant is already
operating under a title V permit and already has a well-controlled dust
control system in place. The commenter asserted that the increased
continuous monitoring and increased stack testing is not necessary to
protect human health or the environment and adds unnecessary costs.
Response: In the proposed rule, we included only those monitoring
and testing requirements that were necessary to ensure the continued
compliance with the PM emission limits. However, following a review of
the public comments and follow-up discussions with the industry and
States, we have written the final rule to reduce the monitoring and
testing burden:
[sbull] To reduce the monitoring burden, we have deleted the
requirements to conduct monthly transducer checks, quarterly gauge
calibration checks, semiannual flow sensor calibration checks, daily
pressure tap pluggage checks, and monthly electrical connection
continuity checks.
[sbull] We have reduced the indurating furnace stack testing burden
by removing the requirement to conduct simultaneous tests of all the
stacks on one furnace. The final rule allows plants to conduct
sequential testing of the stacks for a furnace, provided the tests are
completed ``within a reasonable period of time, such that the
indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative for
the duration of the stack tests.''
[sbull] We have removed the volumetric flow rate and process
throughput rate criteria for grouping similar ore crushing and handling
and pellet handling emission units. This will allow more of these
emission units to be grouped together, and thus, will result in fewer
initial compliance tests being required for them.
[sbull] For dry ESP, we have allowed plants to monitor daily
average secondary voltage and daily average secondary current in lieu
of using a COMS.
Comment: According to one commenter, it is confusing that in one
section of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA), the Agency concludes
that the final rule alone is unlikely to lead to mine closure, but
clearly states that it's possible that two or three firms may close or
sell some or all of their operations. The only consistent statement in
the EIA, according to the commenter, is that the proposed rule will add
to existing financial stresses in the industry.
Response: The empirical literature on steel mill capacity and
closure suggests that import and mini-mill competition are more
important explanatory variables for capacity and closure decisions than
are pollution abatement cost expenditures. The EPA's market and
facility impact analysis did not explicitly model mine closure
decisions because of limited mine-level data and because the costs of
compliance are relatively small. The EPA's data indicate that the
compliance costs alone are generally too low to result in facility
closure. However, we recognized that several companies that owned
taconite mines in 2000 were already under significant financial
hardship; four firms experienced operating losses in 2000, and several
were also operating under Chapter 11 protection. As a result, EPA
collected financial data and considered several criteria to determine
whether companies would be able to obtain financing for capital
investments associated with compliance, or might have to close or sell
individual mine operations. The EPA examined the following company
financial data:
[sbull] Change in profits projected by the economic model;
[sbull] Altman Z-scores;
[sbull] Current ratios; and
[sbull] Recent environmental compliance expenditures.
Based on our review, EPA concluded that two or three companies may
close or sell operations. A review of recent data from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and company financial reports confirms this
pattern. In 2001, financially-strapped steel companies sold assets.
Cleveland-Cliffs raised its total ownership of Tilden mine to 85
percent by acquiring an additional 45 percent share from Algoma Steel
Inc. Cleveland-Cliffs and Minnesota Power purchased LTV Steel Co. in
late 2001. Cleveland-Cliffs then acquired all the mining and processing
facilities, including 25 percent share of the
[[Page 61873]]
Empire mine. In the face of continuing financial pressures from mini-
mills and imports, steel companies may close or sell taconite
facilities if they cannot obtain financing for compliance. A USGS iron
ore expert contacted by EPA, however, stated that 2002 financial and
market conditions were somewhat better than 2001. This was confirmed by
reviewing financial statements for these firms; while still
experiencing difficult conditions, in 2002 conditions improved somewhat
compared to 2001.
Comment: One commenter from National Steel stated that it will
likely be forced to shut down because it will be unable to make the
upgrades necessary to comply with the rule as proposed. National
currently employs nearly 500 people. The rule as proposed is
anticipated to put these people out of work for a reduction of less
than 5 tons of HAP. In addition to the anticipated closure of
National's operations, the EPA analysis concluded that another one or
two taconite ore processing plants may also close.
Response: As noted in the previous response, EPA's analysis
suggests that the costs of achieving compliance are not sufficient
alone to result in taconite plants becoming unprofitable. However, EPA
recognizes that there are long-standing trends in the industry, such as
increased imports of iron and steel and increasing use of mini-mill
technology, that have resulted in decreasing demand for U.S.-produced
taconite pellets over time. Due to these trends, four companies owning
taconite facilities were unprofitable in 2000, and three of them
(including National Steel) were operating under the protection of
Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. The EPA's analysis recognizes that
firms that are unprofitable or in bankruptcy may have difficulty
obtaining financing for the capital investments needed to comply. Such
firms may choose to sell or shut down their taconite plants. The EPA
does not feel that such a decision should be entirely attributed to the
final rule. However, note that recent industry data seem to show that
in 2002, prices and profits improved somewhat due in part to the
decrease in taconite supply (due in part to LTV's closing of the Hoyt
Lakes facility) and in part due to tariff protection of several steel
products.
Comment: According to one commenter, the statement in the EIA that
two or three mines may close implies that Minnesota would see an
additional loss of approximately 900 direct employees and $20 million
in local taxes. The loss of 900 jobs equates to $67.5 million in wages
and benefits. These figures represent a realistic social impact and
create a different scenario than the one represented by the EPA in the
EIA. These economic impacts will be ``devastating'' to an area heavily
dependent on the mining industry.
Response: Chapter 4 of the EIA contains a regional impact analysis
carried out by EPA. The analysis is carried out using IMPLAN, a
regional-level input-output model. The total direct impact on each
region (a State in this analysis) is defined in the EIA as the change
in local expenditures resulting from final rule implementation. The
direct impact of the final rule is estimated based on the results of
the market model, and includes expenditures for compliance (in this
case, positive) and adjustments in outputs in response to price changes
(in this case, negative or positive). Generally, the direct impact
includes the net effect of reduction in local spending because of
output declines and the increase in local spending to implement the
controls. For the State of Minnesota, the EIA shows a net reduction in
local spending of $2.7 million. This is due to a loss of government
revenues since a portion of state revenues comes from taxes on the
total production from taconite iron ore. With the value of changes in
total output included, the total impact to Minnesota is a reduction of
$3.9 million in local spending.
Minnesota is estimated to experience a reduction of 30 full-time
employees as a result of the reduction in taconite production. Thus,
EPA estimates do show a reduction in local spending and employment in
Minnesota from final rule implementation, but not anywhere close to the
amounts asserted by the commenter.
A separate financial assessment examined the financial condition of
companies that own taconite facilities. Because of long-standing trends
in the iron and steel industry (including increasing use of electric
arc furnace mini-mill technology and increasing imports of iron and
steel), several of the owner companies have experienced financial
stress, and three are operating under Chapter 11 protection. For these
reasons, EPA concluded that at least those three firms may have some
difficulty obtaining the financing needed to make capital equipment
investments at their plants, including investments associated with
environmental compliance. The EPA stated that as many as two or three
additional taconite facilities were in danger of closing or selling
their taconite plants at the time of the analysis, due mainly to
factors unrelated to the rule as proposed. However, the additional
costs associated with the final rule will put additional stress on
these already stressed companies. Recent USGS data indicate that in
2001, financially-strapped taconite firms did sell assets to Cleveland
Cliffs. Since the original EIA, however, conditions have improved
somewhat in the industry. The reduced output due to the closure of Hoyt
Lakes, and the tariff, which has increased the effective price of
imported iron and steel commodities, have resulted in increased prices
and profits for iron and steel companies over the past year. Thus, the
companies are somewhat less vulnerable than they were at the time of
EPA's earlier analysis.
B. How Did We Revise the Performance Testing Requirements?
Comment: Two commenters stated that language should be included in
the final rule either authorizing some discretion on behalf of State
agencies or otherwise allowing testing completed between the
promulgation date and the compliance date to be counted as initial
compliance testing. The commenters stated that this will allow
additional time to spread out the compliance testing requirements.
Response: At proposal, plants were given 2 years after the
compliance date to conduct their initial compliance tests for ore
crushing and handling and pellet handling units, and 180 days after the
compliance date to conduct their initial compliance tests for
indurating furnaces. However, since the time of proposal, EPA has
determined that allowing more than 180 days for initial compliance is
not consistent with the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions. Therefore,
we have written the initial compliance testing deadline for ore
crushing and handling and pellet handling units at 180 days after the
compliance date.
More than 180 days are needed to conduct compliance testing and to
reduce the burden of the final rule on the industry. Therefore, the EPA
has written the final rule to allow source tests conducted between the
promulgation date and the compliance date to be used for compliance
demonstration, as long as the tests are performed in accordance with
the requirements of the final rule. Since the compliance period is 3
years, plants will have a total of 3\1/2\ years to conduct the initial
compliance tests for all of their units.
Comment: Two commenters supported the part of the proposed standard
that allows plants to conduct initial performance tests by testing a
representative sample of units within a group of similar units.
However, in a
[[Page 61874]]
redline/strike-out version of the proposed rule submitted by the
commenters, they removed the specific criteria defining similar units
in Sec. 63.9620(f) and the criteria indicating the number of units
that must be tested per similar group in Sec. 63.9620(g). In the place
of these specific criteria, the commenters inserted a statement that
refers to criteria established by the State agency or in the title V
permit.
Response: In follow-up discussions with the commenters, EPA asked
the commenters to clarify their specific concerns regarding the
criteria for the testing of representative units. The commenters
indicated that their primary concern was with the criteria in
paragraphs (3) and (4) of Sec. 63.9620(f), which require the
volumetric flow rates of the emission units to be within plus or minus
10 percent of the representative emission unit, and the actual process
throughput rate to be within plus or minus 10 percent of the
representative emission unit. The commenters stated that these criteria
were so restrictive that they would not be able to group very many
units.
The EPA also conducted follow-up discussions with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regarding the criteria they use for
grouping similar units. The MPCA staff indicated that the primary
reason they group emission units is to reduce the number of permitted
emission units, although the same groupings are used for testing
purposes. The grouping of emission units by MPCA was conducted
primarily on the basis of control type, installation date, and, to a
certain degree, process type. However, in some cases they do group
emission units from different processes. They do not group emission
units on the basis of flow rate or process throughput.
Based on these discussions with the commenter and MPCA, EPA has
determined that the criteria in Sec. 63.9620(f)(3) and (4) are too
restrictive and, therefore, do not achieve EPA's true intent--the
reduction of the initial compliance test burden for ore crushing and
handling and pellet handling emission units. As a result, EPA has not
included the criteria in Sec. 63.9620(f)(3) and (4) as proposed. The
criteria in Sec. 63.9620(f)(1) and (2) as proposed have been retained
in the final rule. In addition, we have included the following new
criteria: The representative unit must have parametric monitoring
values that encompass the characteristics of all the emission units
within the group.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the simultaneous testing of
multiple indurating furnace stacks is costly. Two of the commenters
stated that simultaneous testing is also impractical and possibly not
even feasible.
Response: In follow-up discussions with the commenters, they
stressed that some furnaces have as many as five stacks. In order to
test these stacks simultaneously, they would need to have five source
testing teams on site at the same time. The commenters stated that this
would be very expensive. The commenters stated that for their current
title V permits, they are not required to conduct simultaneous tests of
all stacks for a furnace. In our discussions with MPCA, they confirmed
that, although they require all plants with permits to test all furnace
stacks, they do not require that the plants test all the stacks on a
furnace simultaneously. Also, in these discussions, it was noted that
the operating conditions are consistent enough that emissions should
not vary significantly over a short period of time. Based on these
discussions, EPA agrees that the simultaneous testing of indurating
furnace stacks would be costly and would provide no additional
compliance assurance. Therefore, in order to reduce the source testing
burden of the final rule on the industry and to maintain consistency
with current testing requirements, EPA has not included the requirement
for simultaneous testing in the final rule.
Comment: Two commenters stated that any requirements for sample
volume or sample time should be removed from the initial and continuous
compliance testing requirements. The commenters stated that the final
rule should not include provisions that are different from already
established EPA test methods.
Response: In the proposed rule, we specified a minimum sample
volume of 60 dscf for EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A) tests
to ensure that enough PM is collected to provide accurate results. The
EPA Method 5 does not contain specifications for sample volume or
sample time (i.e., sampling duration). Therefore, it is not uncommon
for the EPA to specify a minimum sample volume or sample time
corresponding to emission characteristics of an industry for EPA Method
5 tests. For example, the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP specifies a
minimum sample volume (60 dscf) for EPA Method 5 tests.
Based on historical Method 5 tests from taconite plants, most 1-
hour tests sampled about 30 to 50 dscf and obtained a dry catch of 2 to
20 milligrams (mg). The EPA's Emissions Measurement and Assessment
Division recommends a dry particulate catch of approximately 20 mg for
an accurate Method 5 test. At the same historical particulate
concentrations, a sample volume of 60 dscf or a test of 2 hours in
duration will obtain a dry catch of approximately 20 to 30 mg. In the
proposed rule, we specified a minimum sample volume of at least 60 dscf
for each run of a Method 5 test to ensure that an adequate amount of
dry catch is obtained. However, since proposal we have determined that
specifying a 2-hour sampling time will provide a greater assurance that
an adequate catch is obtained. For example, with a sample volume of 60
dscf, a 20-mg dry catch is obtained for units with emissions of 0.005
gr/dscf or greater. By comparison, given the typical sampling rates of
0.75 to 1 dscf per minute from the historical tests, specifying a 2-
hour test provides a 20-mg dry catch for units with emissions as low as
0.003 gr/dscf. In addition, specifying the sampling time is consistent
with other recently published rules, such as the Portland Cement
NESHAP. Therefore, we have modified the testing requirements in the
final rule by removing the requirement for a sample volume of 60 dscf
and adding the requirement that the duration of each test run be at
least 2 hours.
C. How Did We Revise the Emission Limitations?
Comment: Two commenters stated that the emission limits should be
set at two significant figures and not three significant figures. The
commenters asserted that using three significant figures implies more
precision than exists in reality and establishes limits that are
unrealistically stringent and that do not allow for natural variations.
Response: In the proposed rule, we numerically expressed the
emission limits for all affected sources, new and existing, to three
digits (e.g., 0.011 gr/dscf, 0.025 gr/dscf, and 0.008 gr/dscf). Thus,
the proposed emission limits were already expressed as one or two
significant figures. However, the intent of the commenters is for the
EPA to consider rounding the proposed emission limits to two digits to
account for normal variability in the taconite iron ore processing
operations, performance of air pollution control equipment, and source
testing procedures.
We have reevaluated how natural variations were accounted for in
the proposed emission limits for existing sources. The PM emission
limits for existing sources in the ore crushing and handling affected
source and the finished pellet handling affected source remain at 0.008
gr/dscf. In the final rule, you have the option to determine an
[[Page 61875]]
overall, flow-weighted average PM concentration for all emission units
within each of these two affected sources. One purpose for the flow-
weighted average PM concentration procedure is to account for natural
variability in the various types of emission units within each affected
source, the processing operations, the performance of air pollution
control equipment, and source testing procedures.
The PM emission limits for existing sources in the indurating
furnace affected source will be rounded to two digits. For both
existing straight grate and grate kiln indurating furnaces processing
magnetite, the PM emission limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. For existing grate
kiln indurating furnaces processing hematite, the PM emission limit is
0.03 gr/dscf. After we considered the amount of PM source test data
available in establishing the MACT floor, observed variability in
measured PM concentrations from the furnace exhaust stacks, and noted
fluctuations in the taconite iron ore process, we determined that it is
appropriate to round the PM emission limits for existing indurating
furnaces to two decimal places in order to fully account for natural
variability. Even after rounding the PM emission limits for existing
indurating furnaces, we will still achieve nearly the same level of
emission reduction, while offering increased flexibility to the
industry to comply with the emission standards of the final rule.
The PM emission limit for existing ore dryers was determined to be
the level of control indicated by the existing State limit of 0.052 gr/
dscf. Therefore, it is not appropriate to round the PM emission limit
for existing ore dryers. The PM emission limit for existing ore dryers
is 0.052 gr/dscf in the final rule.
The PM emission limits for all new affected sources represent an
actual performance level achieved by the best performing source in each
affected source. Thus, the new source emission limits can be achieved
through the proper design and construction/reconstruction of a new
affected source.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the final rule should more
clearly describe how to calculate the flow-weighted mean PM emissions
concentration for the material handling operations.
Response: We agree with the commenters and have written Sec. Sec.
63.9621 and 63.9622 to provide additional clarification for calculating
the flow-weighted mean PM emissions concentration for ore crushing and
handling and finished pellet handling. Specifically, the final rule
clarifies that when calculating the flow-weighted mean PM emissions for
ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling, the ``average''
PM concentration corresponding to each emission unit in an affected
source is multiplied by the maximum design volumetric flow rate of the
corresponding emission unit. The ``average'' PM concentration from an
emission unit is derived as the arithmetic mean of a PM source test
comprised of three valid sampling runs on the emission unit. If the
affected source elects to conduct representative compliance testing for
a group of similar emission units, the PM concentration determined for
the tested emission unit will be assigned to the other emission units
identified as similar within the group.
D. How Did We Revise the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
Operating Limits
Comment: Two commenters objected to using operating limits
established during the performance test to determine continuous
compliance. The commenters stated that a performance test is only a
snapshot of an operation at a point in time and may not encompass the
full operational variability that occurs. The commenters stated that
this approach effectively sets a new more stringent NESHAP emission
limit at the emissions level actually emitted during the performance
test. Therefore, the commenters stated that any operation outside of
the operating parameter range should not be classified as a deviation.
The commenters stated that the D.C. Circuit Court has made it clear
that MACT standards are to represent the best performing source on its
worst day (see National Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 51 ERC 1737 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), and Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855,
52 ERC 1865 (D.C. Cir 2001)). The commenters asserted that as long as a
source is operating properly, follows procedures in the malfunction
plan, and proceeds appropriately to corrective action, then variations
within the range of proper operation should not constitute deviations.
The commenters stated that the EPA may require plants to log such
information and even report it, but not necessarily as a deviation
under title V.
Response: In follow-up discussions with the industry, we were able
to determine that the taconite industry's primary concern regarding the
operating limits was being able to maintain the equipment so that they
did not exceed the established operating limit. Specifically, their
concerns included their ability to maintain the pressure drop above the
operating limit for venturi-rod deck units with a fixed throat and/or a
volumetric flow dependent of process conditions; and, their ability to
operate and obtain meaningful readings of opacity from dry ESP using a
COMS in conditions of high moisture and low opacity.
Regarding the measurement of the pressure drop, we have increased
the averaging time from hourly to daily. The daily averaging period
addresses industry's concerns about their ability to control pressure
drop during short periods of time when the scrubber may experience a
pressure drop lower than the operating limit. In addition, for dynamic
wet scrubbers, we have provided the flexibility of monitoring either
the daily average pressure drop or the daily average fan amperage, in
addition to the daily average scrubber water flow rate. This addresses
industry's concern that for dynamic wet scrubbers, both pressure drop
and fan amperage are good indicators of proper performance.
Regarding the measurement of opacity using COMS, we have verified
with equipment vendors that COMS are available that will provide
accurate readings under the moisture and low opacity conditions present
at taconite facilities. However, we understand that currently there are
no COMS in operation at taconite plants and that due to costs or site-
specific operating conditions a COMS may not be the best option.
Therefore, in the final rule have provided plants the flexibility to
establish their operating limit either as the 6-minute average opacity
or as the daily average secondary voltage and the daily average
secondary current for each field.
In addition, we have included language in the final rule to clarify
when not meeting an operating limit becomes an exceedance.
Specifically, after the first two times that you do not meet the
operating limit, you must take corrective action. After the third time
that you do not meet the operating limit, you must submit a written
report within 5 calendar days and report the third unsuccessful attempt
of corrective action as a deviation and continue corrective action.
Bag Leak Detection Systems
Comment: Two commenters stated that the requirement in Sec.
63.9634(d)(1) of the proposed rule that requires that the bag leak
detection system not alarm for more than 5 percent of the time should
be deleted from the final rule.
[[Page 61876]]
Two commenters pointed out that Sec. 63.7833(d)(1)(iii) of the
proposed rule specifies that 1 hour of alarm be logged even if
procedures are implemented to determine the cause of the alarm and
corrective action is taken in less than 1 hour. The commenters
contended that the requirement artificially and unfairly inflates the
semiannual percentage of alarm time and does not provide an incentive
for sources to initiate procedures as quickly as may be possible. The
commenters suggested that the final rule should require the plant to
``count the actual amount of time it took to initiate procedures to
determine the cause of the alarm.''
Three commenters stated that in the requirement in Sec.
63.9634(d)(1)(v) that the bag leak detection system not alarm for more
than 5 percent of the ``total operating time,'' it is unclear if the
``total operating time'' refers to the operating time of the affected
source or the time the baghouse is actually evacuating emissions
generated by the affected source. The commenters pointed out that some
baghouses, by design, evacuate emissions for only a few minutes each
hour. The commenters recommended that EPA clarify its intent that the
``total operating time'' refers to the total operating time of the
affected source.
Response: We agree with the commenters and have not included the 5
percent operating limit requirement for baghouse leak detectors in
Sec. 63.9634(d)(1) of the final rule. As a result, the requirements to
log alarm time and to determine the ratio of the sum of the alarm times
to the total operating time have also not been included. However, it is
important that corrective action be initiated promptly, so we are
retaining the requirement in Sec. 63.9600(b)(2) that you ``initiate
corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of
the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of the
problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective
action as soon as practicable.''
Wet Scrubber CPMS
Comment: Three commenters stated that the labor hours required for
the monthly transducer checks and the quarterly gauge calibration
checks for the pressure drop sensor (Sec. 63.9632(b)(1)(iv)), and the
semiannual flow sensor calibration checks (Sec. 63.9632(b)(2)(iii))
are excessive compared to the potential emissions control improvement.
Two of the commenters suggested that rather than mandatory monthly,
quarterly, or semiannual calibration checks, any control unit which
emits less than 5 percent of the total annual PM emissions at the plant
should be allowed to reduce the periodic checks required by each of the
cited provisions to once annually. The other commenter suggested that
the EPA should allow each source to propose an alternative method to
the proposed calibration checks to the appropriate permitting agency.
Three commenters stated that the daily pressure tap pluggage check
(Sec. 63.9632(b)(1)(iii)) and monthly electrical connection continuity
checks (Sec. 63.9632(b)(1)(vi)) are overly burdensome and costly to
implement. The commenters argued that the manual labor and clock hours
required for such continuity checks would be so large that the
monitoring systems would have to be shut down so frequently and for
such a length of time that they would have virtually no operating time.
According to the commenters, these provisions should be modified so as
to provide ``a program within the CPMS to alarm the process unit
operator and to record the alarm for a zero value indication and for a
static value indication that satisfies the requirement of this
provision.'' In addition, one commenter stated that, if no change is
made, the labor costs for the continuity checks must be factored into
the economic analysis.
Response: The specific installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for wet scrubber CPMS have not been included in the final
rule. Therefore, the requirements for monthly transducer checks,
quarterly gauge calibration checks, semiannual flow sensor calibration
checks, daily pressure tap pluggage checks, and monthly electrical
connector continuity checks have not been included in the final rule.
In place of the specific requirements, we have included the requirement
that, for each CPMS, you must develop and make available a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses the following:
[sbull] Installation of CPMS sampling probe so that measurement is
representative of control of the exhaust emissions.
[sbull] Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and
reduction system.
[sbull] Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
[sbull] Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7),
and (8).
[sbull] Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
[sbull] Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in
accordance with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and
(e)(2)(i).
Comment: Three commenters stated that it is inappropriate to set a
single (pressure drop) point for operating wet scrubbers and
recommended that EPA remove the pressure drop requirement and rely on
the operation and maintenance plan for compliance. The commenters
pointed out that venturi-rod deck scrubbers operate over a range of
pressure drop that is affected by scrubbing water flow rate, scrubber
water flow distribution, water temperature, gas temperature, and the
square of the process gas flow rate. The commenters stated that
operators cannot directly control the pressure drop in a venturi-rod
deck scrubber. By setting the average pressure drop at the minimum
level established during the performance test, the commenters stated
that the rule effectively forces a source to operate well below the
emission limit.
Response: In follow-up discussions with the commenters, it was
clarified that their comments referred only to venturi-rod deck
scrubbers installed on indurating furnaces. These venturi-rod deck
scrubbers are fixed-throat scrubbers for which the pressure drop can be
measured, but not directly controlled. Two commenters stated that they
cannot directly control the pressure drop across the venturi-rod deck
scrubbers because of the following factors:
[sbull] The scrubbers are of a fixed-throat design;
[sbull] The fan drawing or pushing air through the scrubber
operates at a fixed speed and fixed diameter; and
[sbull] The damper prior to the scrubber is used to control the
overall flow of air through the system; therefore, it cannot be used to
control the pressure drop to the scrubber without affecting the entire
process. The damper is opened more or closed more, as necessary, to
modulate the air flow as changes occur in the process. As production
rate increases, the damper is opened more and, therefore, the pressure
drop across the scrubber increases. Due to these factors, the pressure
drop across the venturi-rod deck scrubbers on the furnaces is more
variable than other controls and is difficult to regulate.
The commenters presented data showing the variability of the
pressure drop for their venturi-rod deck scrubbers. One commenter
presented pressure drop readings taken every 20 minutes that ranged
from 12 to 4 inches of pressure drop, with very few points below 4
inches of pressure drop.
[[Page 61877]]
However, after excluding periods of malfunction and looking at the
daily average pressure drop instead of instantaneous readings, the data
showed that the daily average pressure drop for each scrubber fell
within a narrow range. The difference between the lowest daily average
pressure drop and the highest daily average pressure drop was only
about 2 or 3 inches of pressure drop. Based on these data, the
commenter stated that they were confident that they could maintain a
pressure drop at or above the operating limit based on a daily average.
The other commenter provided daily average pressure drop for their
venturi-rod deck scrubbers. The data showed that on a daily average
basis, the pressure drop for each venturi-rod deck scrubber varied by 1
to 3.6 inches over a period of 2 months. The commenter requested that
they be allowed to use historical pressure drop data to establish the
pressure drop operating limit for venturi-rod deck scrubbers on
indurating furnaces. In addition, the commenter requested that
compliance with the pressure drop operating limit for venturi-rod deck
scrubbers on indurating furnaces be determined on a daily average
basis.
To address the technical issues raised by the commenters, we have
written the final rule to allow the use of pressure drop data from PM
tests conducted on or after December 18, 2002 (the proposal date) to
establish the operating limit for venturi-rod deck scrubbers
controlling emissions from indurating furnaces. The historical pressure
drop data must be from a certified test for which the PM emission
concentration was at or below the applicable indurating furnace limit
in Table 1 to the final rule. In addition, the basis for compliance
with the pressure drop operating limit for venturi-rod deck scrubbers
on indurating furnaces has been written as an hourly average not a
daily average.
COMS
Comment: Two commenters stated that there should not be any
requirement to install or operate a COMS. The commenters do not support
setting an opacity limit on a case-by-case and site-by-site basis. In
addition, the commenters asserted that the opacity will be low enough
to be outside of the range of error for the test method (the COMS), and
sources could create a reportable deviation without truly exceeding the
actual opacity limit. Instead, the commenters stated that there should
be a requirement for a visible emission check, as is required in the
Portland Cement NESHAP.
Response: We have verified with equipment vendors that COMS are
available that will provide accurate readings at low opacity
conditions. Certain models of COMS can measure opacity as low as 0.1
percent with an accuracy of +/- 0.3 percent. In addition, the COMS
vendors indicated that the COMS will provide accurate readings under
the moisture conditions present at taconite facilities (typically 9
percent moisture). However, we understand that currently there are no
COMS in operation at taconite plants (one facility has scheduled a
trial installation for later this year) and that due to equipment and
installation costs or site-specific operating conditions, a COMS may
not be the best option for each plant. Therefore, in the final rule we
have provided two options for the operating limits for dry ESP: the 6-
minute average opacity, as monitored using a COMS; or the daily average
secondary voltage and the daily average secondary current for each
field, as monitored using a CPMS.
During our dry ESP discussions with industry, it was requested that
we add specific monitoring requirements for wet ESP. After discussion
with the industry and State agencies, we established the following
monitoring parameters for wet ESP:
[sbull] Daily average secondary voltage for each field;
[sbull] Daily average stack outlet temperature; and
[sbull] Daily average water flow rate.
Therefore, the final rule contains requirements to establish
operating limits for these parameters during the initial performance
test. Plants must also monitor these parameters such that they are
maintained at or above the operating limits (for secondary voltage and
water flow rate), or below the operating limits (for stack outlet
temperature).
E. How Did We Revise the Baseline Emissions?
Comment: Two commenters stated that the HAP emission values in the
preamble need to be updated to accurately reflect what is currently
being emitted. Specifically, one of the commenters stated that U.S.
Steel has more recent testing data that can be used to update the
estimates. Another one of the commenters asserted that HAP emissions
from taconite ore plants are inaccurately characterized. The commenter
stated that several companies have more recent test data and EPA can
revise the HAP emissions accordingly. The commenter stated that a more
accurate depiction of the emissions will alter the economic analysis.
Response: In follow-up discussions with the industry, we asked them
to submit any test data that were not reflected in the proposal
analyses. We received the following additional emission tests:
[sbull] Engineering Emissions Test Report for Tilden conducted the
week of November 4, 1999. Tested PM, nitrogen oxides (NOX),
HCl, HF, benzene, hexane, toluene, formaldehyde, metals, and asbestos.
[sbull] Particulate and Metals Emission Study for Tilden conducted
May 7 to 11, 2002. Tested total PM and metals.
[sbull] MPCA spreadsheet incorporating Minntac emissions tests for
December 2002 and August 2001. Tested formaldehyde, HCl, HF, chlorine,
and fluorine.
[sbull] Northshore formaldehyde emissions tests conducted on March
6, 2003. We have reviewed the test data listed above and have revised
the baseline HAP emissions as appropriate. The baseline HAP emissions
have been modified as follows:
[sbull] Baseline formaldehyde emissions were updated for Minntac,
Northshore, and Tilden. The baseline formaldehyde emissions for EVTAC
and Inland were also updated, since their formaldehyde emission factors
were based on Northshore estimates. This resulted in a decrease in
baseline formaldehyde emissions from 180.7 to 30.1 tpy. This had no
effect on the HAP emission reduction estimate since we assumed that
there would be no formaldehyde emission reductions.
[sbull] Baseline HCl and HF emissions were updated for Minntac and
Tilden. This resulted in a decrease in baseline HCl emissions from
349.1 to 274 tpy and a decrease in baseline HF emissions from 308 to
229 tpy. As a result, the emission reduction from acid gases decreased
from 356.1 to 256 tpy.
F. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
Mercury
Comment: Seventeen commenters stated that EPA has a statutory
obligation to set emission standards for mercury. Several commenters
specifically cited National Lime. One commenter stated that the fact
that no specific type of control technology has yet proven effective
and affordable for taconite processing cannot legally excuse the
industry from regulation. Thirteen commenters asserted that EPA's
practice of not setting standards for industries that do not yet
control their emissions is illegal and encourages the industry to do as
little as possible to control mercury.
[[Page 61878]]
One commenter encouraged EPA to consult with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals, to get
the most up-to-date information on potential mercury control strategies
for taconite facilities before promulgation. The commenter stated that
viable mercury control technologies or strategies may be identified in
the very near future. The commenter asserted that the best strategies
to control mercury may be operational modifications such as different
handling practices for captured dust from indurating furnaces.
Two commenters stated that the EPA must set an emission standard
for mercury based on the statute's ``minimum stringency requirement''
(i.e., the MACT floor) even if specific technologies or operating
practices to achieve it have not been identified. One commenter stated
that if no such controls or practices are being used, EPA must find
some other factor on which to base the standard. Three commenters
suggested that EPA determine the floor based on the average mercury
emission level of the five plants (or furnaces) with the lowest
emissions, and then set the mercury emission limit there. One commenter
stated that if certain plants will not be able to meet such a standard
within 4 years, the statute provides relief through a Presidential
exemption for a period of not more than 2 years. The commenter also
contends that the CAA allows relief for a company that makes a
significant effort to identify and implement effective controls but is
still unable to meet the standard by the 4-year deadline. The commenter
stated that EPA included a similar provision in the Portland Cement
NESHAP. The commenter believes that setting a standard would induce the
industry to invest in research and development to meet it. The
commenter stated that promising mercury control technologies for the
taconite industry are on the horizon. The commenter stated that the EPA
should investigate the COHPAC-TOXECON system, corona discharge, and
catalytic oxidation, as well as an iron oxide sorbent system being
tested in Minnesota.
One commenter stated that EPA recognized in the proposed rule that
the mercury content of the taconite ore is the ``key factor'' affecting
mercury emissions. The commenter reasoned that by setting a mercury
standard, plants that use ore with high mercury content will have to
find ways to reduce mercury emissions, including switching to cleaner
raw materials or installing pollution controls.
One commenter stated that the final rule should consider precluding
the use of coal, even as a secondary fuel, to control mercury
emissions.
Thirteen commenters recommended that EPA establish a reasonable
limit for mercury and allow relief for a company that is unable to meet
the limit after making appropriate technological or research
investments.
Two commenters requested more information supporting EPA's finding
that ``we were unable to find any viable control technologies or
operating procedures for achieving reduction in mercury emissions from
indurating furnaces at taconite iron ore plants.'' One of the
commenters requested the cost of control per ton of mercury control
that was estimated in EPA's analysis. Both commenters stated that
control technologies being developed for coal-fired power plants could
be used to control mercury emissions from taconite facilities. Two
commenters mentioned activated carbon injection as a potential mercury
control for taconite plants.
One commenter stated that, both within the binational program and
in national policy documents, the EPA insinuates that the NESHAP
program is the means by which the Agency will achieve mercury reduction
goals. The commenter asserted that an emission limit for mercury should
be set that pushes the industry to research and develop control
technology but also allows for relief if a company is unable to meet
the standard after diligently pursuing such technology. The standard
should also include mercury monitoring requirements.
Three commenters stated that if mercury emissions from the taconite
industry are not reduced, the goals of the binational program to
protect the Lake Superior Basin cannot be met. One commenter stated
that, if EPA does not intend to set standards for mercury emissions
from industries that currently do nothing to control their emissions
and that do not develop control technology on a voluntary basis, its
regulations (if not its authority) are inadequate to protect the Great
Lakes and other Great Waters from mercury deposition. The commenter
stated that EPA's refusal to take action under CAA section 112(m)
because authority is available under CAA section 112(d), and then
failing to use the CAA section 112(d) authority is unacceptable.
Furthermore, the commenter stated that Congress directed the EPA to
take action to protect the Great Waters by 1995. The commenter stated
that postponing regulations until residual risk standards are required
violates the spirit (if not the letter) of the congressional mandate.
One commenter stated that beyond-the-floor standards are warranted
for mercury. The commenter stated that a mercury standard based on
developing technologies is ``achievable.'' The commenter stated that
EPA could base beyond-the-floor mercury standards on the reductions
that could be achieved through raw material change (low-mercury ore),
fuel change (natural gas), or control technologies (wet scrubbers,
carbon beds, or activated carbon injection). The commenter recommended
that EPA investigate the COHPAC-TOXECON system, whereby a pulse-jet
baghouse is installed downstream from existing ESP controls, and a
sorbent injection system is installed between the existing ESP and the
baghouse. The commenter also suggested that EPA look at developing
multipollutant technologies, such as corona discharge, catalytic
oxidation, and iron oxide sorbent systems being tested in Minnesota.
One commenter cited estimated costs for activated carbon systems
that were developed for coal-fired boilers that ranged from $4,940 to
$70,000 per pound ($9.9 to $140 million/ton) of mercury removed at 90
percent control (USDOE, September 2002; NESCAUM, June 2000). The
commenter also provided costs for carbon filter beds used in European
waste incinerators of $513 to $1,083 per pound ($1.0 to $2.2 million/
ton) of mercury removed at 99 percent control. The commenter stated
that the control costs for indurating furnaces should lie somewhere
between the two cost ranges. The commenter also provided estimated
costs for enhanced wet scrubbing systems for coal-fired boilers of
$76,000 to $174,000 per pound ($152 to $348 million/ton) of mercury
removed (NESCAUM, June 2000).
Response: There is no way to set a floor standard for mercury that
is ``achievable,'' as required by CAA section 112(d)(2), because there
is no standard that can be duplicated by different sources or
replicable by the same source. The opinion in National Lime did not
deal with a situation where an emission standard was unachievable for
these reasons. Mercury emitted from taconite iron ore processing plants
originates primarily from the ore itself and to a much lesser extent
the fuels powering the process. None of the taconite iron ore
processing plants control mercury emissions by using at-the-stack
controls. Thus, any differences in mercury emissions from existing
indurating furnaces reflect different mercury levels in raw materials
or fossil
[[Page 61879]]
fuels used at the individual plants. Attempting to base a mercury
standard (either a floor standard, or a beyond-the-floor standard) on
raw material substitution (i.e., ore substitution), however, would lead
to unachievable standards for all sources, because this means of
control is not duplicable or even replicable.
A study by the Coleraine Minerals Research Laboratory in 1997
stated that ``the mercury volatilized during pellet induration is not
the same for every taconite operation. There is a correlation between
the amount of mercury volatilized during induration and the location of
the taconite operation. The taconite operations that are located on the
west end of the Mesabi Iron Range volatilize more mercury during pellet
induration than those on the east end of the range.'' This correlation
was confirmed in a report by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (Berndt, 2002) with the mercury concentrations present in the
ore varying from 21 parts per billion (ppb) at the west end of the
range to 0.6 ppb for facilities located on the east end of the range.
Each taconite iron ore processing plant is located directly proximate
to its own mining source. Transportation costs of procuring raw
materials from other locations are prohibitive. A plant has no access
to the raw ore used by another plant and, consequently, could not
duplicate the mercury emissions performance of the other plant. The ore
processing operations at a given plant are dependent on the type of ore
mined. The east range ores are typically finer and harder requiring
different processing steps in crushing, grinding, and flotation.
Because of the differences in processing for each type of ore, it is
not feasible for any one facility to process different ores mined from
multiple locations in the range. Moreover, because iron ore deposits
are variable in mercury content, there is no way to assure that even a
source processing its own ore could replicate its own performance,
since the next ore batch could contain higher concentrations of
mercury. Based on the above justifications, we have determined that it
is infeasible for taconite plants to reduce mercury emissions by
switching to ``cleaner'' ores.
Natural gas is the primary fuel used by the taconite industry to
fuel the process. From the period of 1995 to 1997, the burning of coal
constituted only between 9 and 18 percent of the overall energy input
for taconite indurating furnaces. During the same period, natural gas
constituted between 73 and 83 percent of the overall energy input for
taconite indurating furnaces. Although very little coal is used overall
by the industry, it is critical for certain plants to have coal
available to them as a backup fuel when natural gas may not be
available or when seasonal fluctuations in the price of natural gas
make its use uneconomical. Therefore, based on the negligible impact of
coal on mercury emissions in the industry and the importance of
maintaining backup fuel options, fuel switching is not a feasible means
of controlling HAP metal emissions (including mercury) for the taconite
industry.
Based on these facts, EPA cannot accept the comment that it must
establish a floor standard by averaging the lowest mercury emission
values of the so-called best-performing 12 percent of sources. In the
next performance test, all of these mercury values could be higher (no
matter what method would be used to establish ``best performing''),
because there are no means of controlling ore concentrations or
feasibly using fuel substitution. Such a standard simply could not be
achieved by any source. Not only is this not the intent of a
technology-based standard, but would result in sources being out-of-
compliance and, thus, possibly shutting them down. This is not how MACT
was intended to function. ``MACT is not intended * * * to drive sources
to the brink of shutdown * * *'' (H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, 101st Cong. 2d
sess. 328).
We note further that the mercury in the ore and the fuel is present
in trace amounts. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stated
that ``mercury present in taconite occurs as a trace element, and
cannot be eliminated by simply using a different fuel source or by
eliminating mercury-bearing components from material to be combusted.''
(Berndt, 2002) This supports the Agency's technical determinations that
control via substitutions of feed or fuel is neither feasible nor
likely to be effective since random variability in the feed will likely
result in equal amounts of mercury being emitted in any case. Indeed,
as stated above, it is not clear that even a single source could
reliably duplicate its own performance for mercury emissions due to the
small amounts emitted and random variabilities in the mercury content
of the iron ore.
The commenters themselves acknowledge that viable controls for
mercury are not currently available for the taconite industry:
[sbull] One commenter stated that ``viable mercury control
technologies or strategies may be identified in the very near future.''
[sbull] One commenter stated that ``setting a standard would induce
the industry to invest in research and development to meet it.'' The
commenter also stated that ``promising mercury control technologies for
the taconite industry are on the horizon.''
[sbull] Two commenters stated that ``control technologies being
developed for coal-fired plants could be used to control mercury
emissions from taconite facilities.'' Section 112(d) of the CAA
requires that the EPA establish emission standards that are
``achievable for new or existing sources.'' Since we have not been able
to identify any currently employed operating practices that effectively
reduce mercury emissions which are duplicable or replicable, we cannot
develop an achievable floor standard.
Some commenters also suggested extended compliance periods (beyond
the 3 years provided by section 112(i)(3) of the CAA). The problem,
however, is not one of time but of the lack of existence of any means
of floor control. Control of emissions via raw material or fuel
substitution will not be available regardless of time allowed for
compliance.
Several commenters also noted that EPA's action here could
undermine efforts to control mercury deposition in the Great Lakes and
questioned the adequacy of EPA's action in light of the Agency's
obligation under section 112(m)(6) of the CAA to ``determine whether
the other provisions of this section 112 are adequate to prevent
serious adverse effect to public health and serious or widespread
environmental effects'' in the Great Lakes. The EPA, however, is not
reopening its existing determination that the section 112(d) and (f)
standards are adequate for this purpose. See generally 63 FR 14090
(March 24, 1998); ``Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters:
First Report to Congress (EPA-453/R-93-055, 1994); ``Deposition of Air
Pollutants to the Great Waters: Second Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-
97-011, 1997). The EPA notes further that the section 112(f) residual
risk process must evaluate (among other things) whether a more
stringent standard for mercury is needed to prevent an adverse
environmental effect (taking into consideration costs, energy, safety
and other relevant factors).
The commenters' statements regarding potential at-the-stack control
options are legitimate considerations for beyond-the-floor standards,
but after evaluating the possibility of such
[[Page 61880]]
controls against technical considerations and the section 112(d)(2)
factors, we do not feel that a beyond-the-floor standard for mercury is
warranted.
One commenter indicated that different handling practices for
captured dust from indurating furnaces, as discussed in a report by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Berndt, 2002), would be a
good method for controlling mercury. The control option investigated in
the report involves placing magnetite dust collected by the wet
scrubbers, which was found to be high in mercury, into the waste stream
rather than recycling the dust back to the indurating furnace. A review
of the report cited by the commenter reveals that, for the two taconite
plants studied, the costs of this approach ranged from $28 to $254
million per ton of mercury removed ($14,000 to $127,000 per pound of
mercury removed). This high cost results from the loss of over $1
million of magnetite dust product ($25 per long ton) to prevent
approximately 30 pounds of mercury emissions. The study concludes that
``due to the high cost of this emission control method, the large
uncertainty in the cost estimates, and the limited amount of emission
reduction, it appears that more research is needed before mercury
emission control methods can be put into practice in taconite
processing facilities.'' We believe that the high cost, the small
reduction in HAP emissions, and increased waste disposal do not justify
this beyond-the-floor alternative at this time.
Other potential mercury controls cited by the commenters include:
wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), baghouses, activated carbon
injection, activated carbon/baghouse system (COHPAC), corona discharge,
electro-catalytic oxidation, and injection of copper-coated magnetic
taconite concentrate.
Ninety seven percent of the mercury emitted from taconite plants is
emitted from the indurating furnaces. The mercury emitted from the
taconite indurating furnaces is primarily elemental mercury. Wet
scrubbing systems, such as wet FGD, ``are very effective at removing
soluble ionic mercury, but are not very effective at removing insoluble
elemental mercury'' (NESCAUM, 2000). Therefore, wet FGD systems were
not considered to be a technically viable beyond-the-floor option.
Baghouses and control systems that utilize them, such as the COHPAC
system, cannot be used on taconite indurating furnace stacks due to the
high moisture content of the exhaust gas. The high moisture content of
the exhaust gas causes plugging problems that make the baghouses
ineffective. Therefore, baghouses and control systems based on baghouse
technology were not considered to be a technically viable beyond-the-
floor option.
In pilot scale studies at several electricity generating boilers,
carbon injection has provided up to a 90 percent reduction in mercury
emissions. Estimated costs for installing activated carbon injection
systems on electricity generating boilers range from $10 to $140
million per ton of mercury removed ($5,000 to $70,000 per pound of
mercury removed) (NESCAUM, 2000; USDOE, 2002). Activated carbon
injection has been demonstrated to provide 95 percent control of
mercury emissions for municipal waste combustors (NESCAUM, 2000). Costs
for installing activated carbon injection for municipal waste
combustors range from $0.4 to $1.74 million per ton of mercury reduced
($211 to $870 per pound of mercury reduced). However, NESCAUM points
out that ``this working experience with small sources is not directly
transferable to large coal-fired boilers because of their different
flue gas characteristics'' (NESCAUM, 2000). The cost per pound of
mercury removed for this industry with activated carbon injection would
be considerably higher than the estimated cost for a utility boiler
because the capital and fixed operating costs would be similar while
these plants have very low mercury emissions. The high cost, small
reduction in HAP emissions, increased energy usage, and additional
waste generation do not justify this beyond-the-floor alternative at
this time.
The corona discharge, electro-catalytic oxidation, and copper-
coated magnetic taconite concentrate injection control technologies are
describe by the commenter as ``emerging technologies * * * that could
potentially be applied to the taconite sector as they mature and become
more cost-effective.'' Based on the commenter's own description, these
technologies are not currently ready for application to the taconite
industry. Therefore, these technologies were not considered in the
beyond-the-floor analysis.
In evaluating these potential beyond-the-floor options, we were
unable to identify any viable control technologies or operating
practices for achieving reductions in mercury emissions from taconite
iron ore plants. Consequently, we chose the floor level of no emissions
reduction as MACT.
Since specific controls for mercury are not currently present in
the industry and operating practices that effectively reduce mercury
emissions have not been identified, we are selecting no emissions
reduction as new source MACT.
Asbestos
Comment: Seventeen commenters stated that EPA should set a limit
for asbestos emissions from taconite plants as is required by the CAA.
One commenter stated that asbestos is designated as a HAP by the CAA.
The commenter reasoned that if asbestos is emitted by the taconite
industry, the statute requires that EPA set a standard for asbestos
fibers. Based on the decision in Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA, 514 f.2d
492, 526 (1975), the commenter contends that the EPA must consider
asbestos to be a HAP emitted by the taconite industry. One commenter
contended that ``lack of information'' about asbestos emissions is an
invalid reason for not setting standards.
Two commenters asserted that 30 years ago, EPA stated that it
intended to regulate asbestos emissions from the taconite industry. The
same commenter stated that the 1973 asbestos NESHAP had excluded
``mineral processing operations that may contain asbestos as a
contaminant.'' The commenter further pointed out the Congress rejected
this approach when it passed the CAA Amendments of 1990.
One of the commenters pointed out that in a 1975 Reserve Mining
decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated in
regard to emissions from the Co. plant (now operated by Northshore)
that ``Reserve discharges fibers substantially identical and in some
instances identical to fibers of amosite asbestos.'' The trial court
heard extensive evidence as to the chemistry, crystallography, and
morphology of the cummingtonite-grunerite present in the mined ore.
This evidence demonstrated that, at the level of the individual fiber,
a portion of Reserve's cummingtonite-grunerite cannot be meaningfully
distinguished from amosite asbestos. Reserve attempted to rebut this
testimony by showing that the gross morphology of the two minerals
differed and the characteristics of the two minerals varied when
considered in crystal aggregations. Since, according to the opinions of
some experts, the individual fiber probably serves as a carcinogenic
agent, the district court viewed the variations in mineralogy as
irrelevant and determined that Reserve discharges fibers substantially
identical and in some instances identical to amosite asbestos.
One commenter stated that it should be noted in the proposal
preamble that only one mine remains operating at the
[[Page 61881]]
eastern end of the Mesabi Range where acicular (needle-like) minerals
may be present in the ore. The commenter also stated that the proposal
preamble overstated the efforts of EPA's work group investigation of
asbestos in taconite ore. The commenter asserted that the work group is
focused mainly on vermiculite and is unlikely to study or recommend
``solutions'' for the taconite industry.
One commenter stated that EPA's refusal to set beyond-the-floor
standards for asbestos is unlawful.
Response: Although we are compelled to develop MACT standards for
HAP from major sources, and ``asbestos'' is listed as a HAP in section
112(b) of the CAA, ``asbestos'' is not a single chemical substance or
an easily identified group of chemicals or substances. Our previous
regulatory experience with asbestos as an air pollutant has been
limited to those substances commercially used for their properties,
such as a high resistance to heat and most chemicals. More recently,
the Agency has become concerned with those and similar substances that
may occur as a contaminant in other mined materials and then be
released into the air during processing activities.
When Congress listed ``asbestos'' as a HAP in section 112(b)(1), it
did not further explain the term in the statute, and EPA is not aware
of any legislative history addressing the term asbestos. Currently, EPA
regulatory definitions for ``asbestos'' are provided in the Asbestos
NESHAP, as revised in 1990 (40 CFR 61.141, subpart M), and the
regulations for addressing asbestos-containing materials in schools (40
CFR 763.83). Both rulemakings, which focus on commercial asbestos,
define asbestos as the asbestiform varieties of six different minerals:
chrysotile (serpentinite), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite
(cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, actinolite, and tremolite. As
some commenters have indicated, it is correct that the ore from the
eastern end of the Mesabi Range is comprised to some extent of
cummingtonite-grunerite and ferroactinolite (an iron-based form of
actinolite), two of the above listed asbestos-like minerals.
Similarly, other Federal agencies' standards for ``asbestos,'' for
example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), were
developed for commercial asbestos products and not asbestos as a
contaminant in another material (29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, and 1926).
Current OSHA workplace air regulations apply only to chrysotile,
crocidolite, amosite, and the asbestiform varieties of anthophyllite,
tremolite, and actinolite. The word asbestos is often added after the
mineral (e.g., tremolite asbestos) to signify that the asbestiform
variety of the mineral is being referred to. This is not necessary for
chrysotile, crocidolite, or amosite because these are terms specific to
the asbestiform varieties of the minerals (which are serpentine,
riebeckite, and cummintonite-grunerite, respectively).
Since the EPA first regulated asbestos as a HAP, a distinction has
been made on applying the term asbestos to commercially manufactured
products and not as a contaminant in other materials. When the Asbestos
NESHAP was promulgated in 1973, the EPA Administrator made explicit in
accompanying comments that the NESHAP only apply to asbestos mines and
asbestos mills. Approximately 1 year after the rule was promulgated,
EPA further clarified the rule by stating it does not apply to asbestos
occurring as a contaminant as distinguished from asbestos as a product
(39 FR 15397, May 3, 1974). In a 1974 revision to the Asbestos NESHAP,
the Administrator added a definition of ``commercial asbestos'' to
distinguish asbestos which is produced as a product from asbestos which
occurs as a contaminant in other materials.
Furthermore, when the CAA was amended in 1990, EPA's approach in
developing NESHAP was significantly altered through the use of the HAP
list under section 112(b) and the application of technology-based
standards under section 112(d) instead of a strict risk-based approach.
However, the CAA amendments in 1990 did not provide any further
guidance on how the definition of asbestos could be applied beyond its
use in the Asbestos NESHAP to address asbestos as a contaminant in
other materials.\1\ Based on EPA's historical use of the term
``asbestos,'' it has been used in the context for commercially produced
products and not, as yet, as a contaminant in other products. In
summary, there is no technical or regulatory consensus on the set of
minerals pertinent to contaminant asbestos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We thus disagree with the commenter who stated, without
citation, that the 1990 amendments to the CAA were intended to
compel section 112(d) standards to control the fibers emitted from
non-commercial sources. The commenter is correct in that section 112
is not limited to commercial asbestos emissions, but nothing in the
statute or its legislative history of which EPA is aware indicate
that Congress intended a particular meaning of ``asbestos'' or that
particular fiber-emitting sources be regulated under section 112 by
virtue of the inclusion of ``asbestos'' in the list of HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the real technical uncertainties as to how to
classify the fibers in the Northshore emissions, commenters argued that
the issue had already been decided by virtue of the Eighth Circuit's
Reserve Mining decision, which found that Reserve Mining (now
Northshore) emitted asbestos for purposes of ordering injunctive
relief. First, any suggestion that EPA is now precluded from making a
different factual determination is not correct. The issue decided in
Reserve Mining is different from the one involved here: whether the
Northshore fibers are ``asbestos'' for purposes of section 112 (b) of
the CAA, a provision not at issue in Reserve Mining since it did not
even exist at the time of the decision.
Second, EPA is not acting in the context of a plea for general
injunctive relief (as in Reserve Mining), but rather to implement a
limited grant of statutory authority to regulate the HAP ``asbestos.''
We have looked for existing, objective means of determining if
Northshore's fibers are ``asbestos'' and currently find the situation
uncertain. In light of this uncertainty, we are not establishing MACT
standards for the fibers emitted by Northshore. Rather, the issue of
which non-commercial fibers are ``asbestos'' for purposes of section
112(b) is one that must first be decided in a broader context.
In response to the events surrounding exposures of residents to
asbestos that occurred as a contaminant in a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, EPA is currently studying the complex issues involved with
asbestos emissions from beneficiation and subsequent processing of
minerals where asbestos may be present as a contaminant. One component
of this activity is a comprehensive update to the asbestos entry in the
Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). In the hazard and
dose-response assessment pieces of the update, the current information
on mineralogy, size, bioactivity and chemistry of different asbestos
fibers is being considered. Within the past 3 years, the Agency has
sponsored or co-sponsored several technical meetings aimed at bringing
together the current knowledge on asbestos, its characteristics and
related health effects. These include, but are not limited to:
[sbull] May 24-25, 2001, ``Asbestos Health Effects Conference'' in
Oakland, California;
[sbull] February 25-27, 2003, ``Asbestos Cancer Risk Peer
Consultation'' in San Francisco, California; and
[sbull] June 12-13, 2003, ``Asbestos Mechanisms of Toxicity
Workshop'' in Chicago, Illinois. Integration of the information
gathered through these and other mechanisms will compose the
[[Page 61882]]
support documents for the new IRIS file and will assist us in
decisionmaking regarding contaminant asbestos.
As part of the response to the findings in Libby, the Agency has
developed an action plan which identifies steps necessary to gather the
information needed to decide whether regulations for sources of
contaminant asbestos emissions are warranted. The action plan specifies
vermiculite mining and processing operations as the first area of
focus. Contrary to one commenter's assertion, the action plan also
includes plans to assess emissions, exposure and risk associated with
asbestos that occurs as a contaminant from other mining and processing
operations, including taconite ore mining and processing. That
assessment will inform decisions on specific risk-based regulation of
asbestos that occurs as a contaminant in taconite ore mining and
processing. Specific risk-based emission limitations for asbestos are
not included in the technology-based final rule.
In addition, an International Fiber Symposium was held in St. Paul,
MN in April 2003. The papers presented at the symposium are in a peer-
review process and will then be published. Once the proceedings are
published, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will determine if
they can conduct a risk assessment for fibers or if they can draw any
conclusions about the potential health impacts from fibers. Based on
MDH's findings, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
may make policy changes with respect to fibers. Until then, MPCA will
continue to regulate airborne fibers from Northshore as required by the
court who deemed the fibers a health concern.
Finally, we note that Northshore is in fact controlling emissions
of its fibers in part with baghouses, which are the optimum control
technology for air emission of fibers (a point made, among other
places, in the Reserve Mining decision itself). Since the Reserve
Mining decision, ambient air monitoring around the plant has
demonstrated a significant reduction in fiber emissions through the
installation of high efficiency baghouses on ore crushing and handling
emission units and wet ESP on the indurating furnace exhaust stacks.
Baghouses are not a control option for indurating furnaces due to the
high moisture content (10 to 15 percent) in the exhaust gases. The high
moisture content causes PM to cake and plug the filtering material
causing filters to be ineffective. In addition, further reductions in
fiber emissions are expected through compliance with the PM emission
standards in the final rule. Representatives at Northshore have
indicated that existing emission units equipped with multiclones are
likely to be replaced with more efficient PM control devices in order
to comply with the PM emission standards in the final rule. Northshore
representatives provided us with the estimated costs for such an
equipment upgrade, and these control costs are reflected in our revised
cost impacts for the final rule.
Formaldehyde
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA has a statutory obligation
to set emission standards for formaldehyde. The commenter asserted that
the standard for formaldehyde must be at least as stringent as the
average formaldehyde emission level of the five best performing plants.
The commenter stated that whether or not there are feasible control
technologies for formaldehyde is irrelevant.
Response: As EPA stated at proposal, formaldehyde (and other
organic HAP) are emitted in very low concentrations by taconite
processing indurating furnaces, not because these organic HAP are
contained in feed or fuel input to the process, but rather as products
of incomplete combustion (PIC) necessarily generated when fossil fuels
are burned (in any type of process, not just in indurating furnaces)
(67 FR 77570). Formaldehyde from indurating furnace emissions has been
measured through stack testing at concentrations that are typically
less than 1 part per million (ppm).
The EPA stated somewhat inaccurately at proposal that formaldehyde
emissions from indurating furnaces are currently uncontrolled. It is
clear from context that we meant that there are no current ``at-the-
stack'' controls for formaldehyde (and other PIC) emissions from these
furnaces, although control of the combustion process minimizes PIC
(including formaldehyde) formation and hence PIC emissions. We
reiterate that at-the-stack controls in place to control PM emissions
have no effect on PIC emissions. We also know of no feasible at-the-
stack control technology for reducing formaldehyde emissions at these
extremely low concentrations and at the exhaust gas temperatures
typically encountered at indurating furnaces.
The only known technology for the control of formaldehyde emissions
at concentrations of less than 1 ppm is thermal catalytic oxidation, in
which formaldehyde is contacted with a precious metal catalyst in the
presence of oxygen and high temperature (650 to 1,350 [deg]F) to yield
carbon dioxide and water. Destruction efficiencies of 85 to 90 percent
have been demonstrated on formaldehyde emissions contained in the
exhaust gas from stationary combustion turbines at concentrations in
the parts per billion range and temperatures of 1,000 [deg]F or higher.
Destruction efficiencies, however, decrease exponentially at reaction
temperatures below 650 [deg]F, reaching less than 10 percent at exhaust
gas temperatures of 300 [deg]F or lower, which is typical of most
indurating furnaces. Burning large quantities of additional fuel, such
as natural gas, to heat the exhaust gases to the desired temperature
would generate large additional quantities of carbon dioxide (a gas
potentially connected to global climate change) and NOX
(ozone precursors). As at proposal, given the significant issues of
technical feasibility and adverse environmental impacts associated with
use of this technology, it is not the proper basis for MACT standards
(67 FR 77571).
We also reiterate that fuel switching is not a justifiable means of
control. Most indurating furnaces currently utilize natural gas as a
fuel, and PIC emissions are higher for natural gas than for coal, but
switching to coal would increase emissions of HAP metals in much larger
amounts than the minimal PIC emissions attributable to natural gas
burning. See S. Rep. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 168 (``In cases
where control strategies for two or more different pollutants are in
actual conflict, the Administrator shall apply the same principle--
maximum protection of human health shall be the objective test.'')
Consequently, the only form of control currently used and feasible
to minimize formaldehyde emissions is the proper and efficient
operation of an indurating furnace with GCP. It is clear from the low
measured levels of formaldehyde emitted from these furnaces that this
means of control is highly effective.
In general, good efficiency of a combustion device is governed by
time, temperature, and turbulence, the three ``T's'' of combustion.
Efficient combustion is achieved when a selected fuel reaches an
optimum temperature for a minimum residence time with sufficient
turbulence to allow oxidation of all organic compounds to completely
react to the products of combustion--water and carbon dioxide. However,
there are many phenomena associated with combustion that lead to the
formation of PIC. Examples of possible phenomena include: Unburned
fuel, quenches or cool zones in the combustion area, fuel rich zones,
low
[[Page 61883]]
combustion temperatures, insufficient air (oxygen) contact with fuel
due to limited turbulence, and changes to the combustion process due to
load swings or feed changes.
Good combustion practices typically encompass several elements such
as the proper operation of the combustion process, routine inspection
and performance analysis of the process, and preventative maintenance.
More specific examples of GCP indicating the range of existing
practices are listed below:
[sbull] Maintain operator logs;
[sbull] Develop procedures for startup, shutdown, and malfunction;
[sbull] Perform periodic evaluations or inspections;
[sbull] Perform burner or control adjustments/tune-ups;
[sbull] Monitor and maintain concentrations of carbon monoxide
(CO), oxygen (O2), or carbon dioxide (CO2) in
compliance with site-specific concentration limits in the combustion
exhaust;
[sbull] Monitor and maintain combustion temperatures above a site-
specific minimum value;
[sbull] Monitor fuel/air metering;
[sbull] Comply with a CO or total organic carbon (TOC) emission
limit;
[sbull] Maintain proper liquid fuel atomization;
[sbull] Monitor fuel quality and handling procedures;
[sbull] Maintain combustion air distribution; and
[sbull] Maintain fuel dispersion.
Although all indurating furnaces need to use GCP to minimize PIC
emissions, determining what precisely is GCP involves site-specific
determinations for each furnace. For example, some indurating furnaces
have been required to install NOX emission controls such as
low NOX burners. The basic method used in reducing
NOX emissions is a reduction in combustion temperature,
which is the opposite strategy needed for minimizing PIC (i.e.,
increasing combustion temperature). Thus, due to differences in furnace
design, operation, firing fuel, process controls, and air pollution
control equipment, one set of GCP established for one type of
indurating furnace may be different from those needed for another type
of indurating furnace.
In addition, State operating permits for the taconite indurating
furnaces do not require any specific set of GCP. However, based on
discussions held with industry representatives, all sources already use
a wide variety of work practices (e.g., existing Standard Operating
Procedures) to maintain proper and efficient operation of each
indurating furnace. See the July 11, 2003 memorandum, ``Meeting Minutes
on Good Combustion Practices with Taconite Industry Representatives.''
Sources have a strong and inherent economic incentive to ensure that
fuel is not wasted, and that the combustion device operates properly
and is appropriately maintained. The lack of a uniform approach to
assuring combustion efficiency is not surprising given the differences
of indurating furnace designs, and the fact that existing Federal/State
standards do not include GCP requirements for indurating furnaces.
Thus, we have determined that site-specific GCP are the MACT floor
for formaldehyde emissions from existing sources. In evaluating
potential beyond-the-floor options, we considered the only known at-
the-stack technology for the control of formaldehyde emissions at
concentrations of less than 1 ppm--thermal catalytic oxidation, which
was described earlier. However, as discussed previously, given the
significant issues of technical feasibility (e.g., low exhaust gas
temperatures, high volumetric flow rates of exhaust gas, and low
concentrations of formaldehyde), adverse environmental impacts in the
form of increased energy use, and the tremendous additional cost
associated with use of this technology, we determined that a standard
based on use of thermal catalytic oxidation was not a viable beyond-
the-floor option. Since there is no other form of emission control or
work practice to control formaldehyde emissions from indurating
furnaces, the site-specific GCP documented in the operation and
maintenance plan were also determined as the MACT floor for
formaldehyde emissions from new indurating furnace sources.
We further find that under CAA section 112(h)(1), it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for HAP because
at-the-stack controls are not feasible (as explained earlier), and
monitoring parameters related to GCP can only meaningfully result in
minimization of PIC emissions if such monitoring parameters are
quantified on a site-specific basis.
Since it is not possible to identify any uniform requirements or
set of work practices that would meaningfully reflect the use of GCP,
the final rule requires each source to identify site-specific work
practices for each indurating furnace and to document these GCP in an
operation and maintenance plan in accordance with Sec. 63.9600 of the
final rule. A GCP control strategy could include a number of combustion
conditions and work practices which, applied collectively, promote good
combustion performance and minimize the formation of formaldehyde/PIC
emissions. Thus, the MACT requirement for these sources is to use GCP,
and for each source to develop an operation and maintenance plan that
details appropriate operating parameters for each of the following
elements of GCP, or explains why such operating parameters are either
inappropriate or unnecessary for the source (``inappropriate'' or
``unnecessary'' to be determined by the degree to which PIC formation
from fuel combustion in the furnace is minimized):
[sbull] Proper operating conditions for each indurating furnace
(e.g., minimum combustion temperature, maximum CO concentration in the
furnace exhaust gases, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air
distribution/mixing).
[sbull] Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and
corresponding schedules of each indurating furnace.
[sbull] Performance analyses of each indurating furnace.
[sbull] Keeping applicable operator logs.
[sbull] Keeping applicable records to document compliance with each
element.
A source's compliance with its startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan also will contribute to GCP.
A final determination that the values established in the operation
and maintenance plan are appropriate GCP for the source would then be
achieved by submitting the plan to the Administrator on or before the
compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.9583 of the final rule
for the affected source. The operation and maintenance plan must
explain why the chosen elements and work practices are considered GCP
for the affected source. The quantified parameters (e.g., furnace
operating temperature) contained in the plan become enforceable
operating conditions unless and until the Administrator acts to
establish new parameters.
The Administrator will evaluate the demonstration and determine
whether the chosen elements and work practices minimize the formation
of formaldehyde (and other PIC) and so constitute GCP for the furnace.
The Administrator will review the adequacy of the site-specific
procedures and the records to demonstrate that the plan constitutes
GCP. If the Administrator determines that any portion of the plan is
not adequate, we can reject those portions of the plan and request
additional information addressing the relevant issues.
[[Page 61884]]
Finally, with respect to the commenter's point that EPA is
obligated to establish MACT standards for formaldehyde, EPA has
established such standards, based on GCP implemented by means of an
operation and maintenance plan and site-specific determinations through
the permitting process, as explained above.
HCl and HF
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA has a clear statutory
obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP, including HCl
and HF. The commenter asserted that, just because plants are achieving
some incidental control of acid gases, it does not free EPA of its
statutory obligation to set a specific emission limit for HCl and HF.
Two commenters stated that EPA must set a standard for HCl and HF that
reflects, at a minimum, the average emission level achieved by the five
best performing plants. One commenter cited the National Lime opinion
which states ``The CAA requires EPA to set MACT floors upon the average
emission limitation achieved; it nowhere suggests that this achievement
must be the product of specific intent.''
One commenter stated that EPA's rejection of beyond-the-floor
standards for HCl and HF is not logical when a technology is available
and substantially reduces HAP. The commenter contended that available
acid gas control technology would yield a far greater degree of
reduction than is required by EPA's proposed standards, which require
no reduction at all.
Response: Acid gases (HCl and HF) are formed in the indurating
furnace due to the presence of chlorides and fluorides in pellet
additives, such as dolomite and limestone, as well as in the ore
bodies. The taconite industry has not installed equipment specifically
for the purpose of controlling acid gases from indurating furnace
stacks, but, as the commenters correctly note, intent is irrelevant in
determining HAP control (National Lime). What matters is the extent of
control, where control in fact occurs. Test data for HCl and HF
emissions were available from seven indurating furnaces at six taconite
plants. Since most of the furnaces have multiple stacks, these tests
represent emissions from fifteen control devices: 8 venturi scrubbers,
2 multiclones, 3 dry ESP, and 2 wet ESP. These data show that, except
for emissions from stacks controlled with multiclones, HCl and HF are
emitted from indurating furnaces at very low concentrations, typically
less than 3 ppm.
Of the six plants for which HCl and HF test data were available,
three plants conducted PM emissions tests concurrently with the HCl and
HF tests. These tests represent emissions from 3 furnaces and 8
emission control devices: 4 venturi scrubbers, 2 multiclones, and a dry
ESP/wet ESP ducted together. An analysis of the HCl and HF emissions
data and the corresponding PM emissions data indicates that, for this
industry, there is a correlation between acid gas and PM emissions from
control devices on indurating furnaces. Specifically, the data indicate
that stacks with higher PM emissions also have higher acid gas
emissions, and likewise, stacks with lower PM emissions have lower acid
gas emissions (``Correlation of Acid Gas Emissions to PM Emissions for
Taconite Indurating Furnaces,'' July 2003). Consistent with this
correlation, the best performing sources for PM are also the best
performing for acid gas emissions.
There is an engineering basis for this correlation. Due to the
strong affinity of acid gases for water, PM control equipment that uses
water, such as wet scrubbers and wet ESP, has the capability of
reducing HCl and HF emissions substantially. Therefore, wet scrubbers
and wet ESP control technologies used for the reduction of PM emissions
from taconite indurating furnaces to achieve the MACT level of control
for HAP metals are expected to achieve a reduction of acid gas
emissions as well. Standards requiring good control of PM emissions for
this industry will also achieve control of acid gas emissions. For the
taconite industry, PM emissions can be used as a surrogate for the acid
gases emitted from taconite indurating furnaces. Therefore, we are
establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the
acid gases, HCl and HF. This finding is valid only for these taconite
indurating furnace data; data for other industries may not show a
correlation between acid gas emissions and PM emissions. Therefore,
this finding should not be used as a precedent in other rulemakings.
Establishing separate standards for acid gases would impose costly
and significantly more-complex compliance and monitoring requirements.
In addition, establishing separate standards for acid gases would
achieve little, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be
achieved using the total PM surrogate pollutant approach. Consequently,
EPA has chosen to establish a standard for acid gases using the PM
surrogate. Therefore, the MACT floor level of control for acid gases is
equivalent to (and expressed as) the MACT floor level of 0.01 gr/dscf
for PM.
We then examined the beyond-the-floor option. The next increment of
control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers or
dry ESP capable of meeting a PM concentration limit of 0.006 gr/dscf,
which is equivalent to the level of PM control required for new
furnaces. We estimate the additional capital cost of going from the
MACT level of 0.01 gr/dscf for PM to 0.006 gr/dscf to be $99.7 million
per year. We estimate the corresponding additional reduction in acid
gases achieved by this PM level to be 112 tons of acid gases. The cost
per ton of acid gas is $890,000/ton. The energy increase would be
expected to be 53,436 mega-watt hours per year, primarily due to the
energy requirements of new wet scrubbers and dry ESP. (Beyond-the-Floor
Analysis for Acid Gases, July 2003). The high cost, the small reduction
in HAP emissions, and the additional energy requirements do not justify
this beyond-the-floor alternative for acid gases. Consequently, we
chose the MACT floor level of control for PM of 0.01 gr/dscf as the
existing indurating furnace MACT for acid gases. New source MACT for
acid gases is equivalent to the PM new source MACT level of 0.006 gr/
dscf.
By establishing a standard for acid gases, we have addressed the
commenters' point that the Agency is legally obligated to do so.
PM as a Surrogate for Metallic HAP
Comment: One commenter asserted that EPA cannot use a surrogate
when doing so would result in regulations that do not include emission
standards for each listed HAP or in standards that do not at least
match the average emission level that the best sources achieve. The
commenter pointed out that the Court has already held that the use of
PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metals is not reasonable and,
therefore, not lawful where factors other than PM control affect
emissions of such metals (National Lime). The commenter reasoned that,
since each plant's actual metallic HAP emission levels are influenced
not just by PM control technology but also to a very large extent by
the HAP metal content in the ore used, the use of PM as a surrogate for
non-mercury metals is unlawful.
The commenter stated that, in the past, EPA has recognized that it
can set standards for groups of metals that behave similarly (for
example, in the hazardous waste combustors rule). The commenter
asserted that EPA has no basis for assuming that its only two options
are either to set a PM standard for all HAP or to set individual
emission standards for each HAP. The commenter
[[Page 61885]]
stated that EPA must explain why it cannot set emission standards for
groupings of metals or for representative surrogate metals rather than
just a PM standard.
The commenter explained that the correlation of PM to any given
metal varies with the volatility of the metal in question; therefore,
EPA cannot assume that all the metals emitted by taconite plants will
consistently behave as PM. The commenter stated that different PM
control devices have different collection efficiencies for different
metals. Therefore, the commenter stated that, even if all taconite
plants had identical HAP metal input, EPA could not assume that any two
plants have identical (or even similar) emission rates for any given
metal.
Two commenters supported using PM as a surrogate for total HAP
emissions. The commenters stated that ``it is far more appropriate to
use PM for total metal HAP than to attempt to specialty individual
metal HAP. The earthen material that is processed is not necessarily
identical in composition in each and every shovelful of material. It
would be impossible to account for differences in individual HAP metal
content for each load processed.''
Response: We disagree with the first commenter; PM is a valid
surrogate for the HAP metal compounds emitted from taconite iron ore
processing plants. As indicated in the preamble to the proposed rule,
metallic HAP are emitted from ore crushing and handling units,
indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling units, and ore dryers. We
determined that it is not practical to establish individual standards
for each metallic HAP that could be present in the various processes
(e.g., separate standards for manganese compound emissions, separate
standards for lead compound emissions, and so forth for each metal
compound group listed as HAP that is potentially present).
A key parameter for the control of both semi-volatile and non-
volatile metal compounds is the operating temperature of the air
pollution control device that is applied. At temperatures of 200 to 400
[deg]F, the range typical of control devices applied to emissions from
taconite indurating furnaces, any semi-volatile and non-volatile HAP
metal compounds present, except elemental mercury, would exist in the
form of fine PM and, therefore, would be controlled in direct
relationship to PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between PM
emissions and emissions of the individual metallic HAP compounds.
Control technologies used for the reduction of PM emissions achieve
comparable levels of reduction of metallic HAP emissions. Standards
requiring good control of PM emissions will also achieve a similar
level of control of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, we are
establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the
individual metallic HAP. Establishing separate standards for each
metallic HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex
compliance and monitoring requirements. In addition, establishing
separate standards for each metallic HAP would achieve little, if any,
HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the total
PM surrogate pollutant approach.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
The environmental, energy, and economic impacts of the final rule
are based on the replacement of poor performing controls at existing
sources with new controls capable of meeting the emission limits
established in the final rule. We did not estimate impacts for new
sources since we do not project any new or reconstructed affected
sources becoming subject to the new source MACT requirements in the
foreseeable future. Specifically, we anticipate that two plants will
install new impingement scrubbers on a total of 33 out of the 264 ore
crushing and handling emission units to meet the PM emission limit. We
expect that four plants will install new venturi-rod wet scrubbers or
will upgrade existing wet scrubbers on at least one of their indurating
furnaces. In total, we estimate that the existing controls will be
replaced with new venturi-rod wet scrubbers on three of the 47
indurating furnace stacks. We estimate that the existing controls will
be upgraded with new components on eight of the 47 indurating furnace
stacks. We anticipate that four plants will install new impingement
scrubbers on a total of 11 out of the 82 finished pellet handling
emission units to meet the finished pellet handling PM emission limit.
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
The installation of new controls and upgrades discussed in the
preceding paragraph will result in reductions in emissions of metal
HAP, acid gases, and PM. Overall, the final standards are expected to
reduce HAP emissions by a total of 270 tpy, a reduction of about 43
percent. Metallic HAP emissions will be reduced by 14 tpy (a 42 percent
reduction) and acid gas emissions (HCl and HF) will be reduced by 256
tpy (a 51 percent reduction). In addition, the final standards are
expected to reduce PM emissions by 10,538 tpy, a reduction of about 62
percent.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total installed capital costs to the industry for the
installation of control equipment are estimated to be $57 million.
Total annualized costs are estimated at $9 million/yr, which includes
$4.5 million/yr in capital recovery costs, $3.2 million/yr in emission
control device operation and maintenance costs, and $0.9 million/yr for
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. These costs are based on the
installation of new wet scrubbers on 33 ore crushing and handling
units, three indurating furnace stacks, and 11 finished pellet handling
units. The costs are also based on upgrading two wet scrubbers and six
ESP for indurating furnaces. In addition, the estimate includes the
cost of bag leak detection systems for baghouses, CPMS for scrubbers
and wet ESP, and COMS for dry ESP.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impact the final
rule will have on the producers and consumers of taconite and society
as a whole. The taconite industry consists of eight companies owning
eight mining operations, concentration plants, and pelletizing plants.
The total annualized social cost of the final rule is $8.6 million (in
2002 dollars), which is almost the same as the total annualized
compliance cost. This cost is distributed among consumers (mainly steel
mills) who may buy less and/or spend more on taconite iron ore as a
result of the Taconite NESHAP, including merchant taconite producers
that sell their output on the market, integrated iron and steel plants
that produce and consume the taconite captively within the company,
steel producers that use electric arc furnace (EAF) technology to
produce steel from scrap, and foreign producers. Consumers incur $2.8
million of the total social costs, merchant producers incur $3.7
million in costs, and integrated iron and steel producers incur $4.5
million in costs. The EAF producers and foreign producers enjoy a net
gain in revenues of $1.1 million and $1.3 million, respectively.
Our analysis indicates that the taconite iron ore market will
experience minimal changes in the price and quantity of ore produced,
and in the prices and quantities of steel mill products (some of which
are produced using taconite). Prices in the taconite iron ore market
are estimated to increase by 0.17 percent while production may decrease
by 0.14 percent. The price of
[[Page 61886]]
steel mill products is projected to increase by less than 4/1000th of 1
percent and the quantity produced is projected to change by less than
3/1000th of 1 percent. The EAF steel producers who make steel from
scrap rather than iron ore are projected to increase their output by
approximately 15/100th of 1 percent in response to the slight increase
in the price of steel mill products. While the market overall shows
minimal impacts associated with the final rule, the financial stability
of the firms operating in this market is very uncertain. The past few
years have been a period of tremendous change in the iron and steel
industry, during which more than 29 companies in the industry have
declared bankruptcy, several plants have closed, and EAF technology has
secured a growing share of the market. These changes have occurred due
to evolving economic conditions, both domestically and abroad, and
technological developments within the industry. Conditions continue to
be challenging for iron and steel producers. In an assessment of the
impacts on the companies owning taconite plants, we find the estimated
costs of the final rule are uniformly less than 1 percent of baseline
sales revenues, and typically less than 3 percent of baseline profits.
However, four of the companies had negative operating income in 2002, a
period of time during in which the entire Nation experienced lower than
the historical average for economic activity. A number of companies
owning taconite plants have filed for protection under Chapter 11 of
the bankruptcy code since 2001. Thus, there is reason to be concerned
about the financial condition of companies owning taconite plants. The
incremental effect of the final rule on firm financial stability,
however, is projected to be very small.
We also prepared a sensitivity analysis that examined the regional
impacts of the final rule. All the taconite production plants are
located within four counties in Minnesota and one in Michigan. Thus,
the impacts of the final rule are expected to be concentrated
geographically. We modeled the supply and demand linkages of the
various industries and households within each county to estimate
changes that may occur in the region as the taconite industry complies
with the final NESHAP. We estimate that as industries that interact
with the taconite industry (such as construction and earth moving
equipment industries) react to the changes in the taconite market, and
as household incomes are reduced as a result of changes in all the
various industries in the region, the impact of the final rule will add
approximately $0.4 million in economic cost to the region. This
represents approximately 2/100ths of 1 percent of total sales in those
counties. Thus, even though the impacts are concentrated in only five
counties, we believe that the impacts on those county economies will
not be very large.
For more information on these economic impacts, please refer to the
economic impact analysis that is in the final rule docket (ID No. OAR-
2002-0039).
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
We project that the implementation of the final rule will increase
water usage by 8 billion gallons per year industrywide. This increased
water usage is expected to result from the installation of new wet
scrubbers needed for compliance. Much of this water will be discharged
as scrubber blowdown to the tailings basin(s) located at each plant. At
two or more of the affected facilities, there is the potential that
this increased wastewater burden will result in new or aggravated
violations of permitted wastewater discharge limits from the tailings
basins unless significant measures are taken to install new or upgrade
existing wastewater treatment systems. The energy increase is expected
to be 14,309 megawatt-hours per year, primarily due to the energy
requirements of new wet scrubbers.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is,
therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable
until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The final rule requires applicable one-time notifications required
by the General Provisions for each affected source. As required by the
NESHAP General Provisions, all plants must prepare and operate by a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants are also required to
prepare an operation and maintenance plan for control devices subject
to operating limits, a monitoring plan for baghouses and CPMS, a
fugitive emissions control plan, and a performance testing plan.
Records are required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
monitoring, operation, and maintenance requirements for control devices
and monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are
required. These reports must describe any deviation from the standards,
any period a continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-control,'' or
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to
respond were inconsistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. If no deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report is
required. Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in
response to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not
consistent with the plan, an immediate report must
[[Page 61887]]
be submitted within 2 days of the event with a letter report 7 days
later.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after
October 30, 2003 is estimated to total 111 labor hours per year at a
total annual cost of 920,722, including labor costs, monitoring
equipment capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. Total
capital costs associated with the monitoring equipment is estimated at
$4,576,955. The total annualized cost of the monitoring equipment is
estimated at $392,751. This estimate includes the capital, operating,
and maintenance costs associated with the installation and operation of
the monitoring equipment.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data
sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The 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 of the approved
information collection requirements contained in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: a small business according to the U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards for NAICS code 21221
(Taconite Iron Ore Processing Facilities) of 500 or fewer employees;
(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 impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the SBA size category for this source category, no small
businesses are subject to the final rule and its requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the final rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Today's final rule contains no Federal mandate (under the
regulatory provisions of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments. The EPA has determined that the 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 of $100 million or more in any 1 year.
Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has also determined that the final rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (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.''
The 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 by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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
[[Page 61888]]
government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities
subject to the Taconite NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control
technology and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, and 17. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to
identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA
methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified
for EPA Methods 2F and 2G, and none were brought to our attention in
comments.
The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10,
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the final rule for its
manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part
10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14
voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of these 14
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates
subject to emission standards in the final rule were impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the final rule.
Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this
purpose. The reasons for this determination for the 12 methods are
available in the docket.
Two of the 14 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of the final rule because they are under development by a
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR
MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot
Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
Sections 63.9621 and 63.9622 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, list
EPA testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec.
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any EPA testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA will submit a report containing the 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 final rule in the Federal Register. The final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart RRRRR to read as follows:
Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.9580 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9582 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.9591 What work practice standards must I meet?
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
General Compliance Requirements
63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Initial Compliance Requirements
63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct performance
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for
particulate matter?
[[Page 61889]]
63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating
limits?
63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
63.9624 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.9625 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitoring equipment?
63.9633 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations that apply to me?
63.9635 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?
63.9642 What records must I keep?
63.9643 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.9651 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.9580 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing. This subpart
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with all applicable emission limitations (emission limits
and operating limits), work practice standards, and operation and
maintenance requirements in this subpart.
Sec. 63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a taconite
iron ore processing plant that is (or is part of) a major source of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first compliance date
that applies to you. Your taconite iron ore processing plant is a major
source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP
at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a
rate of 25 tons or more per year.
Sec. 63.9582 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source
at your taconite iron ore processing plant.
(b) The affected sources are each new or existing ore crushing and
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, and finished pellet
handling operation at your taconite iron ore processing plant, as
defined in Sec. 63.9652.
(c) This subpart covers emissions from ore crushing and handling
emission units, ore dryer stacks, indurating furnace stacks, finished
pellet handling emission units, and fugitive dust emissions.
(d) An ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating
furnace, or finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron
ore processing plant is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source before December 18, 2002.
(e) An ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating
furnace, or finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron
ore processing plant is new if you commence construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or after December 18, 2002. An
affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later
than October 30, 2006.
(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by October 30, 2003.
(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup.
(d) If your taconite iron ore processing plant is an area source
that becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.
(1) Any portion of the taconite iron ore processing plant that is a
new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance
with this subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the taconite iron ore processing plant must
be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after the
plant becomes a major source.
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.9640. Several of these notifications must be submitted before
the compliance date for your affected source.
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart
that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit for control devices in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section that applies to you.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for
each wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit
in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average
pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate at or above
the minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
(2) For each dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate
matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the
daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average fan
amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) or the
daily average pressure drop at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial performance test.
(3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any
particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must
meet the operating limits in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) Maintain the 6-minute average opacity of emissions exiting the
control device stack at or below the level
[[Page 61890]]
established during the initial performance test.
(ii) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage and daily average
secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels
established during the initial performance test.
(4) For each wet electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any
particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must
meet the operating limits in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage for each field at
or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance
test.
(ii) Maintain the daily average stack outlet temperature at or
below the maximum levels established during the initial performance
test.
(iii) Maintain the daily average water flow rate at or above the
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
(5) If you use any air pollution control device other than a
baghouse, wet scrubber, dynamic scrubber, dry electrostatic
precipitator, or wet electrostatic precipitator, you must submit a
site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with Sec. 63.9631(f).
(c) You may petition the Administrator for approval of alternatives
to the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section as allowed under Sec. 63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.9591 What work practice standards must I meet?
(a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a
fugitive dust emissions control plan that describes in detail the
measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions
from the locations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) Stockpiles (includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of
uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets);
(2) Material transfer points;
(3) Plant roadways;
(4) Tailings basin;
(5) Pellet loading areas; and
(6) Yard areas.
(b) A copy of your fugitive dust emissions control plan must be
submitted for approval to the Administrator on or before the applicable
compliance date for the affected source as specified in Sec. 63.9583.
The requirement for the plant to operate according to the fugitive dust
emissions control plan must be incorporated by reference in the
operating permit for the plant that is issued by the designated
permitting authority under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.
(c) You can use an existing fugitive dust emissions control plan
provided it meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) The plan satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) The plan describes the current measures to control fugitive
dust emission sources.
(3) The plan has been approved as part of a State implementation
plan or title V permit.
(d) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions
control plan onsite, and it must be available for inspection upon
request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or
until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of
this subpart.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Sec. 63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels
required by this subpart.
(b) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a
written operation and maintenance plan for each control device applied
to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this
subpart and to meet the requirement of each indurating furnace subject
to good combustion practices (GCP). Each site-specific operation and
maintenance plan must be submitted to the Administrator on or before
the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.9583 for your
affected source. The plan you submit must explain why the chosen
practices (i.e., quantified objectives) are effective in performing
corrective actions or GCP in minimizing the formation of formaldehyde
(and other products of incomplete combustion). The Administrator will
review the adequacy of the site-specific practices and objectives you
will follow and the records you will keep to demonstrate compliance
with your Plan. If the Administrator determines that any portion of
your operation and maintenance plan is not adequate, we can reject
those portions of the plan, and request that you provide additional
information addressing the relevant issues. In the interim of this
process, you will continue to follow your current site-specific
practices and objectives, as submitted, until your revisions are
accepted as adequate by the Administrator. You must maintain a current
copy of the operation and maintenance plan onsite, and it must be
available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the
life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the requirements of this subpart. Each operation and
maintenance plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(2) Corrective action procedures for bag leak detection systems. In
the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, you must
initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1
hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of
the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective
action as soon as practicable. Corrective actions may include, but are
not limited to, the actions listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vi)
of this section.
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
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 baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Adjusting the process operation producing the particulate
emissions.
(3) Corrective action procedures for continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) for all air pollution control devices except
for baghouses. In the event you exceed an established operating limit
for an air pollution control device except for a baghouse, you must
initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the operating
limit exceedance and complete the corrective action within 10 calendar
days. The corrective action procedures you take must be consistent with
the installation, operation, and maintenance procedures listed in your
site-specific CPMS monitoring plan in accordance with Sec. 63.9632(b).
(4) Good combustion practices for indurating furnaces. You must
identify and implement a set of site-specific GCP for each type of
indurating furnace at your plant. These GCP should correspond to your
standard operating procedures for maintaining the proper
[[Page 61891]]
and efficient combustion within each indurating furnace. Good
combustion practices include, but are not limited to, the elements
listed in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Proper operating conditions for each indurating furnace (e.g.,
minimum combustion temperature, maximum carbon monoxide concentration
in the furnace exhaust gases, burner alignment, or proper fuel-air
distribution/mixing).
(ii) Routine inspection and preventative maintenance and
corresponding schedules of each indurating furnace.
(iii) Performance analyses of each indurating furnace.
(iv) Keeping applicable operator logs.
(v) Keeping applicable records to document compliance with each
element.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (6) in this section at all times, except during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The terms startup, shutdown, and
malfunction are defined in Sec. 63.2.
(1) The emission limitations in Sec. 63.9590.
(2) The work practice standards in Sec. 63.9591.
(3) The operation and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.9600.
(4) The notification requirements in Sec. 63.9640.
(5) The reporting requirements in Sec. 63.9641.
(6) The recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.9642.
(b) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.9583 and the date upon which
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions
control equipment. This includes the daily monitoring and recordkeeping
of air pollution control device operating parameters as specified in
Sec. 63.9590(b).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct
performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) For each ore crushing and handling affected source, you must
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart by conducting an initial performance test for particulate
matter as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an initial
performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with ore
crushing and handling.
(2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial
performance testing requirements of this subpart.
(b) For each indurating furnace affected source, you must
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart by conducting an initial performance test for particulate
matter as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) An initial performance test must be performed on all stacks
associated with each indurating furnace.
(2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial
performance testing requirements of this subpart. For indurating
furnaces with multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks
must be completed within a reasonable period of time, such that the
indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative for
the duration of the stack tests.
(c) For each finished pellet handling affected source, you must
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart by conducting an initial performance test for particulate
matter as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an initial
performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with
finished pellet handling.
(2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial
compliance testing requirements of this subpart.
(d) For each ore dryer affected source, you must demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart
by conducting an initial performance test for particulate matter as
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) An initial performance test must be performed on all stacks
associated with each ore dryer.
(2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003 and no later than
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial
compliance testing requirements of this subpart. For ore dryers with
multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks must be completed
within a reasonable period of time, such that the ore dryer operating
characteristics remain representative for the duration of the stack
tests.
(e) For ore crushing and handling affected sources and finished
pellet handling affected sources, in lieu of conducting initial
performance tests for particulate matter on all stacks, you may elect
to group a maximum of six similar emission units together and conduct
an initial compliance test on one representative emission unit within
each group of similar emission units. The determination of whether
emission units are similar must meet the criteria in paragraph (f) of
this section. If you decide to test representative emission units, you
must prepare and submit a testing plan as described in paragraph (g) of
this section.
(f) If you elect to test representative emission units as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, the units that are grouped together
as similar units must meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) All emission units within a group must be of the same process
type (e.g., primary crushers, secondary crushers, tertiary crushers,
fine crushers, ore conveyors, ore bins, ore screens, grate feed, pellet
loadout, hearth layer, cooling stacks, pellet conveyor, and pellet
screens). You cannot group
[[Page 61892]]
emission units from different process types together for the purposes
of this section.
(2) All emission units within a group must also have the same type
of air pollution control device (e.g., wet scrubbers, dynamic wet
scrubbers, rotoclones, multiclones, wet and dry electrostatic
precipitators, and baghouses). You cannot group emission units with
different air pollution control device types together for the purposes
of this section.
(3) The site-specific operating limits established for the emission
unit selected as representative of a group of similar emission units
will be used as the operating limit for each emission unit within the
group. The operating limit established for the representative unit must
be met by each emission unit within the group.
(g) If you plan to conduct initial performance tests on
representative emission units within an ore crushing and handling
affected source or a finished pellet handling affected source, you must
submit a testing plan for initial performance tests. This testing plan
must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority no later
than 90 days prior to the first scheduled initial performance test. The
testing plan must contain the information specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify
all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission
units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the
emission unit that will be the representative unit for that group and
subject to initial performance testing.
(2) A list of the process type and type of air pollution control
device on each emission unit.
(3) A schedule indicating when you will conduct an initial
performance test for particulate matter for each representative
emission unit.
(h) For each work practice standard and operation and maintenance
requirement that applies to you where initial compliance is not
demonstrated using a performance test, you must demonstrate initial
compliance within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is
specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.9583.
(i) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an affected
source between December 18, 2002 and October 30, 2003 , you must
demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission limit
or the promulgated emission limit no later than 180 calendar days after
October 30, 2003 or no later than 180 calendar days after startup of
the source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(j) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an affected
source between December 18, 2002 and October 30, 2003, and you chose to
comply with the proposed emission limit when demonstrating initial
compliance, you must conduct a second performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the promulgated emission limit by 3 years and 180
calendar days after October 30, 2003, or after startup of the source,
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) For each ore crushing and handling affected source and each
finished pellet handling affected source, you must determine compliance
with the applicable emission limit for particulate matter in Table 1 to
this subpart by following the test methods and procedures in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Except as provided in Sec. 63.9620(e), determine the
concentration of particulate matter in the stack gas for each emission
unit according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter. The applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5, 5D, or 17 to determine the concentration of
particulate matter.
(2) Each Method 5, 5D, or 17 performance test must consist of three
separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 2 hours. The
average particulate matter concentration from the three runs will be
used to determine compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.000
Where:
Ci = Average particulate matter concentration for
emission unit, grains per dry standard cubic foot, (gr/dscf);
C1 = Particulate matter concentration for run 1
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf;
C2 = Particulate matter concentration for run 2
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf; and
C3 = Particulate matter concentration for run 3
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf.
(3) For each ore crushing and handling affected source and each
finished pellet handling affected source, you must determine the flow-
weighted mean concentration of particulate matter emissions from all
emission units in each affected source following the procedure in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) If an initial performance test is conducted on all emission
units within an affected source, calculate the flow-weighted mean
concentration of particulate matter emissions from the affected source
using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.001
Where:
Ca = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate
matter for all emission units within affected source, (gr/dscf);
Ci = Average particulate matter concentration measured
during the performance test from emission unit ``i'' in affected
source, as determined using Equation 1 of this section, gr/dscf;
Qi = Average volumetric flow rate of stack gas measured
during the performance test from emission unit ``i'' in affected
source, dscf/hr; and
n = Number of emission units in affected source.
(ii) If you are grouping similar emission units together in
accordance with Sec. 63.9620(e), you must follow the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Assign the average particulate matter concentration measured
from the representative unit, as determined from Equation 1 of this
section, to each emission unit within the corresponding group of
similar units.
(B) Establish the maximum operating volumetric flow rate of exhaust
gas from each emission unit within each group of similar units.
(C) Using the data from paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section, calculate the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate
matter
[[Page 61893]]
emissions from the affected source using Equation 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.002
Where:
Ca = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate
matter for all emission units within affected source, gr/dscf;
Ck = Average particulate matter concentration measured
during the performance test from the representative emission unit in
group ``k'' of affected source ``a,'' as determined using Equation 1
of this section, gr/dscf;
Qk = Sum of the maximum operating volumetric flow rates
of stack gas from all similar emission units within group ``k'' of
affected source, dscf/hr; and
m = Number of similar emission unit groups in affected source.
(c) For each ore dryer affected source and each indurating furnace
affected source, you must determine compliance with the applicable
emission limit for particulate matter in Table 1 to this subpart by
following the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter for each
stack according to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The
applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v)
of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5, 5D, or 17 to determine the concentration of
particulate matter.
(2) Each Method 5, 5D, or 17 performance test must consist of three
separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 2 hours. The
average particulate matter concentration from the three runs will be
used to determine compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
(3) For each ore dryer and each indurating furnace with multiple
stacks, calculate the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate
matter emissions using Equation 4 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.003
Where:
Cb = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate
matter for all stacks associated with affected source, gr/dscf;
Cj = Average particulate matter concentration measured
during the performance test from stack ``j'' in affected source, as
determined using Equation 1 of this section, gr/dscf;
Qj = Average volumetric flow rate of stack gas measured
during the performance test from stack ``j'' in affected source,
dscf/hr;
n = Number of stacks associated with affected source.
Sec. 63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?
(a) For wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(1), you must establish site-specific operating
limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate every 15 minutes during
each run of the particulate matter performance test.
(2) Calculate and record the average pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are
established as the lowest average pressure drop and the lowest average
scrubber water flow rate corresponding to any of the three test runs.
(3) If a rod-deck venturi scrubber is applied to an indurating
furnace to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to
this subpart, you may establish a lower average pressure drop operating
limit by using historical average pressure drop data from a certified
performance test completed on or after December 18, 2002 instead of
using the average pressure drop value determined during the initial
performance test, as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If
historical average pressure drop data are used to establish an
operating limit (i.e., using data from a certified performance test
conducted prior to the promulgation date of the final rule), then the
average particulate matter concentration corresponding to the
historical performance test must be at or below the applicable
indurating furnace emission limit, as listed in Table 1 to this
subpart.
(b) For dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in
Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and
either fan amperage or pressure drop in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you must
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure
drop every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter
performance test.
(2) Calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and
either the average fan amperage or average pressure drop for each
individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the
lowest average scrubber water flow rate and either the lowest average
fan amperage or pressure drop value corresponding to any of the three
test runs.
(c) For a dry electrostatic precipitator subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3),
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the
procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator
is a 6-minute average opacity of emissions value, then you must follow
the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required
in Sec. 63.9631(d)(1), measure and record the opacity of emissions
from each control device stack during the particulate matter
performance test.
(ii) Compute and record the 6-minute opacity averages from 24 or
more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period (e.g., at 15-
second intervals) during the test runs.
(iii) Using the opacity measurements from a performance test that
meets the emission limit, determine the opacity value corresponding to
the 99 percent upper confidence level of a normal distribution of the
6-minute opacity averages.
(2) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator
is the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary
current for each field, then you must follow the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(d)(2), measure and
record the secondary voltage and secondary current for each dry
electrostatic precipitator field every 15 minutes during each run of
the particulate matter performance test.
[[Page 61894]]
(ii) Calculate and record the average secondary voltage and
secondary current for each dry electrostatic precipitator field for
each individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the
lowest average secondary voltage and secondary current value for each
dry electrostatic precipitator field corresponding to any of the three
test runs.
(d) For a wet electrostatic precipitator subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620 and operating limit in Sec. 63.9590(b)(4),
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(e), measure and record
the parametric values in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field every 15 minutes
during each run of the particulate matter performance test.
(i) Secondary voltage;
(ii) Water flow rate; and
(iii) Stack outlet temperature.
(2) For each individual test run, calculate and record the average
value for each operating parameter in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field.
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average value for
each operating parameter corresponding to any of the three test runs.
(e) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, wet
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse, and it is subject to
performance testing in Sec. 63.9620, you must submit a site-specific
monitoring plan in accordance with Sec. 63.9631(f). The site-specific
monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures for
demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the corresponding
operating limits.
(f) You may change the operating limits for any air pollution
control device as long as you meet the requirements in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating
limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
Sec. 63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting
the emission limit requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) For ore crushing and handling, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(a) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) For indurating furnaces, the flow-weighted mean concentration
of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.9620(b) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(3) For finished pellet handling, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(c) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(4) For ore dryers, the flow-weighted mean concentration of
particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.9620(d) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission
limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting
the operating limit requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) For each wet scrubber subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits and have a record of the pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate measured during the performance test in
accordance with Sec. 63.9622(a).
(2) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in
Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and
either fan amperage or pressure drop in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or
pressure drop value, measured during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.9622(b).
(3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620 and one of the operating limits in Sec.
63.9590(b)(3), you must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) If you are subject to the operating limit for opacity in Sec.
63.9590(b)(3)(i), you have established appropriate site-specific
operating limits and have a record of the opacity measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(c)(1).
(ii) If you are subject to the operating limit for secondary
voltage and secondary current in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the secondary voltage and secondary current measured during
the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(c)(2).
(4) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits for secondary voltage,
water flow rate, and stack outlet temperature in Sec. 63.9590(b)(4),
you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and
have a record of the secondary voltage, water flow rate, and stack
outlet temperature measured during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.9622(d).
(5) For other air pollution control devices subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits in accordance with Sec.
63.9590(b)(5), you have submitted a site-specific monitoring plan in
accordance with Sec. 63.9631(f) and have a record of the site-specific
operating limits as measured during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.9622(e).
(c) For each emission limitation and operating limit that applies
to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status according
to Sec. 63.9640(e).
Sec. 63.9624 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
You must demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice
standards by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section.
(a) You must prepare a fugitive dust emissions control plan in
accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.9591.
(b) You must submit to the Administrator the fugitive dust
emissions control plan in accordance with the requirements in Sec.
63.9591.
(c) You must implement each control practice according to the
procedures specified in your fugitive dust emissions control plan.
[[Page 61895]]
Sec. 63.9625 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
For each air pollution control device subject to operating limits
in Sec. 63.9590(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you
meet all of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section.
(a) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plan for air
pollution control devices in accordance with Sec. 63.9600(b).
(b) You have operated each air pollution control device according
to the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan.
(c) You have submitted a notification of compliance status
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9640(e).
(d) You have prepared a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance
with Sec. 63.9632(b).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
continued compliance with the ore crushing and handling emission limits
in Table 1 to this subpart according to the schedule developed by your
permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V
permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and
schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph (e) of this
section, to the permitting authority for approval.
(b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks
associated with indurating furnaces to demonstrate continued compliance
with the indurating furnace emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart
according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and
shown in your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-
year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must
submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, to the permitting authority
for approval. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, the
performance tests for all stacks associated with that indurating
furnace must be conducted within a reasonable period of time, such that
the indurating furnace operating characteristics remain representative
for the duration of the stack tests.
(c) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
continued compliance with the finished pellet handling emission limits
in Table 1 to this subpart according to the schedule developed by your
permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V
permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and
schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph (e) of this
section, to the permitting authority for approval.
(d) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks
associated with ore dryers to demonstrate continued compliance with the
ore dryer emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart according to the
schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title
V permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a
testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in
paragraph (e) of this section, to the permitting authority for
approval. For ore dryers with multiple stacks, the performance tests
for all stacks associated with an ore dryer must be conducted within a
reasonable period of time, such that the ore dryer operating
characteristics remain representative for the duration of the stack
tests.
(e) If your plant does not have a title V permit, you must submit a
testing plan for subsequent performance tests as required in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section. This testing plan must be submitted to
the Administrator on or before the compliance date that is specified in
Sec. 63.9583. The testing plan must contain the information specified
in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. You must maintain a
current copy of the testing plan onsite, and it must be available for
inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
(1) A list of all emission units.
(2) A schedule indicating when you will conduct subsequent
performance tests for particulate matter for each of the emission
units.
Sec. 63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate matter
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate,
and maintain a bag leak detection system to monitor the relative change
in particulate matter loadings according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9632(a), and conduct inspections at their specified frequencies
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range.
(2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply of pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspections or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for
shaker-type baghouses that have self-tensioning (spring-loaded)
devices.
(7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for each
wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(1), you must install,
operate, and maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the daily average pressure drop and
daily average scrubber water flow rate according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.9633.
(c) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the scrubber water
flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure drop operating limits
in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(b) through (e) and
monitor the daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily
average fan amperage or the daily average pressure drop according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
(d) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the
operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3), you must follow the monitoring
requirements in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is the 6-minute
average opacity of emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(i),
you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9632(f) and monitor the 6-minute average
opacity of emissions exiting each control device stack according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
[[Page 61896]]
(2) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is average
secondary voltage and average secondary current for each dry
electrostatic precipitator field in accordance with Sec.
63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(b) through (e) and
monitor the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary
current according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
(e) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to the
operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(4), you must install, operate, and
maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(b)
through (e) and monitor the daily average secondary voltage, daily
average stack outlet temperature, and daily average water flow rate
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
(f) If you use any air pollution control device other than a
baghouse, wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, or wet
electrostatic precipitator, you must submit a site-specific monitoring
plan that includes the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of
this section. The monitoring plan is subject to approval by the
Administrator. You must maintain a current copy of the monitoring plan
onsite, and it must be available for inspection upon request. You must
keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(1) A description of the device.
(2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec. 63.9621
verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of
particulate matter to the atmosphere to the levels required by this
subpart.
(3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required in Sec.
63.9600(b).
(4) Appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emission
limitation(s).
Sec. 63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitoring equipment?
(a) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack, applied to meet any particulate
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate,
and maintain a bag leak detection system according to the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less.
(2) The system must provide output of relative changes in
particulate matter loadings.
(3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm
level set point established according to paragraph (a)(4) of this
section. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel.
(4) For each bag leak detection system, you must develop and submit
to the Administrator for approval, a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the items identified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v) of
this section. For each bag leak detection system that operates based on
the triboelectric effect, the monitoring plan shall be consistent with
the recommendations contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015). This document is available on the EPA's
Technology Transfer Network at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.pdf (Adobe Acrobat version) or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.wpd
n/emc/cem/tribo.wpd
(WordPerfect version). You must operate and maintain the bag leak
detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all
times. The plan shall describe all of the items in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)
through (v) 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.
(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 shall be recorded and
stored.
(5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time (if applicable).
(6) Following initial adjustment, do not adjust averaging period,
alarm set point, or alarm delay time, without approval from the
Administrator except as provided for in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this
section.
(i) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the bag
leak detection system to account for seasonal effects, including
temperature and humidity, according to the procedures identified in the
site-specific monitoring plan required under paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
(ii) [Reserved]
(7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(8) The bag leak detector sensor must be installed downstream of
the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
(b) For each CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631, you must develop and
make available for inspection upon request by the permitting authority
a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Installation of the CPMS sampling probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected emission unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device).
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and
reduction system.
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and
(8).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d).
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(7) Corrective action procedures that you will follow in the event
an air pollution control device, except for a baghouse, exceeds an
established operating limit as required in Sec. 63.9600(b)(3).
(c) Unless otherwise specified, each CPMS must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period and must have valid data for at least
95 percent of every daily averaging period.
(2) Each CPMS must determine and record the daily average of all
recorded readings.
(d) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(e) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation
[[Page 61897]]
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(f) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity
operating limit in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(i), you must install, operate,
and maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation
of each COMS according to Sec. 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
(2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec. 63.8. At a
minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero
alignment of each COMS.
(3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to Sec.
63.8(e) and your quality control program. You must also identify
periods the COMS is out of control, including any periods that the COMS
fails to pass a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly
performance audit, or annual zero alignment audit.
(4) You must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity for
periods during which the COMS is not out of control.
Sec. 63.9633 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times an affected source is operating.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, or to fulfill a minimum data availability
requirement. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing compliance.
(c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not considered malfunctions.
Sec. 63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
(b) For ore crushing and handling affected sources and finished
pellet handling affected sources, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) The flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for
all ore crushing and handling emission units and for all finished
pellet handling emission units must be maintained at or below the
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) You must conduct subsequent performance tests for emission
units in the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling
affected sources following the schedule in your title V permit. If a
title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct subsequent
performance tests according to a testing plan approved by the
Administrator or delegated authority.
(3) For emission units not selected for initial performance testing
and defined within a group of similar emission units in accordance with
Sec. 63.9620(e), you must calculate the daily average value of each
operating parameter for the similar air pollution control device
applied to each similar emission unit within a defined group using
Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC03.004
Where:
Pk = Daily average operating parameter value for all
emission units within group ``k'';
Pi = Daily average parametric monitoring parameter value
corresponding to emission unit ``i'' within group ``k''; and
n = Total number of emission units within group, including emission
units that have been selected for performance tests and those that
have not been selected for performance tests.
(c) For ore dryers and indurating furnaces, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) The flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for
all stacks from the ore dryer or indurating furnace must be maintained
at or below the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) For ore dryers, you must conduct subsequent performance tests
following the schedule in your title V permit. For indurating furnaces,
you must conduct subsequent performance tests following the schedule in
your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-year permit
term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct
subsequent performance tests according to a testing plan approved by
the Administrator or delegated authority.
(d) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) Maintaining records of the time you initiated corrective action
in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm, the corrective
action(s) taken, and the date on which corrective action was completed.
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9631(a)(1) through (8) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection
system beyond the limits specified in your site-specific monitoring
plan, you must include a copy of the required written certification by
a responsible official in the next semiannual compliance report.
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, for each
wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(1), you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Maintaining the daily average pressure drop and daily average
scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial or subsequent performance test.
(2) Operating and maintaining each wet scrubber CPMS according to
Sec. 63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements.
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec. 63.9632(c) and recording
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(4) If the daily average pressure drop or daily average scrubber
water flow rate is below the operating limits established for a
corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you
must then follow the corrective action
[[Page 61898]]
procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
(f) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the operating limits
for scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure
drop in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance
by completing the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Maintaining the daily average scrubber water flow rate and
either the daily average fan amperage or the daily average pressure
drop at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or
subsequent performance test.
(2) Operating and maintaining each dynamic wet scrubber CPMS
according to Sec. 63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to
document conformance with these requirements.
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubber water flow
rate and either fan amperage or pressure drop according to Sec.
63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(4) If the daily average scrubber water flow rate, daily average
fan amperage, or daily average pressure drop is below the operating
limits established for a corresponding emission unit or group of
similar emission units, you must then follow the corrective action
procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
(g) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to operating
limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of
this section.
(1) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator
is a 6-minute average opacity of emissions value, then you must follow
the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Maintaining the 6-minute average opacity of emissions at or
below the maximum level established during the initial or subsequent
performance test.
(ii) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data
according to Sec. 63.9632(f).
(iii) If the 6-minute average opacity of emissions is above the
operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit, you
must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of
this section.
(2) If the operating limit for your dry electrostatic precipitator
is the daily average secondary voltage and daily average secondary
current for each field, then you must follow the requirements in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage or daily
average secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels
established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
(ii) Operating and maintaining each dry electrostatic precipitator
CPMS according to Sec. 63.9632(b) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage
or secondary current for each field according to Sec. 63.9632(c) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(iv) If the daily average secondary voltage or daily average
secondary current for each field is below the operating limits
established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the
corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
(h) For each wet electrostatic precipitator subject to the
operating limits for secondary voltage, stack outlet temperature, and
water flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage, daily average
secondary current, and daily average scrubber water flow rate for each
field at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or
subsequent performance test. Maintaining the daily average stack outlet
temperature at or below the maximum levels established during the
initial or subsequent performance test.
(2) Operating and maintaining each wet electrostatic precipitator
CPMS according to Sec. 63.9632(b) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage,
stack outlet temperature, and water flow rate according to Sec.
63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(4) If the daily average secondary voltage, stack outlet
temperature, or water flow rate does not meet the operating limits
established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the
corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of this section.
(i) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry electrostatic precipitator, wet
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse, you must submit a site-
specific monitoring plan in accordance with Sec. 63.9631(f). The site-
specific monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures for
demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the corresponding
operating limits.
(j) If the daily average operating parameter value for an emission
unit or group of similar emission units does not meet the corresponding
established operating limit, you must then follow the procedures in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must initiate and complete initial corrective action within
10 calendar days and demonstrate that the initial corrective action was
successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue
to monitor and record all required operating parameters for equipment
that remains in operation. After 10 calendar days, measure and record
the daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or
group of similar emission units on which corrective action was taken.
After the initial corrective action, if the daily average operating
parameter value for the emission unit or group of similar emission
units meets the operating limit established for the corresponding unit
or group, then the corrective action was successful and the emission
unit or group of similar emission units is in compliance with the
established operating limits.
(2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (j)(1)
of this section was not successful, then you must complete additional
corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the
subsequent corrective action was successful. During any period of
corrective action, you must continue to monitor and record all required
operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. After the
second set of 10 calendar days allowed to implement corrective action,
you must again measure and record the daily average operating parameter
value for the emission unit or group of similar emission units. If the
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in
compliance with the established operating limits.
(3) If the second attempt at corrective action required in
paragraph (j)(2) of this section was not successful, then you must
repeat the procedures of paragraph (j)(2) of this section until the
corrective action is successful. If the
[[Page 61899]]
third attempt at corrective action is unsuccessful, you must conduct
another performance test in accordance with the procedures in Sec.
63.9622(f) and report to the Administrator as a deviation the third
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action.
(4) After the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action, you
must submit to the Administrator the written report required in
paragraph (j)(3) of this section within 5 calendar days after the third
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action. This report must notify the
Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types of
corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in the
deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting
operating limits.
Sec. 63.9635 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standard requirements in Sec. 63.9591 by operating in
accordance with your fugitive dust emissions control plan at all times.
(b) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions
control plan required in Sec. 63.9591 onsite and it must be available
for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each control device subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.9590(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.9600(b) by
completing the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device in
accordance with Sec. 63.9600(b)(1) and recording all information
needed to document conformance with these requirements;
(2) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak
detection system alarm in accordance with Sec. 63.9600(b)(2) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements;
(3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a CPMS when you
exceed an established operating limit for an air pollution control
device except for a baghouse in accordance with Sec. 63.9600(b)(3) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements; and
(4) Implementing and maintaining site-specific good combustion
practices for each indurating furnace in accordance with Sec.
63.9600(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements.
(b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and
maintenance plan required in Sec. 63.9600(b) onsite, and it must be
available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the
life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies
to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. You also must report
each instance in which you did not meet the work practice standards in
Sec. 63.9591 and each instance in which you did not meet each
operation and maintenance requirement in Sec. 63.9600 that applies to
you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart. These deviations must be reported in accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.9641.
(b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you by the
specified dates.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before October 30, 2003, you must submit your initial
notification no later than 120 calendar days after October 30, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new
affected source on or after October 30, 2003, you must submit your
initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after you become
subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of
compliance status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). The initial
notification of compliance status must be submitted by the dates
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.9583 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in
Sec. 63.9583.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your
first compliance report is due.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through
[[Page 61900]]
June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December
31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and,
as applicable, in paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.9634 through 63.9636 that apply to you,
then provide a statement that there were no deviations from the
emission limitations, work practice standards, or operation and
maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or COMS) was out-of-control as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), then provide a statement that there were no periods
during which a continuous monitoring system was out-of-control during
the reporting period.
(7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Table 1 to
this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you are not using
a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply
with an emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section and the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause) as applicable, and the corrective action
taken.
(8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.
63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown,
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and
other unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source
operating time during the reporting period.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or
40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this
subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report for an affected source along with, or as part of, the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the
required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation
or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected
source to your permitting authority.
(e) Immediate corrective action report. If you had three
unsuccessful attempts of applying corrective action as described in
Sec. 63.9634(j) on an emission unit or group of emission units, then
you must submit an immediate corrective action report. Within 5
calendar days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective
action, you must submit to the Administrator a written report in
accordance with Sec. 63.9634(j)(3) and (4). This report must notify
the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types
of corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in
the deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting
operating limits.
Sec. 63.9642 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
[[Page 61901]]
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as
required in Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
(3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(c) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec. 63.9634
through 63.9636 to show continuous compliance with each emission
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement that applies to you.
Sec. 63.9643 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.9651 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or
a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If
the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to
find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the Administrator of the EPA and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of non-opacity emission limitations and work practice
standards under Sec. 63.6(h)(9) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows.
Affected source means each new or existing ore crushing and
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, or finished pellet
handling operation, at your taconite iron ore processing plant.
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering,
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Conveyor belt transfer point means a point in the conveying
operation where the taconite ore or taconite pellets are transferred to
or from a conveyor belt, except where the taconite ore or taconite
pellets are being transferred to a bin or stockpile.
Crusher means a machine used to crush taconite ore and includes
feeders or conveyors located immediately below the crushing surfaces.
Crushers include, but are not limited to, gyratory crushers and cone
crushers.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
Dynamic wet scrubber means an air emissions control device which
utilizes a mechanically powered fan to cause contact between the
process exhaust gas stream and the scrubbing liquid which are
introduced concurrently into the fan inlet.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or
operating limit.
Finished pellet handling means the transfer of fired taconite
pellets from the indurating furnace to the finished pellet stockpiles
at the plant. Finished pellet handling includes, but is not limited to,
furnace discharge or grate discharge, and finished pellet screening,
transfer, and storage. The atmospheric pellet cooler vent stack and
gravity conveyor gallery vents designed to remove heat and water vapor
from the structure are not included as a part of the finished pellet
handling affected source.
Fugitive dust emission source means a stationary source from which
particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to wind or mechanical
inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Stockpiles (includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of
uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets);
(2) Material transfer points;
(3) Plant roadways;
(4) Tailings basins;
(5) Pellet loading areas; and
(6) Yard areas.
Grate feed means the transfer of unfired taconite pellets from the
pelletizer into the indurating furnace.
Grate kiln indurating furnace means a furnace system that consists
of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate
kiln indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate feed
conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling grate
and ends where the hardened pellets exit the cooler. The atmospheric
pellet cooler vent stack is not included as part of the grate kiln
indurating furnace.
Indurating means the process whereby unfired taconite pellets,
called green balls, are hardened at high
[[Page 61902]]
temperature in an indurating furnace. Types of indurating furnaces
include straight grate indurating furnaces and grate kiln indurating
furnaces.
Ore crushing and handling means the process whereby dry taconite
ore is crushed and screened. Ore crushing and handling includes, but is
not limited to, all dry crushing operations (e.g., primary, secondary,
and tertiary crushing), dry ore conveyance and transfer points, dry ore
classification and screening, dry ore storage and stockpiling, dry
milling, dry cobbing (i.e., dry magnetic separation), and the grate
feed. Ore crushing and handling specifically excludes any operations
where the dry crushed ore is saturated with water, such as wet milling
and wet magnetic separation.
Ore dryer means a rotary dryer that repeatedly tumbles wet taconite
ore concentrate through a heated air stream to reduce the amount of
entrained moisture in the taconite ore concentrate.
Pellet cooler vent stacks means atmospheric vents in the cooler
section of the grate kiln indurating furnace that exhaust cooling air
that is not returned for recuperation. Pellet cooler vent stacks are
not to be confused with the cooler discharge stack, which is in the
pellet loadout or dumping area.
Pellet loading area means that portion of a taconite iron ore
processing plant where taconite pellets are loaded into trucks or
railcars.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.
63.2.
Rod-deck venturi scrubber means a wet scrubber emission control
device in which the inlet air flows through a bed of parallel metal
pipes spaced apart to produce a series of parallel venturi throats.
Screen 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).
Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins and
hoppers) of taconite ore or taconite pellets prior to further
processing or loading.
Straight grate indurating furnace means a furnace system that
consists of a traveling grate that carries the taconite pellets through
different furnace temperature zones. In the straight grate indurating
furnace a layer of fired pellets, called the hearth layer, is placed on
the traveling grate prior to the addition of unfired pellets. The
straight grate indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate
feed conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling
grate and ends where the hardened pellets drop off of the traveling
grate.
Taconite iron ore processing means the separation and concentration
of iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore, to produce taconite
pellets.
Taconite ore means a low-grade iron ore suitable for concentration
of magnetite or hematite by fine grinding and magnetic or flotation
treatment, from which pellets containing iron can be produced.
Tailings basin means a natural or artificial impoundment in which
gangue or other refuse material resulting from the washing,
concentration or treatment of ground taconite iron ore is confined.
Wet grinding and milling means the process whereby wet taconite ore
is finely ground using rod and/or ball mills.
Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
As required in Sec. 63.9590(a), you must comply with each
applicable emission limit in the following table:
Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63.--Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then you must comply with the
flow-weighted mean
concentration of particulate
matter discharged to the
If your affected source is . . . and the affected source is categorized as atmosphere from the affected
. . . source, as determined using
the procedures in Sec.
63.9621(b), such that you
must not exceed . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ore crushing and handling emission Existing.................................. 0.008 grains per dry standard
units. cubic foot (gr/dscf).
New....................................... 0.005 gr/dscf.
2. Straight grate indurating furnace Existing.................................. 0.01 gr/dscf.
processing magnetite. New....................................... 0.006 gr/dscf.
3. Grate kiln indurating furnace Existing.................................. 0.01 gr/dscf.
processing magnetite. New....................................... 0.006 gr/dscf.
4. Grate kiln indurating furnace Existing.................................. 0.03 gr/dscf.
processing hematite. New....................................... 0.018 gr/dscf.
5. Finished pellet handling emission Existing.................................. 0.008 gr/dscf.
units. New....................................... 0.005 gr/dscf.
6. Ore dryer......................... Existing.................................. 0.052 gr/dscf.
New....................................... 0.025 gr/dscf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.9650, you must comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in
the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to Subpart RRRRR Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.................... Applicability.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.2.................... Definitions............ Yes.
Sec. 63.3.................... Units and Abbreviations Yes.
Sec. 63.4.................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes.
Sec. 63.5.................... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
[[Page 61903]]
Sec. 63.6(a)-(g)............. Compliance With Yes.
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(h)................. Compliance With Opacity No............................ Subpart RRRRR does not
and Visible Emission contain opacity and
(VE) Standards. VE standards.
Sec. 63.6(i), (j)............ Extension of Compliance Yes.
and Presidential
Compliance Extension.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).......... Applicability and No............................ Subpart RRRRR
Performance Test Dates. specifies performance
test applicability
and dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)..... Performance Testing Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), Monitoring Requirements Yes........................... Continuous monitoring
(c)(1)-(3), (c)(5)-(8), (d), system (CMS)
(e), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4). requirements in Sec.
63.8(c)(5) and (6)
apply only to COMS
for dry electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. Additional Monitoring No............................ Subpart RRRRR does not
Requirements for require flares.
Control Devices in
Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. Continuous Monitoring No............................ Subpart RRRRR
System Requirements. specifies
requirements for
operation of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).............. Relative Accuracy Test No............................ Subpart RRRRR does not
Alternative (RATA). require continuous
emission monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5).............. Data Reduction......... No............................ Subpart RRRRR
specifies data
reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9.................... Notification Yes........................... Additional
Requirements. notifications for CMS
in Sec. 63.9(g)
apply to COMS for dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1)- Recordkeeping and Yes........................... Additional records for
(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec.
(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15), 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(d)(1)-(2), (d)(4)-(5), (e), (15), and reports in
(f). Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-
(2) apply only to
COMS for dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....... CMS Records for RATA No............................ Subpart RRRRR doesn't
Alternative. require continuous
emission monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)......... Records of Excess No............................ Subpart RRRRR
Emissions and specifies record
Parameter Monitoring requirements.
Exceedances for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. Reporting opacity or VE No............................ Subpart RRRRR does not
observations. have opacity and VE
standards.
Sec. 63.11................... Control Device No............................ Subpart RRRRR does not
Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12................... State Authority and Yes.
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13-Sec. 63.15...... Addresses, Yes.
Incorporation by
Reference,
Availability of
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 03-22309 Filed 10-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P