P.1 

OAR Box 1110 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

9) IV-H-4 

Docket Number: 

A-82-39 

Printed 4/14/2008 1:23:55 PM Sheet 9 of 156 
P.2 

J*0"

nt% 

f'A'x. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ll/^U-^A. 

I ^MR^7 J Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ' " n~"*r 

yvKa* / Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

^PROt ^ 

December 23, 1988 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Red Border Promulgation Package for NSPS for Calciners 

and Dryers in Mineral Industries 

FROM: Shirley Tabler?^^% 4U&LStandards Development Branch (MD-13) 

TO: The Docket 

The attached promulgation package for the New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral 

Industries was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

for review under Executive Order 12291. 

Attachment • •~;C\v^0^°^ 
P.3 

6560-50 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR PART 60 

[AD-FRL- ] 

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 

CALCINERS AND DRYERS IN MINERAL INDUSTRIES 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency 

ACTION: Final Rule 

SUMMARY: Standards of performance for calciners and dryers in mineral 

industries were proposed in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 23, 1986 (51 FR 

15438). This action promulgates standards of performance for calciners 

and dryers in the mineral industries. These standards implement Section 

111 of the Clean Air Act and are based on the Administrator's determination 

that calciners and dryers in the mineral industries cause or contribute 

significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. The intended effect of these standards 

is to require all new, modified, or reconstructed calciners and dryers to 

achieve emission levels that reflect the best demonstrated system of 

continuous emission reduction, considering costs, nonair quality health, 

and environmental and energy impacts. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: (date of publication in the FEDERAL 

REGISTER). Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, judicial review 

of this new source performance standard (NSPS) is available only by the 

filing of a petition for review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this 

rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the requirements that 
P.4 

are the subject of today's notice may not be challenged later in civil 

or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. 

ADDRESSES: Background Information Document. The background information 

document (BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained from the 

U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to "Calciners and Dryers 

in Mineral Industries—Background Information for the Promulgated 

Standards," EPA 450/3-85-025b. The BID contains (1) a summary of all 

the public comments made on the proposed standards and the Administrator's 

response to comments; (2) a summary of the changes made to the regulation 

since proposal; and (3) the final Environmental Impact Statement which 

summarizes the impacts of the standards. 

Docket. A docket, number A-82-39, containing information considered by EPA 

in development of the promulgated standards, is available for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's Central 

Docket Section (LE-131), South Conference Center, Room 4, 401 M Street, S.W., 

Washington, D. C. 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Doug Bell or Ms. Shirley Tabler, 

telephone (919) 541-5256, concerning regulatory decisions. Mr. Kenneth Durkee, 

telephone (919) 541-5425, concerning technical aspects of the industry and 

control technologies. The address for the above contacts is Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. THE STANDARDS 

Standards of performance for new sources established under Section 111 

of the Clean Air Act reflect: 

% 
P.5 

... application of the best technological system of continuous 

emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost 

of achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately demonstrated [Section 111(a)(1)]. 

For convenience, this will be referred to as "best demonstrated 

technology" or "BDT." 

The promulgated standards apply to new, modified, and reconstructed 

calciners and dryers at plants that process or produce any of the following 

minerals or their concentrates: alumina, ball clay, bentonite, diatomite, 

feldspar, fire clay, fuller's earth, gypsum, industrial sand, kaolin, 

lightweight aggregate, magnesium compounds, perlite, roofing granules, 

talc, titanium dioxide, and vermiculite. 

The affected facility for mineral processing plants in each of the 

industries listed above would be each calciner and each dryer. The types 

of dryers to which the standards apply include: rotary (direct), rotary 

(indirect), fluid bed, vibrating grate, flash, and spray dryers. The 

types of calciners to which the standards apply include: rotary, flash, 

and kettle calciners; multiple hearth furnaces; and expansion furnaces. 

The following processes and process units used at mineral processing 

plants would not be regulated under this NSPS: vertical shaft kilns in 

the magnesium compounds industry; the chlorination-oxidation process in 

the titanium dioxide industry; coating kilns, mixers, and aerators in the 

roofing granules industry; and tunnel kilns, tunnel dryers, apron dryers, 

and grinding equipment that also dries the process material used in any of 

the 17 mineral industries. In addition, for the brick and related clay 

products industry only the calcining and drying of raw materials prior to 
P.6 

firing of the brick are covered because these are the only major sources of 

air pollution in that industry that fall under this generic source category. 

The standards are based on emission levels achievable using well designed 

and operated fabric filters, wet scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators 

(ESPs). All of these systems are considered BDT for controlling emissions 

from calciners and dryers in this source category. The promulgated standards 

limit stack emissions of particulate matter from affected facilities. The 

standards for stack emissions limit the concentration of particulate matter 

to 0.09 gram per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) [0.04 grain per dry 

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)] for calciners and for calciners and dryers 

installed in series. For dryers, the concentration of particulate matter 

is limited to 0.057 g/dscm (0.025 gr/dscf). 

Stack emissions would also be limited to 10 percent opacity for process 

units controlled with dry control devices. The visible emissions standard 

would not apply to affected facilities that use wet scrubbers to control 

emissions. Instead, monitoring and reporting of the operating parameters of 

wet scrubbers (pressure drop and liquid flow rate) would be required to 

indicate that the control device is properly operated and maintained on a 

routine basis. 

When a dry control device (e.g., baghouse or ESP) is used to comply 

with the calciner or dryer mass emissions standard, the owners or operators 

of the units are required to install a Continuous Opacity Monitoring System 

(C0MS) except as noted below. Owners or operators of ball clay vibrating 

grate dryers, bentonite rotary dryers, diatomite flash dryers, diatomite 

rotary calciners, feldspar rotary dryers, fire clay rotary dryers, industrial sand fluid bed dryers, kaolin rotary calciners, perlite rotary dryers, 

roofing granules fluid bed dryers, roofing granules rotary dryers, talc 
P.7 

rotary calciners, titanium dioxide fluid bed dryers, titanium dioxide 

spray dryers, vermiculite fluid bed dryers, or vermiculite rotary dryers 

who use a dry control device may have a certified visible emissions 

observer measure and record the opacity of the visible emissions daily in 

lieu of using a COMS. Owners or operators of ball clay rotary dryers, 

diatomite rotary dryers, feldspar fluid bed dryers, fuller's earth rotary 

dryers, gypsum rotary dryers, gypsum flash calciners, gypsum kettle 

calciners, industrial sand rotary dryers, kaolin rotary dryers, kaolin 

multiple hearth furnaces, perlite expansion furnaces, talc flash dryers, 

talc rotary dryers, titanium dioxide direct or indirect rotary dryers or 

vermiculite expansion furnaces who use a dry control device are exempt 

from the monitoring requirements. 

When a wet scrubber is used to comply with the calciner or dryer mass 

emission standard, the owner or operator would be required to install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously 

measure and record the pressure loss of the gas stream through the scrubber 

and the scrubbing liquid flow rate to the scrubber. The pressure loss 

monitoring device must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 

1 inch of water column (in. W.C.) gauge pressure. The liquid flow rate monitoring device must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 

5 percent of design scrubbing liquid flow rate. 

Method 5 will be used to determine compliance with the stack concentration 

standard. Method 9 and the procedures in Section 60.11 will be used to measure 

the opacity of stack emissions from dry control devices. 

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The standards will reduce projected nationwide particulate emissions 

from new, modified, and reconstructed calciners and dryers in the mineral 
P.8 

industries in the fifth year following promulgation of the standards by 

7,900 megagrams (Mg) (8,800 tons) compared to emissions allowed under 

typical State process weight regulations. This represents a 78 percent 

reduction in particulate matter emissions from these sources. 

The nationwide increase in solid waste (as a sludge containing 70 

percent moisture) in the fifth year would be 7,500 Mg (8,300 tons) compared 

to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) level. The only solid waste impacts 

would be from the solids in the sludge produced by wet scrubbers. Typically, 

a particulate-contaminated water stream is pumped to a settling pond on the 

site. The solids settle in the pond, and the water is recirculated to the 

scrubber. When solids fill the pond, the pond could be dredged and the 

solids could be landfiUed, or a new pond could be constructed. Solid wastes 

from wet scrubbers used to control emissions from dryers and calciners are 

not classified as hazardous wastes under the regulations adopted to implement 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The standards would result in 

negligible adverse water, noise, and radiation impacts. 

III. ENERGY IMPACTS 

In the fifth year after the NSPS would become applicable, the maximum 

increase in energy consumption for mineral calciner and dryer control 

devices would be 17,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) compared to the SIP level of 

control for typical facilities. This incremental energy requirement of 

the NSPS to operate control equipment would be less than 1 percent of the 

energy demands to operate the calciner and dryer process units. 

IV. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Based on industry growth projections, it is estimated that 62 new 

calciners and 32 new dryers will be installed in the first 5 years that 

the NSPS is in effect. In addition, during this same time period it is 
P.9 

expected that 60 calciners and 44 dryers will be replaced at existing 

facilities at the end of their useful lives. 

The total nationwide incremental capital cost of pollution control 

equipment in the fifth year would range from $2.2 to $3.0 million under the 

standards compared to the SIP level. The variation in costs is due to those 

process units for which either a fabric filter or a wet scrubber could be 

installed. If only wet scrubbers were installed, the capital cost of 

installation would be lower than if only fabric filters were installed. 

For the 104 new process units that are projected in the first 5 years 

of the NSPS to replace existing units at the end of their useful lives, 

capital control device costs would increase over baseline levels in 23 

percent of the cases as a result of upgrading the design of the control 

devices (e.g., increased pressure drop for a wet scrubber). In 11 percent 

of the cases, the existing wet scrubber control devices are operated at 

pressure drops that achieve both the SIP and NSPS emission limits, and, 

therefore, no incremental capital costs would be incurred as a result of the 

NSPS. In 66 percent of the cases, fabric filters installed to meet SIP 

emission limits would achieve the NSPS emission limit with improved operation 

and maintenance. Therefore, there is no capital cost increase for fabric 

filter control devices. 

The total nationwide incremental annualized cost of pollution control 

equipment in the fifth year would range from $0.7 to $1.0 million. If 

only wet scrubbers were installed where an option exists, the annualized 

costs would be higher than if only fabric filters were installed because 

of the additional energy costs associated with operating a scrubber and 

the product recovery credits associated with operating a fabric filter. 
P.10 

The annualized control device costs for the 104 projected process 

units would increase as a result of improved operation and maintenance of 

fabric filters (66 percent of the cases) or as a result of upgrading the 

design of a wet scrubber or ESP (23 percent of the cases). As with the 

capital costs, annualized control costs would not change in 11 percent of 

the cases where wet scrubbers achieve both the SIP and NSPS emission limits. 

The projected growth and profitability of the 17 mineral industries are 

not expected to be affected adversely by implementation of the NSPS. For 

15 of the 17 industries included in the analysis, the product price increases 

that would be required as a result of the NSPS would typically be less than 

0.5 percent. Typical size facilities in the fire clay and lightweight 

aggregate industries would experience product price increases of 1.00 and 

1.75 percent, respectively, as a result of implementation of the NSPS. 

A detailed discussion of the costs and economic impacts associated 

with the NSPS is contained in the preamble (51 FR 15438, April 23, 1986) 

and BID (EPA 450/3-85-025a) for the proposed standards. 

V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Prior to proposal of the standards, interested parties were advised by 

public notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER (50 FR 31025, July 31, 1985) of a meeting 

of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee to discuss 

the standards for calciners and dryers in mineral industries recommended for 

proposal. The meeting was held on September 17, 1985. The meeting was open 

to the public and each attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the 

standards recommended for proposal. The proposed standards were published 

in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 23, 1986 (51 FR 15438). 

The preamble to the proposed standards discussed the availability of 

the BID, "Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries - Background Information 

& 8 
P.11 

for Proposed Standards" (EPA-450/3-85-025a), which described in detail the 

regulatory alternatives considered and the impacts of those alternatives. 

Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal and when requested, 

copies of the BID were distributed to interested parties. To provide 

interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, 

or arguments concerning the proposed standards, a public hearing was held 

on June 9, 1986, at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The hearing 

was open to the public and each attendee was given an opportunity to 

comment on the proposed standards. The public comment period was from 

April 23, 1986, to July 7, 1986. 

Fourteen comment letters were received and 12 interested parties 

testified at the public hearing concerning issues relative to the proposed 

standards. The comments have been carefully considered and, where determined 

to be appropriate by the Administrator, changes have been made in the 

proposed standards. 

VI. SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS 

Comments on the proposed standards were received from industry, trade 

associations, and State air pollution control agencies. A detailed discussion of these comments and responses can be found in the BID, which is 

referred to in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The summary of comments 

and responses in the BID serves as the basis for the revisions which have been 

made to the standards between proposal and promulgation. 

In response to the public comments and as a result of EPA's reevaluation, 

several changes have been made to the standards since proposal. The definition 

of "mineral processing plant" in the standards was revised to provide that a 

new, modified, or reconstructed dryer or calciner which processes a mixture 

of minerals is covered by the standards if the majority of the material being 

£ 9 
P.12 

processed (greater than 50 percent) is any of the following minerals or a 

combination of these minerals: alumina, ball clay, bentonite, diatomite, 

feldspar, fire clay, fuller's earth, gypsum, industrial sand, kaolin, 

lightweight aggregate, magnesium compounds, perlite, roofing granules, 

talc, titanium dioxide, and vermiculite. 

Also, changes have been made with regard to the opacity monitoring 

requirements. When a dry control device (e.g., baghouse or ESP) is used 

to comply with the calciner or dryer mass emissions standard, the owners 

or operators of the units are required to install a COMS, except as 

discussed previously under "Section I" of this notice. 

A technical correction was made to the final standards to clarify 

the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for facilities which are 

controlled by wet scrubbers. In addition, the semiannual recalibration 

requirements for monitoring devices in Section 60.734 have been deleted. 

The only requirement for COMS's intended for operation and maintenance 

are daily zero and span checks. 

Section 60.735(b) was added to clarify that each owner or operator 

who uses a wet scrubber to comply with the standards shall record daily the 

arithmetic average over a 2-hour period of both the change in pressure of 

the gas stream across the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flowrate. 

The major comments and responses are summarized in this preamble. Most 

of the comment letters contained multiple comments. The comments have been 

divided into the following areas: Need for Regulation of Source Category, 

Control Technology, Economic Impact, Selection of Emission Limits, and 

Monitoring Requirements. 

Need for Regulation of Source Category 

Several commenters questioned EPA's determination that calciners and 

$"• 1 0 
P.13 

dryers in mineral industries are sources of emissions that cause, or 

contribute significantly to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated 

to endanger public health and welfare. 

There are six source categories currently listed on the NSPS priority 

list (August 21, 1979, 44 FR 49225; revised January 8, 1982, 47 FR 950) that 

include all 17 mineral industries being covered by this NSPS. Number 

13 on the priority list is Nonmetallic Mineral Processing, which includes 

sand and gravel, clay (ball clay, bentonite, fuller's earth, kaolin), 

talc, feldspar, diatomite, roofing granules, and vermiculite. Number 14 

on the priority list, Metallic Mineral Processing, includes aluminum, 

magnesium compounds, and titanium dioxide. The lightweight aggregate 

(LWA) industry (clay, shale, slate) is Number 32 on the NSPS priority 

list. Numbers 34, 46, and 54 on the list are gypsum, brick and related 

clay products (fire clay), and perlite, respectively. The priority list 

was promulgated under Section 111(f) of the Clean Air Act. Source categories 

were included on the list if, in the Administrator's judgment, they cause or 

significantly contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated 

to endanger public health or welfare. Source categories were ranked in order 

of priority according to (1) quantity of emissions; (2) potential impact on 

health and welfare; and (3) mobility and competitive nature of the source 

category. 

These industries were included on the NSPS priority list because of 

their emissions of particulate matter. Particulate matter is a criteria 

pollutant which has been determined to be an air pollutant that may endanger 

public health and welfare and for which a national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) has been promulgated (40 CFR 50.6, 50.7). Fuller's earth, 

alumina, ball clay, bentonite, fire clay, kaolin, magnesite, and other dusts 

i n 
P.M 

emitted by the industries covered by the NSPS are types of particulate matter. 

The basis for the Administrator's determination that particulate emissions may 

endanger public health and welfare is presented in the rulemaking for setting 

and revising the NAAQS for particulate matter (52 FR 24634, July 1, 1987). 

The main purpose of standards of performance is to require new sources, 

wherever located, to reduce emissions to the level achievable by the best 

technological system of continuous emission reduction considering the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact, and energy requirements (BDT) [Section 111(a)(1)]. Congress recognized 

that establishing such standards would minimize increases in air pollution 

from new sources, thereby improving air quality as the nation's industrial 

base is replaced over the long term. An NSPS thereby serves as a distinct 

means of achieving the Act's goals, supplementing the role played by other 

requirements including Reasonably Available Control Technology requirements 

for existing and new sources within State implementation plans developed for 

the purpose of attaining the NAAQS. 

The existence of other environmental regulations was considered during 

selection of BDT, but their existence does not lead the EPA to conclude 

that standards reflecting better control technology cannot be applied at 

reasonable costs. 

The EPA has considered the emission reductions, costs, and other impacts 

due to emission controls and has concluded that the controls underlying the 

standards are BDT. Under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is therefore 

required to promulgate standards of performance that reflect BDT for this 

category of sources. 

12 
P.15 

Control Technology 

Several commenters perceived that the proposed standards did not allow 

for the use of low-energy wet scrubbers, because control devices with greater 

energy consumption are required to achieve the NSPS limits. They felt that 

energy consumption is an important consideration in the selection of a control 

device and it is inappropriate to regulate against the use of energy-efficient 

devices. 

The EPA does not necessarily recommend the use of a high pressure drop 

scrubber or any other emission control technology to attain and maintain 

compliance with the performance requirements of this standard. Compliance 

with the pollutant concentration limits of this standard can generally be 

achieved by application of one of many alternative emission control strategies and, for a specific case, EPAdoes not require that a particular control 

device be used. 

In several industries, EPA has determined that low energy wet scrubbers 

(pressure drops less than 6 inches of water gauge) can achieve the standard 

based on emission test data presented in Chapter 4 of the proposal BID. The 

pressure drops required for scrubbers to meet the standards were based on the 

most difficult to control case for that particular process unit in each 

industry. Other process units in that industry that are less difficult to 

control should be able to comply with this NSPS using lower pressure drops. 

In all cases, the cost, energy, and economic impacts associated with any increased pressure drop were evaluated and determined to be reasonable by EPA. 

Economic Impact 

Seven commenters stated that the LWA industry is declining due to rising 

energy costs, environmental control costs, and impacts of product substitutes, 

in particular pumice. Two of these commenters felt that the LWA industry 

ts' * 13 
P.16 

would be destroyed by the proposed standards. One commenter stated that, due 

to the additional environmental control costs, many companies would continue 

to operate old, existing sources and eventually the industry would die of old 

age and lack of reinvestment. The commenters suggested that the LWA industry 

either be dropped because of economic reasons or that an alternative control 

level equal to current State regulations be selected. 

One of the commenters stated that the incremental capital cost for a 

lightweight aggregate calciner would be 10 to 20 times higher than the cost 

for other industries based on data in the proposal BID. Also, the commenter 

calculated the annual incremental cost for this industry to be 4-9 times 

that estimated by EPA for other industries. He also stated that the costs 

and product price increases were underestimated by EPA and that these costs 

and price increases would be overly burdensome on the LWA industry considering 

that this industry accounted for only 5.8 percent of the emission reduction 

from this NSPS. 

Another commenter believed that this NSPS would have a doubling effect 

in terms of costs on the LWA industry as the standards also apply to the 

refractory industry whose products are used by the LWA industry. This 

commenter also stated that this NSPS would have a similar cumulative 

economic impact on the fire clay industry as that industry uses both 

dryers and calciners. He also stated that other regulated minerals are 

used in the refractory products and, therefore, price increases could 

approach 3-4 percent and create a major burden on the refractory industry. 

The EPA believes the costs and economic impacts associated with this 

NSPS are reasonable and would not have the disruptive impact on the LWA 

and refractory industries described by the commenters. Many factors such 

as obsolete machinery; newer, more efficient and competitive plants; 

p 1 4 
P.17 

changing market demands; and better substitute products influence a 

corporate decision as to whether it is prudent to invest in new equipment 

or to continue to operate old, existing equipment until operation is no 

longer possible. The product price increases attributable to the NSPS 

are quite small—less than 2 percent for all industries. It is possible 

that various forces external to the costs of NSPS would preclude investment 

in newer plants and equipment. The actual cost, however, resulting from 

this NSPS is very small, and it is unlikely that investment plans would 

be made based on a cost so small. 

With regard to pumice, there is no doubt that pumice is a substitute 

for LWA, although in many cases pumice is an inferior substitute. The 

LWA industry has a far larger share of the total market (LWA plus pumice) 

than pumice. Pumice's share of the market has ranged from 9 to 19 percent 

of the total market with an average of 13 percent. The current levels of 

production of LWA are down from past levels. However, the losses in LWA 

production are due to other factors and not due to gains by pumice as 

pumice's recent share of the total market is similar to its historical 

position. Additionally, pumice production from domestic mines has declined, 

as well as pumice imports, signalling a downturn in the total market for 

both products. The EPA does not believe that the cost of this NSPS will 

lead to a competitive disadvantage for the LWA industry. 

In regard to the incremental cost of an NSPS, it is important to 

establish a common basis. One basis used by EPA is the ratio of the 

incremental cost of the NSPS to the megagrams (Mg) of reduction in particulate 

emissions. The range of incremental cost using this approach for the LWA 

industry, depending on the type and size of the affected facility is $240 

to $1,100/Mg. This is within the range of incremental cost per megagram 

%

 1 5 
P.18 

ratios determined -for the other industries affected by the NSPS. 

Another measure of the effect of incremental cost relates incremental 

cost to the selling price of the product. Based on a product price of 

$22/Mg for the LWA industry and allowing for the increased costs that the 

commenter felt EPA missed, the percent product price increase including 

electrical costs would be 0.4 to 2.4 percent depending on the type of control 

device. These impacts were considered reasonable and not burdensome by EPA. 

Additive effects of the NSPS are possible where an industry utilizes both 

calciners and dryers. In the case of fire clay production, cumulative effects 

could be as high as 2 percent; although effects would typically be 1.6 percent 

using the least costly control device for a rotary dryer. The 2 percent 

estimate is based on the smallest plant size and resultant worst case. 

In estimating the additive effects for refractory products manufacturing, 

the commenter simply added the price increase for LWA and the price increase 

for fire clay. This is an overstatement because refractories are only a 

portion of the cost components for LWA. In order to calculate the actual 

effect, one needs to know the percent of the LWA plant's total expenses that 

is attributable to refractory products. This can then be used to calculate 

how much the plant's total expenses will increase as a result of any 

increase in the price for refractory products. In any case, the increase 

will be less than the 3 to 4 percent estimated by the commenter. Therefore, 

EPA does not believe the NSPS will have a doubling effect in terms of 

cost on the LWA industry. 

Selection of Emission Limits 

One commenter recommended limiting emissions from both calciners and 

dryers to 0.09 g/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf). The commenter felt the proposed 

limit for dryers of 0.057 g/dscm would preclude the use of low energy 

£ 16 
P.19 

scrubbers. Two commenters questioned the fairness and rationale of 

having a more stringent standard (0.057 g/dscm) for dryers alone compared 

with the standard (0.09 g/dscm) for dryers and calciners in series. One 

of the commenters stated that it did not seem equitable because producers 

without calciners but with dryers would be bound by a more stringent standard. 

The NSPS emission limit for calciners and for dryers and calciners in 

series (0.09 g/dscm) is different than for dryers alone (0.057 g/dscm) 

because EPA's emission test data support these limits. As shown in 

Chapter 4 of the proposal BID, all emission test data for dryers were less 

than 0.057 g/dscm except for four dryers controlled by wet scrubbers and 

one controlled by a baghouse which was not operating properly as there was 

leakage through a closed bypass damper. By using EPA's wet scrubber model, 

increases in pressure drop were calculated to ascertain what is required 

to achieve 0.057 g/dscm. All emission test data for calciners were less 

than 0.09 g/dscm except for three calciners controlled by wet scrubbers. 

Again, EPA's wet scrubber model was used to determine the pressure drop 

required to achieve 0.09 g/dscm. Also, emission test results for a flash 

dryer/rotary calciner installed in series were 0.09 g/dscm. 

These limits are based on EPA's judgment of the technology which represents BDT considering the cost, any nonair quality health, and environmental 

impact, and energy requirements. In this case, BDT is a baghouse or high 

energy scrubber although in some instances low energy scrubbers may achieve 

comparable performance. A standard based on low energy scrubbers for all 

sources covered by this NSPS would not reflect BDT or reduce emissions to 

a level achievable by BDT. 

* 
P.20 

Monitoring Requirements 

Several commenters felt that the reasons used by EPA to justify 

continuous opacity monitoring and the associated recordkeeping and reporting 

are inadequate. Two of the commenters stated that broken bags in a collector 

are apparent without the need for a COMS and the increased capital and 

operating costs associated with it are not commensurate with the benefits. 

They felt that this requirement should apply only to major sources of 

pollution. Another commenter stated that his company's experience with 

these monitors has shown them to be expensive, difficult to install, very 

difficult to maintain, and inaccurate. He recommended dropping the 

requirements. 

One commenter stated that the measured moisture content with the flue 

gases from their dryers vary from 7 to 22 percent by volume and during cold 

weather, plume moisture occurs with little or no plume stack separation. 

In addition, he stated that condensed water has appeared on the stack 

exterior in the vicinity of the sample ports at his plant. He felt these 

conditions were not conducive to in-stack opacity monitoring devices and, 

therefore, it would be more reasonable to require a certified observer to 

record opacities on a periodic basis. Another commenter felt that a COMS 

for an ESP controlling a dryer processing bentonite would continuously yield 

erroneous readings due to dripping water, falling clay-laden films, and clay 

film bridging. He cited problems his company has experienced with a bentonite 

dryer controlled by a dry ESP. 

In regard to the commenters' concerns about the opacity monitoring 

requirements and the use of COMS's, Section 114 of the CAA authorizes EPA to 

require such monitoring as is appropriate for enforcing NSPS. Also, Section 

302(1) of the CAA defines "standards of performance" to include "any requirement 

t 18 
P.21 

'relating to the operation and maintenance of a source to assure continuous 

emission reduction." The EPA's experience with control devices shows that 

regular maintenance, both remedial and preventive, greatly enhances control 

equipment efficiency. As stated in the preamble to the proposed standards 

(51 FR 15438), opacity monitoring can indicate when fabric filter bags are 

torn loose and when ESP electrodes are damaged or malfunctioning. The EPA's 

experience with COMS's is that the devices operate accurately and with minimum 

downtime with regular and reasonable maintenance. 

The EPA agrees with the commenters that a sudden increase in emissions 

resulting from either broken bags in a baghouse or a sudden failure of a 

baghouse or ESP would be immediately apparent and require attention by 

the source operator. However, the purpose of a COMS or other monitoring 

alternatives such as daily visible emissions observations is to alert 

industry and enforcement personnel of potential violations of the mass 

emission standard and to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of 

particulate control equipment on a continuous basis; i.e., to alert the 

operator to more subtle and gradual deterioration of the control device 

efficiency that occurs over time and results in increased emissions 

unless corrected. The emission reduction performance of air pollution 

control equipment is dependent upon the proper operation of many components 

of the control systems. While certain parameters can provide information 

on the status of certain key components, it is generally not possible to 

determine overall control device performance by monitoring parameters other 

than emissions. Without COMS's, operators have essentially no tools that they 

can use to monitor the continued performance of ESP's or fabric filter systems 

or to ensure that necessary maintenance is performed. The broken rapper welds 

and bag deterioration are examples of items that affect emissions and that 

i 19 
P.22 

cannot be evaluated or detected except with COMS's. The reporting of 

excursions as recorded by COMS's also helps State and local enforcement 

programs identify sources which are having repeated maintenance problems 

with their control devices. Since plant inspections and testing are 

infrequent, gradual deterioration will not be detected until a major 

failure occurs unless opacity monitoring is required. 

Nevertheless, as the amount of emissions from an individual source 

decreases, the benefits of monitoring also decrease and at some point it 

is no longer reasonable to require a COMS or other monitoring alternative. 

Therefore, as a result of the comments received, EPA evaluated four 

alternative monitoring requirements: the use of a COMS; the reading of 

visible emissions daily or weekly by a certified visible emissions observer; 

and no monitoring requirements (Docket No. A-82-39, IV-B-1). 

As a result of the analysis, the Administrator has determined that it is 

reasonable to require the installation of COMS's on all dryers and calciners 

of a certain type within an industry where the typical size unit of that 

type has emissions after NSPS control equal to or greater than 22.7 Mg/yr 

(25 tons/yr). For typical size units with emissions less than 22.7 Mg/yr 

(25 tons/yr) but greater than or equal to 10.0 Mg/yr (11 tons/yr), EPA has 

determined that they may perform daily visible emission observations in 

lieu of installing a COMS. The EPA has also determined that typical units 

with emissions less than 10.0 Mg/yr (11 tons/yr) should be exempt from any 

monitoring requirements. Because of the variation in emissions after NSPS 

control for each size and type of calciner or dryer and for each industry, 

the monitoring requirements are based on the typical size of a particular 

type of calciner or dryer in each industry. The specific monitoring requirements for each type of dryer or calciner in each industry are presented in 

% 20 
Section 60.734 of the final standards. 

The following discussion summarizes the basis for the specific monitoring 

requirements for each type of dryer or calciner. The EPA used 22.7 Mg/yr 

(25 Tons/yr) as the cutoff level for particulate matter (PM) emissions in 

determining which facilities would be required to install COMS's if they use 

dry control devices. In the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 

rules, EPA set de minimis levels of emissions for various pollutants. For 

PM emissions, the level was selected by evaluating the potential effect of 

different emissions levels on an area's air quality and how that related to 

the NAAQS for PM. The analysis was based on a source's potential to emit 

after application of all appropriate Federal regulations such as NSPS. 

The significance level for PM emissions was set at 22.7 Mg/yr (25 Tons/yr). 

Therefore, the Administrator has determined that it is beneficial and 

reasonable to require the installation of COMS's on all calciners and 

dryers of a certain type within an industry where the typical size unit 

of that type has emissions after NSPS control equal to or greater than 

22.7 Mg/yr (25 Tons/yr). 

However, as stated previously, as the amount of emissions from an 

individual source decreases, the benefits of monitoring also decrease and 

at some point it is no longer reasonable to require a COMS or other 

monitoring alternative. As a result, for calciners and dryers with 

emissions of less than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 Tons/yr) after NSPS controls, the 

EPA assessed alternatives other than the installation of a COMS. These 

alternatives included daily or weekly visible emissions observations and 

no monitoring requirements. In assessing the reasonableness of performing 

daily versus weekly visible emission observations, it was determined that 

the cost of either one would be similar but would not deliver the same 

i 21 
P.24 

benefits. In both cases, employees of the affected plant would need to 

be formally certified as opacity readers twice per year. The costs 

associated with the certification would be incurred regardless of whether 

a daily or weekly monitoring requirement was imposed. The other costs 

associated with these alternatives are the annual cost of performing the 

observations and recording the results. The annual cost of weekly readings 

of visible emissions would be reduced somewhat, but because of the fixed 

cost of certification, would cost approximately 40 percent of the cost of 

doing daily observations. Moreover, a daily observation program would be 

more effective at identifying gradual deterioration of the control device 

efficiency and allowing a plant operator time to correct the problem 

prior to a complete failure of the device. A weekly observation program 

would not identify the gradual deterioration of the control device as 

quickly and, in some cases, a failure of the control device could occur 

between two weekly observations. Because requiring daily observations 

would yield substantially greater benefits than weekly observations and 

the cost difference was considered reasonable, the alternative of weekly 

observations was considered inferior for the sources with less than 22.7 

Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of emissions after NSPS control. Therefore, for 

typical size units with emissions less than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr), but 

greater than or equal to 10.0 Mg/yr (11 tons/yr), the regulation has been 

revised to allow the owner or operator to perform daily visible emission 

observations in lieu of installing a COMS. 

On the other hand, the Administator has determined that typical size 

units with emissions less than 10.0 Mg/yr (11 tons/yr) should be exempt from 

any monitoring requirements. In making this determination, consideration 

was given to the size of the source in terms of the emissions after NSPS 

€ 22 
P.25 

control is applied. In addition, the benefits associated with monitoring, 

such as identifying sources that are having control equipment problems for 

the appropriate enforcement agency so corrective action can be taken, were 

considered. For very small sources with small control devices, the benefits 

associated with a COMS or daily visible emission observations, in terms of 

reducing excess emissions, are smaller in comparison to larger sources. 

The cost of daily visible emission observations as a percent of the 

annualized cost of operating the control equipment was also considered. 

For these reasons, typical size units with emissions less than 10.0 Mg/yr 

(11 tons/yr) are exempt from any monitoring requirements. 

In regard to concerns raised about moisture on the exterior of a stack 

interfering with the operation or accuracy of a COMS, EPA does not believe 

this condition will have any effect on the measurement of opacity in the 

stack and the commenter had no data to support this claim. However, if 

high moisture content in the stack or other situations such as falling 

clay-laden films or clay-film bridging are interfering with the performance 

of a COMS, the owner or operator may petition the Administrator to approve 

an alternative monitoring procedure, requirement, or location according 

to 40 CFR 60.13(i). 

VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 

considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking development. 

The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can 

intelligently and effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along 

with the statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and promulgated 

£ 23 
P.26 

standards and the EPA responses to significant comments, the contents of the 

docket, except for interagency review materials, will serve as the record in 

case of judicial review. [Section 307(d)(7)(A)]. 

The effective date of this regulation is (date of 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER). Section 111 of the Clean Air Act 

provides that NSPS or revisions thereof become effective upon promulgation 

and apply to affected facilities, construction or modification of which 

was commenced after the date of proposal, April 23, 1986. 

As described by Section 111, the promulgation of these standards 

was preceded by the Administrator's determination (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR 

49222, dated August 21, 1979) that calciners and dryers in use in the 

mineral processing industries contribute significantly to air pollution 

which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 

In accordance with Section 117 of the Act, publication of these promulgated 

standards was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory committees, 

independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 

This regulation will be reviewed 4 years from the date of promulgation 

as required by the Clean Air Act. This review will include an assessment 

of such factors as the need for integration with other programs, the 

existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in emission 

control technology, and reporting requirements. 

The information collection requirements contained in this rule (those 

included in 40 CFR 60.7 and 60.735) have been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned OMB control number 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated 

£

 24 
P.27 

to average 496 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, 

and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, 

to Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Paperwork Reduction Project (2060- ), 

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D. C. 20503, marked "Attention: 

Desk Officer for EPA." 

Section 317 of the Clean Air Act requires the Administrator to prepare 

an economic impact assessment for any NSPS promulgated under Section 111(b) 

of the Act. An economic impact assessment was prepared for this regulation 

and for other regulatory alternatives. All aspects of the assessment were 

considered in determining BDT. The economic impact assessment is included 

in the BID for the proposed standards. 

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is required to judge whether a 

regulation is a "major rule" and, therefore, subject to certain requirements of the Order. The Agency has determined that the regulation would 

result in none of the adverse economic effects set forth in Section 1 of 

the Order as grounds for finding a regulation to be major. The total 

nationwide incremental annualized costs in the fifth year after the standards would go into effect would range from $0.7 to $1.0 million, less than 

the $100 million established as the first criterion for a major regulation 

in the Order. The maximum estimated price increase of 1.75 percent associated with the proposed standards would not be considered a "major increase 

in costs or prices" specified as the second criterion in the Order. The 

% 25 
P.28 

economic analysis of the standard's effect on the industry did not indicate 

any significant adverse effects on competition, investment, productivity, 

employment, innovation, or the ability of U. S. firms to compete with 

foreign firms which is the third criterion in the Order. 

This regulation was submitted to the OMB for review as required by 

Executive Order 12291. Any written comments from the OMB to EPA and any EPA 

response to those comments are available for public inspection in Docket 

No. A-82-39, EPA's Central Docket Section, South Conference Center, Room 4, 

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1986 requires the identification of 

potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small business 

entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business impacts are 

possible. The EPA definition of significant effect involves four tests: 

(1) prices for small entities rise 5 percent or more, assuming costs are 

passed on to consumers; or (2) annualized investment costs for pollution 

control are greater than control costs as a percentage of sales for large 

entities; or (3) control costs as a percentage of sales for small entities 

are 10 percent greater than control costs as a percentage of sales for large 

entities; or (4) the requirements of the regulation are likely to result 

in closures of small entities. 

The Act's definition of "small business" is based on definitions 

developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA's definitions 

are listed in 13 CFR 121 by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories. 

For most of the mineral dryer and calciner industries, the SBA defines a small 

business as one with 500 or fewer employees (the two exceptions are gypsum and 

titanium dioxide, each of which is 1,000 employees). Most of the mineral dryer 

i 26 
P.29 

and calciner industries do include small businesses according to the SBA 

definition. The regulation would apply to all businesses (small and 

large) in the 17 industries, and as a result the test of a substantial 

number of small businesses is met. 

Although there are a substantial number of small businesses, the 

measure of significant effects is not likely to be met. The absolute 

level of the percent product price increases is quite small for most of 

the industries, typically about 0.5 percent or less. Thus, the first 

test is never triggered. Neither are the second or fourth tests triggered. 

The third test is occasionally triggered, but the absolute sizes of the 

numbers are so small as to make this test inapplicable. For example, 

in the diatomite industry, a small flash dryer (4 Mg/h) has control 

costs as a percentage of sales that are 23 percent higher than the 

corresponding percentage for a larger flash dryer (11 Mg/h). But the 

absolute levels of these two percentages are 0.16 percent and 0.13 

percent and the 23 percent difference between them is virtually meaningless. 

Thus, because the absolute levels of the percent product price increases 

are quite small for most of the industries, and because the tests are 

presented as guidelines, an interpretation of the spirit and purpose of 

the Act indicates that the industries do not exceed the Act's tests. 

Because these standards impose no adverse economic impacts, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis has not been conducted. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that 

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities because the impact of the final rule is not significant. 

27 
P.30 

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 40 CFR PART 60 

Air Pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Metallic 

minerals, and Nonmetallic minerals. 

Date Administrator 

28 
P.31 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows: 

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

Authority: Sections 101, 111, 114, 116, 301, Clean Air Act as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7601). 

2. By adding a new Subpart UUU consisting of §§60.730 through 60.737 

as follows: 

Subpart UUU—Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers 

in Mineral Industries. 

SECTIONS: 

60.730 Applicability and designation of affected facility. 

60.731 Definitions . 

60.732 Standards for particulate matter. 

60.733 Reconstruction. 

60.734 Monitoring of emissions and operations. 

60.735 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

60.736 Test methods and procedures. 

60.737 Delegation of authority. 

Subpart UUU—Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers 

in Mineral Industries. 

§60.730 Applicabilit y and designation of affected facility . 

(a) The affected facilit y to which the provisions of thi s subpart 

apply is each calciner and dryer at a mineral processing plant. Feed and 

product conveyors are not considered part of the affected facility . For 

the brick and related clay products industry, only the calcining and 

drying of raw materials prior to firin g of the brick are covered. 

% 29 
P.32 

(b) An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of 

Subpart LL, Metallic Mineral Processing Plants, is not subject to the 

provisions of this subpart. Also, the following processes and process 

units used at mineral processing plants are not subject to the provisions 

of this subpart: vertical shaft kilns in the magnesium compounds industry; 

the chlorination-oxidation process in the titanium dioxide industry; coating kilns, mixers, and aerators in the roofing granules industry; and 

tunnel kilns, tunnel dryers, apron dryers, and grinding equipment that 

also dries the process material used in any of the 17 mineral industries 

(as defined in §60.731, "Mineral processing plant"). 

(c) The owner or operator of any facility under paragraph (a) of 

this section that commences construction, modification, or reconstruction 

after April 23, 1986, is subject to the requirements of this subpart. 

§60.731 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the 

meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in Subpart A of this part. 

"Calciner" means the equipment used to remove combined (chemically 

bound) water and/or gases from mineral material through direct or indirect 

heating. This definition includes expansion furnaces and multiple hearth 

furnaces. 

"Control device" means the air pollution control equipment used to 

reduce particulate matter emissions released to the atmosphere from one 

or more affected facilities. 

"Dryer" means the equipment used to remove uncombined (free) water 

from mineral material through direct or indirect heating. 

"Installed in series" means a calciner and dryer installed such that 

the exhaust gases from one flow through the other and then the combined 

€ 30 
P.33 

exhaust gases are discharged to the atmosphere. 

"Mineral processing plant" means any facilit y that processes or 

produces any of the following minerals, their concentrates or any mixture 

of which the majority (> 50 percent) is any of the following minerals or a 

combination of these minerals: alumina, ball clay, bentonite, diatomite, 

feldspar, fire clay, fuller' s earth, gypsum, industrial sand, kaolin, 

lightweight aggregate, magnesium compounds, perlite, roofing granules, 

talc , titanium dioxide, and vermiculite. 

§60.732 Standards for particulate matter. 

Each owner or operator of any affected facilit y that is subject to 

the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the emission limitations 

set forth in this section on and after the date on which the initia l 

performance test, required by §60.8 is completed, but not later than 

180 days after the initia l startup, whichever date comes first . No 

emissions shall be discharged into the atmosphere from any affected 

facilit y that: 

(a) Contain particulate matter in excess of 0.09 gram per dry standard 

cubic meter (g/dscm) [0.04 grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)] 

for calciners and for calciners and dryers installed in series and in excess 

of 0.057 g/dscm (0.025 gr/dscf) for dryers; and 

(b) Exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity, unless the emissions 

are discharged from an affected facilit y using a wet scrubbing control 

device. 

§60.733 Reconstruction. 

The cost of replacement of equipment subject to high temperatures and 

abrasion on processing equipment shall not be considered in calculating 

either the "fixed capital cost of the new components" or the "fixed capital 

t 31 
P.34 

cost that would be required to construct a comparable new facility " under 

§60.15. Calciner and dryer equipment subject to high temperatures and 

abrasion are: end seals, flights , and refractory lining . 

§60.734 Monitoring of emissions and operations. 

(a) With the exception of the process units described in paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (d) of thi s section, the owner or operator of an affected 

facilit y subject to the provisions of thi s subpart who uses a dry control 

device to comply with the mass emission standard shall install , calibrate , 

maintain, and operate a continuous monitoring system to measure and 

record the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the 

control device. 

(b) In lie u of a continuous opacity monitoring system required in 

paragraph (a) of thi s section, the owner or operator of a ball clay 

vibrating grate dryer, a bentonite rotary dryer, a diatomite flash dryer, 

a diatomite rotary calciner, a feldspar rotary dryer, a fir e clay rotary 

dryer, an industrial sand flui d bed dryer, a kaolin rotary calciner, a 

perlit e rotary dryer, a roofing granules flui d bed dryer, a roofing 

granules rotary dryer, a tal c rotary calciner, a titanium dioxide spray 

dryer, a titanium dioxide flui d bed dryer, a vermiculite flui d bed dryer, 

or a vermiculite rotary dryer who uses a dry control device may have a 

certifie d visibl e emissions observer measure and record three 6-minute 

averages of the opacity of visible emissions to the atmosphere each day 

of operation in accordance with EPA Method 9. 

(c) The owner or operator of a ball clay rotary dryer, a diatomite 

rotary dryer, a feldspar flui d bed dryer, a fuller' s earth rotary dryer, a 

gypsum rotary dryer, a gypsum flash calciner, a gypsum kettle calciner, 

an industrial sand rotary dryer, a kaolin rotary dryer, a kaolin multiple 

f 32 
P.35 

hearth furnace, a perlite expansion furnace, a talc flash dryer, a talc 

rotary dryer, a titanium dioxide direct or indirect rotary dryer or a 

vermiculite expansion furnace who uses a dry control device is exempt 

from the monitoring requirements of this section. 

(d) The owner or operator of an affected facility subject to the 

provisions of this subpart who uses a wet scrubber to comply with the mass 

emission standard for any affected facility shall install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously measure and 

record the pressure loss of the gas stream through the scrubber and the 

scrubbing liquid flow rate to the scrubber. The pressure loss monitoring 

device must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 5 percent 

of water column gauge pressure at the level of operation. The liquid flow rate 

monitoring device must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate 

within 5 percent of design scrubbing liquid flow rate. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 

- •) 

§60.735 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

(a) Records of the measurements required in §60.734 of this subpart 

must be retained for at least 2 years. 

(b) Each owner or operator who uses a wet scrubber to comply with 

§60.732 shall determine and record once each day, from the recordings of the 

monitoring devices in §60.734(d), an arithmetic average over a 2-hour 

period of both the change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber 

and the flowrate of the scrubbing liquid. 

(c) Each owner or operator shall submit written reports semiannually 

of exceedances of control device operating parameters required to be monitored by §60.734(d) of this subpart. For the purpose of these reports, 

exceedances are defined as follows: 

t 33 
P.36 

(1) All 6-minute periods during which the average opacity from dry 

control devices is greater than 10 percent; or 

(2) Any daily 2-hour average of the wet scrubber pressure drop determined 

as described in §60.735(b) that is within 10 percent of the average value 

recorded according to §60.736(c) during the most recent performance test 

that demonstrated compliance with the particulate matter standard; or 

(3) Each daily wet scrubber liquid flow rate recorded as described in 

§60.735(b) that is within 20 percent of the average value recorded according 

to §60.736(c) during the most recent performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the particulate matter standard. 

(d) The requirements of this section remain in force until and 

unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under 

Section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, approves reporting requirements or 

an alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such State. 

In that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved 

of the obligation to comply with this section provided that they comply 

with the requirements established by the State. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 

- •) 

§60.736 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) In conducting the performance tests required in §60.8, the owner or 

operator shall use as reference methods and procedures the test methods in 

Appendix A of this part or other methods and procedures as specified in this 

section, except as provided in §60.8(b). 

(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the particulate 

matter standards in §60.732 as follows: 

(1) Method 5 shall be used to determine the particulate matter concentration, 

34 
P.37 

The sampling time and volume for each test run shall be at least 2 hours 

and 1.70 dscm (60 dscf). 

(2) Method 9 and the procedures in §60.11 shall be used to determine 

opacity from stack emissions. 

(c) During the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, the 

owner or operator shall use the monitoring devices of §60.734(d) to 

determine the average change in pressure of the gas stream across the 

scrubber and the average flowrate of the scrubber liquid during each of 

the particulate matter runs. The arithmetic averages of the three runs 

shall be used as the baseline average values for the purposes of §60.735(c). 

§60.737 Delegation of authority. 

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 

State under Section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities contained in 

paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator and 

not transferred to a State. 

(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: No restrictions. 

H 35