P. 1



# OAR Box 1110 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 9 ) IV-H-4
Docket Number: 

# A-82-3 9

Printed 4/14/2008 1:23:55PM

Sheet 9 of 156P. 2

J* 0 " nt % 

### f'A'x. UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y ll/^U-^A. I ^MR^ 7 J Offic e o f Ai rQualityPlannin g an d Standard s ' " n~"*r yvKa* /

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 ^PROt ^ 

### Decembe r 23 , 198 8

MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : Re d Borde r Promulgatio n Packag e fo r NSP S fo r Calciner s

an d Dryer s i n Minera l Industrie s FROM : Shirle

y Tabler?^^ % 4U&LStandard s Developmen t Branc h (MD-13 ) TO : Th e Docke t
Th e attache d promulgatio n packag e fo r th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d (NSPS ) fo r Calciner s and Dryer s i n Minera l Industrie s wa s submitte d t o th e Offic e o f Managemen t and Budge t fo r revie wunde r Executiv e Orde r 12291 . Attachmen t • •~;C\v^ 0

### ^°^P. 3

6560-5 0

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF RPAR T 6 0 [AD-FRL - ] STANDARD S OF PERFORMANC E FORNE W STATIONAR YSOURCE S CALCINER S AN D DRYER S IN MINERA L INDUSTRIE S AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y ACTION : Fina l Rul e SUMMARY : Standard s o f performanc e fo r calciner s anddryer s i nminera l industrie s wer e propose di nth e FEDERA L REGISTE RonApri l 23 , 198 6 (5 1 F R 15438) . Thi s actio npromulgate s standard s o f performanc e fo r calciner s
anddryer s i nth e minera l industries . Thes e standard s implemen t Sectio n 11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t an dar e base donth e Administrator' s determinatio n tha t calciner s an

ddryer s i nth e minera l industrie s caus e o r contribut e significantl y

t o ai r pollutio nwhic hma y reasonabl y

b e anticipate dt o endange r publi c healt ho r welfare . Th e intende deffec t o f thes e standard s i s t o requir e al l new , modified , o r reconstructe dcalciner s an ddryer s t o achiev e emissio nlevel s tha t reflec t th e bes t demonstrate dsyste m o f continuou s emissio nreduction , considerin g costs , nonai r qualit y health , andenvironmenta l an denerg y

impacts . EFFECTIV E DATE : (dat e o f publicatio ni nth e FEDERA L REGISTER) . Unde r Sectio n307(b)(1 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act , judicia l revie w
o f thi s new

sourc e performanc e standar d(NSPS ) i s availabl e onl y b y th e filin g o f a petitio nfo r revie w i nth e U . S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbia Circui t withi n6 0 day s o f today' s publicatio no f thi s rule . Unde r Sectio n307(b)(2 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act , th e requirement s tha tP. 4

ar e th e subjec t o f today' s notic e ma y no t b e challenge dlate r i ncivi l

o r crimina l proceeding s brough t b y EP A t o enforc e thes e requirements . ADDRESSES : Backgroun dInformatio nDocument . Th e backgroun dinformatio n documen t (BID ) fo r th e promulgate dstandard s ma y b e obtaine dfro

m th e U . S . EP A

Librar y

(MD-35) , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , telephon e numbe r (919 ) 541-2777 . Pleas e refe r t o "Calciner s andDryer s i nMinera l Industries—Backgroun dInformatio nfo r th e Promulgate d Standards, " EP A

450/3-85-025b . Th e BI D contain s (1 ) a summar y o f al l th e publi c comment s mad e onth e propose dstandard s an dth e Administrator' s respons e t o comments ; (2 ) a summary o f th e change s mad e t o th e regulatio n sinc e proposal ; an

d(3 ) th e fina l Environmenta l Impac t Statemen t whic h summarize s th e impact s o f th e standards . Docket . A

docket , numbe r A-82-39 , containin g informatio nconsidere db y EP A i ndevelopmen t o f th e promulgate dstandards , i s availabl e fo r publi c inspec tio nbetwee n8:0 0 a.m . and 3:3 0 p.m. , Monda y throug hFriday , a t EPA' s Centra l Docke t Sectio n(LE-131) , Sout hConferenc e Center , Roo m 4 , 40 1 M

Street , S.W. , Washington , D . C . 20460 . A reasonabl e fe e ma y b e charge dfo r copying . FORFURTHE RINFORMATION CONTACT : Mr . Dou g Bel l o r Ms . Shirle y Tabler , telephon e (919 ) 541-5256 , concernin g regulator y decisions . Mr . Kennet hDurkee , telephon e (919 ) 541-5425 , concernin g technica l aspect s o f th e industr y an d contro l technologies . Th e addres s fo r th e abov e contact s i s Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 . SUPPLEMENTAR YINFORMATION : I . TH E STANDARD S Standard s o f performanc e fo r new source s establishe dunde r Sectio n11 1

o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t reflect :

%P. 5

.. . applicatio no f th e bes t technologica l syste m o f continuou s emissio nreductio nwhic h(takin g int o consideratio nth e cos t
o f achievin g suc hemissio nreduction , an y nonai r qualit y

healt h

andenvironmenta l impac t andenerg y requirements ) th e Administrato r determine s ha s bee nadequatel y demonstrate d[Sectio n111(a)(1)] . Fo r convenience , thi s wil l b e referre dt o a s "bes t demonstrate d technology " o r "BDT. " Th e promulgate dstandard s appl y t o new , modified , andreconstructe d calciner s anddryer s a t plant s tha t proces s o r produc e an y o f th e followin g mineral s o r thei r concentrates : alumina , bal l clay , bentonite , diatomite , feldspar , fir e clay , fuller' s earth , gypsum , industria l sand , kaolin , lightweigh t aggregate , magnesiu m compounds , perlite , roofin g granules , talc , titanium

dioxide , andvermiculite . Th e affecte dfacilit y fo r minera l processin g plant s i neac ho f th e industrie s liste dabov e woul db e eac hcalcine r andeac hdryer . Th e type s
o f dryer s t o whic hth e standard s appl y include : rotar y

(direct) , rotar y (indirect) , flui dbed , vibratin g grate , flash , andspra y dryers . Th e type s o f calciner s t o whic hth e standard s appl y include : rotary , flash , andkettl e calciners ; multipl e heart hfurnaces ; an dexpansio nfurnaces . Th e followin g processe s andproces s unit s use da t minera l processin g plant s woul dno t b e regulate dunde r thi s NSPS : vertica l shaf t kiln s i n th e magnesium

compound s industry ; th e chlorination-oxidatio nproces s i n th e titanium

dioxid e industry ; coatin g kilns , mixers , andaerator s i nth e roofin g granule s industry ; andtunne l kilns , tunne l dryers , apro ndryers , andgrindin g equipmen t tha t als o drie s th e proces s materia l use di nan y o f th e 1 7 minera l industries . I naddition , fo r th e bric k andrelate dcla y product s industr y

onl y th e calcinin g anddryin g o f ra w material s prio r t oP. 6



### firin g o f th e bric k ar e covere dbecaus e thes e ar e th e onl y majo r source s o f ai r pollutio ni ntha t industr y tha t fal l unde r thi s generi c sourc e category . Th e standard s ar e base do nemissio nlevel s achievabl e usin g wel l designe d
an doperate dfabri c filters , we t scrubber s o r electrostati c precipitator s (ESPs) . Al l o f thes e system s ar e considere dBD T fo r controllin g emission s fro m calciner s an

ddryer s i nthi s sourc e category . Th e promulgate dstandard s limi t stac k emission s o f particulat e matte r fro m affecte dfacilities . Th e standard s fo r stac k emission s limi t th e concentratio no f particulat e matte r t o 0.0 9 gram

pe r dry

standar dcubi c mete r (g/dscm ) [0.0 4 grai npe r dr y standar dcubi c foo t (gr/dscf) ] fo r calciner s an dfo r calciner s anddryer s installe di nseries . Fo r dryers , th e concentratio no f particulat e matte r i s limite dt o 0.05 7 g/dsc m (0.02 5 gr/dscf) . Stac k emission s woul dals o b e limite dt o 1 0 percen t opacit y fo r proces s unit s controlle dwit hdr y contro l devices . Th e visibl e emission s standar d woul dno t appl y

t o affecte dfacilitie s tha t us e we t scrubber s t o contro l emissions . Instead , monitorin g an dreportin g o f th e operatin g parameter s o f
we t scrubber s (pressur e dro pan dliqui dflow

rate ) woul db e require dt o indicat e tha t th e contro l devic e i s properl y operate dan

dmaintaine dona routin e basis . Whe na dr y

contro l devic e (e.g. , baghous e o r ESP ) i s use dt o compl y wit hth e calcine r o r drye r mas s emission s standard , th e owner s o r operator s
o f th e unit s ar e require dt o instal l a Continuou s Opacit y Monitorin g Syste m (C0MS ) excep t a s note dbelow . Owner s o r operator s o f bal l cla y vibratin g grat e dryers , bentonit e rotar y dryers , diatomit e flas hdryers , diatomit e rotar y calciners , feldspa r rotar y dryers , fir e clay

rotar y dryers , indus tria l sandflui dbeddryers , kaoli nrotar y calciners , perlit e rotar y dryers , roofin g granule s flui dbe ddryers , roofin g granule s rotar y dryers , tal cP. 7

rotar ycalciners , titaniu mdioxid e flui d be d dryers , titaniu mdioxid e spra ydryers , vermiculit e flui d be d dryers , o r vermiculit e rotar ydryer s wh o us e a dr ycontro l devic e ma yhav e a certifie d visibl e emission s observe r measur e and recor d th e opacit yo f th e visibl e emission s dail yi n lie u o f usin g a COMS . Owner s o r operator s o f bal l cla yrotar ydryers , diatomit e rotar ydryers , feldspa r flui d be d dryers , fuller' s eart h rotar y dryers , gypsu mrotar ydryers , gypsu mflas h calciners , gypsu mkettl e calciners , industria l san d rotar ydryers , kaoli n rotar ydryers , kaoli n multipl e heart h furnaces , perlit e expansio n furnaces , tal c flas h dryers , tal c rotar ydryers , titaniu m dioxid e direc t o r indirec t rotar ydryer s o r vermiculit e expansio n furnace s wh o us e a dr ycontro l devic e ar e exemp t fro mth e monitorin g requirements
. Whe n a we t scrubbe r i s use d t o compl ywit h th e calcine r o r drye r mas s emissio n standard , th e owne r o r operato r woul d b e require d t o install , calibrate , maintain , and operat e monitorin g device s tha t continuousl y
measur e an d recor d th e pressur e los s o f th e ga s strea mthroug h th e scrubbe r
and th e scrubbin g liqui d flo wrat e t o th e scrubber
. Th e pressur e los s monitorin g devic e mus t b e certifie d b yth e manufacture r t o b e accurat e withi n 1 inc h o f wate r column (in
. W.C. ) gaug e pressure . Th e liqui d flo wrat e moni

torin g devic e mus t b e certifie d b yth e manufacture r t o b e accurat e withi n 5 percen t o f desig n scrubbin g liqui d flo wrate . Metho d 5 wil l b e use d t o determin e complianc e wit h th e stac k concentratio n standard
. Metho d 9 an d th e procedure s i n Sectio n 60.1 1 wil l b e use d t o measur e th e opacit yo f stac k emission s fro mdr ycontro l devices
. II . ENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S Th e standard s wil l reduc e projecte d nationwid e particulat e emission s fro mnew , modified , and reconstructe d calciner s and dryer s i n th e minera lP. 8

industrie s i nth e fift hyea r followin g promulgatio no f th e standard s b y 7,90 0 megagram s (Mg ) (8,80 0 tons ) compare dto emission s allowe dunde r typica l Stat e proces s weigh t regulations . Thi s represent s a 7 8 percen t reductio ni nparticulat e matte r emission s fro m thes e sources . Th e nationwid e increas e i nsoli dwast e (a s a sludg e containin g 7 0 percen t moisture ) i nth e fift hyea r woul db e 7,50 0 M g (8,30 0 tons ) compare d t o th e Stat e Implementatio nPla n(SIP ) level . Th e onl y soli dwast e impact s woul d b e fro

m th e solid s i nth e sludg e produce db y we t scrubbers . Typically , a particulate-contaminate d wate r stream i s pumpe dto a settlin g pondonth e site . Th e solid s settl e i nth e pond , an dth e wate r i s recirculate dto th e scrubber . Whe nsolid s fil l th e pond , th e pondcoul db e dredge dan dth e solid s coul d b e landfiUed , o r a new pondcoul db e constructed . Soli dwaste s fro m we t scrubber s use dt o contro l emission s fro m dryer s an

d calciner s ar e
no t classifie da s hazardou s waste s unde r th e regulation s adopte dto implemen t th e Resourc e Conservatio nan dRecover y

Act . Th e standard s woul dresul t i n negligibl e advers e water , noise , an dradiatio nimpacts . III . ENERG YIMPACT S I nth e fift hyea r afte r th e NSP S woul dbecom e applicable , th e maximum increas e i nenerg y

consumptio nfo r minera l calcine r an ddrye r contro l device s woul db e 17,00 0 megawatt-hour s (MWh ) compare d to th e SI P leve l o f contro l fo r typica l facilities . Thi s incrementa l energ y requiremen t o f th e NSP S t o operat e contro l equipmen t woul d b e les s tha n1 percen t o f th e energ y demand s t o operat e th e calcine r an ddrye r proces s units . IV . ECONOMI C IMPACT S Base do nindustr y

growthprojections , i t i s estimate dtha t 6 2 new calciner s and3 2 new dryer s wil l b e installe d i nth e firs t 5 year s tha t th e NSP S i s i neffect . I naddition , durin g thi s same tim e perio di t i sP. 9

expecte dtha t 6 0 calciner s and4 4 dryer s wil l b e replace da t existin g facilitie s a t th e endo f thei r usefu l lives . Th e tota l nationwid e incrementa l capita l cos t o f pollutio ncontro l equipmen t i nth e fift hyea r woul drang e from $2. 2 t o $3. 0 millio nunde r th e standard s compare dt o th e SI P level . Th e variatio ni ncost s i s du e t o thos e proces s unit s fo r whic heithe r a fabri c filte r o r a we t scrubbe r coul db e installed . I f onl y we t scrubber s wer e installed , th e capita l cos t o f installatio nwoul db e lowe r tha ni f onl y fabri c filter s wer e installed . Fo r th e 10 4 ne w

proces s unit s tha t ar e projecte di nth e firs t 5 year s
o f th e NSP S t o replac e existin g unit s a t th e endo f thei r usefu l lives , capita l contro l devic e cost s woul dincreas e ove r baselin e level s i n2 3 percen t o f th e case s a s a resul t o f upgradin g th e desig no f th e contro l device s (e.g. , increase dpressur e dro pfo r a we t scrubber) . I n1 1 percen t
o f th e cases , th e existin g we t scrubbe r contro l device s ar e operate da t pressur e drop s tha t achiev e bot hth e SI P an dNSP S emissio nlimits , and , therefore , n o incrementa l capita l cost s woul db e incurre da s a resul t o f th e NSPS . I

n6 6 percen t o f th e cases , fabri c filter s installe dt o mee t SI P emissio nlimit s woul dachiev e th e NSP S emissio nlimi t wit himprove doperatio n
andmaintenance . Therefore , ther e i s n o capita l cos t increas e fo r fabri c filte r contro l devices . Th e tota l nationwid e incrementa l annualize dcos t o f pollutio ncontro l equipmen t i nth e fift hyea r woul drang e from $0. 7 t o $1. 0 million . I f onl y we t scrubber s wer e installe dwher e a noptio nexists , th e annualize d cost s woul db e highe r tha ni f onl y fabri c filter s wer e installe dbecaus e
o f th e additiona l energ y cost s associate dwit hoperatin g a scrubbe r and th e produc t recover y credit s associate dwit hoperatin g a fabri c filter .P.1 0



### Th e annualize dcontro l devic e cost s fo r th e 10 4 projecte dproces s unit s woul dincreas e a s a resul t o f improve doperatio nan dmaintenanc e o f fabri c filter s (6 6 percen t o f th e cases ) o r a s a resul t o f upgradin g th e desig no f a we t scrubbe r o r ES P (2 3 percen t o f th e cases) . A s wit hth e capita l costs , annualize dcontro l cost s woul dno t chang e in1 1 percen t o f th e case s wher e we t scrubber s achiev e bot hth e SI P andNSP S emissio nlimits . Th e projecte dgrowt han dprofitabilit y

o f th e 1 7 minera l industrie s ar e
no t expecte dt o b e affecte dadversel y b y implementatio no f th e NSPS . Fo r 1 5 o f th e 1 7 industrie s include di nth e analysis , th e produc t pric e increase s tha t woul db e require da s a resul t o f th e NSP S woul dtypicall y b e les s tha n 0. 5 percent . Typica l siz e facilitie s i nth e fir e cla y an dlightweigh t aggregat e industrie s woul dexperienc e produc t pric e increase s o f 1.0 0 an d 1.7 5 percent , respectively , a s a resul t o f implementatio no f th e NSPS . A detaile ddiscussio no f th e cost s an deconomi c impact s associate d wit hth e NSP S i s containe di nth e preambl e (5 1 F R15438 , Apri l 23 , 1986 )
andBI D (EPA

450/3-85-025a ) fo r th e propose dstandards . V . PUBLI C PARTICIPATIO N Prio r t o proposa l o f th e standards , intereste dpartie s wer e advise db y publi c notic e i nth e FEDERA L REGISTE R(5 0 FR31025 , Jul y 31 , 1985 ) o f a meetin g
o f th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisor y Committe e t o discus s th e standard s fo r calciner s an ddryer s i nminera l industrie s recommende dfo r proposal . Th e meetin g wa s hel do nSeptembe r 17 , 1985 . Th e meetin g wa s ope n t o th e publi c an

deac hattende e wa s give na nopportunit y

t o commen t o

nth e standard s recommende dfo r proposal . Th e propose dstandard s wer e publishe d i nth e FEDERAL REGISTE Ro nApri l 23 , 198 6 (5 1 FR15438) . Th e preambl e t o th e propose dstandard s discusse dth e availabilit y o f th e BID , "Calciner s andDryer s i nMinera l Industrie s - Backgroun dInformatio n
& 8P.1 1

fo r Propose dStandards " (EPA-450/3-85-025a) , whic hdescribe di ndetai l th e regulator y

alternative s considere dan dth e impact s o f thos e alternatives . Publi c comment s wer e solicite da t th e time o f proposa l an dwhe nrequested , copie s o f th e BI D wer e distribute dt o intereste d parties . T o provid e intereste d person s th e opportunit y fo r ora l presentatio no f data , views , o r argument s concernin g th e propose dstandards , a publi c hearin g wa s hel d

o nJun e 9 , 1986 , a t Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Th e hearin g
wa s ope nt o th e publi c an deac hattende e wa s give na nopportunit y

t o
commen t onth e propose d standards . Th e publi c commen t perio dwa s fro m Apri l 23 , 1986 , t o Jul y 7 , 1986 . Fourtee ncommen t letter s wer e receive dan d1 2 intereste d partie s testifie da t th e publi c hearin g concernin g issue s relativ e t o th e propose d standards . Th e comments hav e bee ncarefull y considere dand , wher e determine d t o b e appropriat e b y th e Administrator , change s hav e bee nmad e i nth e propose dstandards . VI . SIGNIFICAN T COMMENT S AND CHANGE S T O TH E PROPOSE D STANDARD S Comment s onth e propose dstandard s wer e receive dfro m industry , trad e associations , an

d Stat e ai r pollutio ncontro l agencies . A detaile ddis cussio no f thes e comment s an dresponse s ca nb e foundi nth e BID , whic hi s referre dt o i nth e ADDRESSE S sectio no f thi s preamble . Th e summar y o f comment s
an dresponse s i nth e BI D serve s a s th e basi s fo r th e revision s whic hhav e bee n mad e t o th e standard s betwee nproposa l an dpromulgation . I nrespons e t o th e publi c comments an da s a resul t o f EPA' s reevaluation , severa l change s hav e bee nmad e t o th e standard s sinc e proposal . Th e definitio n
o f "minera l processin g plant " i nth e standard s wa s revise dt o provid e tha t a
new , modified , o r reconstructe ddrye r o r calcine r whic hprocesse s a mixtur e
o f mineral s i s covere d b y th e standard s i f th e majorit y o f th e materia l bein g 

## £ 9P.1 2



### processe d(greate r tha n5 0 percent ) i s an y o f th e followin g mineral s o r a combinatio no f thes e minerals : alumina , bal l clay , bentonite , diatomite , feldspar , fir e clay , fuller' s earth , gypsum , industria l sand , kaolin , lightweigh t aggregate , magnesium compounds , perlite , roofin g granules , talc , titaniu

m dioxide , an

dvermiculite . Also , change s hav e bee nmad e wit hregar dt o th e opacit y monitorin g requirements . Whe na dr y contro l devic e (e.g. , baghous e o r ESP ) i s use d t o compl y

wit hth e calcine r o r drye r mas s emission s standard , th e owner s
o r operator s o f th e unit s ar e require dt o instal l a COMS , excep t a s discusse dpreviousl y

unde r "Sectio nI " o f thi s notice . A technica l correctio nwa s mad e t o th e fina l standard s t o clarif y th e monitorin g an

drecordkeepin g requirement s fo r facilitie s whic har e controlle db

y we t scrubbers . I

naddition , th e semiannua l recalibratio n requirement s fo r monitorin g device s i nSectio n60.73 4 hav e bee ndeleted . Th e onl y requiremen t fo r COMS' s intende dfo r operatio nan dmaintenanc e
ar e dail y

zer o an

dspa nchecks . Sectio n60.735(b ) wa s adde dt o clarif y tha t eac howne r o r operato r wh o use s a we t scrubbe r t o compl y wit hth e standard s shal l recor ddail y th e arithmeti c averag e ove r a 2-hou r perio do f bot hth e chang e i npressur e o f th e ga s stream

acros s th e scrubbe r an dth e scrubbin g liqui dflowrate . Th e majo r comment s an dresponse s ar e summarize di nthi s preamble . Mos t
o f th e commen t letter s containe dmultipl e comments . Th e comment s hav e bee n divide dint o th e followin g areas : Nee dfo r Regulatio no f Sourc e Category , Contro l Technology , Economi c Impact , Selectio no f Emissio nLimits , and Monitorin g Requirements . Nee dfo r Regulatio no f Sourc e Categor y Severa l commenter s questione dEPA' s determinatio ntha t calciner s an d $" • 1 0P.1 3

dryer s i nminera l industrie s ar e source s o f emission s tha t cause , o r contribut e significantl y to , ai r pollutio ntha t ma y reasonabl y

b e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt han dwelfare . Ther e ar e si xsourc e categorie s currentl y liste donth e NSP S priorit y lis t (Augus t 21 , 1979 , 4 4 FR49225 ; revise dJanuar y 8 , 1982 , 4 7 F R950 ) tha t includ e al l 1 7 minera l industrie s bein g covere db y thi s NSPS . Numbe r 1 3 onth e priorit y

lis t i s Nonmetalli c Minera l Processing , whic hinclude s
sandan dgravel , cla y

(bal l clay , bentonite , fuller' s earth , kaolin) , talc , feldspar , diatomite , roofin g granules , andvermiculite . Numbe r 1 4

onth e priorit y

list , Metalli c Minera l Processing , include s aluminum , magnesium

compounds , andtitanium dioxide . Th e lightweigh t aggregat e (LWA ) industr y

(clay , shale , slate ) i s Numbe r 3 2 o nth e NSP S priorit y list . Number s 34 , 46 , an d5 4 onth e lis t ar e gypsum , bric k andrelate d cla y product s (fir e clay) , andperlite , respectively . Th e priorit y lis t
wa s promulgate dunde r Sectio n111(f ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act . Sourc e categorie s
wer e include do nth e lis t if , i nth e Administrator' s judgment , the y caus e o r significantl y

contribut e to , ai r pollutio nwhic hma y reasonabl y

b e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt ho r welfare . Sourc e categorie s wer e ranke di norde r
o f priorit y

accordin g t o (1 ) quantit y o f emissions ; (2 ) potentia l impac t o n healt han

dwelfare ; an d(3 ) mobilit y an dcompetitiv e natur e o f th e sourc e category . Thes e industrie s wer e include do nth e NSP S priorit y lis t becaus e o f thei r emission s o f particulat e matter . Particulat e matte r i s a criteri a pollutan t whic hha s bee ndetermine dt o b e anai r pollutan t tha t ma y endange r publi c healt han

dwelfar e an

dfo r whic ha nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar d(NAAQS ) ha s bee npromulgate d(4 0 CF R50.6 , 50.7) . Fuller' s earth , alumina , bal l clay , bentonite , fir e clay , kaolin , magnesite , an dothe r dust s 

# i 

# nP. M

emitte db

y th e industrie s covere db y th e NSP S ar e type s o f particulat e matter . Th e basi s fo r th e Administrator' s determinatio ntha t particulat e emission s ma y endange r publi c healt han dwelfar e i s presente dinth e rulemakin g fo r settin g
an drevisin g th e NAAQ S fo r particulat e matte r (5 2 FR24634 , Jul y 1 , 1987) . Th e mai npurpos e o f standard s o f performanc e i s t o requir e new sources , whereve r located , t o reduc e emission s t o th e leve l achievabl e b y th e bes t technologica l system o f continuou s emissio nreductio nconsiderin g th e cos t o f achievin g suc hemissio nreduction , an y nonai r qualit y

healt han

denvironmenta l impact , an

denerg y

requirement s (BDT ) [Sectio n111(a)(1)] . Congres s recognize d tha t establishin g suc hstandard s woul dminimiz e increase s i nai r pollutio n fro m new sources , thereby

improvin g ai r qualit y a s th e nation' s industria l bas e i s replace d ove r th e long term . A nNSP S thereby

serve s a s a distinc t
mean s o f achievin g th e Act' s goals , supplementin g th e rol e playe db y othe r requirement s includin g Reasonabl y Availabl e Contro l Technolog y requirement s fo r existin g an

dne w source s withi nStat e implementatio nplan s develope dfo r th e purpos e o f attainin g th e NAAQS . Th e existenc e o f othe r environmenta l regulation s wa s considere ddurin g selectio no f BDT , bu t thei r existenc e doe s no t lea dth e EP A t o conclud e tha t standard s reflectin g bette r contro l technolog y canno t b e applie da t reasonabl e costs . Th e EP A ha s considere dth e emissio nreductions , costs , an d othe r impact s du e t o emissio ncontrol s an dha s conclude dtha t th e control s underlyin g th e standard s ar e BDT . Unde r Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act , EP A i s therefor e require dt o promulgat e standard s o f performanc e tha t reflec t BD T fo r thi s categor y

o f sources .



### 1 2P.1 5

Contro l Technolog y Severa l commenter s perceive dtha t th e propose dstandard s di dno t allow fo r th e us e o f low-energ y we t scrubbers , becaus e contro l device s wit hgreate r energy consumptio nar e require d t o achiev e th e NSP S limits . The y fel t tha t energ y consumptio ni s a

nimportan t consideratio ni nth e selectio no f a contro l devic e an

di t i s inappropriat e t o regulat e agains t th e us e o f energy-efficien t devices . Th e EP A doe s no t necessaril y recommen dth e us e o f a hig hpressur e dro p scrubbe r o r an

y othe r emissio ncontro l technolog y to attai nan

dmaintai n complianc e wit hth e performanc e requirement s o f thi s standard . Complianc e wit hth e pollutan t concentratio nlimit s o f thi s standar dca ngenerall y b e achieve db

y applicatio no f on e o f man y alternativ e emissio ncontro l strat egie s and , fo r a specifi c case , EPAdoe s no t requir e tha t a particula r contro l devic e b e used . I nsevera l industries , EPA ha s determine dtha t lo w energ y we t scrubber s (pressur e drop s les s tha n6 inche s o f wate r gauge ) ca nachiev e th e standar d base donemissio ntes t dat a presente di nChapte r 4 o f th e proposa l BID . Th e pressur e drop s require dfo r scrubber s to mee t th e standard s wer e base donth e
mos t difficul t to contro l cas e fo r tha t particula r proces s uni t i neac h industry . Othe r proces s unit s i ntha t industr y tha t ar e les s difficul t t o contro l shoul db e abl e to compl y wit hthi s NSP S usin g lowe r pressur e drops . I nal l cases , th e cost , energy , an deconomi c impact s associate dwit han y in crease dpressur e dro p wer e evaluate dan ddetermine dt o b e reasonabl e b y EPA . Economi c Impac t Seve ncommenter s state dtha t th e LW A industr y

i s declinin g du e t o risin g energ y costs , environmenta l contro l costs , an dimpact s o f produc t substitutes , i nparticula r pumice . Two o f thes e commenter s fel t tha t th e LW A industr y
ts ' * 1 3P.1 6

woul dbe destroye db y th e propose dstandards . On e commente r state dthat , du e t o th e additiona l environmenta l contro l costs , man y companie s woul dcontinu e t o operat e old , existin g source s an deventuall y

th e industr y

woul ddi e o f ol d ag e an dlac k o f reinvestment . The commenter s suggeste dtha t th e LW A industr y eithe r b e droppe dbecaus e o f economi c reason s o r tha t a nalternativ e contro l leve l equa l t o curren t Stat e regulation s b e selected . On e o f th e commenter s state dtha t th e incrementa l capita l cos t fo r a lightweigh t aggregat e calcine r woul db e 1 0 t o 2 0 time s highe r tha nth e cos t fo r othe r industrie s base dondat a i nth e proposa l BID . Also , th e commente r calculate dth e annua l incrementa l cos t fo r thi s industr y t o b e 4- 9 time s tha t estimate db

y EP A fo r othe r industries . He als o state dtha t th e cost s
an dproduc t pric e increase s wer e underestimate db y EP A an dtha t thes e cost s
an dpric e increase s woul db e overl y burdensom e onth e LW A industr y

considerin g tha t thi s industr y

accounte dfo r onl y 5. 8 percen t o f th e emissio nreductio n fro m thi s NSPS . Anothe r commente r believe dtha t thi s NSP S woul dhav e a doublin g effec t i nterm s o f cost s onth e LW A industr y

a s th e standard s als o appl y t o th e refractor y

industr y

whos e product s ar e use db y th e LW A industry . Thi s commente r als o state dtha t thi s NSP S woul dhav e a simila r cumulativ e economi c impac t o

nth e fir e cla y

industr y

a s tha t industr y

use s bot h dryer s an

dcalciners . He als o state dtha t othe r regulate dmineral s ar e
use di nth e refractor y product s and , therefore , pric e increase s coul d approac h3- 4 percen t an dcreat e a majo r burde nonth e refractor y industry . Th e EP A believe s th e cost s an deconomi c impact s associate dwit hthi s NSP S ar e reasonabl e an d woul dno t hav e th e disruptiv e impac t onth e LW A
an drefractor y

industrie s describe db y th e commenters . Man y factor s suc h

a s obsolet e machinery ; newer , mor e efficien t an dcompetitiv e plants ;
p 1 4P.1 7

changin g marke t demands ; an dbette r substitut e product s influenc e a corporat e decisio na s t o whethe r i t i s pruden t t o inves t i nne w equipmen t
o r t o continu e t o operat e old , existin g equipmen t unti l operatio ni s no longe r possible . Th e produc t pric e increase s attributabl e t o th e NSP S
ar e quit e small—les s tha n2 percen t fo r al l industries . I t i s possibl e tha t variou s force s externa l t o th e cost s o f NSP S woul dpreclud e investmen t i nnewe r plant s an

dequipment . Th e actua l cost , however , resultin g fro m thi s NSP S i s ver y

small , an

di t i s unlikel y

tha t investmen t plan s woul d b e mad e base dona cos t s o small . Wit hregar dt o pumice , ther e i s no doub t tha t pumic e i s a substitut e fo r LWA , althoug hi nmany case s pumic e i s a

ninferio r substitute . Th e LW A industr y

ha s a fa r large r shar e o f th e tota l marke t (LW A plu s pumice ) tha npumice . Pumice' s shar e o f th e marke t ha s range dfrom 9 t o 1 9 percen t
o f th e tota l marke t wit hanaverag e o f 1 3 percent . Th e curren t level s o f productio no f LW

A ar e dow

nfro m pas t levels . However , th e losse s i nLW A productio nar e du e t o othe r factor s an dno t du e t o gain s b y pumic e a s pumice' s recen t shar e o f th e tota l marke t i s simila r t o it s historica l position . Additionally , pumic e productio nfro m domesti c mine s ha s declined , a s wel l a s pumic e imports , signallin g a downtur ni nth e tota l marke t fo r bot hproducts . Th e EP A doe s no t believ e tha t th e cos t o f thi s NSP S wil l lea dt o a competitiv e disadvantag e fo r th e LW A industry . I nregar dt o th e incrementa l cos t o f anNSPS , i t i s importan t t o establis ha commo nbasis . On e basi s use db y EP A i s th e rati o o f th e incrementa l cos t o f th e NSP S t o th e megagram s (Mg ) o f reductio ni nparticulat e emissions . Th e rang e o f incrementa l cos t usin g thi s approac hfo r th e LW A industry , dependin g onth e typ e an dsiz e o f th e affecte dfacilit y i s $24 0 t o $1,100/Mg . Thi s i s withi nth e rang e o f incrementa l cos t pe r megagra m % 1 5P.1 8



### ratio s determine d-fo r th e othe r industrie s affecte db y th e NSPS . Anothe r measur e o f th e effec t o f incrementa l cos t relate s incrementa l
cos t t o th e sellin g pric e o f th e product . Base dona produc t pric e o f $22/Mg fo r th e LW

A industr y

an dallowin g fo r th e increase dcost s tha t th e commente r fel t EP A

missed , th e percen t produc t pric e increas e includin g electrica l cost s woul db e 0. 4 t o 2. 4 percen t dependin g onth e typ e o f contro l device . Thes e impact s wer e considere dreasonabl e an dno t burdensom e b

y EPA . Additiv e effect s o f th e NSP S ar e possibl e wher e a nindustr y

utilize s bot h calciner s an

ddryers . I

nth e cas e o f fir e cla y production , cumulativ e effect s coul db e a s higha s 2 percent ; althoug heffect s woul dtypicall y b e 1. 6 percen t usin g th e leas t costl y contro l devic e fo r a rotar y dryer . Th e 2 percen t estimat e i s base donth e smalles t plan t siz e andresultan t wors t case . I nestimatin g th e additiv e effect s fo r refractor y product s manufacturing , th e commente r simpl y

adde dth e pric e increas e fo r LW A andth e pric e increas e fo r fir e clay . Thi s i s a noverstatemen t becaus e refractorie s ar e onl y a portio no f th e cos t component s fo r LWA . I norde r t o calculat e th e actua l effect , on e need s t o know th e percen t o f th e LW A plant' s tota l expense s tha t i s attributabl e t o refractor y products . Thi s ca nthe nb e use dt o calculat e ho w muc hth e plant' s tota l expense s wil l increas e a s a resul t o f an y increas e i nth e pric e fo r refractor y products . Inan

y case , th e increas e wil l b e les s tha nth e 3 t o 4 percen t estimate db y th e commenter . Therefore , EP A doe s no t believ e th e NSP S wil l hav e a doublin g effec t i nterm s o f
cos t o nth e LW

A industry . Selectio no f Emissio nLimit s On e commente r recommende dlimitin g emission s fro m bot hcalciner s an

d dryer s t o 0.0 9 g/dsc m (0.0 4 gr/dscf) . Th e commente r fel t th e propose d limi t fo r dryer s o f 0.05 7 g/dscm woul dpreclud e th e us e o f lo w energy £ 1 6P.1 9

scrubbers . Tw

o commenter s questione dth e fairnes s an d rational e o f havin g a mor e stringen t standar d(0.05 7 g/dscm ) fo r dryer s alon e compare d wit hth e standar d(0.0 9 g/dscm ) fo r dryer s an dcalciner s i nseries . On e
o f th e commenter s state d tha t i t di dno t see m equitabl e becaus e producer s withou t calciner s bu t wit hdryer s woul db e boun d b y a mor e stringen t standard . Th e NSP S emissio nlimi t fo r calciner s an dfo r dryer s an

d calciner s i n serie s (0.0 9 g/dscm ) i s differen t tha nfo r dryer s alon e (0.05 7 g/dscm ) becaus e EPA' s emissio ntes t dat a suppor t thes e limits . As show ni n Chapter 4 o f th e proposa l BID , al l emissio ntes t dat a fo r dryer s wer e les s tha n0.05 7 g/dsc m

excep t fo r fou r dryer s controlle db y we t scrubber s an

d

on e controlle d b

y a baghous e whic hwa s no t operatin g properl y a s ther e wa s leakag e throug ha close dbypas s damper . B y usin g EPA' s we t scrubbe r model , increase s i npressur e dro pwer e calculate dt o ascertai nwha t i s require d t o achiev e 0.05 7 g/dscm . Al l emissio ntes t dat a fo r calciner s wer e les s tha n0.0 9 g/dscm

excep t fo r thre e calciner s controlle db y we t scrubbers . Again , EPA' s we t scrubbe r mode l wa s use dt o determin e th e pressur e dro p require dt o achiev e 0.0 9 g/dscm . Also , emissio ntes t result s fo r a flas h dryer/rotar y

calcine r installe di nserie s wer e 0.0 9 g/dscm . Thes e limit s ar e base do nEPA' s judgmen t o f th e technolog y whic hrepre sent s BD T considerin g th e cost , an y nonai r qualit y

health , an

denvironmenta l impact , an

denerg y

requirements . I

nthi s case , BD T i s a baghous e o r hig h energy scrubbe r althoug hi nsome instance s lo w energ y scrubber s ma y

achiev e comparabl e performance . A standar dbase do

nlow energ y scrubber s fo r al l
source s covere db

y thi s NSP S woul dno t reflec t BD T o r reduc e emission s t o
a leve l achievabl e b y BDT .

*P.2 0



## Monitorin g Requirement s Severa l commenter s fel t tha t th e reason s use db y EPA t o justif y continuou s opacit y

monitorin g an

dth e associate drecordkeepin g an dreportin g ar e inadequate . Tw

o o f th e commenter s state dtha t broke nbag s ina collecto r ar e apparen t withou t th e nee dfo r a COM S an dth e increase dcapita l and operatin g cost s associate dwit hi t ar e no t commensurat e wit hth e benefits . They fel t tha t thi s requiremen t shoul dappl y onl y t o majo r source s o f pollution . Anothe r commente r state dtha t hi s company' s experienc e wit h thes e monitor s ha s show

nthem t o b e expensive , difficul t t o install , ver y difficul t t o maintain , an dinaccurate . He recommende ddroppin g th e requirements . On e commente r state dtha t th e measure dmoistur e conten t wit hth e flu e gase s fro m thei r dryer s var y

from 7 t o 2 2 percen t b

y volume an

ddurin g col d weather , plume moistur e occur s wit hlittl e o r n o plume stac kseparation . I naddition , h e state dtha t condense dwate r ha s appearedo nth e stac k exterio r i nth e vicinit y o f th e sampl e port s a t hi s plant . H e fel t thes e condition s wer e no t conduciv e t o in-stac kopacit y monitorin g device s and , therefore , i t woul db e mor e reasonabl e t o requir e a certifie dobserve r t o recor dopacitie s ona periodi c basis . Anothe r commente r fel t tha t a COM S fo r a nES P controllin g a drye r processin g bentonit e woul dcontinuousl y yiel d erroneou s reading s du e t o drippin g water , fallin g clay-lade nfilms , an dcla y fil m bridging . He cite dproblem s hi s company ha s experience dwit ha bentonit e drye r controlle db

y a dr y ESP . I nregar dt o th e commenters ' concern s abou t th e opacit y monitorin g requirement s an

dth e us e o f COMS's , Sectio n11 4 o f th e CA A authorize s EP A

t o requir e suc hmonitorin g a s i s appropriat e fo r enforcin g NSPS . Also , Sectio n 302(1 ) o f th e CA

A define s "standard s o f performance " t o includ e "an y requiremen t t 1 8P.2 1

'relatin g t o th e operatio nan dmaintenanc e o f a sourc e t o assur e continuou s emissio nreduction. " Th e EPA' s experienc e wit hcontro l device s show s tha t regula r maintenance , bot hremedia l an dpreventive , greatl y enhance s contro l equipmen t efficiency . As state di nth e preambl e t o th e propose dstandard s (5 1 F R15438) , opacit y

monitorin g ca nindicat e whe nfabri c filte r bag s ar e tor nloos e andwhe nES P electrode s ar e damage do r malfunctioning . Th e EPA' s experienc e wit hCOMS' s i s tha t th e device s operat e accuratel y an dwit hminimum downtim e wit hregula r an d reasonabl e maintenance . Th e EP A agree s wit hth e commenter s tha t a sudde nincreas e i nemission s resultin g fro

m eithe r broke nbag s i na baghous e o r a sudde nfailur e o f a baghous e o r ES P woul db e immediatel y apparen t an

drequir e attentio nb y th e sourc e operator . However , th e purpos e o f a COM S o r othe r monitorin g alternative s suc ha s dail y visibl e emission s observation s i s t o aler t industr y

an denforcemen t personne l o f potentia l violation s o f th e mas s emissio nstandar dan dt o ensur e th e prope r operatio nan dmaintenanc e o f particulat e contro l equipmen t o na continuou s basis ; i.e. , t o aler t th e operato r t o mor e subtl e an dgradua l deterioratio no f th e contro l devic e efficienc y

tha t occur s ove r time an dresult s i nincrease demission s unles s corrected . Th e emissio nreductio nperformanc e o f ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t i s dependen t upo nth e prope r operatio no f many component s
o f th e contro l systems . Whil e certai nparameter s ca nprovid e informatio n
o nth e statu s o f certai nkey components , i t i s generall y no t possibl e t o determin e overal l contro l devic e performanc e b y monitorin g parameter s othe r tha nemissions . Withou t COMS's , operator s hav e essentiall y no tool s tha t the y
ca nus e t o monito r th e continue dperformanc e o f ESP' s o r fabri c filte r system s
o r t o ensur e tha t necessar y maintenanc e i s performed . The broke nrappe r weld s
an dba g deterioratio nar e example s o f item s tha t affec t emission s an dtha t 

# i 1 9P.2 2



### canno t b e evaluate do r detecte dexcep t wit hCOMS's . Th e reportin g o f excursion s a s recorde db y COMS' s als o help s Stat e an dloca l enforcemen t program s identif y

source s whic har e havin g repeate dmaintenanc e problem s wit hthei r contro l devices . Sinc e plan t inspection s an dtestin g ar e infrequent , gradua l deterioratio nwil l no t b e detecte dunti l a majo r failur e occur s unles s opacit y monitorin g i s required . Nevertheless , a s th e amoun t o f emission s fro m a nindividua l sourc e decreases , th e benefit s o f monitorin g als o decreas e an da t som e poin t i t i s no longe r reasonabl e t o requir e a COM S o r othe r monitorin g alternative . Therefore , a s a resul t o f th e comment s received , EP A evaluate dfou r alternativ e monitorin g requirements : th e us e o f a COMS ; th e readin g o f visibl e emission s dail y o r weekl y

b y a certifie dvisibl e emission s observer ; an dn o monitorin g requirement s (Docke t No . A-82-39 , IV-B-1) . A s a resul t o f th e analysis , th e Administrato r ha s determine dtha t i t i s reasonabl e t o requir e th e installatio no f COMS' s o nal l dryer s an

dcalciner s o f a certai ntyp e withi nanindustr y wher e th e typica l siz e uni t o f tha t typ e ha s emission s afte r NSP S contro l equa l t o o r greate r tha n22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 tons/yr) . Fo r typica l siz e unit s wit hemission s les s tha n22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 tons/yr ) bu t greate r tha no r equa l t o 10. 0 Mg/y r (1 1 tons/yr) , EPA ha s determine dtha t the y

ma y perform dail y visibl e emissio nobservation s i n lie uo f installin g a COMS . Th e EP A ha s als o determine dtha t typica l unit s wit hemission s les s tha n10. 0 Mg/y r (1 1 tons/yr ) shoul db e exemp t fro m an y monitorin g requirements . Becaus e o f th e variatio ni nemission s afte r NSP S contro l fo r eac hsiz e an dtyp e o f calcine r o r drye r an dfo r eac hindustry , th e monitorin g requirement s ar e base do nth e typica l siz e o f a particula r typ e o f calcine r o r drye r i neac hindustry . Th e specifi c monitorin g require ment s fo r eac htyp e o f drye r o r calcine r i neac hindustr y ar e presente di n % 2 0

### Sectio n60.73 4 o f th e fina l standards . Th e followin g discussio nsummarize s th e basi s fo r th e specifi c monitorin g requirement s fo r eac htyp e o f drye r o r calciner . Th e EP A use d22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 Tons/yr ) a s th e cutof f leve l fo r particulat e matte r (PM ) emission s i n determinin g whic hfacilitie s woul db e require dt o instal l COMS' s i f the y us e dr y contro l devices . I nth e preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) rules , EP A

se t de minimi s level s o f emission s fo r variou s pollutants . Fo r P M emissions , th e leve l wa s selecte db y evaluatin g th e potentia l effec t o f differen t emission s level s onanarea' s ai r qualit y andhow

tha t relate dt o th e NAAQ S fo r PM . Th e analysi s wa s base dona source' s potentia l t o emi t afte r applicatio no f al l appropriat e Federa l regulation s suc ha s NSPS . Th e significanc e leve l fo r P M emission s wa s se t a t 22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 Tons/yr) . Therefore , th e Administrato r ha s determine dtha t i t i s beneficia l and reasonabl e t o requir e th e installatio no f COMS' s onal l calciner s an d dryer s o f a certai ntyp e withi na nindustr y

wher e th e typica l siz e uni t
o f tha t typ e ha s emission s afte r NSP S contro l equa l t o o r greate r tha n 22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 Tons/yr) . However , a s state dpreviously , a s th e amoun t o f emission s fro m an individua l sourc e decreases , th e benefit s o f monitorin g als o decreas e and
a t some poin t i t i s no longe r reasonabl e t o requir e a COM S o r othe r monitorin g alternative . A s a result , fo r calciner s an ddryer s wit h emission s o f les s tha n22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 Tons/yr ) afte r NSP S controls , th e EP A assesse dalternative s othe r tha nth e installatio no f a COMS . Thes e alternative s include ddail y o r weekl y

visibl e emission s observation s an d
no monitorin g requirements . I nassessin g th e reasonablenes s o f performin g dail y versu s weekl y

visibl e emissio nobservations , i t wa s determine dtha t th e cos t o f eithe r on e woul db e simila r bu t woul dno t delive r th e sam e 

## i 

## 2 1P.2 4



### benefits . I

nbot hcases , employee s o f th e affecte dplan t woul dnee dt o b e formall y

certifie da s opacit y reader s twic e pe r year . The cost s associate dwit hth e certificatio nwoul db e incurre dregardles s o f whethe r
a dail y o r weekl y

monitorin g requiremen t wa s imposed . Th e othe r cost s associate dwit hthes e alternative s ar e th e annua l cos t o f performin g th e observation s an

drecordin g th e results . The annua l cos t o f weekl y reading s
o f visibl e emission s woul db e reduce dsomewhat , bu t becaus e o f th e fixe d
cos t o f certification , woul dcos t approximatel y 4 0 percen t o f th e cos t o f doin g dail y

observations . Moreover , a dail y observatio nprogram woul db e
mor e effectiv e a t identifyin g gradua l deterioratio no f th e contro l devic e efficienc y

an dallowin g a plan t operato r tim e t o correc t th e problem prio r t o a complet e failur e o f th e device . A weekl y observatio nprogram woul dno t identif y

th e gradua l deterioratio no f th e contro l devic e a s quickl y and , i nsome cases , a failur e o f th e contro l devic e coul doccu r betwee ntwo weekl y

observations . Becaus e requirin g dail y observation s woul dyiel dsubstantiall y greate r benefit s tha nweekl y observation s and th e cos t differenc e wa s considere dreasonable , th e alternativ e o f weekl y observation s wa s considere dinferio r fo r th e source s wit hles s tha n22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 tons/yr ) o f emission s afte r NSP S control . Therefore , fo r typica l siz e unit s wit hemission s les s tha n22. 7 Mg/y r (2 5 tons/yr) , bu t greate r tha no r equa l t o 10. 0 Mg/y r (1 1 tons/yr) , th e regulatio nha s bee n revise dt o allow

th e owne r o r operato r t o perform dail y visibl e emissio n observation s i nlie uo f installin g a COMS . O nth e othe r hand , th e Administato r ha s determine dtha t typica l siz e unit s wit hemission s les s tha n10. 0 Mg/y r (1 1 tons/yr ) shoul db e exemp t fro m
an y monitorin g requirements . I nmakin g thi s determination , consideratio n
wa s give nt o th e siz e o f th e sourc e i nterm s o f th e emission s afte r NSP S 

## €2 2P.2 5

contro l i s applied . I naddition , th e benefit s associate dwit hmonitoring , suc ha s identifyin g source s tha t ar e havin g contro l equipmen t problem s fo r th e appropriat e enforcemen t agenc y s o correctiv e actio nca nb e taken , wer e considered . Fo r ver y smal l source s wit hsmal l contro l devices , th e benefit s associate dwit ha COM S o r dail y visibl e emissio nobservations , i nterm s o f reducin g exces s emissions , ar e smalle r i ncompariso nt o large r sources . Th e cos t o f dail y

visibl e emissio nobservation s a s a percen t o f th e annualize dcos t o f operatin g th e contro l equipmen t wa s als o considered . Fo r thes e reasons , typica l siz e unit s wit hemission s les s tha n10. 0 Mg/y r (1 1 tons/yr ) ar e exemp t fro m an y monitorin g requirements . I nregar dt o concern s raise dabou t moistur e o nth e exterio r o f a stac k interferin g wit hth e operatio no r accurac y o f a COMS , EP A

doe s no t believ e thi s conditio nwil l hav e an y effec t o nth e measuremen t o f opacit y i nth e stac k an

d th e commente r hadno dat a t o suppor t thi s claim . However , i f hig hmoistur e conten t inth e stac k o r othe r situation s suc ha s fallin g clay-lade nfilm s o r clay-fil m bridgin g ar e interferin g wit hth e performanc e
o f a COMS , th e owne r o r operato r ma y petitio nth e Administrato r t o approv e
a nalternativ e monitorin g procedure , requirement , o r locatio naccordin g t o 4 0 CF R60.13(i) . VII . ADMINISTRATIV E REQUIREMENT S Th e docke t i s anorganize dan dcomplet e fil e o f al l th e informatio n considere db

y EP A i nth e developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke t i s a dynami c file , sinc e materia l i s adde dthroughou t th e rulemakin g development . Th e docketin g system i s intende dt o allo w member s o f th e publi c andindus trie s involve dt o readil y identif y

an dlocat e document s s o tha t the y ca n intelligentl y

an deffectivel y

participat e inth e rulemakin g process . Alon g wit hth e statemen t o f basi s an dpurpos e o f th e propose dan dpromulgate d £ 2 3P.2 6



### standard s an

dth e EP A

response s t o significan t comments , th e content s o f th e docket , excep t fo r interagenc y revie w materials , wil l serv e a s th e recor di n
cas e o f judicia l review . [Sectio n307(d)(7)(A)] . The effectiv e dat e o f thi s regulatio ni s (dat e o f publicatio ni nth e FEDERA L REGISTER) . Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t provides tha t NSP S o r revision s thereo f becom e effectiv e upo npromulgatio n
an dappl y t o affecte dfacilities , constructio no r modificatio no f whic h
wa s commence dafte r th e dat e o f proposal , Apri l 23 , 1986 . A s describe db

y Sectio n111 , th e promulgatio no f thes e standard s
wa s precede db

y th e Administrator' s determinatio n(4 0 CF R60.16 , 4 4 FR 49222 , date dAugus t 21 , 1979 ) tha t calciner s an ddryer s i nus e i nth e minera l processin g industrie s contribut e significantl y t o ai r pollutio n whic hmay

reasonabl y

b e anticipate dt o endange r publi c healt ho r welfare . I naccordanc e wit hSectio n11 7 o f th e Act , publicatio no f thes e promulgate d standard s wa s precede db y consultatio nwit happropriat e advisor y committees , independen t experts , andFedera l department s andagencies . Thi s regulatio nwil l b e reviewe d4 year s fro m th e dat e o f promulgatio n
a s require db

y th e Clea nAi r Act . Thi s revie w wil l includ e a

nassessmen t
o f suc hfactor s a s th e nee dfo r integratio nwit hothe r programs , th e existenc e o f alternativ e methods , enforceability , improvement s i nemissio n contro l technology , an dreportin g requirements . The informatio ncollectio nrequirement s containe di nthi s rul e (thos e include di n4 0 CF R60. 7 an d60.735 ) hav e bee napprove db y th e Offic e o f Managemen t an

dBudge t (OMB ) unde r th e provision s o f th e Paperwor k Reductio n Act , 4 4 U . S . C . 350 1 e t seq . an dhav e bee nassigne dOMB contro l numbe r

Publi c reportin g burde nfo r thi s collectio no f informatio ni s estimate d 

# £ 2 4P.2 7



## t o averag e 49 6 hour s pe r response , includin g tim e fo r reviewin g instructions , searchin g existin g dat a sources , gatherin g an dmaintainin g th e dat a needed , an dcompletin g an

dreviewin g th e collectio no f information . Sen dcomment s regardin g th e burde nestimat e o r an y othe r aspec t o f thi s collectio no f information , includin g suggestion s fo r reducin g thi s burden , t o Chief , Informatio nPolic y Branch , PM-223 , U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M

Street , S . W. , Washington , D . C . 20460 ; an dt o th e Offic e o f Informatio nandRegulator y Affairs , Paperwor kReductionProjec t (2060 - ) , Offic e o f Managemen t an

dBudget , Washington , D . C . 20503 , marke d"Attention : Des kOffice r fo r EPA. " Sectio n31 7 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t require s th e Administrato r t o prepar e a neconomi c impac t assessmen t fo r an y NSP S promulgate dunde r Sectio n111(b ) o f th e Act . A

neconomi c impac t assessmen t wa s prepare dfo r thi s regulatio n an dfo r othe r regulator y

alternatives . Al l aspect s o f th e assessmen t wer e considere dindeterminin g BDT . Th e economi c impac t assessmen t i s include d i nth e BI Dfo r th e propose dstandards . Unde r Executiv e Orde r 12291 , EPA i s require dt o judg e whethe r a regulatio ni s a "majo r rule " and , therefore , subjec t t o certai nrequire ment s o f th e Order . Th e Agenc y ha s determine dtha t th e regulatio nwoul d resul t innon e o f th e advers e economi c effect s se t fort hi nSectio n1 o f th e Orde r a s ground s fo r findin g a regulatio nt o b e major . Th e tota l nationwid e incrementa l annualize dcost s inth e fift hyea r afte r th e stan dard s woul dgo int o effec t woul drang e fro m $0. 7 t o $1. 0 million , les s tha n th e $10 0 millio nestablishe da s th e firs t criterionfo r a majo r regulatio n inth e Order . Th e maximu m estimate dpric e increas e o f 1.7 5 percen t associ ate dwit hth e propose dstandard s woul dno t b e considere da "majo r increas e i ncost s o r prices " specifie da s th e secondcriterio ni nth e Order . Th e % 2 5P.2 8

economi c analysi s o f th e standard' s effec t o n th e industr

ydi d no t indicat e
an ysignifican t advers e effect s o n competition , investment , productivity , employment , innovation , o r th e abilit yo f U . S . firm s t o compet e wit h foreig n firm s whic h i s th e third criterio n i n th e Order
. Thi s regulatio n wa s submitte d t o th e OM B fo r revie w a s require d b y Executiv e Orde r 12291 . An ywritte n comment s fro mth e OM

B t o EPAan

d an yEPA respons e t o thos e comment s ar e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n i n Docke t No . A-82-39 , EPA' s Centra l Docke t Section , Sout h Conferenc e Center , Roo m4 , 40 1 M Street , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20460 . Th e Regulator

yFlexibilit yAc t o f 198 6 require s th e identificatio n o f potentiall yadvers e impact s o f Federa l regulation s upon smal l busines s entities
. The Ac t specificall yrequire s th e completio n o f a Regulator y Flexibilit yAnalysi s i n thos e instance s wher e smal l busines s impact s ar e possible
. Th e EPAdefinitio n o f significan t effec t involve s four tests : (1 ) price s fo r smal l entitie s ris e 5 percen t o r more , assuming cost s ar e passe d on t o consumers ; o r (2 ) annualize d investmen t cost s fo r pollutio n contro l ar e greate r than contro l cost s a s a percentag e o f sale s fo r larg e entities ; o r (3 ) contro l cost s a s a percentag e o f sale s fo r smal l entitie s
ar e 1 0 percen t greate r than contro l cost s a s a percentag e o f sale s fo r larg e entities ; o r (4 ) th e requirement s o f th e regulatio n ar e likel yt o resul t i n closure s o f smal l entities
. Th e Act' s definitio n o f "smal l business " i s base d o n definition s develope d b

yth e Smal l Busines s Administratio n (SBA) . Th e SBA' s definition s
ar e listed i n 1 3 CF R 12 1 b yStandard Industria l Classificatio n (SIC ) categories
. For mos t o f th e minera l drye r an d calcine r industries , th e SB Adefine s a smal l busines s a s on e wit h 50 0 o r fewe r employee s (the tw o exception s ar e gypsu man d titaniu mdioxide , eac h o f whic h i s 1,00 0 employees)
. Mos t o f th e minera l drye r i 2 6P.2 9



### an dcalcine r industrie s d o includ e smal l businesse s accordin g t o th e SBA definition . Th e regulatio nwoul dappl y t o al l businesse s (smal l an d large ) i nth e 1 7 industries , an da s a resul t th e tes t o f a substantia l numbe r o f smal l businesse s i s met . Althoug hther e ar e a substantia l numbe r o f smal l businesses , th e
measur e o f significan t effect s i s no t likel y t o b e met . Th e absolut e leve l o f th e percen t produc t pric e increase s i s quit e smal l fo r mos t o f th e industries , typicall y abou t 0. 5 percen t o r less . Thus , th e firs t tes t i s neve r triggered . Neithe r ar e th e secondo r fourt htest s triggered . Th e thir dtes t i s occasionall y triggered , bu t th e absolut e size s o f th e number s ar e s o smal l a s t o mak e thi s tes t inapplicable . Fo r example , i nth e diatomit e industry , a smal l flas hdrye r ( 4 Mg/h ) ha s contro l cost s a s a percentag e o f sale s tha t ar e 2 3 percen t highe r tha nth e correspondin g percentag e fo r a large r flas hdrye r (1 1 Mg/h) . Bu t th e absolut e level s o f thes e two percentage s ar e 0.1 6 percen t and0.1 3 percen t an

dth e 2 3 percent differenc e betwee nthem i s virtuall y

meaningless . Thus , becaus e th e absolut e level s o f th e percen t produc t pric e increase s
ar e quit e smal l fo r mos t o f th e industries , an dbecaus e th e test s ar e presente da s guidelines , aninterpretatio no f th e spiri t an dpurpos e o f th e Ac t indicate s tha t th e industrie s d o no t excee dth e Act' s tests . Becaus e thes e standard s impos e no advers e economi c impacts , a Regulator y Flexibilit y

Analysi s ha s no t bee nconducted . Pursuan t t o th e provision s o f 5 U.S.C . 605(b) , I hereby certif y tha t thi s rul e wil l no t hav e a significan t economi c impac t o na substantia l numbe r
o f smal l entitie s becaus e th e impac t o f th e fina l rul e i s no t significant .



## 2 7P.3 0



### LIS T O F SUBJECT S I N

4 0 CF RPAR T 6 0 Ai r Pollutio ncontrol , Reportin g andrecordkeepin g requirements , Incorporatio nb

y reference , Intergovernmenta l relations , Metalli c minerals , andNonmetalli c minerals .

Dat e Administrato r



## 28P.3 1

PAR T 60—[AMENDED ] 4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 i s amende da s follows : 1 . Th e authorit y

citatio nfo r Par t 6 0 continue s t o read a s follows : Authority : Section s 101 , 111 , 114 , 116 , 301 , Clea nAi r Ac t a s amende d (4 2 U.S.C . 7401 , 7411 , 7414 , 7416 , 7601) . 2 . B y addin g a new

Subpar t UU

Uconsistin g o f §§60.73 0 throug h60.73 7
a s follows : Subpar t UUU—Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Calciner s an d Dryer s i nMinera l Industries . SECTIONS : 60.73 0 Applicabilit y an d designatio no f affecte d facility . 60.73 1 Definitions

. 60.73 2 Standard s fo rparticulat e matter

. 60.73 3 Reconstruction

. 60.73 4 Monitorin g o f emission s an d operations

. 60.73 5 Recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirements

. 60.73 6 Tes t method s an d procedures

. 60.73 7 Delegatio n o f authority

. Subpar t UUU—Standard s o f Performanc e fo rCalciner s an d Dryer s

i n Minera l Industries

. §60.73 0 Applicabilit yan d designatio n o f affecte d facility

. (a ) Th e affecte d facilit yt o whic h th e provision s o f thi s subpar t appl yi s eac h calcine ran d drye ra t a minera l processin g plant

. Fee d an d produc t conveyor s ar e no t considere d par t o f th e affecte d facility

. Fo r th e bric k

an d relate d cla yproduct s industry , onl yth e calcinin g an d dryin g o f ra wmaterial s prio rt o firin g o f th e bric k ar e covered

.

% 2 9P.3 2



### (b ) A naffecte dfacilit y

tha t i s subjec t t o th e provision s o f Subpar t LL , Metalli c Minera l Processin g Plants , i s no t subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpart . Also , th e followin g processe s an dproces s unit s use da t minera l processin g plant s ar e no t subjec t t o th e provision s
o f thi s subpart : vertica l shaf t kiln s i nth e magnesium compound s industry ; th e chlorination-oxidatio nproces s i nth e titaniu m dioxid e industry ; coat ing kilns , mixers , an daerator s i nth e roofin g granule s industry ; an d tunne l kilns , tunne l dryers , apro ndryers , an dgrindin g equipmen t tha t als o drie s th e proces s materia l use di nan y o f th e 1 7 minera l industrie s (a s define di n§60.731 , "Minera l processin g plant") . (c ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f an y facilit y

unde r paragrap h(a ) o f thi s sectio ntha t commence s construction , modification , o r reconstructio n afte r Apri l 23 , 1986 , i s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f thi s subpart . §60.73 1 Definitions . A s use di nthi s subpart , al l term s no t define dhereinshal l hav e th e meanin g give nthem

i nth e Clea nAi r Ac t an di nSubpar t A

o f thi s part . "Calciner " mean s th e equipmen t use dt o remov e combine d(chemicall y bound ) wate r and/o r gase s fro m minera l materia l throug hdirec t o r indirec t heating . Thi s definitio ninclude s expansio nfurnace s an dmultipl e heart h furnaces . "Contro l device " mean s th e ai r pollutio ncontro l equipmen t use dt o reduc e particulat e matte r emission s release dt o th e atmospher e fro m on e
o r mor e affecte dfacilities . "Dryer " mean s th e equipmen t use dt o remov e uncombine d(free ) wate r fro m minera l materia l throug hdirec t o r indirec t heating . "Installe di nseries " mean s a calcine r an ddrye r installe dsuc htha t th e exhaus t gase s fro m on e flo

w throug hth e othe r an dthe nth e combine d


## €3 0P.3 3



### exhaus t gase s ar e discharge dt o th e atmosphere . "Minera l processin g plant " mean s an yfacilit ytha t processe s o r produce s an yo f th e followin g minerals , thei rconcentrate s o ranymixtur e o f whic h th e majorit y( > 5 0 percent ) i s an yo f th e followin g mineral s o ra combinatio n o f thes e minerals : alumina , bal l clay , bentonite , diatomite , feldspar , fir e clay , fuller' s earth , gypsum , industria l sand , kaolin , lightweigh t aggregate , magnesiu m compounds , perlite , roofin g granules , talc , titaniu m dioxide , an d vermiculite

. §60.73 2 Standard s fo rparticulat e matter

. Eac h owne ro roperato ro f anyaffecte d facilit ytha t i s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f thi s subpar t shal l compl ywit h th e emissio n limitation s se t fort h i n thi s sectio n o n an d afte rth e dat e o n whic h th e initia l performanc e test , require d b y§60. 8 i s completed , bu t no t late rtha n 18 0 days afte rth e initia l startup , whicheve rdat e come s first

. N

o emission s shal l be discharge d int o th e atmosphere fro m an yaffecte d facilit ythat : (a ) Contai n particulat e matte ri n exces s o f 0.0 9 gra m pe rdr ystandar d cubi cmete r(g/dscm ) [0.0 4 grai n pe rdr ystandar d cubi cfoo t (gr/dscf) ] fo rcalciner s an d fo rcalciner s an d dryer s installe d i n serie s an d i n exces s o f 0.05 7 g/dsc m (0.02 5 gr/dscf ) fo rdryers ; an d (b ) Exhibi t greate rtha n 1 0 percen t opacity , unles s th e emission s ar e discharge d fro m an affecte d facilit yusin g a we t scrubbin g contro l device

. §60.73 3 Reconstruction

. Th e cos t o f replacemen t o f equipmen t subjec t t o hig h temperature s an d abrasio n o n processin g equipmen t shal l no t b e considere d i n calculatin g eithe rth e "fixe d capita l cos t o f th e ne wcomponents " o rth e "fixe d capita l 

## t 

## 3 1P.3 4

cos t tha t woul d b e require d t o construc t a comparabl e ne wfacility " unde r §60.15

. Calcine ran d drye requipmen t subjec t t o hig h temperature s an d abrasio n are : en d seals , flights , an d refractor ylining

. §60.73 4 Monitorin g o f emission s an d operations

. (a ) Wit h th e exceptio n o f th e proces s unit s describe d i n paragraph s (b) , (c) , an d (d ) o f thi s section , th e owne ro roperato ro f a n affecte d facilit ysubjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpar t wh o use s a dr ycontro l devic e t o compl ywit h th e mass emissio n standar d shal l install , calibrate , maintain , an d operat e a continuou s monitorin g syste m t o measur e an d
recor d th e opacit yo f emission s discharge d int o th e atmospher e fro m th e contro l device

. (b ) I n lie u o f a continuou s opacit ymonitorin g syste m require d i n paragrap h (a ) o f thi s section , th e owne ro roperato ro f a bal l cla y vibratin g grat e dryer , a bentonit e rotar ydryer , a diatomit e flas h dryer , a diatomit e rotar ycalciner , a feldspa rrotar ydryer , a fir e cla yrotar y dryer , a n industria l san d flui d be d dryer , a kaoli n rotar ycalciner , a perlit e rotar ydryer , a roofin g granule s flui d be d dryer , a roofin g granule s rotar ydryer , a tal crotar ycalciner , a titaniu m dioxid e spra y dryer , a titaniu m dioxid e flui d be d dryer , a vermiculit e flui d be d dryer , o ra vermiculit e rotar ydrye rwh o use s a dr ycontro l devic e ma yhav e a certifie d visibl e emission s observe rmeasur e an d recor d thre e 6-minut e average s o f th e opacit yo f visibl e emission s t o th e atmospher e eac h day o f operatio n i n accordanc e wit h EP AMetho d 9

. (c ) Th e owne ro roperato ro f a bal l cla yrotar ydryer , a diatomit e rotar ydryer , a feldspa rflui d be d dryer , a fuller' s eart h rotar ydryer , a gypsu m rotar ydryer , a gypsu m flas h calciner , a gypsu m kettl e calciner , a n industria l san d rotar ydryer , a kaoli n rotar ydryer , a kaoli n multipl e
f 3 2P.3 5

heart hfurnace , a perlit e expansio nfurnace , a tal c flas hdryer , a tal c rotar y dryer , a titaniu

m dioxid e direc t o r indirec t rotar y drye r o r a vermiculit e expansio nfurnac e wh o use s a dry contro l devic e i s exemp t fro m th e monitorin g requirement s o f thi s section . (d ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s subpar t wh o use s a we t scrubbe r t o compl y wit hth e mas s emissio nstandar dfo r an y affecte dfacilit y

shal l install , calibrate , maintain , an

doperat e monitorin g device s tha t continuousl y measur e and
recor dth e pressur e los s o f th e ga s strea m throug hth e scrubbe r an dth e scrubbin g liqui dflo w rat e t o th e scrubber . Th e pressur e los s monitorin g devic e mus t b e certifie db y th e manufacture r t o b e accurat e withi n5 percen t
o f wate r colum

ngaug e pressur e a t th e leve l o f operation . Th e liqui d flow rat e monitorin g devic e mus t b e certifie db y th e manufacture r t o b e accurat e withi n5 percen t o f desig nscrubbin g liqui dflow rate . (Approve db

y th e Offic e o f Managemen t an dBudge t unde r contro l numbe r

- • ) §60.73 5 Recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirements . (a ) Record s o f th e measurement s require d i n§60.73 4 o f thi s subpar t
mus t b e retaine dfo r a t leas t 2 years . (b ) Eac howne r o r operato r wh o use s a we t scrubbe r t o compl y wit h §60.73 2 shal l determin e an d recor donc e eac hday , fro m th e recording s o f th e monitorin g device s i n§60.734(d) , a narithmeti c averag e ove r a 2-hou r perio do f bot hth e chang e i npressur e o f th e ga s stream acros s th e scrubbe r
an dth e flowrat e o f th e scrubbin g liquid . (c ) Eac howne r o r operato r shal l submi t writte nreport s semiannuall y
o f exceedance s o f contro l devic e operatin g parameter s require dt o b e moni tore db y §60.734(d ) o f thi s subpart . Fo r th e purpos e o f thes e reports , exceedance s ar e define d a s follows : t 3 3P.3 6



### (1 ) Al l 6-minut e period s durin g whic hth e averag e opacit y fro m dr y contro l device s i s greate r tha n1 0 percent ; o r (2 ) An y dail y 2-hou r averag e o f th e we t scrubbe r pressur e dro pdetermine d
a s describe di n§60.735(b ) tha t i s withi n1 0 percen t o f th e averag e valu e recorde daccordin g t o §60.736(c ) durin g th e mos t recen t performanc e tes t tha t demonstrate dcomplianc e wit hth e particulat e matte r standard ; o r (3 ) Eac hdail y

we t scrubbe r liqui dflow rat e recorde da s describe di n §60.735(b ) tha t i s withi n2 0 percen t o f th e averag e valu e recorde daccordin g t o §60.736(c ) durin g th e mos t recen t performanc e tes t tha t demonstrate d complianc e wit hth e particulat e matte r standard . (d ) Th e requirement s o f thi s sectio nremai ni nforc e unti l an d unles s th e Agency , i ndelegatin g enforcemen t authorit y t o a Stat e unde r Sectio n111(c ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act , approve s reportin g requirement s o r
a nalternativ e mean s o f complianc e surveillanc e adopte db y suc hState . I ntha t event , affecte dfacilitie s withi nth e Stat e wil l b e relieve d
o f th e obligatio nt o compl y wit hthi s sectio nprovide dtha t the y compl y wit hth e requirement s establishe db y th e State . (Approve db

y th e Offic e o f Managemen t andBudge t unde r contro l numbe r

- • ) 

### §60.73 6 Tes t method s an dprocedures . (a ) I nconductin g th e performanc e test s require di n§60.8 , th e owne r o r operato r shal l us e a s referenc e method s an dprocedure s th e tes t method s i n Appendi xA

o f thi s par t o r othe r method s an dprocedure s a s specifie di nthi s section , excep t a s provide di n§60.8(b) . (b ) Th e owne r o r operato r shal l determin e complianc e wit hth e particulat e matte r standard s i n§60.73 2 a s follows : (1 ) Metho d5 shal l b e use dt o determin e th e particulat e matte r concentration ,


## 3 4P.3 7



### Th e samplin g tim e an

dvolume fo r eac htes t ru nshal l b e a t leas t 2 hour s
and1.7 0 dscm

(6 0 dscf) . (2 ) Metho d9 an

dth e procedure s i n§60.1 1 shal l b e use dt o determin e opacit y fro m stac k emissions . (c ) Durin g th e initia l performanc e tes t o f a we t scrubber , th e
owne r o r operato r shal l us e th e monitorin g device s o f §60.734(d ) t o determin e th e averag e chang e i npressur e o f th e ga s strea m acros s th e scrubbe r an

dth e averag e flowrat e o f th e scrubbe r liqui ddurin g eac ho f th e particulat e matte r runs . Th e arithmeti c average s o f th e thre e run s shal l b e use da s th e baselin e averag e value s fo r th e purpose s o f §60.735(c) . §60.73 7 Delegatio no f authority . (a ) I ndelegatin g implementatio nan denforcemen t authorit y t o a Stat e unde r Sectio n111(c ) o f th e Act , th e authoritie s containe di n paragrap h(b ) o f thi s sectio nshal l b e retaine db y th e Administrato r an d
no t transferre dt o a State . (b ) Authoritie s whic hwil l no t b e delegate dt o States : N o restrictions .



## H 3 5