P.1 

OAR Box 1110 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

6) IV-H-1 

Docket Number: 

A-82-39 

Printed 4/14/2008 1:23:55 PM Sheet 6 of 156 
P.2 

i 

r j> -ei 

*«oar*»*. 

'<< PRO* 0 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

6 JUL 1985 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Request for OMB Clearance of Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Associated with New Source Perfonnance Standards 

for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries 

FROM: Gerald A. Emlson, Director 

Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards (MO-10) 

TO: C. Ronald Smith, Director 

Office of Standards and Regulations (PM-223) 

THRU: Joan LaRock 

Office of Assistant Administrator for A1r and Radiation (ANR-443) 

Attached are the Standard Form 83 (four copies) and supporting 

statement (four, copies) for requesting clearance of the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements associated with the new source performance 

standards for calciners and dryers in mineral Industries. 

Please review this request and forward it to the Office of Management 

and Budget. If you have any questions concerning this submittal, please 

contact Mr. Doug Bell at FTS 629-5624. 

2 Attachments 

cc: Doug Bell (MD-13) 

Ken Durkee (MD-13) 

Steve Godar (MD-11) 

Bob Kolbinsky (MD-13) 

Harvey Nozick (ANR-443) (w/o attachment) 

Sharon Payne (ANR-443) 

rn 

i/> 

<—» 

-?z 

o 

2> 

m *XIJO 

o 

"O 

"> 

o 

c-i. 

n> 

o 

r+ 

CO 

•—• 

*-v. 

o 

r» 

h-H 

> 

o 

7* 

O 

*£• 

W 

—. in 

7T 

mmi. 

"-^ 

-n 

< CO 

n> 

*< 

n> 

• j 

- ~ j 

CO 

-a 

v. 

^•m. 

ft 

c/» 

m 

o 

"*"-*• 1—1 . 

</> C3 

*-^. c/> 

a 

(St 

. • • 

??. 

"Zm 

a> 

c, 

-I-I 

o> 

i-» ~s 

CTl * 50*-l *-} / «^l 

1 

CO 

a> 

t n 

3 

—i 

tn 

r<o 

o 

zz. CM, 541-5595, MD-13 

SOL ¥ £.?//&. ...Z£&. 

>•••-• e/rj/e>4^ 

> p..... 

7-/J-S5 

CONCURENCES 

..S.2. 

.£&-

^?-tz-^> 

33rf.^h?>:, vfcB 
P.3 

1

 * 

I tt-Wfa.) . *~t_J 

ENVIROWMEWTAL PROTECTIOM 

AGENCY 

APR 2 5 1988 

CENTRAL DOCKET 

SECTION 
P.4 

Standard Form 83 

(Rev SaptfmMf 1983) 

Request for OMB Review 

Important 

Read instructions before completing form. Do not use the same SF 83 

to request both an Executive Order 12291 review and approval under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Answer all questions in Part I. If this request is for review under E.O. 

12291. complete Part II and sign the regulatory certification. If this 

request is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 

1320, skip Part II, complete Part III and sign the paperwork certification. 

Send three copies of this form, the material to be reviewed ana for 

paperwork—three copies of the supporting statement, lo: 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Off ice of Management and Budget 

Attention: Docket Ubrary, Room 3201 

Washington. DC 20503 

PART I.—Complete This Part for All Requests. 

1. Department/agency and Bureau/office originating request 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

3. Name of person who can best answer questions regarding this request 

David Painter OAQPS/ESED/SDB (MD-13) 

Telephone number 

(FTS ) 629-5578 

4. Title of information collection or rulemaking 

New Source Performance Standards for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries--(ICR No.) 

5. legal authority for information collection or rule Core Uh'tec States Code, PUDIIC Law, or Executive Order) 

42 

.use 

7411, 7414 

.or. 

6. Affected public (check all that apply) 

1 O Individuals or households 

2 CH State or local governments 

3 D Farms 

4 5 ] Businesses or other for-profit 

Federal agencies or employees 

6 O Non-prof it institutions 

7 O Small businesses or organizations 

PART 11.—Complete This Part Only if the Request is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 12291 

7. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

or. None assigned D 

8. Type of submission (cneck one in each category) 

Classification Stage of development 

1 O Major 1 LJ Proposed or draft 

2 LJ Nonmajor 2 U Final or interim final, with prior proposal 

3 LJ Final or interim final, without pnor proposal 

Type of review requested 

1 D Standard 

2 D Pending 

3 Q Emergency 

4 LJ Statutory or judicial deadline 

9. CFR section affected 

CFR _ 

10. Does this regulation contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

and 5 CFR 1320? O Yes G No 

1 D Yes 2 G No 

Certification for Regulatory Submissions 

In submitting this request for OMB review, the authorized regulatory contact and the program official certify that the requirementsof E.O. 12291 and any spoiicatfe 

policy directives have been complied with. 

Signature of program official 

Signature of authorized regulatory contact 

Date 

Date 

12. (OMB use only) 

Previous eflition.i ootowte 83 108 

NSN 7540-00-634-403-J 

Sunfljrd Form 83 ,Se» 9 83/ 

Preserves oy OM3 

5CFR1320anfliiO 1229*. 
P.5 

PART III.—Complete This Part Only if the Request is for Approval of a Collection ~ ~ — 

of Information Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320. 

13. Abstract—Describe needs, uses and affected public in 50 worts or less 

The NSPS affect owners or operators of plants that process minerals in calciners or 

dryers. The owners or operators must submit semiannual reports to enable the Administrator 

to identify new, modified, or reconstructed sources subject to the standards and to ensur* 

that the standards are being achieved.

 e 

14. Type of information collection (check only one) 

Information collections not contained in rulea 

1 Q Regular submission 

Information collections contained In rules 

3 0 Existing regulation (no changa proposal) 

4 3 Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

5 D Final. NPRM was previously published 

2 Q Emergency submission (certification attached) 

6 Final or interim final without, prior NPRM 

A D Regular submission 

B Q Emergency submission (certification attached) 

7. Enter date of expected or actuaiF-sr: 

Register publication at this stage ofr» -. 

(month,day,yetp:January 27. 

15. Type of review requested (check only one) 

1 E New collection 

2 Q Revision of a currently approved collection 

3 Q Extension of the expiration date of a currently approved collection 

without any changa in the substance or in the method of collection 

4 O Reinstetcmsnt of a previously appros>ed collection for which approval 

has expired 

5 Q Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 

16. Agency report form numbers) (include standard/optional form numbers)) 

17. Annual reporting or disclosure burden 

1 Number of respondents . 

2 Number of responses per respondent . . 

3 Total annual responses (lint 1 times line 2) 

4 Hours per response 

5 Total hours (line 3 times line 4) *. . .. . 

22. Purpose of information collection (check as many as apply) 

1 Q Application for benefits 

2 D Program evaluation 

3 D General purpose statistics 

4 E Regulatory or compliance 

5 D Program planning of manegement 

6 D Resaaref* 

7 • Audit 

18. Annual recordkeeping burden 

1 Number of recordkeepers 

2 Annual hours per recordkeoper 

3 Total recordkeeping hours (line 1 times line 2) 

4 Recordkeeping retention period 

0 

2 years 

19. Total annual burden 

1 Requested (line 17-5 plus line 18-3). 

2 In current OMB inventory . . . . 

3 Difference (line 1 less line 2) . . . 

Explanation of difference 

4 Program change ...... . 

5 Adjustment 

23. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting("cftee* all that apply) 

1 120 Recordlsesping 

Reporting 

2 Q On occasion 

3 D Weekly 

4 D Monthly 

5 D Quarte-fiy 

6 0 Semi-annually 

7 LJ Annually 

8 D Biennially 

9 Q Other (describe): ; , 

20. Current (most recent) OMB control number or comment number 

2 1 . Requested expiration date 

March 1990 

24. Respondents' obligation to comply (check the strongest obligation that app-. 

1 D Voluntary 

2 Q Required to obtain or retain a benefit 

3 2 1 Mandatory 

25. Are the respondents primarily educational agencies or institutions or is the primary purpose of the collection related to Federal education programs? U Yes 2 . 

26. Does the agency use sampling to select respondents or does the agency recommend or prescribe the use of sampling or statistical analysis 

by respondents? Li Yes ix. 

27. Regulatory authority for the information collection 

4U CFR. wm FR . *. or. Other (specify): 

Paperwork Certif Ication 

In submitting this request for I 

. Privacy Ajl^wtisTtcal stana 

(-.approval, the agency head, the senior official or an authorized representative, certifies that the requirements of 5 CFR 1320 

ordirectiveaoand any ot&er artf^Dcable information policy directives have oeen complied with. 

Signature of progrj 

director of the Office(dt"Air QualiTy Planning and Standards 

Oature ot agency head, tne senior official or an autnorfzeO rep'r*isentat..e 

0316

 / mis A 

Date/ 
P.6 

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR STANDARD FORM 83 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR 

CALCINERS AND DRYERS IN 

MINERAL INDUSTRIES 

A. JUSTIFICATION 

1. Need for the Information Collection. The U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air 

Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary 

sources that reflect: 

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous 

emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 

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

Section 111(e) further states: 

After the effective date of standards of performance promulgated 

under this Section, it shall be unlawful for any owner or operator 

of any new source to operate such source in violation of any 

standard of performance applicable to such source. 

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions 

from calciners and dryers in mineral industries cause, or contribute 

significantly to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. Consequently, new source performance 

standards (NSPS) have been developed for this source category and are 

currently being processed for proposal in the FEDERAL REGISTER. 

Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the 

Administrator to: (1) identify new, modified, or reconstructed 
P.7 

sources subject to the standards and (2) ensure that standards based 

on best demonstrated technology (BDT) are being achieved. 

2. Description and Practical Utility of the Information 

Collection Activity. 

a. Description of Information Collection Activity for 

Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries. 

Reports of start of construction, anticipated and actual startup 

dates, and physical or operational changes to existing facilities are 

required to identify affected sources. Reports of initial performance 

tests are necessary to determine that BDT is being used. Records of 

startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions in the operation of affected 

facilities and associated control equipment, records of opacity and 

control device monitoring parameters, and other information required 

by the standards are necessary to determine proper operation and 

maintenance. Failure to collect this information would allow 

circumvention of the standards. 

b. EPA Use of Data Collected. The information will be used 

by Agency enforcement personnel (1) to identify new, modified, and 

reconstructed sources subject to the standards, (2) to ensure that 

BDT is being properly applied, and (3) to ensure that the emission 

control device is being properly operated and maintained on a continuous 

basis. 

In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable EPA to 

identify plants that may not be in compliance with the standards. 

Based on reported information, EPA can decide which plants should be 

inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at the 
P.8 

plant. The records that plants would maintain would indicate whether 

plants are properly operating and maintaining control equipment. 

3. Minimizing Burden. The Agency does not ask the respondents 

to reduce the data, only to submit the recorded logs semiannually for 

those periods of normal operation during which the 10 percent opacity 

limit for dry control devices is exceeded or, for wet scrubbers, the 

pressure drop varies by more than ±10 percent or the liquid flow rate 

varies by more than ±20 percent of the average values determined 

during compliance testing. Thus, the burden will be minimized for 

those respondents who properly operate and maintain their system to 

comply with the standards. In addition, the analysis of the burden 

to the 17 industries showed that the burden could be further reduced 

in two industries by providing that, in lieu of a continuous opacity 

monitoring system, the owner or operator of a gypsum flash or kettle 

calciner or of a perlite rotary dryer or expansion furnace who uses a 

dry control device may have a certified visible emissions observer 

measure and record three 6-minute averages of the opacity of visible 

emissions to the atmosphere once per week of operation in accordance 

with EPA Reference Method 9. 

4. Nonduplication. A computer search of the Federal Information 

Locator System indicated that there are no similar information requests 

being carried out by the Federal Government. A similar search of 

EPA's ongoing Information Collection Requests (ICR's) revealed no 

duplication of information gathering efforts. However, certain 

reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information 

required by the recommended standards. In such cases, a copy of the 

reports submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the 
P.9 

Administrator in lieu of the reports required by the recommended 

standards., 

5. Consideration of Alternatives. There are no practical 

alternatives for gathering this information other than the alternative 

noted in paragraph 4. 

6. Minimizing of Burden for Small Business. Some small 

organizations may be affected by the recommended NSPS. However, the 

information collection requirements are the minimum necessary to 

demonstrate compliance. The EPA has critically reviewed the reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements associated with the recommended standards 

for mineral calciners and dryers and has reduced recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to data that are essential to both the respondent 

and EPA to ensure proper operation and maintenance of control equipment. 

7. Consideration of Collection. Most of the information collection 

requirements for calciners and dryers in mineral industries are 

one-time-only notifications or reports and cannot be performed on a 

less frequent basis. These requirements include the notification of 

construction or reconstruction, notification of anticipated startup, 

notification of actual startup, notification of the initial performance 

test, and the initial performance test report. 

Semiannual reporting of exceedances of the opacity limit for dry 

control devices, exceedances of operating parameter limits for wet 

scrubbers, and corrective maintenance required as a result of semiannual 

calibrations of CMS or operating parameter monitoring devices is 

required to ensure compliance with the standards on a continuous 

basis. The frequency of these reports was chosen by the Agency as 

trs least frequent period that still ensures that facilities subject 
P.10 

to the standards will not operate for extended periods in violation 

of the standards. Less frequent information collection could allow 

longer periods of time berore poor pollution control operating and 

maintenance conditions and violations of the standards would be 

identified. This delay would result in higher emissions and poorer 

air quality. 

8. Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines. None of the guidelines 

in 5 CFR 1320.6 are being exceeded. 

9. Consultations. Representatives of the mineral processing 

industries and members of the Expanded Shale, Clay, and Slate Institute; 

Gypsum Association; Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute; National 

Industrial Sand Association; Perlite Institute; The Refractories 

Institute; and State air pollution control agencies were consulted 

during the development of the standards. No major problems were 

encountered on which agreement could not be reached. Furthermore, 

the General Provisions require that EPA review NSPS 4 years from the 

date of promulgation. 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. For this reason, 

special consultation with respondents on a 3-year basis should not be 

necessary. 

10. Confidentiality. Any information submitted to the Agency 

for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded 

according to the Agency's policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, 

Part 2, Subpart B--Confidentiality of Business Information (see 

40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, 
P.11 

September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, 

March 23, 1979). Furthermore, the type of information that is being 

collected by EPA is not expected to be considered confidential in 

most cases. 

11. Sensitive Questions. Th'.s section is not applicable because 

this ICR does not involve matters of a sensitive nature. 

12. Cost to the Government and to the Respondents. 

a. Cost to the Federal Government. The Federal Government 

will not incur any development costs because the information collection 

requirements were developed as an incidental part of developing the 

standards. Furthermore, the Federal Government will not incur any 

operation costs because reporting and recordkeeping requirements on 

the part of the respondents are required under Section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act. No Federal costs can be directly attributed to the 

ICR because publication and distribution of the information are part 

of the Compliance Data System as discussed in Section 15. Also, 

there will be no additional costs associated with examination of the 

records to be maintained by the respondents because the examination 

is already a part of EPA's periodic inspection of sources, which is 

part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program. The only 

costs that the Federal Government will incur are user costs associated 

with the analysis of the reported information. 

The average annual Federal cost during the first 3 years of the 

ICR is estimated to be $76,108. This cost is based on an average 

wage of $14.00 per hour and a 110 percent overhead rate. Details 

upon which this estimate is based are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for 

affected facilities controlled by dry control devices and wet scrubbers, 
P.12 

TABLE 1. ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS TO THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT FOR FACILITIES CONTROLLED BY DRY CONTROL DEVICES 

8urden item 

Hours 

per 

ocurrence 

(A) 

08.2b 

89.6d 

Occurrences per 

facility 

per year 

(B) 

1 

1 

Hours per 

facility 

per y.&r 

(C=Axa) 

308.2 

89.6 

Facilities 

per year 

(0) 

2.6C 

0.3e 

Hours 

per year 

(E=CxD) 

801.3 

28.9 

Dollars 

per year 

1. Initial Performance Test 

•Affected facility 

2. Repeat Performance Test 

• Affected facility 

3. Report Review 

• Affected facility 

Notification of construction/ 

reconstruction 

Notification of anticipated startup 

Notification of actual startup 

Notification of initial performance 

test 

Review emission test results 

Notification of demonstration of 

continuous monitoring system (CHS) 

Notification of physical or 

operational changes 

Review CHS or Reference Method 9 

demonstration 

Review of excess emission reports 

TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 

i. 

4. Travel Expenses for Tests Attended 

((1 person)(7.7 facilities/yr) 

(1 day/facility) ($50 per diem)) + 

(($400/round trip) (7.7 round trips/yr)) 

5. Salary1 

(1 person)(total annual hours)($29.40/h) 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 

(travel expenses • salary) 

32.1' 64.2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

N/A9 

L6 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

l

1 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

16 

8 

32.1 

32.1 

32.1 

32.1 

32.1 

17.3h 

48. I** 

64.2 

64.2 

64.2 

256.8 

64.2 

276.8 

384.8 

2,069.6 

3,465.00 

60,787.44 

64,252.44 

?Assume one affected facility per respondent. Number of affected facilities was rounded to one-tenth. 

Assume enforcement personnel attend 8 percent of intitial tests, 32.1 affected facilities tested, and each 

test attended by enforcement personnel requires 120 person-hours. 

dAssume enforcement personnel attend 8 percent of initial tests and 32.1 affected facilities tested. 

Assume 20 percent failure rate for 32.1 affected facilities to determine the number of violations, 

8 person-hours for each violation notice, 8 person-hours in conference with facility operators prior to 

retesting, and one-half of the time a test indicating noncompliance with the standard can be attributed 

to correctable conditions and can be retested immediately. 

^Assume enforcement personnel attend 10 percent of retests and 3.2 affected facilities retested. 

Expect 150.5 affected facilities in first 5 years after proposal of the NSPS or 32.1 affected facilities 

per year. 

"Not applicable. Existing facilities are expected to become affected facilities because they are replaced Sy 

.new facilities rather than because of physical or operational changes (modifications). 

Only 17.3 of the 32.1 affected facilities will be required to demonstrate a continuous monitoring system 

.(CMS) to monitor opacity during a performance test. 

'.Ass'jme respondent will submit one report of excess emissions per year. 

JAn average of 48.1 facilities will incur costs of semiannual reporting and recordkeeping requirements over 

k3 years after proposal of the NSPS. 

Tests attended = 2.6 (initial tests) +0.3 (repeat tests) + 4.8 (excess emissions enforcement 

tests) =7.7 tests. Assume EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of repeat tests and 10 percent of excess 

emissions enforcement tests. Excess emissions enforcement tests =0.1 (personnel attendance) x 

.43.1 (facilities reporting excess emissions) = 4.8 tests. 

C;;*cs are based on the rate of pay of a government employee at Grade 10, Step 7, which is currently 

S1^."0 per hour, and on an overhead rate of 110 percent. Thus, the cost is S29.40 per hour. 
P.13 

TABLE 2. ANNUAL ESTIMATE OF DIRECT PERSONNEL COSTS TO THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR FACILITIES CONTROLLED BY WET SCRUBBERS 

Burden item 

Hours 

per 

ocurrence 

(A) 

72b 

21d 

Occurrences per 

facility 

per year 

(B) 

1 

1 

Hours per 

fac i1ity 

per year 

(C=AxB) 

72 

21 

Facilities Hours 

per year per year 

(D) (E=CxO) 

Oollars 

per year 

1. Initial Performance Test 

• A'facted facility 

2. Repeat Performance Test 

• A'feeted facility 

3. Report Review 

• Affected facility 

Notification of construction/ 

reconstruction 

Notification of anticipated startup 

Notification of actual startup 

Notification of initial performance 

test 

Review emission test results 

Notification of demonstration of 

wet scrubber operating parameter 

monitoring devices (OPHO) 

Notification of physical or 

operational changes 

Review wet scrubber OPHO report 

Review of excess emission reports 

TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 

|r 

4. Travel Expenses for Tests Attended 

((1 person)(1.8 facilities/yr) 

(1 day/facility) ($50 per diem)) • 

(($400/round trip) (1.8 round trips/yr)) 

5. Salary1 

(1 person)(total annual hours)($29.40/h) 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 

(travel expenses • salary) 

N/A9 

N/A" 

16 

8 

16 

8 

0.61-

0.1C 

7.5' 

7.5 

7.5. 

11.3J 

43.2 

2.1 

15.0 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

7.5 

7.5 

7.5 

15.0 

15.0 

15.0 

60.0 

120.0 

90.4 

375.7 

810.00 

11,045.58 

11,855.58 

.Assume one affected facility per respondent. Number of affected facilities was rounded to one-tenth. 

Assume enforcement personnel attend 8 percent of intitial tests, 7.5 affected facilities tested, and each 

test attended by enforcement personnel requires 120 person-hours. 

.Assume enforcement personnel attend 8 percent of initial tests and 7.5 affected facilities tested. 

Assume 20 percent failure rate for 7.5 affected facilities to determine the number of violations, 

8 person-hours for each violation notice, 8 person-hours in conference with facility operator prior to 

retesting, and one-half of the time a test indicating noncompliance with the standard can be attributed 

to correctable conditions and can be retested immediately. 

-Assume enforcement personnel attend 10 percent of retests and 0.8 affected facilities retested. 

Expect 37.5 affected facilities in first 5 years after proposal of the NSPS or 7.5 affected facilities 

per year. 

?Not applicable. 

Existing facilities are expected to become affected facilities because they are replaced by new facilities 

•rather than because of physical or operational changes (modifications). 

•Assume respondent will submit one report of excess emissions per year. 

^An average of 11.3 facilities will incur costs of semiannual reporting and recordkeeping requirements over 

.3 years after proposal of the NSPS. 

Tests attended = 0.6 (initial tests) •*• 0.1 (repeat tests) + 1.1 (excess emissions enforcement 

tests) = 1.8 tests. Assume EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of repeat tests and 10 percent of excess 

emissions enforcement tests. Excess emissions enforcement tests =0. 1 (personnel attendance) x 

,11.3 (facilities reporting excess emissions) = 1.1 tests. 

Costs are based on the rate of Day of a government employee at Grade 10. SteD 7. which is currently 

$14.CO per hour, and on an overhead rate of 110 percent. Thus, the cost is 529.40 per hour. 

8 
P.H 

respectively. A breakdown of costs by cost category is presented 

below for the total of the two types of devices: 

Direct Personnel Costs $71,833 

(including overhead) 

Other Direct Costs $ 4,275 

(travel) 

Total $76,108 

b. Cost to the Respondents. Respondents are owners or 

operators of mineral calciner and dryer facilities for which construction, modification, or reconstruction will commence after the date of 

proposal of the standards. The cost to industry for a representative 

respondent for the first year is presented in Table 3. A representative 

respondent was assumed to be a respondent who would be required to 

fulfill all one-time-only reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

and all semiannual and recurrent reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

associated with maintaining a CMS for a dry control device or operating 

parameter monitoring devices for a wet scrubber. The total number of 

hours for all burden items would be 541 hours for a dry control 

device and 443 hours for a wet scrubber. The total number of hours 

for one-time-only burden items would be 439 hours for a dry control 

device and 341 hours for a wet scrubber. The total number of hours 

for semiannual and recurrent burden items would be 102 hours per year 

for both a dry control device and a wet scrubber. The total cost of 

all burden items in the first year would be $15,905 for a dry control 

device and $13,024 for a wet scrubber. 

However, recurrent costs of the required reporting and recordkeeping 

to a representative respondent should be only a small fraction of the 

first-year costs because 439 hours of the estimated 541 hours for dry 

control devices and 341 hours of the estimated 443 hours for wet 
P.15 

TABLE 3. COST TO INDUSTRY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENT 

FOR THE FIRST YEAR 

Burden item 

Hours 

per occurrence (A) 

No. of 

occurrences 

per year (B) 

Hours per 

respondent 

per year 

(C=AxB) 

1. REPORTING REQUIREHENTS 

A. Read instructions 

B. Required activities 

Initial performance test 330 

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system (CHS) 100, 2 

or operating parameter monitoring devices (OPHO) 

Recalibration of CHS or OPMO (semiannual) 4 

C. Write report 

Notification of construction/reconstruction 2 

Notification of anticipated startup 2 

Notification of actual startup 2 

Notification of initial performance test 2 

Reports of excess emissions (recurrent) 16 

a.b 

4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREHENTS 

A. Time to enter information 

Records of startup, shutdown, malfunction, etc. (recurrent) 1.5 

Records of all measurements and information required I.S 

by the standard (recurrent) 

TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)° 

(Total annual hours)($29.40/h) 

i.i48v 

100, 

330 a 2

a 

8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

16 

6 

72 

541,443" 

15,905.40: 

13,024.20s 

The first number corresponds to a representative facility controlled by a dry control device and the second 

.number corresponds to a representative facility controlled by a wet scrubber. 

".Assume it will take 1 hour each to demonstrate pressure loss and liquid flow rate monitoring devices. 

^Assume a representative facility will be operated 48 weeks per year. 

Costs are based on the rate of pay of a government employee at Grade 10, Step 7, which Is currently 

$14.00 per hour, and on an overhead rate of 110 percent. Thus, the costs is $29.40 per hour. 

10 
P.16 

scrubbers are associated with the initial performance tests and 

notification requirements, which are required only once. Costs of 

recurrent burden items to a representative respondent should be about 

$3,000 per year for both dry control devices and wet scrubbers. 

The total annual burden of reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

of affected facilities controlled by dry control devices or wet 

scrubbers in the first 3 years after proposal is presented in Tables 4 

and 5, respectively. It is estimated that there will be 40 respondents 

per year for the first 3 years after proposal. Of the 40 respondents, 

it is expected that 32 will be using dry control devices and 8 will 

be using wet scrubbers. 

Respondents are required by law to submit one-time-only reports, 

which include all of the "notification" reports listed under Item 3E 

of Tables 3 and 4. In addition, the respondents would be required to 

submit semiannual reports containing information on those periods of 

normal operation during which the 10 percent opacity limit for dry 

control devices is exceeded or, for wet scrubbers, the pressure drop 

varies by more than ±10 percent or the liquid flow rate varies by 

more than ±20 percent of the average values determined during compliance 

testing. The respondents also would be required to submit semiannual 

reports that document corrective maintenance required as a result of 

semiannual calibrations of monitoring devices. The total average 

annual cost to the respondents during the first 3 years of the ICR is 

estimated to be $727,141. This cost is based on a total average 

annual burden of 24,733 person-hours for 40 respondents and an average 

wage of $14.00 per hour plus a 110 percent overhead rate. 

11 
P.17 

TABLE 4. ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 

OF FACILITIES CONTROLLED BY DRY CONTROL DEVICES THAT ARE 

SUBJECT TO THE NSPS AFTER (DATE OF PROPOSAL) 

Burden iten 

Hours 

per 

ocurrence 

(A) 

Occurrences per Hours per 

respondent respondent 

per year per year 

(8) (C=AxB) 

Respondents 

per year 

(D) 

Hours 

per year 

(E=Cx0) 

Oollars 

per year . 

(F=Ex29.40)° 

1. Applications 

2. Surveys and Studies 

3. Reporting Requirements 

A. Read Instructions 

B. Required Activities 

Initial performance test 

Repeat of performance test 

Demonstration of continuous 

monitoring system (CMS) 

Repeat of demonstration of CMS 

Reference Method 9 test 

Repeat of Reference Method 9 test 

Recalibration of CMS (semiannual) 

C. Create Information 

D. Gather Existing Infonnation 

E. Write Report 

Notification of construction/ 

reconstruction 

Notification of physical/operational 

changes 

Notification of anticipated startup 

Notification of actual startup 

Notification of initial performance 

test 

Notification of demonstration of CMS 

Reports of excess emissions 

(recurrent) 

Report of performance test 

Report of CMS demonstration 

4. Recordkeeping Requirements 

A. Read Instructions 

B. Plan Activities 

C. Implement Activities 

D. Develop Record System 

E. Time to Enter Information 

Records of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, etc. (recurrent) 

Records of all measurements and 

information required by the 

standards (recurrent) 

Records of excess emissions 

(recurrent) 

N/Ac 

N/A 

1 

330 

330 

100 

N/A 

18 

18 

4 

Included 

in 3B 

Included 

In 3E 

1 

0.2d 

1 

0.2d 

2 

1 

330 

66 

100 

18 

3.6 

8 

32.1 

32.1 

32.1 

17.3 

14.8 

14.8 

26.0 

32.1 

10,593.0 

2,118.6 

1,730.0 

266.4 

53.3 

208.0 

. 

943.74 

311,434.20 

62,286.84 

50,862.00 

7,832.16 

1,566.43 

6,115.20 

2 

N/Ae 

2 

2 

2 

2 

16 

Included 

in 3B 

Included 

in 3B 

Included 

in 3A 

Included 

in 38 

Included 

in 38 

N/A 

1.5 

1.5 

Included 

in 3E 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i' 

4^ 

48h 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

16 

6 

72 

32.1 

32.1 

32.1 

32.1 

17.3 

48.1 

48.1 

48.1 

64.2 

64.2 

64.2 

64.2 

34.6 

769.6 

283.6 

3,463.2 

1,887.48 

1,887.48 

1,887.48 

1,887.48 

1,017.24 

22,626.24 

8,434.34 

101,813.08 

(continued) 

12 
P.18 

TABLE 4. (continued) 

Burden item 

F. Time to Train Personnel 

G. Audits 

TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 

Hours 

per 

ocurrence 

(A) 

32 

N/A 

Occurrences per 

respondent 

per year 

(B) 

1 

Hours per 

respondent 

per year 

(C=AxB) 

32 

Respondents Hours 

per year per year 

(D) (E=CxD) 

Oollars 

per year 

(F=Ex29.40)° 

22.2 710.4 20,885.76 

20,524.6 

603,422.65 

Assume one affected facility per respondent. Expect 160.5 affected facilities in first 5 years after 

proposal of the NSPS or 32.1 affected facilities per year. Assume 32.1 affected facilities will incur cost 

of all one-time-only burden items except those items associated with opacity monitoring. Only 17.3 of the 

affected facilities will be required to demonstrate a continuous monitoring systen (CMS) to monitor opacity 

during a performance test and only 14.8 of the affected facilities will be required to use Reference Method 9 

to monitor opacity during a performance test because CMS were determined not to be cost effective. An 

average of 48.1 facilities will incur costs of recurrent reporting and recordkeeping requirements and 

22.2 facilities will incur costs of certifying visible emissions observers to read the opacity of visible 

.emissions in accordance with Reference Method 9 over 3 years after proposal of the NSPS. 

Costs are based on the rate of pay of a government employee at Grade 10, Step 7, which is currently 

$14.00 per hour, and on an overhead rate of 110 percent. Thus, the cost is $29.40 per hour. 

.Not applicable. 

Assume 20 percent of initial perfonnance tests must be repeated because the initial test failed. 

Existing facilities are expected to become affected facilities because they are replaced by new facilities 

.rather than because of physical or operational changes (modifications). 

Assume respondent will submit one report of excess emissions per year. 

"Assume respondent will shutdown twice per year for maintenance of process unit and twice per year for process 

.malfunctions. 

Assume respondent operates a facility (8,000 h/yr)(l d/24 h)(l wk/7 d) = 48 wk/yr. 

13 
P.19 

TABLE 5. ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 

OF FACILITIES CONTROLLED BY WET SCRUBBERS THAT ARE 

SUBJECT TO THE NSPS AFTER (DATE OF PROPOSAL) 

Hours Occurper rences per Hours per 

ocur- respondent respondent Respondents Hours Dollars 

rence per year per year per year per year per year h 

(A) (8) (C=AxB) (0) (E=CxD) (F=Ex29.40)D Burden item 

1. Applications 

2. Surveys and Studies 

3. Reporting Requirements 

A. Read Instructions 

B. Required Activities 

Initial performance test 

Repeat of performance test 

Reference Method 9 test 

Repeat of Reference Method 9 test 

Demonstration of wet scrubber 

operating parameter monitoring 

devices (OPMO) 

Repeat of demonstration of wet 

scrubber OPMO 

Recalibration of wet scrubber 

OPMO (semiannual) 

C. Create Information 

0. Gather Existinq Information 

E. Write Report 

Notification of construction/ 

reconstruction 

Notification of physical/operational 

changes 

Notification of anticipated startup 

Notification of actual startup 

Notification of initial performance 

test 

Notification of demonstration of CMS 

Reports of excess emissions 

(recurrent) 

Report of performance test 

Report of wat scrubber OPMD 

demonstration 

4. Recordkeeping Requirements 

A. Read Instructions 

B. Plan Activities 

C. Implement Activities 

0. Develop Record System 

E. Time to Enter Information 

Records of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, etc. (recurrent) 

Records of all measurements and 

information required by the 

standards (recurrent) 

Records of excess emissions 

(recurrent) 

N/A' 

N/A1" 

N/A 

7.5 7.5 

7.5 15.0 

220.50 

330 

330 

N/A 

N/A 

2 

2 

4 

Included 

in 3B 

Included 

in 3E 

0.2« 

l

e 

0.2d 

2 

330 

66 

2 

0.4 

8 

7.5 

7.5 

7.5 

7.5 

11.3 

2,475.0 

495.0 

15.0 

3.0 

90.4 . 

72,765.00 

14,553.00 

441.00 

88.20 

2,657.76 

441.00 

2 

2 

2 

N/A 

16 

Included 

in 38 

Included 

In 38 

Included 

in 3A 

Included 

in 38 

Included 

in 38 

N/A 

1-5. 

1.5 

Included 

in 3E 

1 

1 

1 

1« 

4

h 

481 

2 

2 

2 

16 

6 

72 

7.5 

7.5 

7.5 

11.3 

11.3 

11.3 

15.0 

15.0 

15.0 

180.8 

67.8 

813.6 

441.00 

441.00 

441.00 

5,315.52 

1,993.32 

23,919.84 

(continued) 

14 
P.20 

TABLE 5. (continued) 

Burden item 

Hours Occurper rences per Hours per 

ocur- respondent respondent 

rence per year per year 

(A) (B) (C=AxB) 

Respondents Hours Dollars 

per year per year per year . 

(0) (E=CxD) (F=Ex29.40)° 

F. Time to Train Personnel 

G. Audits 

TOTAL iNNUAL HOURS 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 

N/A 

N/A 

4,208.1 

123,718.14 

Assume one affected facility per respondent. Expect 37.5 affected facilities in first 5 years after 

proposal of the NSPS or 7.5 affected facilities per year. Assume 7.5 affected facilities will incur costs of 

all one-time burden items. An average of 11.3 facilities will incur costs associated with semiannual 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements over 3 years after proposal of the NSPS. 

Costs are based on the rate of pay of a government employee at Grade 10, Step 7, which is currently 

$14.00 per hour, and on an overhead rate of 110 percent. Thus, the cost Is $29.40 per hour. 

dNot applicable. 

Assume 20 percent of Initial performance tests must be repeated because the initial test failed. 

-Assume it will take 1 hour to demonstrate pressure loss and liquid flow rate monitoring devices. 

Existing facilities are expected to become affected facilities because they are replaced by new facilities 

rather than because of physical or operational changes (modifications). 

?Assume respondent will submit one report of excess emissions per year. 

Assume respondent will shutdown twice per year for maintenance of process unit and twice per year for process 

.malfunctions. 

Assume respondent operates a facility (8,000 h/yr)(l d/24 h)(l wk/7 d) = 48 wk/yr. 

15 
P.21 

13. Estimation of Respondent Burden. Information collection 

requirements include the following one-time-only reports: 

•" -- Notification of construction, modification, or reconstruction no later than 30 days after commencement of such 

action; 

-- Notification of anticipated date of initial startup no 

more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to such 

date; 

-- Notification of the date of initial startup within 

15 days after such date; 

-- Notification of the date of an initial emission test 

within 30 days of the effective date of the NSPS; and 

-- Notification of the result of the initial performance 

test. It was assumed that 20 percent of the initial 

performance tests will fail to show compliance with the 

standards. Therefore, 20 percent of the tests will be 

repeated, and the reports will be submitted again. 

Information collection requirements also include the following 

semiannual and recurrent reports: 

-- Reports of exceedances of the opacity limit for dry 

control devices or exceedances of the operating parameter 

limits for wet scrubbers. 

-- Reports of corrective maintenance required as a result 

of semiannual calibration of CMS for dry control devices 

or of operating parameter monitoring devices for wet 

scrubbers. 

It was assumed that each respondent would report one exceedance per 

year regardless of the type of control device used. 

One-time-only information requirements will affect 160 facilities 

controlled by dry control devices in the first 5 years after proposal 

or about 32 facilities per year and will affect 38 facilities controlled by wet scrubbers in the first 5 years after proposal or about 

8 facilities per year. Semiannual reports of exceedances of the 

opacity limit for dry control devices will affect 48 facilities in 

the first 3 years after proposal. Semiannual reports of exceedances 

16 
P.22 

of operating parameter limits for wet scrubbers will affect 11 facilities 

in the first 3 years after proposal. Semiannual reports of corrective 

maintenance required as i result of semiannual calibrations of CMS 

for dry control devices or operating parameter monitoring devices for 

wet scrubbers will affect 26 and 11 facilities, respectively, in the 

first 3 years after proposal. Costs of certifying visible emissions 

observers to read the opacity of visible emissions from dry control 

devices will affect 22 facilities. 

14. Reason for Change in Burden. This section is not applicable. 

15. Scheduling. Information contained in the one-time-only 

reports will be entered into the Compliance Data System operated and 

maintained by EPA's Division of Stationary Source Enforcement. Data 

obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records 

maintained by the respondents will be tabulated and published for 

internal Agency use in compliance and enforcement programs. A time 

schedule for the collection of information and publication of data is 

not applicable because reports and recordkeeping are triggered by 

actions of the respondents. 

16. Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC). The SIC codes 

for the respondents affected by these recommended standards are 1051, 

1446, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1459, 1492, 1496, 1499, 2816, and 3295. 

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS 

This section is not applicable because statistical methods are 

not used in the data collection associated with this regulation. 

17 
P.23 

Information Requirements and Authority Data Sheet 

40 CFR Subpart UUU 

NSPS for Calciners and Dryars in Mineral Industries 

Requirement 

Reporting 

Notification of construction or 

reconstruction 

Notification of modification 

Notification of anticipated 

startup and actual startup 

Notification of Initial 

performance test 

Notification of demonstration 

of continuous monitoring systems 

Report of performance test results 

Report of demonstration of 

continuous monitoring systems 

Report of visible emissions 

observations taken during 

performance test 

Semiannual reports of excess 

emissions recorded under 60.734 

Recordkeeping 

Records of startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction 

Retention of all measurements 

and information recorded 

under 60.734 for 2 years 

Monitoring 

Monitoring of emissions from 

dry control devices 

Monitoring of operating 

parameters of a wet scrubber 

Regulation 

reference 

60.735(b) 

60.735(a) 

60.734(a) 

and (b) 

60.734(c) 

General 

Provisions 

reference 

60.7(a)(1) 

60.7(a)(4) 

60.7(a)(2) 

and (3) 

60.8(d) 

60.7(a)(5) 

60.8(a) 

60.13(c) 

60.11(e) 

60.7(b) 

60.7(d)