Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0039-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing.
Posted Date: 2002-02-18T05:00Z

Wednesday,

December
18,
2002
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77562
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039;
FRL
 
7417
 
1]

RIN
2060
 
AJ02
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
proposes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plants.
The
EPA
has
identified
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plants
as
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions.
These
proposed
standards
will
implement
section
112(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
by
requiring
all
major
sources
to
meet
HAP
emission
standards
reflecting
application
of
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT).
The
HAP
emitted
by
plants
in
the
taconite
iron
ore
processing
source
category
include
metal
compounds
(
primarily
manganese,
arsenic,
lead,
nickel,
and
chromium),
products
of
incomplete
combustion
(
primarily
formaldehyde),
and
acid
gases
(
hydrochloric
acid
and
hydrofluoric
acid).
Exposure
of
these
substances
has
been
demonstrated
to
cause
adverse
health
effects,
including
chronic
and
acute
disorders
of
the
blood,
heart,
kidneys,
liver,
reproductive
system,
respiratory
system,
and
central
nervous
system.
Some
of
these
pollutants
are
considered
to
be
carcinogens.
DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
February
18,
2003.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
January
7,
2003,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
January
17,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments.
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Send
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
NESHAP
Docket,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
the
new
EPA
facility
complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
beginning
at
10
a.
m.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Conrad
Chin,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C439
 
02),
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
1512,
electronic
mail
address:
chin.
conrad@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Regulated
Entities
Category
NAICS*
Example
of
regulated
entities
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Facilities
......
21221
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Facilities
[
taconite
ore
crushing
and
handling
operations,
indurating
furnaces,
finished
pellet
handling
operations,
and
ore
dryers].

*
North
American
Information
Classification
System.

This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
plant
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
§
63.9581
of
the
proposed
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

Docket
The
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
in
the
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
NESHAP
Docket
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
EPA
West,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
The
Docket
Center
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.

Electronic
Access
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
review
public
comments,
access
the
index
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
dockets.
Information
claimed
as
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statue,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
this
document.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statue.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

Comments
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77563
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
submitted
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.

Electronically
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
air­
and­
rdocket
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
this
document.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
Wordperfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

By
Mail
Send
your
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
NESHAP
Docket,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.

By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier
Deliver
your
comments
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
U.
S.
EPA
West,
Mail
Code
6102T,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket
Center's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
this
document.

By
Facsimile
Fax
your
comments
to:
(
202)
566
 
1741,
Attention
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
NESHAP
Docket,
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.

CBI
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Roberto
Morales,
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404
 
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
109
TW
Alexander
Drive,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27709,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.

Public
Hearing
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Ms.
Cassie
Posey,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C439
 
02),
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
0069,
in
advance
of
the
public
hearing.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
call
Ms.
Cassie
Posey
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
emission
standards.

Worldwide
Web
(
WWW)
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
proposal
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
this
action
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.

Outline
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?
B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
C.
What
Source
Category
Is
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Rule?
D.
What
Processes
Are
Used
at
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Plants?
E.
What
HAP
Are
Emitted
and
How
Are
They
Controlled?
F.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
With
Emissions
From
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Plants?
II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Are
the
Affected
Sources
and
Emission
Points?
B.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limitations
and
Work
Practice
Standards?
C.
What
Are
the
Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements?
D.
What
Are
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
E.
What
Are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
F.
What
Are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
G.
What
Are
the
Compliance
Deadlines?
III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Affected
Sources?
B.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Pollutants?
C.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Bases
and
Levels
of
the
Proposed
Standards?
D.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
E.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
F.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
Are
the
Air
Emission
Impacts?
B.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
18:
23
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77564
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
C.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?
D.
What
Are
the
Non­
Air
Health,
Environmental
and
Energy
Impacts?
V.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
VI.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
et
seq.
G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Energy
Effects
I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
The
category
of
major
sources
covered
by
today's
proposed
NESHAP,
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing,
was
listed
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
have
the
potential
to
emit
greater
than
10
tons/
yr
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
tons/
yr
of
any
combination
of
HAP.

B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
NESHAP
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources.
The
CAA
requires
the
NESHAP
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
MACT.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
control
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
essence,
the
MACT
floor
ensures
that
the
standard
is
set
at
a
level
that
assures
that
all
major
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
already
achieved
by
the
better­
controlled
and
lower­
emitting
sources
in
each
source
category
or
subcategory.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
bestcontrolled
similar
source.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
can
be
less
stringent
than
standards
for
new
sources,
but
they
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
bestperforming
12
percent
of
existing
sources
in
the
category
or
subcategory
(
or
the
best­
performing
5
sources
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources).
In
developing
MACT,
we
also
consider
control
options
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
floor.
We
may
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
the
floor
based
on
the
consideration
of
cost
of
achieving
the
emissions
reductions,
any
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements.

C.
What
Source
Category
Is
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Rule?
Section
112(
c)
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
all
categories
of
major
and
area
sources
of
HAP
for
which
we
will
develop
national
emission
standards.
We
published
the
initial
list
of
source
categories
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
``
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing''
is
one
of
the
source
categories
on
the
initial
list.
The
listing
was
based
on
our
determination
that
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plants
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
emit
a
variety
of
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b)
in
quantities
sufficient
to
be
major
sources.
A
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
separates
and
concentrates
iron
ore
from
taconite,
a
low­
grade
iron
ore,
and
produces
taconite
pellets,
which
are
approximately
60
percent
iron.
The
taconite
iron
ore
processing
source
category
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
ore
crushing
and
handling
units,
ore
dryers,
indurating
furnaces,
and
finished
pellet
handling
units.
At
present,
taconite
iron
ore
pellets
are
produced
at
eight
plant
sites
in
the
U.
S.;
six
plants
are
in
Minnesota
and
two
plants
are
in
Michigan.

D.
What
Processes
Are
Used
at
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Plants?
Taconite
iron
ore
processing
includes
crushing
and
handling
of
the
crude
ore;
concentrating
(
milling,
magnetic
separation,
chemical
flotation,
etc.);
agglomerating
(
dewatering,
drying,
and
balling);
indurating;
and
finished
pellet
handling.
The
main
processes
of
interest
because
of
their
potential
to
generate
HAP
emissions
include
ore
crushing
and
handling,
ore
drying,
indurating,
and
finished
pellet
handling.
Taconite
ore
is
obtained
from
the
ground
using
a
strip
mining
process.
First,
millions
of
tons
of
surface
material
and
rock
are
removed
to
expose
the
taconite
ore­
bearing
rock
layers.
Next,
the
taconite
ore
is
blasted,
scooped
up
with
large
cranes
with
shovels,
and
loaded
into
transport
vehicles
such
as
240­
ton
haulage
trucks
or
railcars.
The
transport
vehicles
move
the
ore
from
the
mine
to
the
primary
crushers.
At
most
plants
the
mine
is
located
adjacent
to
the
ore
processing
plant.
However,
at
a
few
plants
the
mine
and
the
ore
processing
plant
are
miles
apart.
In
these
cases,
the
taconite
ore
is
loaded
onto
railcars
and
transported
by
train
to
the
processing
plant.
The
ore
crushing
process
begins
where
the
taconite
ore
from
the
mine
is
dumped
from
trucks
or
railcars
into
the
primary
crusher
or
into
feed
stockpiles
for
the
primary
crusher.
The
ore
is
drycrushed
in
one
to
four
stages
depending
on
the
hardness
of
the
ore.
Gyratory
cone
crushers
are
generally
used
for
all
stages
of
crushing.
Primary
crushing
reduces
the
crude
ore
from
run­
of­
mine
size
to
a
size
about
six
inches
in
diameter,
while
fine
crushing
further
reduces
the
material
to
a
size
about
3 
4
of
an
inch
in
diameter.
Intermediate
vibratory
screens
remove
the
undersized
material
from
the
feed
before
it
enters
the
next
crusher.
Dry
ore
crushing
and
handling
also
includes
a
number
of
conveying
and
transfer
points
as
the
ore
is
moved
from
one
crushing
stage
to
the
next.
After
it
is
adequately
crushed,
the
ore
is
conveyed
to
large
ore
storage
bins
at
the
concentrator
building.
In
the
concentrator
building,
water
is
typically
added
to
the
ore
as
it
is
conveyed
into
rod
and
ball
mills
which
further
grind
the
taconite
ore
to
the
consistency
of
coarse
beach
sand.
A
rod/
ball
mill
is
a
large
horizontal
cylinder
that
rotates
on
its
horizontal
axis
and
is
charged
with
heavy
steel
rods
or
balls
and
the
taconite
ore/
water
slurry.
As
the
rods/
balls
tumble
inside
the
mill,
they
grind
the
ore
into
finer
particles.
In
a
subsequent
process
step,
taconite
ore
is
separated
from
the
waste
rock
material
using
a
magnetic
separation
process.
During
magnetic
separation,
a
series
of
magnetized
cylinders
rotate
while
submerged
in
the
taconite
iron
ore
slurry.
The
iron­
bearing
taconite
particles
adhere
to
the
magnetized
cylinder
surface
and
are
collected
as
a
iron­
rich
slurry.
The
iron
content
of
the
slurry
is
further
increased
using
a
combination
of
hydraulic
concentration
(
gravity
settling)
and
chemical
flotation.
Since
the
concentrating
processes
are
completely
wet
operations,
any
potential
particulate
or
HAP
metal
emissions
are
suppressed.
However,
there
are
exceptions,
such
as
one
plant
that
conducts
dry
cobbing
(
a
dry
magnetic
separation
process)
instead
of
a
wet
magnetic
separation
process.
The
concentrated
taconite
slurry
then
enters
the
agglomerating
process.
Water
is
typically
removed
from
the
taconite
slurry
using
vacuum
disk
filters
or
similar
equipment.
One
plant,
which
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
18:
23
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77565
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
processes
a
finer
grained
ore,
uses
rotary
dryers
after
the
disc
filters
to
dry
the
ore
further.
These
dryers
are
rotary
dryers,
which
repeatedly
tumble
the
wet
ore
concentrate
through
a
heated
air
stream
to
reduce
the
amount
of
entrained
moisture
in
the
ore.
Next,
the
taconite
is
mixed
with
various
binding
agents
such
as
bentonite
or
dolomite
in
a
balling
drum
which
tumbles
and
rolls
the
taconite
into
unfired
pellets.
When
the
unfired
pellets
exit
the
balling
drum,
they
are
transferred
to
a
metal
grate
that
conveys
them
to
the
furnace.
Once
the
pellets
exit
the
balling
drum
they
are
relatively
dry
and,
therefore,
have
the
potential
to
emit
particulate
HAP.
During
the
indurating
process,
the
unfired
taconite
pellets
are
hardened
and
oxidized
in
the
indurating
furnace
at
a
fusion
temperature
between
2,290
to
2,550
°
F.
Two
types
of
indurating
furnaces
are
currently
used
within
this
source
category:
straight
grate
furnaces
and
grate
kiln
furnaces.
The
indurating
furnace
process
begins
at
the
point
where
the
grate
feed
conveyor
discharges
the
unfired
pellets
onto
the
furnace
traveling
grate
and
ends
where
the
hardened
pellets
exit
the
indurating
furnace
cooler.
In
straight
grate
indurating
furnaces,
a
continuous
bed
of
unfired
pellets
is
carried
on
a
metal
grate
through
different
furnace
temperature
zones.
Each
zone
will
have
either
a
heated
upward
draft
or
downward
draft
blown
through
the
pellets.
A
layer
of
fired
pellets
is
placed
on
the
metal
grate
prior
to
the
addition
of
unfired
pellets.
This
hearth­
layer
allows
for
even
airflow
through
the
pellet
bed
and
acts
as
a
buffer
between
the
metal
grate
and
the
exothermic
heat
generated
from
the
oxidation
of
taconite
pellets
in
the
indurating
stage.
Before
the
pellets
can
be
oxidized,
all
remaining
moisture
is
driven
off
in
the
first
two
stages
of
the
furnace,
the
updraft
and
downdraft
drying
zones.
Unfired
pellets
must
be
heated
gradually;
otherwise,
moisture
in
the
unfired
pellets
expands
too
quickly
and
causes
the
pellets
to
explode.
After
they
are
dried,
the
pellets
enter
a
preheat
zone
of
the
furnace
where
the
temperature
is
gradually
increased
for
the
indurating
stage.
The
next
zone
is
the
actual
firing
zone
for
induration,
where
the
pellets
are
exposed
to
the
highest
temperature.
The
fired
pellets
then
enter
the
post­
firing
zone,
where
the
oxidation
process
is
completed.
Finally,
the
pellets
are
cooled
by
the
intake
of
ambient
air
typically
in
two
stages
of
cooling.
A
unique
characteristic
of
straight
grate
furnaces
is
that
approximately
30
percent
of
the
fired
pellets
are
recycled
to
the
feed
end
of
the
furnace
for
use
as
the
hearth
layer.
The
remaining
pellets
are
transported
by
conveyor
belts
to
storage
areas.
Waste
gases
from
the
straight
grate
furnace
are
discharged
primarily
through
two
ducts:
the
hood
exhaust,
which
handles
the
cooling
and
drying
gases;
and
the
windbox
exhaust,
which
handles
the
preheat,
firing,
and
afterfiring
gases.
For
a
typical
straight
grate
furnace,
the
two
discharge
ducts
are
combined
into
one
common
header
before
the
flow
is
divided
into
several
ducts
to
be
exhausted
to
the
atmosphere
after
control.
The
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
system
consists
of
a
traveling
grate,
a
rotary
kiln,
and
an
annular
cooler.
The
grate
kiln
system
represents
a
newer
generation
of
indurating
furnaces
and
is
widely
used
by
the
taconite
plants.
As
with
the
straight
grate
furnace
system,
the
grate
kiln
system
is
also
a
counterflow
heat
exchanger,
with
the
unfired
pellets
and
indurated
pellets
moving
in
a
direction
opposite
to
that
of
the
process
gas
flow.
A
six­
inch
bed
of
unfired
pellets
is
laid
on
a
continuously
moving,
horizontal
grate.
The
traveling
grate
carries
the
unfired
pellets
into
a
dryer/
preheater
that
resembles
a
large
rectangular
oven.
In
the
first
half
of
the
traveling
grate,
unfired
pellets
are
gradually
dried
by
hot
air
at
a
temperature
of
700
°
F.
The
second
half
of
the
traveling
grate
is
called
the
preheater,
where
the
unfired
pellets
are
heated
to
a
temperature
of
2,000
°
F
prior
to
dropping
into
the
rotary
kiln
furnace.
Pellets
are
discharged
from
the
traveling
grate
and
into
the
rotary
kiln.
Final
indurating
of
the
pellets
occurs
in
the
kiln
as
the
pellets
tumble
down
the
rotating
kiln.
The
rotary
kiln
typically
operates
at
a
temperature
of
2,300
to
2,400
°
F
to
ensure
that
the
kiln
oxidizes
the
iron
pellets
from
a
magnetite
structure
into
a
hematite
structure.
The
hardened
pellets
are
then
discharged
to
a
large
annular­
shaped
cooler,
which
is
an
integral
part
of
an
elaborate
energy
recuperation
system.
The
fired
pellets
discharged
from
the
kiln
first
enter
the
primary
cooling
zone
of
the
annular
cooler,
where
ambient
air
is
brought
in
to
cool
the
pellets
in
a
counter­
current
flow.
After
the
pellets
heat
the
ambient
air
to
approximately
2,000
°
F,
it
is
then
used
as
preheated
combustion
air
in
the
rotary
kiln.
As
the
cooled
pellets
enter
a
final
cooling
zone,
additional
ambient
air
is
used
to
cool
the
pellets
further.
Air
exiting
the
final
cooling
zone
is
heated
to
approximately
1,000
°
F
and
is
used
to
maintain
the
temperature
in
the
dryer
section
of
the
traveling
grate.
Pellets
exiting
the
final
cooling
zone
are
cooled
to
an
average
temperature
of
175
to
225
°
F.
Combustion
air
from
the
rotary
kiln,
which
is
approximately
2,000
°
F,
is
used
to
maintain
the
temperature
in
the
preheat
section
of
the
traveling
grate.
Pellet
cooler
vent
stacks
are
atmospheric
vents
in
the
cooler
section
of
a
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace.
Pellet
cooler
vent
stacks
exhaust
cooling
air
that
is
not
returned
for
heat
recuperation.
Straight
grate
furnaces
do
not
have
pellet
cooler
vent
stacks.
The
pellet
cooler
vent
stack
should
not
be
confused
with
the
cooler
discharge
stack,
which
is
in
the
pellet
loadout
or
dumping
area.
New
grate
kiln
furnace
designs
eliminate
the
cooler
vent
stack
by
recirculating
the
air
through
the
furnace.
The
finished
pellet
handling
process
begins
where
the
fired
taconite
pellets
exit
the
indurating
furnace
cooler
(
i.
e.,
pellet
loadout)
and
ends
at
the
finished
pellet
stockpile.
Operations
include
finished
pellet
screening,
transfer,
and
storage.

E.
What
HAP
Are
Emitted
and
How
Are
They
Controlled?
Ore
crushing
and
handling,
ore
drying,
and
finished
pellet
handling
are
all
potentially
significant
points
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
emissions.
In
addition,
because
taconite
ore
inherently
contains
trace
metals,
such
as
manganese,
chromium,
cobalt,
arsenic,
and
lead,
they
are
also
emitters
of
HAP
metal
compounds.
Manganese
compounds
are
the
predominate
metal
HAP
emitted
from
ore
crushing
and
handling,
ore
drying,
and
finished
pellet
handling,
accounting
for
10
tons/
year.
All
other
metal
HAP
compounds
are
emitted
from
ore
crushing
and
handling,
ore
drying,
and
finished
pellet
handling
at
rates
of
less
than
0.1
tons
per
year.
Approximately
70
percent
of
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
units
control
PM
emissions
with
wet
scrubbers,
such
as
venturi
scrubbers,
marble
bed
scrubbers,
or
impingement
scrubbers.
The
remaining
units
control
PM
emissions
with
baghouses,
low
energy
scrubbers
(
i.
e.,
rotoclones),
multiclones,
and
electrostatic
precipitators
(
ESP).
The
two
ore
dryers
are
controlled
by
cyclones
and
impingement
scrubbers
in
series.
The
indurating
furnaces
are
the
most
significant
sources
of
HAP
emissions,
accounting
for
about
99
percent
of
the
total
HAP
emissions
from
the
taconite
iron
ore
processing
source
category.
Three
types
of
HAP
are
emitted
from
the
waste
gas
stacks
of
indurating
furnaces.
The
first
type
of
HAP
is
metallic
HAP
existing
as
a
portion
of
particulate
emissions
from
the
taconite
ore
or
fuel
(
such
as
coal)
fed
into
the
furnaces.
Manganese
and
arsenic
compounds
are
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77566
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
predominate
metal
HAP
emitted
by
indurating
furnaces
(
approximately
5.8
and
6.5
tons/
year,
respectively,
for
the
industry);
chromium,
lead,
and
nickel
compounds
are
emitted
in
smaller
amounts
(
each
approximately
between
2
to
5
tons/
year
for
the
industry);
and
antimony,
beryllium,
cadmium,
cobalt,
mercury,
and
selenium
compounds
are
emitted
in
yet
smaller
amounts
(
each
approximately
less
than
1
ton/
year
for
the
industry).
The
second
type
of
HAP
is
organic
HAP
resulting
as
products
of
incomplete
combustion,
primarily
formaldehyde.
Emissions
test
data
from
indurating
furnaces
confirm
the
presence
of
formaldehyde.
The
third
type
of
HAP
is
acidic
gases,
such
as
hydrochloric
acid
and
hydrofluoric
acid.
Fluorine
and
chlorine
compounds
in
the
raw
materials
are
liberated
during
the
indurating
process
and
combine
with
moisture
in
the
exhaust
to
form
hydrochloric
acid
and
hydrofluoric
acid.
Both
formaldehyde
and
the
acid
gases
are
present
in
exhaust
gas
from
the
indurating
furnace
stacks
at
concentrations
around
a
few
parts
per
million
(
ppm).
Formaldehyde
emissions
from
the
entire
industry
are
estimated
to
be
181
tons/
year.
Total
emissions
of
hydrogen
chloride
and
hydrogen
fluoride
are
approximately
349
and
308
tons/
year,
respectively.
Emissions
from
the
indurating
furnace
stacks
are
typically
controlled
with
either
a
venturi
wet
scrubber
or
an
ESP.
One
indurating
furnace
controls
emissions
with
a
multiclone
and
another
furnace
controls
emissions
with
a
gravity
collector.
F.
What
Are
the
Health
Effects
Associated
With
Emissions
From
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Plants?
As
previously
mentioned
in
this
preamble,
there
are
a
variety
of
metal
HAP
contained
in
the
PM
emitted
from
taconite
iron
ore
processing.
These
include
primarily
manganese
and
arsenic
compounds,
with
smaller
quantities
of
lead,
nickel
and
chromium
compounds.
Antimony,
beryllium,
cadmium,
cobalt,
mercury,
and
selenium
compounds
are
emitted
in
yet
smaller
amounts.
Other
HAP,
such
as
formaldehyde,
hydrochloric
acid,
and
hydrofluoric
acid,
are
present
in
the
waste
gas
stream
from
the
indurating
furnace
pelletizing
stacks
on
the
order
of
ppm.
Manganese
and
arsenic
compounds
comprise
the
majority
of
the
metal
HAP
emissions.
Adverse
health
effects
in
humans
have
been
associated
with
manganese
dietary
deficiencies
and
excessive
exposure
to
manganese.
Chronic
exposure
to
low
levels
of
manganese
in
the
diet
is
considered
to
be
nutritionally
essential
in
humans,
with
a
recommended
daily
allowance
of
2
to
5
milligrams
per
day.
Chronic
exposure
to
high
levels
of
manganese
by
inhalation
in
humans
results
primarily
in
central
nervous
system
effects.
Visual
reaction
time,
hand
steadiness,
and
eyehand
coordination
were
affected
in
chronically­
exposed
workers.
Manganism,
characterized
by
feelings
of
weakness
and
lethargy,
tremors,
a
masklike
face,
and
psychological
disturbances,
may
result
from
chronic
exposure
to
higher
levels.
Impotence
and
loss
of
libido
have
been
noted
in
male
workers
afflicted
with
manganism
attributed
to
inhalation
exposures.
We
have
classified
manganese
in
Group
D,
not
classifiable
as
to
carcinogenicity
in
humans.
Arsenic
can
be
toxic
in
humans.
Acute
inhalation
exposure
to
arsenic
causes
gastrointestinal
effects,
such
as
nausea,
diarrhea,
and
abdominal
pain,
hemolysis,
and
central
nervous
system
disorders.
Chronic
inhalation
exposure
to
inorganic
arsenic
is
associated
with
irritation
of
the
skin
and
mucous
membranes
and
is
strongly
associated
with
lung
cancer.
We
have
classified
inorganic
arsenic
as
a
Group
A,
a
known
human
carcinogen
of
high
carcinogenic
hazard.
Exposure
to
formaldehyde
can
result
in
irritation
of
the
skin
and
mucous
membranes.
We
have
classified
formaldehyde
as
a
Group
B1,
probable
human
carcinogen
of
medium
carcinogenic
hazard.
Acute
exposure
to
the
acid
gases
can
cause
severe
respiratory
damage
in
humans
including
severe
irritation
and
pulmonary
edema.
Chronic
exposure
to
hydrochloric
acid
has
been
reported
to
cause
gastritis,
chronic
bronchitis,
and
dermatitis
in
workers.
Chronic
exposure
to
low
levels
of
fluoride
has
a
beneficial
effect
of
dental
cavity
prevention
and
may
be
helpful
in
the
treatment
of
osteoporosis.
However,
exposure
to
higher
levels
of
hydrochloric
or
hydrofluoric
acid
may
cause
dental
discoloration
and
erosion.
In
addition
to
HAP,
the
proposed
rule
would
also
reduce
PM
emissions,
which
are
controlled
under
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.
Emissions
of
PM
have
been
associated
with
aggravation
of
existing
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
disease
and
increased
risk
of
premature
death.
We
recognize
that
the
degree
of
adverse
effects
to
health
experienced
by
exposed
individuals
can
range
from
mild
to
severe.
The
extent
and
degree
to
which
the
health
effects
may
be
experienced
depend
on:
 
Pollutant­
specific
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
toxicity,
half­
life
in
the
environment,
bioaccumulation,
and
persistence);
 
The
ambient
concentrations
observed
in
the
area
(
e.
g.,
as
influenced
by
emission
rates,
meteorological
conditions,
and
terrain);
 
The
frequency
and
duration
of
exposures;
and
 
Characteristics
of
exposed
individuals
(
e.
g.,
genetics,
age,
preexisting
health
conditions,
and
lifestyle),
which
vary
significantly
within
the
general
population.

II.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Rule
A.
What
Are
the
Affected
Sources
and
Emission
Points?

The
proposed
rule
would
affect
eight
plants
engaged
in
the
processing
of
taconite
iron
ore
(
six
plants
in
Minnesota
and
two
plants
in
Michigan).
The
affected
sources
within
each
plant
include
ore
crushing
and
handling,
ore
dryers,
indurating
furnaces,
and
finished
pellet
handling.
The
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source
includes
the
collection
of
all
new
and
existing
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units
including
all
primary,
secondary,
and
tertiary
crushers;
associated
screens,
conveyors,
storage
bins
and
piles;
transfer
points;
and
grate
feed.
The
ore
dryer
affected
source
includes
each
new
or
existing
individual
ore
dryer.
The
indurating
furnace
affected
source
includes
each
new
or
existing
individual
indurating
furnace.
The
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
includes
the
collection
of
all
new
and
existing
pellet
handling
emission
units
including
all
pellet
screens,
conveyors,
storage
bins,
piles,
and
transfer
points.
An
existing
affected
source
is
one
constructed
or
reconstructed
on
or
before
December
18,
2002.
A
new
affected
source
is
one
constructed
or
reconstructed
after
December
18,
2002.

B.
What
Are
the
Emission
Limitations
and
Work
Practice
Standards?

The
proposed
rule
includes
PM
emission
limits,
work
practice
standards,
and
operating
limits
for
control
devices.
Particulate
matter
serves
as
a
surrogate
measure
of
metallic
HAP
emissions.
The
proposed
PM
emissions
limits
for
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
operations
are
0.008
grains
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(
gr/
dscf)
for
existing
sources
and
0.005
gr/
dscf
for
new
sources.
Compliance
with
the
proposed
PM
emissions
limits
for
ore
crushing
and
handling
are
determined
based
on
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
emissions
for
all
ore
crushing
and
handling
units
at
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77567
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
plant.
Similarly,
compliance
with
the
proposed
PM
emissions
limits
for
finished
pellet
handling
are
determined
based
on
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
for
all
pellet
handling
units
at
the
plant.
The
proposed
rule
would
establish
PM
emission
limits
that
must
be
achieved
by
each
individual
ore
dryer.
The
proposed
emission
limit
is
0.052
gr/
dscf
for
existing
dryers
and
0.025
gr/
dscf
for
new
dryers.
Ore
dryers
with
multiple
stacks
would
calculate
their
PM
emissions
as
a
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
from
all
stacks.
The
proposed
rule
would
establish
PM
emission
limits
that
must
be
achieved
by
each
individual
indurating
furnace.
Indurating
furnaces
with
multiple
stacks
would
calculate
their
PM
emissions
as
a
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
from
all
stacks.
For
each
straight
grate
indurating
furnace
processing
magnetite,
the
proposed
emissions
limit
is
0.010
gr/
dscf
for
existing
straight
grate
furnaces
and
0.006
gr/
dscf
for
new
straight
grate
furnaces.
For
each
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
processing
magnetite,
the
proposed
emissions
limit
is
0.011
gr/
dscf
for
existing
grate
kiln
furnaces
and
0.006
gr/
dscf
for
new
grate
kiln
furnaces.
For
each
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
processing
hematite,
the
proposed
emissions
limit
is
0.025
gr/
dscf
for
existing
grate
kiln
furnaces
and
0.018
gr/
dscf
for
new
grate
kiln
furnaces.
The
proposed
rule
also
includes
specific
requirements
for
continuous
parameter
monitoring
and
associated
operating
limits
for
baghouses,
wet
scrubbers,
and
dry
ESP.
Baghouses
are
to
be
equipped
with
a
bag
leak
detection
system
(
BLDS)
capable
of
monitoring
relative
changes
in
PM
loading
in
the
baghouse
exhaust,
which
is
to
alarm
whenever
a
predetermined
set
point
is
exceeded,
indicating
an
increase
in
emissions
above
that
allowed
at
the
set
point.
The
proposed
rule
would
limit
the
frequency
and
duration
of
alarms
to
no
more
than
5
percent
of
a
source's
total
operating
time
in
any
semiannual
reporting
period.
In
the
case
of
wet
scrubbers,
sources
would
be
required
to
continuously
monitor
scrubber
pressure
drop
and
water
flow
rate
and
operate
at
all
times
at
or
above
specified
hourly
average
values
established
during
initial
performance
testing.
For
dry
ESP,
sources
would
be
required
to
install
and
operate
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems
(
COMS).
Each
source
must
report
as
a
deviation
any
6­
minute
period
during
which
the
average
opacity
exceeds
the
opacity
value
corresponding
to
the
99
percent
upper
confidence
level
established
during
the
performance
test.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
sources
to
submit
information
on
alternative
monitoring
parameters
and
operating
limits
if
a
control
device
other
than
a
baghouse,
wet
scrubber,
or
dry
ESP
is
used.
All
plants
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
implement
a
written
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan.
The
plan
would
describe
in
detail
the
measures
that
will
be
put
in
place
to
control
fugitive
dust
emissions
from
the
following
sources
at
a
plant,
as
applicable:
stockpiles,
material
transfer
points,
plant
roadways,
tailings
basin,
pellet
loading
areas
and
yard
areas.
Existing
fugitive
dust
emission
control
plans
that
describe
current
measures
to
control
fugitive
dust
emission
sources
that
have
been
approved
as
part
of
a
State
implementation
plan
or
title
V
permit
would
be
acceptable,
provided
they
address
the
prior­
listed
fugitive
dust
emission
sources.

C.
What
Are
the
Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements?
All
plants
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
63.6(
e)
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions.
In
addition,
a
written
operation
and
maintenance
plan
is
also
required
for
each
control
device
subject
to
an
operating
limit.
This
plan
must
describe
procedures
for
the
inspection
and
preventative
maintenance
of
control
devices,
as
well
as
corrective
action
requirements
specific
to
baghouses
equipped
with
bag
leak
detection
systems.
In
the
event
of
a
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm,
the
plan
must
include
specific
requirements
for
initiating
corrective
action
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
problem
within
1
hour,
initiating
corrective
action
to
fix
the
problem
within
24
hours,
and
completing
all
corrective
actions
needed
to
fix
the
problem
as
soon
as
practicable.

D.
What
Are
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limit
for
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
units
within
the
affected
source
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
Similarly,
for
the
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
units
within
the
affected
source
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
In
all
cases,
initial
compliance
must
be
demonstrated
through
a
performance
test.
The
performance
test
must
be
conducted
using
EPA
Method
5
or
17
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
All
initial
compliance
tests
must
be
completed
no
later
than
2
years
following
the
compliance
date.
In
lieu
of
conducting
performance
tests
for
all
emission
units,
the
plant
may
elect
to
group
similar
emission
units
together
and
conduct
initial
performance
tests
on
a
representative
sample
of
units
within
each
group.
Each
plant
must
submit
a
testing
plan
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
The
testing
plan
must
identify
the
emission
units
that
will
be
grouped
as
similar,
identify
the
representative
unit(
s)
that
will
be
tested
for
each
group,
and
the
proposed
schedule
for
testing.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limit
for
each
indurating
furnace
and
each
ore
dryer,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
stacks
for
each
furnace
or
each
ore
dryer
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
Initial
compliance
must
be
demonstrated
through
an
initial
performance
test.
The
performance
test
must
be
conducted
using
EPA
Method
5
or
17
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
The
initial
compliance
test
for
each
indurating
furnace
and
each
ore
dryer
must
be
completed
no
later
than
180
calendar
days
after
the
compliance
date.
For
indurating
furnaces
and
ore
dryers
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
indurating
furnace
or
ore
dryer
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
The
proposed
rule
would
also
require
that
certain
operating
limits
on
control
devices
be
established
during
the
initial
compliance
test
to
ensure
that
control
devices
operate
properly
on
a
continuing
basis.
All
operating
limits
must
be
established
during
a
performance
test
that
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit.
During
the
initial
compliance
tests,
operating
limits
must
be
established
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
for
all
wet
scrubbers,
and
opacity
(
using
a
COMS)
for
dry
ESP.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
proposed
work
practice
standards,
plants
would
prepare,
submit,
and
implement
a
fugitive
dust
emission
control
plan
on
or
before
the
applicable
compliance
date
as
specified
in
§
63.9583
of
the
proposed
rule.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
proposed
operation
and
maintenance
requirements,
plants
would
certify
in
their
notification
of
compliance
status
that
they
have
prepared
the
written
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77568
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
plans
and
will
operate
control
devices
according
to
the
procedures
in
the
plan.

E.
What
Are
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
For
ore
crushing
and
handling,
ore
dryers
and
finished
pellet
handling
units,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
plants
to
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
continued
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limits
following
the
schedule
established
in
the
title
V
permit
for
each
plant.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
the
plant
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
For
each
indurating
furnace,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
subsequent
testing
of
all
stacks
based
on
the
schedule
established
in
each
plant's
title
V
operating
permit,
but
no
less
frequent
than
twice
per
5­
year
permit
term.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
then
the
plant
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
The
testing
frequency
in
the
testing
plan
must
be
no
less
frequent
than
twice
per
5­
year
period.
Plants
are
required
to
monitor
operating
parameters
for
control
devices
subject
to
operating
limits
and
carry
out
the
procedures
in
their
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
and
their
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plants
must
keep
records
documenting
compliance
with
the
rule
requirements
for
monitoring,
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan,
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan,
and
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
a
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS).
For
baghouses,
plants
are
required
to
monitor
the
relative
change
in
PM
loading
using
a
bag
leak
detection
system
and
make
inspections
at
specified
intervals.
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
installed
and
operated
according
to
the
EPA
guidance
document
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance,''
EPA
454/
R
 
98
 
015,
September
1997.
The
document
is
available
on
the
TTN
at
http:
www.
epa.
gov/
ttnemc01/
cem/
tribo.
pdf.
If
the
system
does
not
work
based
on
the
triboelectric
effect,
it
must
be
installed
and
operated
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
The
basic
inspection
requirements
include
daily,
weekly,
monthly,
or
quarterly
inspections
of
specified
parameters
or
mechanisms
with
monitoring
of
bag
cleaning
cycles
by
an
appropriate
method.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
records
of
bag
leak
detection
system
alarms
and
records
documenting
conformance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan,
as
well
as
the
inspection
and
maintenance
procedures.
For
scrubbers,
plants
would
be
required
to
use
a
CPMS
to
measure
and
record
the
hourly
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plants
would
keep
records
documenting
conformance
with
the
monitoring
requirements
and
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
the
CPMS.
For
dry
ESP,
plants
are
required
to
use
a
COMS
to
measure
and
record
the
average
hourly
opacity
of
emissions
exiting
each
stack
of
the
control
device.
Plants
must
operate
and
maintain
the
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
63.8
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
and
Performance
Specification
1
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B.
These
requirements
include
a
quality
control
program
that
consists
of
a
daily
calibration
drift
assessment,
quarterly
performance
audit,
and
annual
zero
alignment.

F.
What
are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
The
proposed
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
are
based
on
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A.
Table
2
of
the
proposed
rule
lists
each
of
the
requirements
in
the
General
Provisions
(
§
§
63.2
through
63.15)
with
an
indication
of
whether
they
do
or
do
not
apply.
The
plant
owner
or
operator
is
required
to
submit
each
initial
notification
required
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
that
applies
to
their
plant.
These
include
an
initial
notification
of
applicability
with
general
information
about
the
plant
and
notifications
of
performance
tests
and
compliance
status.
Plants
are
required
to
maintain
the
records
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
that
are
necessary
to
document
compliance,
such
as
performance
test
results;
copies
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plans
and
associated
corrective
action
records;
monitoring
data;
and
inspection
records.
Except
for
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
control
devices,
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan,
and
the
testing
plan,
all
records
must
be
kept
for
a
total
of
5
years,
with
the
records
from
the
most
recent
2
years
kept
onsite.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
that
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
control
devices
subject
to
an
operating
limit,
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan,
and
the
testing
plan,
be
kept
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
rule
requirements.
Semiannual
reports
are
required
for
any
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation,
including
an
operating
limit.
Each
report
is
due
no
later
than
30
days
after
the
end
of
the
reporting
period.
If
no
deviation
occurred,
only
a
summary
report
is
required.
If
a
deviation
did
occur,
more
detailed
information
is
required.
An
immediate
report
is
required
if
there
were
actions
taken
during
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
that
were
not
consistent
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
and
the
source
exceeded
its
emission
limit.
Deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
not
violations
if
the
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
to
the
authority
with
delegation
for
enforcement
that
the
source
was
operating
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
Plants
must
also
submit
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan,
testing
plan,
and
all
operation
and
maintenance
plans
on
or
before
the
applicable
compliance
date
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority.

G.
What
are
the
Compliance
Deadlines?

The
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
affected
source
must
comply
within
[
DATE
3
YEARS
AFTER
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
New
or
reconstructed
sources
that
startup
on
or
before
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
must
comply
by
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule.
New
or
reconstructed
sources
that
startup
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
must
comply
upon
initial
startup.

III.
Rationale
for
Selecting
the
Proposed
Standards
A.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Affected
Sources?

An
affected
source
is
the
collection
of
equipment,
processes
and
activities
within
a
source
category
to
which
an
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
or
other
regulatory
requirement
in
a
MACT
standard
will
apply.
Depending
on
circumstance,
we
have
adopted
broader
or
narrower
definitions
of
affected
source.
In
some
instances,
we
have
adopted
a
definition
as
broad
as
all
processes,
equipment
and
activities
at
a
source,
while
in
other
instances,
we
have
defined
affected
source
as
narrowly
as
a
single
piece
of
equipment.
The
selection
of
affected
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
18:
23
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77569
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
source
is
guided
by
the
consideration
of
many
factors
including
similarities
and
dissimilarities
in
emission
units
in
terms
of
their
size,
type,
and
HAP
emissions
potential;
the
functional
relationship
of
an
emission
unit
or
grouping
of
units
within
a
plant
or
process;
and
the
effect
of
an
affected
source
definition
on
when
and
where
new
source
MACT
should
apply.
We
considered
three
different
approaches
for
designating
the
affected
source:
the
entire
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant,
groups
of
emission
points,
and
individual
emission
points.
In
selecting
the
affected
sources
for
regulation,
we
identified
each
HAPemitting
operation,
the
HAP
emitted,
and
the
quantity
of
HAP
emissions
from
individual
or
groups
of
emissions
points.
We
determined
that
establishing
the
entire
plant
as
the
affected
source
does
not
take
into
account
differences
in
the
quantity
and
types
of
HAP
emitted
by
different
processing
operations.
We
also
determined
that
establishing
each
individual
emission
point
as
the
affected
source
does
not
take
advantage
of
similarities
among
certain
processing
operations.
We
concluded
that
the
most
appropriate
approach
is
to
designate
the
group
of
emission
points
associated
with
each
major
process
area
as
an
affected
source.
The
resulting
affected
sources
are
ore
crushing
and
handling
operations,
each
indurating
furnace,
finished
pellet
handling
operations,
and
each
ore
dryer.
As
previously
mentioned,
the
term
affected
source
is
used
primarily
as
a
means
of
specifying
what
equipment
or
activities
would
be
affected
by
the
proposed
standards.
In
addition,
the
term
affected
source
serves
to
define
where
new
source
MACT
applies.
Specifically,
the
General
Provisions
of
40
CFR
part
63
define
the
terms
``
construction''
and
``
reconstruction''
with
reference
to
the
term
affected
source
and
provide
that
new
source
MACT
applies
when
construction
and
reconstruction
occur.
When
establishing
the
affected
sources
for
these
proposed
standards,
we
recognized
that
selecting
a
narrow
definition
of
affected
source
(
e.
g.,
each
crusher,
conveyor,
and
bin)
would
cause
new
source
MACT
requirements
to
be
triggered
more
frequently
than
if
the
affected
source
were
defined
as
a
collection
of
equipment
(
e.
g.,
all
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units).
We
do
not
believe
that
the
replacement
of
an
individual
emission
unit
that
is
part
of
a
larger
integrated
process
should
trigger
new
source
MACT.
Therefore,
we
established
affected
sources
for
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
that
represent
collections
of
equipment,
rather
than
individual
units.
During
the
development
of
the
affected
source
definitions,
we
considered
combining
the
two
affected
sources
into
one
due
to
similarities
in
emission
characteristics
and
controls.
However,
we
decided
not
to
do
so
due
to
differences
in
the
physical
location
and
organization
of
the
units.
Specifically,
ore
crushing
handling
units
are
located
upstream
of
the
indurating
furnace,
and
the
finished
pellet
handling
units
are
located
downstream
of
the
indurating
furnace.
As
a
result,
the
grouping
of
units
that
comprised
the
affected
sources
are
typically
located
in
different
buildings
at
different
parts
of
the
plant.
In
addition,
ore
crushing
handling
units
are
organized
with
respect
to
the
crushing
lines,
whereas
finished
pellet
handling
units
are
organized
with
respect
to
the
indurating
furnace
lines.
The
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source
consists
of
the
collection
of
equipment
and
operations
needed
to
produce
crushed
ore
suitable
for
processing
into
green
pellets.
Emission
units
include
ore
crushers
(
primary,
secondary,
and
tertiary),
screens,
conveyors,
storage
bins,
and
transfer
points.
The
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source
begins
where
crude
taconite
iron
ore
is
dumped
into
the
primary
crusher
and
ends
where
the
unfired
(
green)
pellets
enter
the
indurating
furnace.
We
grouped
all
of
these
emission
units
into
the
one
affected
source
based
on
their
functional
relationship,
the
similarity
of
their
HAP
emission
characteristics,
and
the
considerations
for
new
source
MACT
stated
above.
The
only
HAP
emitted
from
these
units
are
metallic
HAP,
primarily
manganese.
We
compared
the
outlet
PM
concentrations
for
the
different
types
of
emission
units
(
i.
e.,
crushers,
conveyors,
bins,
screens,
and
transfer
points)
and
crushing
stage
(
primary,
secondary,
and
tertiary)
and
observed
no
discernable
difference
in
emissions.
In
addition,
grouping
all
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units
into
one
affected
source
will
allow
sources
more
flexibility
in
developing
control
strategies
for
achieving
compliance.
All
wet
process
operations,
including
wet
milling,
magnetic
separation,
hydraulic
separation,
chemical
flotation,
and
concentrate
thickening
in
the
concentrator
area,
and
vacuum
disk
filters
and
balling
drums
in
the
pelletizing
area,
are
excluded
from
the
rule
because
the
water
effectively
suppresses
all
emissions
from
these
operations.
Operations
associated
with
the
handling
of
limestone/
dolomite
and
bentonite
are
also
excluded
since
they
produce
no
HAP
emissions.
The
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
consists
of
the
following
emission
units:
conveyors,
storage
bins,
screens,
and
transfer
points.
The
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
begins
at
the
indurating
furnace
discharge
and
ends
where
the
finished
pellets
are
stockpiled.
We
grouped
all
of
these
emission
units
into
the
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
based
on
the
similarity
of
their
HAP
emission
characteristics
and
process
equipment
type.
The
only
HAP
emitted
by
these
units
are
metallic
HAP,
primarily
manganese.
We
compared
the
outlet
PM
concentrations
for
the
different
types
of
emission
units
(
i.
e.,
conveyors,
bins,
screens,
and
transfer
points)
and
observed
no
discernable
difference
in
emissions.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
that
subcategorization
of
the
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
is
warranted.
Unlike
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
affected
sources,
we
have
selected
a
narrower
definition
of
affected
source
for
indurating
furnaces
by
defining
the
affected
source
as
each
individual
furnace,
rather
than
the
collection
of
indurating
furnaces
at
a
particular
plant.
We
defined
each
indurating
furnace
as
a
separate
affected
source
because
furnaces
are
independent
emission
units.
As
independent
emission
units,
each
indurating
furnace
has
it
own
dedicated
emission
controls.
In
contrast,
emissions
from
several
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
process
units
are
often
combined
and
vented
to
a
shared
control
device.
In
addition,
since
the
indurating
furnaces
are
the
most
significant
source
of
HAP
emissions,
we
wanted
all
new
indurating
furnaces
to
be
subject
to
new
source
MACT.
The
indurating
furnace
affected
source
includes
any
furnace,
including
both
straight
grate
and
grate
kiln
designs,
in
which
green
pellets
are
hardened
by
firing
to
a
high
temperature
of
between
2,200
to
2,500
°
F.
The
indurating
furnace
begins
at
the
point
where
the
grate
feed
conveyor
discharges
green
pellets
onto
the
furnace
traveling
grate
and
ends
where
the
hardened
pellets
exit
the
finished
pellet
cooler.
Unlike
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
units,
indurating
furnaces
are
combustion
sources,
and
as
such,
emit
substantially
more
HAP.
In
addition
to
emitting
metallic
HAP,
indurating
furnaces
emit
acid
gases
(
HCl
and
HF)
and
products
of
incomplete
combustion
(
primarily
formaldehyde).

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77570
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
We
are
establishing
subcategories
within
the
indurating
furnace
affected
source
to
distinguish
between
the
two
types
of
furnace
designs
 
grate
kiln
and
straight
grate.
We
have
determined
that
grate
kiln
furnaces
are
higher
emitting
sources
than
straight
grate
furnaces
due
to
physical
and
operational
differences
that
affect
emissions
and
the
controllability
of
emissions.
First,
the
grate
kiln
furnaces
are
larger
than
straight
grate
units
with
annual
production
rates
approximately
30
percent
higher
than
that
of
the
straight
grate
furnaces.
Second,
the
grate
kiln
furnaces
are
composed
of
two
furnace
sections,
a
continuous
grate
followed
by
a
rotary
kiln,
while
the
straight
grate
furnaces
include
only
a
continuous
grate.
In
the
grate
kiln,
the
pellets
drop
off
a
conveyor
into
the
kiln
and
then
tumble
in
the
kiln
as
it
rotates.
As
a
result,
there
is
substantially
more
disturbance
of
the
pellets
in
the
grate
kiln
furnace
which
contributes
to
an
increase
in
pellet
breakage
and
in
the
entrainment
of
particles
in
the
air
stream
and
causing
higher
PM
loadings
and
HAP
emissions.
In
addition,
the
average
volume
of
air
flowing
through
a
grate
kiln
furnace
is
more
than
twice
the
average
volume
of
air
flowing
through
a
straight
grate
furnace.
The
greater
air
flow
in
grate
kilns
causes
more
entrainment
of
particles
in
the
air
stream,
causing
higher
exhaust
gas
PM
loadings
and
HAP
emissions.
Available
test
data
show
that,
when
processing
magnetite
ore,
PM
loadings
for
grate
kilns
are
twice
that
of
straight
grate
furnaces.
Because
grate
kiln
furnaces
and
straight
grate
furnaces
have
unique
physical
and
operational
differences
that
affect
emissions
and
the
controllability
of
emissions,
we
have
subcategorized
based
on
furnace
type.
We
have
also
concluded
that,
within
the
grate
kiln
furnace
subcategory,
higher
PM
emissions
are
observed
when
hematite
ore
is
processed
rather
than
magnetite
ore.
For
example,
PM
emissions
for
one
furnace
were
measured
at
0.004
gr/
dscf
when
the
furnace
was
processing
magnetite.
When
the
same
furnace
was
processing
hematite,
the
PM
emissions
were
measured
at
0.018
gr/
dscf.
Contributing
factors
to
the
higher
emissions
include
the
fact
that
the
hematite
ore
pellets
are
finer
grained
and
subject
to
a
higher
breakage
rate.
As
a
result
of
the
higher
inlet
PM
loading,
the
controlled
outlet
PM
emissions
are
higher
when
processing
hematite
than
when
processing
magnetite.
Therefore,
to
account
for
this
difference
in
emissions,
we
are
making
a
distinction
on
the
basis
of
ore
type
within
grate
kilns.
There
are
only
two
grate
kiln
furnaces
that
process
hematite.
Both
of
these
indurating
furnaces
are
located
at
the
same
plant
in
Michigan.
These
furnaces
process
hematite
approximately
eight
months
of
the
year
and
process
magnetite
the
remainder
of
the
year.
There
are
no
straight
grate
indurating
furnaces
processing
hematite.
Emissions
from
cooler
vent
stacks
are
excluded
from
the
indurating
furnace
affected
source
based
on
the
large
size
of
the
particles
and
the
relatively
low
concentration
of
particulate
emissions.
Test
data
indicate
that
PM
emissions
from
cooler
vent
stacks
are
primarily
coarse
PM
with
80
percent
of
the
PM
larger
than
50
microns
and
only
less
than
1
percent
smaller
than
10
microns.
Uncontrolled
PM
emissions
from
cooler
vent
stacks
are
typically
around
0.04
gr/
dscf.
Cooler
vent
stacks
are
currently
not
controlled
at
any
of
the
existing
taconite
plants.
In
Minnesota,
cooler
vent
stacks
are
subject
to
the
State's
requirements
that
limit
the
PM
concentrations
based
on
volumetric
flow
rate.
Based
on
typical
volumetric
flow
rates
in
cooler
vent
stacks,
the
Industrial
Process
Equipment
Rule
(
IPER)
limit
values
range
from
0.04
to
0.05
gr/
dscf.
In
Michigan,
cooler
vent
stacks
are
not
recognized
as
emission
points
and
are
not
addressed
in
operating
permits.
Similar
to
the
indurating
furnace
affected
source,
we
have
selected
a
narrow
definition
of
affected
source
for
ore
dryers
by
defining
the
affected
source
as
each
individual
ore
dryer,
rather
than
the
collection
of
ore
dryers
at
a
particular
plant.
We
defined
each
ore
dryer
as
a
separate
affected
source
because
ore
dryers
are
independent
emission
units
with
their
own
dedicated
emission
control
devices.
There
are
only
two
ore
dryers,
and
both
are
located
at
the
same
plant
in
Michigan.
The
concentrate
from
the
Michigan
plant
contains
a
higher
percentage
of
fine
particles
than
other
taconite
operations
and,
therefore,
requires
additional
drying.
The
ore
dryers
are
located
just
upstream
of
the
balling
drum.
Both
dryers
are
rotary
designs
that
tumble
the
wet
taconite
ore
concentrate
through
a
heated
air
stream
to
reduce
the
amount
of
entrained
moisture
in
the
taconite
ore
concentrate.

B.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Pollutants?
Pollutants
emitted
by
plants
in
the
taconite
iron
ore
processing
source
category
include
metallic
HAP
(
primarily
naturally
occurring
compounds
of
manganese,
arsenic,
lead,
nickel,
and
chromium,
and
lesser
quantities
of
mercury),
organic
HAP
resulting
from
incomplete
combustion
(
mainly
formaldehyde),
and
acid
gases
(
hydrochloric
acid
and
hydrofluoric
acid).
Metallic
HAP
are
emitted
from
ore
crushing
and
handling
units,
indurating
furnaces,
finished
pellet
handling
units,
and
ore
dryers.
We
determined
that
it
is
not
practical
to
establish
individual
standards
for
each
metallic
HAP
that
could
be
present
in
the
various
processes
(
e.
g.,
separate
standards
for
manganese
compound
emissions,
separate
standards
for
lead
compound
emissions,
and
so
forth
for
each
metal
compound
group
listed
as
HAP
and
which
potentially
could
be
present).
When
released,
each
of
the
metallic
HAP
compounds,
except
elemental
mercury,
behave
as
PM.
As
a
result,
strong
correlations
exist
between
PM
emissions
and
emissions
of
the
individual
metallic
HAP
compounds.
Control
technologies
used
for
the
reduction
of
PM
emissions
achieve
comparable
levels
of
reduction
of
metallic
HAP
emissions.
Standards
requiring
good
control
of
PM
emissions
will
also
achieve
a
similar
level
of
control
of
metallic
HAP
emissions.
Therefore,
we
are
establishing
standards
for
total
PM
as
a
surrogate
pollutant
for
the
individual
metallic
HAP.
Establishing
separate
standards
for
each
metallic
HAP
would
impose
costly
and
significantly
more
complex
compliance
and
monitoring
requirements.
In
addition,
establishing
separate
standards
for
each
metallic
HAP
would
achieve
little,
if
any,
HAP
emissions
reductions
beyond
what
would
be
achieved
using
the
total
PM
surrogate
pollutant
approach.
Products
of
incomplete
combustion,
such
as
formaldehyde,
are
released
from
indurating
furnaces
at
very
low
concentrations
as
a
result
of
the
burning
of
fuels,
such
as
natural
gas.
Formaldehyde
has
been
measured
through
stack
testing
at
concentrations
that
are
typically
less
than
1
ppm.
Formaldehyde
emissions
are
currently
uncontrolled.
Existing
PM
emission
controls
on
indurating
furnaces
include
ESP
and
wet
scrubbers,
neither
of
which
are
capable
of
controlling
formaldehyde.
In
addition,
since
formaldehyde
emissions
are
produced
as
a
byproduct
of
burning
fuels,
generally
natural
gas,
taconite
plants
cannot
lower
their
formaldehyde
emissions
by
switching
raw
materials
or
changing
fuels.
We
know
of
no
feasible
control
technology
for
reducing
formaldehyde
emissions
at
these
extremely
low
concentrations
and
at
the
exhaust
gas
temperatures
typically
encountered
at
indurating
furnaces.
The
only
known
technology
for
the
control
of
formaldehyde
emissions
at
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77571
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
concentrations
of
less
than
1
ppm
is
thermal
catalytic
oxidation
in
which
formaldehyde
is
contacted
with
a
precious
metal
catalyst
in
the
presence
of
oxygen
and
high
temperature
(
650
to
1,350
°
F)
to
yield
carbon
dioxide
and
water.
Destruction
efficiencies
of
85
to
90
percent
have
been
demonstrated
on
formaldehyde
emissions
contained
in
the
exhaust
gas
from
stationary
combustion
turbines
at
concentrations
in
the
parts
per
billion
range
and
temperatures
of
1,000
°
F
or
higher.
Destruction
efficiencies,
however,
decrease
exponentially
at
reaction
temperatures
below
650
°
F,
down
to
eventually
less
than
10
percent
at
exhaust
gas
temperature
of
300
°
F
or
less,
which
is
typical
of
most
indurating
furnaces.
Accordingly,
the
burning
of
large
quantities
of
additional
fuel,
such
as
natural
gas,
would
be
needed
to
heat
the
exhaust
gases
to
the
desired
temperature,
which
would
generate
additional
quantities
of
carbon
dioxide
(
a
global
warming
gas)
and
nitrogen
oxides
(
an
ozone
precursor).
In
addition,
given
the
large
volume
of
exhaust
gas
to
be
treated,
on
the
order
of
several
hundred
thousand
cubic
feet
per
minute
per
furnace,
and
the
complexity
of
retrofitting
multiple
stacks
with
gas
burners
and
thermal
catalytic
oxidation
units,
the
capital
cost
and
operating
cost
for
control
would
be
enormous.
Since
formaldehyde
emissions
are
currently
uncontrolled,
we
conclude
that
the
MACT
floor
for
formaldehyde
is
no
emissions
reduction.
In
addition,
due
to
the
severe
technical
and
economic
constraints
of
controlling
formaldehyde
at
high
volumetric
flow
rates,
very
low
concentrations
and
relatively
low
temperatures,
we
conclude
that
no
beyond­
the­
floor
control
is
feasible.
Accordingly,
specific
emission
limitations
for
formaldehyde
are
not
included
in
the
proposed
rule.
Acid
gases
(
hydrochloric
acid
and
hydrofluoric
acid)
are
also
emitted
from
indurating
furnaces
at
very
low
concentrations,
typically
less
than
3
ppm.
Acid
gases
are
formed
in
the
indurating
furnace
due
to
the
presence
of
chlorides
and
fluorides
in
pellet
additives,
such
as
dolomite
and
limestone.
The
taconite
industry
has
not
installed
equipment
to
specifically
control
acid
gases.
The
MACT
floor
for
acid
gases
was
determined
to
be
no
emissions
reduction.
Unlike
formaldehyde,
some
air
pollution
control
devices
currently
used
by
the
industry
to
reduce
PM
emissions
can
achieve
incidental
control
of
acid
gases.
Due
to
the
strong
affinity
of
these
acid
gases
for
water,
control
equipment
that
use
water,
such
as
wet
wall
electrostatic
precipitators
and
wet
scrubbers,
have
the
capability
of
reducing
hydrochloric
acid
and
hydrofluoric
acid
emissions
substantially.
Therefore,
a
specific
emission
limitation
for
acid
gases
is
not
included
in
today's
proposal.
Indurating
furnaces
are
also
a
source
of
mercury
emissions.
Mercury
is
a
naturally
occurring
element
in
the
taconite
ore.
As
the
taconite
pellets
are
heated
in
the
furnace,
the
naturally
occurring
mercury
compounds
are
volatilized.
The
key
factor
affecting
emissions
is
the
mercury
content
of
the
ore.
Currently,
none
of
the
plants
in
this
industry
have
installed
controls
for
mercury
emissions.
We
also
have
not
been
able
to
identify
any
currently
employed
operating
practices
which
effectively
reduce
mercury
emissions.
Since
specific
controls
for
mercury
are
not
currently
present
in
the
industry
and
operating
practices
which
effectively
reduce
mercury
emissions
have
not
been
identified,
the
MACT
floor
for
mercury
was
determined
to
be
no
emissions
reduction.
In
evaluating
potential
above­
the­
floor
options,
we
were
unable
to
identify
any
viable
control
technologies
or
operating
practices
for
achieving
reductions
in
mercury
emissions
from
indurating
furnaces
at
taconite
iron
ore
plants.
As
a
result,
a
specific
emission
limitation
for
mercury
has
not
been
included
in
the
proposed
rule.
We
will
reevaluate
the
feasibility
of
controlling
mercury
emissions
from
taconite
iron
ore
plants
as
part
of
the
assessment
for
residual
risk
standards.
Due
to
the
nature
of
the
taconite
iron
ore
deposits
on
the
Mesabi
Range
in
Northeast
Minnesota,
there
is
some
potential
for
the
occurrence
of
contaminant
asbestos
in
some
taconite
ore
mining
areas.
Asbestos
is
the
name
applied
to
a
group
of
six
different
minerals
that
occur
naturally
in
the
environment.
These
minerals
are
made
up
of
long
thin
fibers
similar
to
fiberglass.
The
concern
is
mainly
limited
to
two
taconite
plants
located
at
the
eastern
end
of
the
Mesabi
Range
where
acicular
(
needle­
like)
minerals
may
be
present
in
the
ore.
Asbestos
emissions
are
currently
regulated
under
NESHAP
promulgated
in
April
1984
(
40
CFR
part
61,
subpart
M)
that
regulate
the
milling
of
commercial
asbestos
and
the
manufacturing
and
fabricating
of
asbestos
products.
The
provisions
of
the
NESHAP
also
apply
to
the
demolition
and
renovation
of
buildings
where
asbestos­
containing
material
is
present.
The
NESHAP
do
not
apply
to
ore
or
other
mineral
processing
operations
that
may
contain
asbestos
as
a
contaminant.
A
work
group
within
EPA
is
currently
studying
the
complex
issues
involved
with
asbestos
emissions
from
beneficiation
and
subsequent
processing
of
minerals
where
asbestos
may
be
present
as
a
contaminant.
That
study
was
initiated
in
response
to
the
events
surrounding
exposures
of
citizens
to
asbestos
which
occurred
as
a
contaminant
in
a
vermiculite
mine
in
Libby,
Montana.
The
work
group
has
developed
an
action
plan
which
identifies
steps
necessary
to
gather
the
information
that
EPA
needs
to
decide
whether
regulations
for
sources
of
contaminant
asbestos
are
warranted.
The
work
group
has
targeted
vermiculite
mining
and
processing
operations
as
the
first
priority
in
the
study.
The
work
group
also
plans
to
study
asbestos
that
occurs
as
a
contaminant
from
other
mining
and
processing
operations,
including
taconite
ore
mining
and
processing.
Decisions
on
whether
to
regulate
asbestos
that
occurs
as
a
contaminant
in
taconite
ore
mining
and
processing
and
other
potential
industries
will
be
based
on
information
gathered
in
the
study.

C.
How
Did
We
Determine
the
Bases
and
Levels
of
the
Proposed
Standards?

We
have
taken
alternative
approaches
to
establishing
the
MACT
floor,
depending
on
the
type,
quality,
and
applicability
of
available
data.
The
three
approaches
most
commonly
used
involve
reliance
on
the
following:
State
and
Federal
regulations
or
permit
limits,
source
test
data
that
characterize
actual
emissions,
and
use
of
a
technology
floor
with
an
accompanying
demonstrated
achievable
emission
level
that
accounts
for
process
and/
or
air
pollution
control
device
variability.
We
evaluated
each
of
these
MACT
floor
approaches
when
developing
the
MACT
floor
for
each
of
the
four
affected
sources:
Ore
crushing
and
handling,
indurating
furnaces,
finished
pellet
handling,
and
ore
dryers.
As
previously
discussed
in
this
preamble,
we
are
establishing
standards
for
total
PM
as
a
surrogate
pollutant
for
individual
metallic
HAP
compounds.

1.
Ore
Crushing
and
Handling
and
Finished
Pellet
Handling
Although
ore
crushing
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
are
defined
as
separate
affected
sources,
we
combined
the
available
test
data
on
both
sources
for
the
MACT
floor
and
MACT
analyses.
This
is
consistent
with
our
usual
practice
in
developing
MACT
standards
in
organizing,
as
appropriate,
the
available
information
for
similar
HAPemitting
equipment
into
related
groups
for
the
purpose
of
determining
MACT
floors
and
MACT;
yet,
as
appropriate,
maintaining
separate
affected
source
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77572
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
definitions
for
the
purpose
of
defining
the
applicability
of
relevant
standards.
We
identified
264
emission
units
within
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source
and
82
emission
units
within
the
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
at
the
eight
taconite
plants
(
346
emission
units
total).
Particulate
matter
emissions
from
both
operations
are
controlled
primarily
with
medium
energy
wet
scrubbers
(
i.
e.,
venturi­
rod
scrubbers,
impingement
scrubbers,
and
marble
bed
scrubbers).
Baghouses,
low
energy
wet
scrubbers
(
i.
e.,
rotoclones),
multiclones,
and
ESP
are
also
used.
Relative
to
State
and
Federal
regulations
and
permit
conditions,
some
of
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
in
Minnesota
are
subject
to
the
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
for
metallic
mineral
processing
plants
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
LL).
The
NSPS
limit
PM
emissions
from
each
affected
emission
unit
to
0.022
gr/
dscf.
However,
most
of
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
in
Minnesota
are
subject
to
the
IPER.
The
Minnesota
IPER
establishes
PM
concentration
emission
limits
as
a
function
of
volumetric
flow.
The
emission
limit
becomes
more
stringent
as
volumetric
flow
increases.
Particulate
matter
emission
limits
for
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
units
under
the
IPER
range
from
approximately
0.030
gr/
dscf
to
approximately
0.095
gr/
dscf.
Due
to
its
proximity
to
Lake
Superior,
one
of
the
Minnesota
plants
is
subject
to
the
following
more
stringent
limits:
0.002
gr/
dscf
for
tertiary
crushing
and
some
storage/
transfer
points,
0.010
gr/
dscf
for
cobbing
and
some
storage/
transfer
points,
and
0.030
gr/
dscf
for
the
rest
of
the
emission
points.
The
two
taconite
plants
in
Michigan
are
subject
to
a
State
PM
emission
limit
of
0.1
pounds
of
PM
per
1,000
pounds
of
exhaust
gas,
which
equates
to
0.052
gr/
dscf.
The
PM
emissions
tests
data
used
in
the
MACT
analysis
covers
60
emission
units,
which
accounts
for
17
percent
of
the
combined
346
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
in
the
source
category.
Included
are
representative
data
on
all
crushing
stages,
screening
operations,
conveyor
transfer
points,
and
storage
bins,
as
well
as
finished
pellet
screening
operations
and
conveyor
transfer
points.
These
tests
also
cover
the
full
range
of
control
devices
applied
to
both
emission
units.
Each
test
is
composed
of
three,
1­
hour
test
runs
expressed
in
PM
concentration
units
of
gr/
dscf.
We
compared
these
60
data
points
on
actual
emissions
to
the
State
and
Federal
emissions
limitations
to
determine
whether
the
limitations
provided
a
reasonably
realistic
representation
of
actual
emissions
and
performance.
Based
on
this
comparison,
it
is
clear
that
actual
PM
emissions
are
considerably
lower
than
the
levels
allowed
by
the
State
emission
limits
and
the
metallic
mineral
processing
NSPS,
and
that
the
State
and
Federal
PM
emission
limits
do
not
realistically
represent
performance
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
performing
sources.
Test
results
in
the
data
pool
are
on
the
order
of
0.002
to
0.010
gr/
dscf,
which
is
substantially
below
that
generally
allowed
under
the
State
and
Federal
emissions
limitations
cited
above.
We
evaluated
the
test
data
by
process
stage
(
i.
e.,
primary
crushing,
secondary
crushing,
tertiary
crushing,
grate
feed,
and
finished
pellet
handling)
to
determine
whether
PM
emissions
varied
depending
on
process
stage.
We
found
no
discernable
differences
in
the
types
of
controls
or
the
level
of
controlled
PM
emissions
among
the
various
process
stages.
Consequently,
we
concluded
that
distinguishing
among
process
stages
was
unnecessary,
and
that
it
was
feasible
to
establish
one
PM
emission
limit
that
would
apply
to
all
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units.
An
underlying
presumption
when
setting
MACT
standards
is
that
all
emission
limitations
must
be
met
or
complied
with
at
all
times.
Consequently,
when
establishing
MACT
floors
and
ultimately
MACT
standards,
we
must
consider
the
long­
term
variability
in
performance
expected
to
occur
under
reasonable
worst­
case
conditions
or
circumstances.
We
must
assure
that
ensuing
standards
reflect
the
level
of
emissions
control
determined
to
be
MACT.
We
must
also
assure
that
the
standards
are
achievable
under
normal
and
recurring
worst­
case
circumstances.
The
MACT
floor
and
the
MACT
level
of
control
were
determined
based
on
each
plant's
flow­
weighted
mean
PM
concentration
for
all
emission
units
in
both
affected
sources.
By
averaging
higher
emitting
units
with
lower
emitting
units,
each
plant's
flowweighted
mean
PM
concentration
value
takes
into
account
much
of
the
variability
in
emissions
among
different
units
within
the
two
affected
sources
and
provides
what
we
believe
to
be
a
reasonably
accurate
representation
of
the
overall
level
of
control
that
is
being
achieved
by
those
affected
sources.
We
then
proceeded
to
establish
the
MACT
floor
based
on
the
pool
of
credible
data
available
to
us
for
each
plant.
Of
the
eight
existing
taconite
iron
ore
plants,
three
plants
were
excluded
from
the
floor
analysis
due
to
a
lack
of
sufficient
test
data.
One
of
the
plants
had
no
PM
emissions
test
data
whatsoever,
and
the
other
two
plants
had
only
two
tested
units
each.
Each
of
the
remaining
five
plants
had
emissions
test
data
for
6
to
21
units.
The
first
step
in
the
MACT
floor
analysis
was
to
calculate
a
flowweighted
mean
PM
concentration
value
(
in
gr/
dscf)
for
each
of
the
five
plants
using
the
available
PM
emissions
data
for
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
units
at
each
plant.
For
each
unit
with
a
PM
emissions
test,
the
total
grains
of
PM
emitted
during
the
test
was
calculated
by
multiplying
the
test
average
in
gr/
dscf
by
the
test
average
flow
rate
in
dscf.
Then,
for
each
plant,
the
grains
of
PM
emitted
by
all
the
tested
units
at
that
plant
were
totaled.
The
total
grains
emitted
were
then
divided
by
the
total
air
flow
for
the
tested
units
(
in
dscf)
to
obtain
the
flow­
weighted
mean
PM
concentration
in
gr/
dscf.
The
flowweighted
mean
PM
concentration
values
(
in
gr/
dscf)
for
each
of
the
five
plants
were
0.0047,
0.0050,
0.0059,
0.0114
and
0.0116.
The
resulting
MACT
floor
for
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
affected
sources
as
determined
using
the
flow­
weighted
mean
PM
concentration
for
the
five
plants
is
0.008
gr/
dscf.
We
then
examined
a
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative.
The
next
increment
of
control
beyond
the
floor
is
the
installation
of
impingement
scrubbers
capable
of
meeting
a
concentration
limit
of
0.005
gr/
dscf,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
level
of
control
we
anticipate
requiring
for
new
sources.
We
estimate
the
additional
capital
cost
of
replacing
existing
controls
with
new
impingement
scrubbers
performing
at
a
level
of
0.005
gr/
dscf
to
be
$
3.5
million
and
the
total
annual
cost
to
be
$
653,000
per
year.
We
estimate
the
corresponding
incremental
reduction
in
HAP
metals
achieved
by
reducing
the
PM
concentration
from
0.008
to
0.005
gr/
dscf
to
be
0.37
tons.
The
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
is
$
1.7
million.
The
energy
increase
would
be
expected
to
be
2,870
mega­
watt
hours
per
year,
primarily
due
to
the
energy
requirements
of
new
scrubbers.
We
believe
that
the
high
cost,
coupled
with
the
small
reduction
in
HAP
emissions,
does
not
justify
this
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative
at
this
time.
We
could
not
identify
any
other
beyond­
the­
floor
alternatives.
Consequently,
we
chose
the
floor
level
of
control
of
0.008
gr/
dscf
as
MACT.
For
new
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
new
finished
pellet
handling
affected
sources,
we
are
selecting
a
PM
outlet
concentration
of
0.005
gr/
dscf
as
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77573
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
new
source
MACT.
The
0.005
gr/
dscf
level
corresponds
to
the
best
performing
source
(
plant)
with
the
lowest
flowweighted
mean
PM
concentration.

2.
Indurating
Furnaces
Processing
Magnetite
There
are
21
indurating
furnaces
at
the
eight
operating
taconite
plants.
Fourteen
of
the
furnaces
are
grate
kiln
designs
and
seven
are
straight
grate
designs.
As
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble,
we
are
establishing
subcategories
within
the
indurating
furnace
affected
source
to
accommodate
differences
in
the
two
furnace
designs.
We
have
determined
that
these
furnace
design
types
have
unique
physical
and
operational
differences
which
warrant
their
separation
into
two
subcategories.
We
are
also
differentiating
the
grate
kiln
furnaces
based
on
type
of
ore
processed
(
i.
e.,
hematite
versus
magnetite
ore).
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
PM
emission
limitations
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
However,
a
comparison
of
the
State
limits
with
data
on
actual
PM
emissions
shows
that
the
State
limits
are
generally
much
more
lenient
than
the
actual
emissions
and,
as
such,
are
not
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Most
of
the
indurating
furnaces
in
Minnesota
are
subject
to
the
State's
IPER.
Particulate
matter
emission
limits
for
indurating
furnaces
under
the
IPER
range
from
0.025
to
0.05
gr/
dscf.
Due
to
its
proximity
to
Lake
Superior,
one
of
the
Minnesota
plants,
which
operates
straight
grate
furnaces,
is
subject
to
a
more
stringent
State
limit
of
0.01
gr/
dscf.
The
two
Michigan
plants,
both
of
which
operate
grate
kiln
furnaces,
are
subject
to
State
PM
emission
limits
also
based
on
air
flow
rates.
One
plant
which
operates
two
furnaces
has
a
PM
emission
limit
of
0.065
pounds
of
PM
per
1,000
pounds
of
exhaust
gas,
which
equates
to
0.04
gr/
dscf.
The
other
plant
which
operates
four
grate
kilns
has
a
PM
emission
limit
of
0.10
pounds
of
PM
per
1,000
pounds
of
exhaust
gas
for
two
larger
kilns,
and
0.15
pounds
of
PM
per
1,000
pounds
of
exhaust
gas
for
two
smaller
kilns.
The
two
emission
limits
equate
to
0.06
to
0.09
gr/
dscf,
respectively.
By
contrast,
the
available
information
on
actual
PM
emissions
for
19
of
21
furnaces
for
which
we
have
emissions
test
data
indicate
that
the
actual
emissions
are
considerably
lower
than
the
levels
allowed
under
the
State
limits.
The
average
concentration
of
actual
emissions
measured
from
all
19
furnaces
when
processing
magnetite
range
from
0.005
to
0.02
gr/
dscf,
which
is
about
5
times
lower
than
the
typical
State
limit.
Therefore,
we
concluded
that
the
State
PM
emission
limits
and
permit
conditions
do
not
realistically
represent
the
emission
levels
actually
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best
performing
sources.
We
next
examined
the
available
emissions
data
to
determine
if
the
MACT
floor
could
be
based
on
actual
emissions.
We
have
credible
PM
test
data
for
six
of
the
seven
straight
grate
furnaces
and
thirteen
of
the
fourteen
grate
kiln
furnaces.
The
test
data
for
each
furnace
consists
of
a
test
for
each
furnace
stack,
with
multiple
tests
for
furnaces
that
discharge
through
more
than
one
stack.
Each
test
consists
of
three
1­
hour
test
runs
expressed
in
gr/
dscf.
For
the
furnaces
with
multiple
stacks,
the
PM
emissions
from
each
indurating
furnace
were
calculated
as
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
from
all
stacks.
Given
the
amount
and
quality
of
available
PM
emissions
test
data,
we
conclude
that
the
available
information
on
actual
emissions
is
more
than
adequate
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
requisite
MACT
floors
for
new
and
existing
sources.
As
a
first
step
in
our
MACT
floor
and
MACT
analysis
for
indurating
furnaces,
we
initially
explored
the
appropriateness
of
using
a
plantwide
average
approach
similar
to
that
used
for
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling.
After
an
assessment
of
the
available
test
data,
we
determined
that
the
plantwide
average
approach
was
not
feasible
due
to
insufficient
data,
and
that
an
alternative
approach
that
focuses
on
individual
furnace
emissions
rather
than
plantwide
emissions
is
more
suitable.
For
plants
using
grate
kiln
furnaces,
we
have
sufficient
test
data
to
calculate
a
plantwide
value
for
only
three
of
the
five
plants.
For
plants
using
straight
grate
furnaces,
we
have
sufficient
test
data
to
calculate
a
plantwide
value
for
only
two
of
the
three
plants.
Therefore,
due
to
a
lack
of
test
data
on
some
furnaces,
it
is
not
possible
to
use
a
plantwide
approach
to
determine
the
MACT
floor
for
indurating
furnaces.
As
an
alternative
approach,
we
treated
each
of
the
21
indurating
furnaces
as
separate
emission
units.
As
a
first
step,
we
looked
at
all
furnaces
(
straight
grate
and
grate
kiln)
with
multiple
PM
emissions
tests
to
account
for
the
variability
inherent
in
the
performance
tests.
There
are
12
grate
kiln
furnaces
and
three
straight
grate
furnaces
for
which
there
were
two
or
more
emissions
tests.
To
quantify
the
variability
between
tests
for
each
of
these
furnaces,
we
calculated
a
relative
standard
deviation
(
RSD)
for
each
furnace.
The
RSD
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
standard
deviation
of
the
data
by
the
mean
of
the
data
and
multiplying
the
result
by
100.
The
RSD
provides
a
measure
of
the
variability
of
the
PM
test
data
for
each
furnace
relative
to
the
mean
of
the
PM
test
data
for
each
furnace.
The
RSD
is
expressed
as
a
percentage
for
each
furnace,
and
these
percentages
were
then
compared
between
furnaces.
The
variability
between
tests
for
a
given
indurating
furnace
is
due
to
normal
variability
in
process
operation
and
control
device
performance,
as
well
as
measurement
error.
These
factors
affect
all
furnaces
similarly,
and
their
affect
on
emissions
is
largely
independent
of
furnace
type
and
ore
type.
Therefore,
we
looked
at
the
range
of
RSD
values
for
all
furnaces
together
(
grate
kilns
and
straight
grates)
when
determining
the
overall
variability.
The
RSD
for
the
15
furnaces
with
multiple
test
data
ranged
from
9
to
112
percent
and
averaged
37
percent.
This
indicates
that
on
average,
the
PM
emissions
tests
for
each
furnace
are
within
plus
or
minus
37
percent
of
the
mean
of
the
emissions
tests.
We
then
applied
the
average
RSD
of
37
percent
to
each
emission
test
to
include
a
measure
of
variability
to
each
test.
Next,
we
assigned
a
level
of
performance
to
each
of
the
19
furnaces
for
which
we
have
actual
emissions
data.
For
furnaces
for
which
we
have
two
or
more
tests,
we
chose
the
higher
of
the
test
results
as
the
representative
value
of
performance
for
that
furnace.
We
believe
that
selecting
the
higher
of
the
test
results
provides
more
assurance
that
the
inherent
operational
variability
is
fully
accounted
for
in
the
selection
of
the
representative
value.
For
furnaces
for
which
we
have
only
one
test,
we
used
that
single
test
result
as
the
assigned
value
of
performance.
Since
there
are
fewer
than
30
sources
in
the
straight
grate
and
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
subcategories,
the
MACT
floors
were
determined
using
the
best
five
performing
sources.
Each
indurating
furnace
was
then
ranked
within
its
subcategory
according
to
its
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
after
application
of
the
RSD
adjustment
for
variability.
The
five
furnaces
in
each
subcategory
with
the
lowest
adjusted
PM
concentration
were
identified
as
the
best
performing
sources.
The
MACT
floor
was
then
determined
as
the
mean
PM
concentration
value
for
the
five
best
performing
sources.
The
adjusted
PM
concentration
values
for
the
five
best
performing
straight
grate
furnaces
were
0.0083,
0.0090,
0.0093,
0.0105,
and
0.0126.
The
mean
of
the
five
best
performing
straight
grate
furnaces
was
determined
to
be
0.010
gr/
dscf.
The
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77574
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
adjusted
PM
concentration
values
for
the
five
best
performing
grate
kiln
furnaces
were
0.0085,
0.0090,
0.0111,
0.0123,
and
0.0123.
The
mean
of
the
five
best
performing
grate
kiln
furnaces
was
determined
to
be
0.011
gr/
dscf.
We
then
examined
a
beyond­
the­
floor
option.
The
next
increment
of
control
beyond
the
floor
is
the
installation
of
venturi
scrubbers
or
dry
ESP
capable
of
meeting
a
concentration
limit
of
0.006
gr/
dscf,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
level
of
control
required
for
new
straight
grate
furnaces
and
new
grate
kiln
furnaces.
For
straight
grate
furnaces,
we
estimate
the
additional
capital
cost
of
going
from
a
level
of
0.010
gr/
dscf
to
a
level
of
0.006
gr/
dscf
to
be
$
71.2
million
and
the
total
annual
cost
to
be
$
11.4
million
per
year.
We
estimate
the
corresponding
additional
reduction
in
HAP
achieved
from
straight
grate
furnaces
to
be
30
tons.
The
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
for
straight
grate
furnaces
is
$
379,000/
ton.
The
energy
increase
would
be
expected
to
be
17,139
mega­
watt
hours
per
year,
primarily
due
to
the
energy
requirements
of
new
wet
scrubbers
and
dry
ESP.
For
grate
kiln
furnaces,
we
estimate
the
additional
capital
cost
of
going
from
a
level
of
0.011
gr/
dscf
to
a
level
of
0.006
gr/
dscf
to
be
$
28.5
million
and
the
total
annual
cost
to
be
$
5.3
million
per
year.
We
estimate
the
corresponding
additional
reduction
in
HAP
achieved
from
grate
kilns
to
be
12.8
tons.
The
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
for
grate
kiln
furnaces
is
$
414,000/
ton.
The
energy
increase
would
be
expected
to
be
36,297
mega­
watt
hours
per
year,
primarily
due
to
the
energy
requirements
of
new
wet
scrubbers
and
dry
ESP.
We
believe
that
the
high
cost,
coupled
with
the
small
reduction
in
HAP
emissions,
does
not
justify
this
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative
for
either
furnace
subcategory.
We
could
not
identify
any
other
beyond­
the­
floor
alternatives.
Consequently,
we
chose
the
MACT
floor
levels
of
control
of
0.010
gr/
dscf
for
straight
grate
furnaces
and
0.011
gr/
dscf
for
grate
kiln
furnaces
as
MACT
for
existing
indurating
furnace.
For
the
new
source
MACT
analysis,
we
did
not
adjust
the
PM
emissions
test
results
for
variability.
We
believe
that
a
variability
adjustment
is
not
necessary
because
new
emission
controls
can
be
engineered
to
account
for
variability
in
process
operation
and
control
device
performance,
as
well
as
measurement
error.
We
ranked
the
representative
PM
concentrations
for
each
straight
grate
furnace
and
for
each
grate
kiln
furnace
from
the
lowest
to
the
highest
values.
We
selected
the
furnace
with
the
lowest
PM
outlet
concentration
of
0.006
gr/
dscf
as
new
source
MACT
for
new
straight
grate
indurating
furnaces.
We
believe
that
this
furnace,
which
is
controlled
by
a
venturi
scrubber,
represents
the
best
controlled
similar
source
among
the
seven
operating
straight
grate
furnaces.
We
selected
the
furnace
with
the
lowest
PM
outlet
concentration
of
0.006
gr/
dscf
as
the
new
source
MACT
for
new
grate
kiln
indurating
furnaces
processing
magnetite.
We
believe
that
this
furnace,
which
is
controlled
by
a
dry
ESP,
represents
the
best
controlled
similar
source
among
the
14
operating
grate
kiln
furnaces.

3.
Indurating
Furnaces
Processing
Hematite
There
are
two
indurating
furnaces
that
process
hematite
ore.
Both
furnaces
are
grate
kiln
designs
and
are
located
at
the
same
plant
in
Michigan.
Hematite
is
processed
approximately
8
months
of
the
year
and
magnetite
is
processed
the
remainder
of
the
year.
Both
furnaces
are
similar
in
design,
size,
operating
conditions
and
air
pollution
control.
Each
furnace
is
of
the
grate
kiln
design,
which
consists
of
a
continuous
traveling
grate
followed
by
a
rotary
kiln.
The
two
kilns
are
both
25
feet
in
diameter
and
160
feet
long
and
have
similar
production
rates.
Exhaust
gases
from
each
furnace
are
controlled
by
three
ESP,
three
dry
units
on
one
furnace
and
one
wet
and
two
dry
units
on
the
other
furnace.
All
corresponding
ESP
for
each
furnace
have
similar
configurations,
including
number
of
chambers
and
fields,
and
collection
area;
and
similar
operating
conditions,
including
volumetric
air
flow,
gas
inlet
temperature,
primary
and
secondary
currents,
and
primary
and
secondary
voltages.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
PM
emission
limitations
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
However,
a
comparison
of
the
State
limit
with
data
on
actual
PM
emissions
shows
that
the
State
limit
is
much
more
lenient
than
the
actual
emissions
and,
as
such,
is
not
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
Both
furnaces
are
subject
to
Michigan's
PM
emission
limit
of
0.065
pounds
of
particulate
per
1,000
pounds
of
exhaust
gas,
which
equates
to
approximately
0.04
gr/
dscf.
In
comparison,
available
information
on
actual
PM
emissions
for
the
two
furnaces
indicate
that
the
actual
emissions
are
considerably
lower
than
the
levels
allowed
under
the
State
limit.
The
average
concentration
of
actual
emissions
measured
from
the
two
furnaces
when
processing
hematite
range
from
0.017
to
0.018
gr/
dscf,
which
is
about
half
the
State
limit.
Therefore,
we
concluded
that
the
State
PM
emission
limit
does
not
realistically
represent
the
emission
levels
actually
achieved
in
practice
by
the
two
furnaces
when
processing
hematite.
We
next
examined
the
available
emissions
data
to
determine
if
the
MACT
floor
could
be
based
on
actual
emissions.
We
have
credible
PM
test
data
for
both
furnaces
while
processing
hematite.
The
test
data
for
each
furnace
consists
of
a
PM
test
of
each
furnace
stack
(
three
tests
per
furnace).
Each
test
consists
of
three
1­
hour
test
runs.
The
PM
emissions
from
each
furnace
were
calculated
as
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
in
gr/
dscf
from
all
stacks.
We
believe
that
this
available
information
on
actual
emissions
is
adequate
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
requisite
MACT
floors
for
new
and
existing
sources.
A
variability
analysis
for
furnaces
processing
hematite
could
not
be
conducted
because
multiple
valid
PM
emissions
tests
are
not
available
for
these
furnaces.
As
a
result,
we
relied
on
the
RSD
adjustment
used
when
processing
magnetite
to
account
for
process,
control
device,
and
measurement
variability.
As
noted
previously,
these
factors
affect
all
furnaces
similarly,
and
their
affect
on
emissions
is
largely
independent
of
furnace
type
and
ore
type.
Therefore,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
apply
the
RSD
calculated
for
furnaces
processing
magnetite
to
furnaces
processing
hematite.
Since
there
are
only
two
indurating
furnaces
processing
hematite,
and
these
furnaces
are
ostensibly
identical
in
design,
size,
operation
and
emissions
control,
we
selected
the
MACT
floor
based
on
the
higher
of
the
two
PM
concentration
values
(
0.023
and
0.025
gr/
dscf)
after
application
of
the
RSD
adjustment
for
variability.
The
resulting
MACT
floor
for
existing
grate
kiln
indurating
furnaces
processing
hematite
is
0.025
gr/
dscf.
We
then
examined
a
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative.
The
next
increment
of
control
beyond
the
floor
is
the
installation
of
a
dry
ESP
capable
of
consistently
meeting
a
concentration
limit
of
0.018
gr/
dscf,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
level
of
control
required
for
new
grate
kiln
furnaces
processing
hematite.
We
estimate
the
additional
capital
cost
of
going
from
a
level
of
0.025
gr/
dscf
to
a
level
of
0.018
gr/
dscf
to
be
$
25.9
million
and
the
total
annual
cost
to
be
$
4.9
million
per
year.
We
estimate
the
corresponding
additional
reduction
in
HAP
achieved
from
grate
kiln
furnaces
processing
hematite
to
be
0.3
tons.
The
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
for
grate
kiln
furnaces
processing
hematite
is
$
19.6
million/

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77575
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ton.
The
energy
increase
would
be
expected
to
be
34,898
mega­
watt
hours
per
year,
primarily
due
to
the
energy
requirements
of
new
dry
ESP.
We
believe
that
the
high
cost,
coupled
with
the
small
reduction
in
HAP
emissions,
does
not
justify
this
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative
at
this
time.
We
could
not
identify
any
other
beyond­
the­
floor
alternatives.
Consequently,
we
chose
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
of
0.025
gr/
dscf
as
MACT
for
existing
grate
kiln
furnaces
processing
hematite.
For
the
new
source
MACT
analysis,
we
relied
on
the
same
emission
source
test
data
used
above
in
the
existing
source
MACT
determination.
However,
we
did
not
adjust
the
values
from
the
emissions
tests
with
a
RSD
adjustment
for
the
new
source
MACT
analysis.
We
believe
that
a
variability
adjustment
is
not
necessary
because
new
emission
controls
can
be
engineered
to
account
for
variability
in
process
operation
and
control
device
performance.
As
noted
previously,
both
furnaces
are
ostensibly
identical
in
design,
operation
and
control,
with
measured
PM
emissions
based
on
one
performance
test
per
furnace
of
0.017
and
0.018
gr/
dscf.
Given
the
similarities
between
the
two
furnaces
and
their
demonstrated
performance,
we
selected
a
PM
concentration
of
0.018
gr/
dscf
as
the
new
source
MACT
for
new
grate
kiln
indurating
furnaces
when
processing
hematite.

4.
Ore
Dryers
There
are
only
two
ore
dryers
in
the
source
category.
Both
are
rotary
designs
and
are
located
at
the
same
plant
in
Michigan.
The
first
dryer
measures
10
feet
in
diameter
and
80
feet
in
length
and
has
a
rated
capacity
of
400
tons
per
hour.
It
is
equipped
with
two
cyclones
and
an
impingement
scrubber
in
series
for
PM
control.
The
second
dryer
is
somewhat
larger
measuring
12.5
feet
in
diameter
and
100
feet
in
length
with
a
rated
capacity
of
650
tons
per
hour.
The
exhaust
gas
from
the
second
dryer
is
split
into
two
streams,
with
each
exhaust
stream
controlled
by
two
cyclones
and
an
impingement
scrubber
in
series
and
discharging
through
a
separate
stack.
Both
ore
dryers
are
subject
to
Michigan's
PM
emission
limit
of
0.1
pound
of
particulate
per
1,000
pounds
of
exhaust
gas,
which
equates
to
approximately
0.052
gr/
dscf.
We
have
one
PM
emission
test
for
each
dryer.
Both
dryers
were
tested
in
May
2002
while
processing
hematite.
Tests
were
conducted
at
each
of
the
three
dryer
stacks
and
included
three
1­
hour
test
runs
per
stack.
In
the
case
of
the
two
stack
dryer,
the
test
results
were
calculated
on
a
flow­
weighted
basis.
The
results,
expressed
in
units
of
PM
concentration,
are
0.017
and
0.040
gr/
dscf
for
the
smaller
and
larger
dryer,
respectively.
We
examined
the
test
conditions
under
which
each
dryer
was
tested
and
have
determined
that
the
smaller
dryer
was
tested
under
conditions
not
representative
of
normal
long­
term
operations.
Specifically,
the
dryer
had
been
idle
prior
to
testing
and
brought
back
on­
line
solely
for
the
purpose
of
testing
only
2
hours
ahead
of
commencing
the
performance
test,
which
was
3
hours
in
duration.
We
do
not
believe
that
a
warm­
up
period
of
only
a
few
hours
is
adequate
to
produce
conditions
representative
of
the
worstcase
circumstance
reasonably
expected
to
occur
under
normal
long­
term
operations.
We
have,
therefore,
excluded
these
data
from
further
consideration
in
our
MACT
assessment.
We
evaluated
the
existing
State
PM
emission
limit
as
an
option
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor.
A
comparison
of
the
State
limit
of
0.052
gr/
dscf
with
the
only
credible
data
on
actual
PM
emissions
of
0.040
gr/
dscf
indicates
that
the
State
limit
is
a
reasonable
proxy
of
actual
performance
and,
as
such,
is
appropriate
for
establishing
the
MACT
floor
level.
Consequently,
the
MACT
floor
for
ore
dryers
is
determined
to
be
the
level
of
control
indicated
by
the
existing
State
limit
of
0.052
gr/
dscf.
We
then
examined
a
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative.
The
next
increment
of
control
beyond
the
floor
is
the
installation
of
venturi
scrubbers
capable
of
meeting
a
concentration
limit
of
0.025
gr/
dscf,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
level
of
control
required
for
new
ore
dryers.
We
estimate
the
additional
capital
cost
of
going
from
a
level
of
0.052
gr/
dscf
to
a
level
of
0.025
gr/
dscf
to
be
$
98,000
and
the
total
annual
cost
to
be
$
256,000
per
year.
We
estimate
the
corresponding
additional
reductions
in
HAP
achieved
from
ore
dryers
to
be
0.32
tons.
The
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
for
ore
dryers
is
$
790,000/
ton.
The
energy
increase
would
be
expected
to
be
3,520
megawatt
hours
per
year,
primarily
due
to
the
energy
requirements
of
new
wet
scrubbers.
We
believe
that
the
high
cost,
coupled
with
the
small
reduction
in
HAP
emissions,
does
not
justify
this
beyond­
the­
floor
alternative
at
this
time.
We
could
not
identify
any
other
beyond
the
floor
alternatives.
Consequently,
we
chose
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
of
0.052
gr/
dscf
as
MACT
for
existing
ore
dryers.
For
new
ore
dryers,
we
are
selecting
a
PM
outlet
concentration
of
0.025
gr/
dscf
as
new
source
MACT.
The
0.025
gr/
dscf
level
corresponds
to
the
standard
for
dryers
in
the
NSPS
for
calciners
and
dryers
in
mineral
industries
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
UUU).
The
dryers
used
to
develop
the
NSPS
limit
are
very
similar
to
the
dryers
that
are
used
by
the
taconite
industry.
Specifically,
many
of
the
dryers
studied
in
the
NSPS
were
of
the
rotary
design,
were
controlled
by
wet
scrubbers,
and
processed
material
with
a
particle
size
distribution
similar
to
that
of
taconite
ore.
Therefore,
due
to
these
similarities,
we
believe
that
the
level
of
0.025
gr/
dscf
from
the
NSPS
for
calciners
and
dryers
in
mineral
industries
is
a
reasonable
proxy
of
the
performance
that
can
be
achieved
by
new
ore
dryers
in
the
taconite
industry.

D.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Initial
Compliance
Requirements?
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limit
for
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
units
within
the
affected
source
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
Similarly,
for
the
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
units
within
the
affected
source
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
For
both
affected
sources,
emission
units
must
demonstrate
their
performance
through
initial
testing.
The
performance
test
is
to
be
conducted
using
EPA
Method
5
or
17
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
Factors
that
can
affect
the
compatibility
of
the
Method
5
and
Method
17
results
are
stack
temperature,
moisture
and
the
type
and
quantity
of
condensible
material.
Stack
emissions
from
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
are
typically
at
ambient
temperature,
and
are
low
in
moisture
and
condensible
material.
Therefore,
under
the
conditions
encountered
at
taconite
plants
for
both
units,
we
consider
the
results
from
Method
5
and
Method
17
to
be
equivalent.
There
are
a
total
of
346
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
in
the
industry.
Combined,
these
units
account
for
only
1
percent
of
the
total
HAP
emitted
from
the
entire
source
category.
Requiring
an
initial
EPA
Method
5
or
17
PM
test
for
all
346
units
would
cost
approximately
$
1.73
million
($
5,000
per
test).
The
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
operations
at
most
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plants
consist
of
parallel
lines
of
crushers,
screens,
bins,
and
conveyors.
In
most
cases,
the
parallel
lines
consist
of
nearly
identical
process
units
and
emission
control
equipment.
Therefore,
to
reduce
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77576
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
burden
of
initial
testing,
we
are
allowing
plants
to
group
similar
emission
units
with
similar
control
equipment
together
and
then
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
on
one
or
more
representative
emission
units
within
each
group,
depending
on
the
number
of
similar
units
within
the
group.
To
ensure
consistency
in
the
grouping
of
similar
emission
units,
the
rule
includes
the
following
criteria:
emission
units
must
be
the
same
type
of
process
unit
(
e.
g.,
primary
crushers
are
separate
from
secondary
crushers);
emissions
from
the
units
must
be
controlled
by
the
same
type
of
emission
control
device
(
e.
g.,
impingement
scrubbers
are
separate
from
venturi
scrubbers);
the
difference
in
the
volumetric
flow
rate
among
similar
emission
units
in
dscf
cannot
vary
by
more
than
10
percent;
and
the
difference
in
the
actual
process
throughput
rate
among
similar
emission
units
in
long
tons
per
hour
cannot
vary
by
more
than
10
percent.
Each
plant
must
submit
a
testing
plan
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
The
testing
plan
must
identify
the
emission
units
that
will
be
grouped
as
similar
and
identify
the
representative
unit
that
will
be
tested
for
each
group.
By
allowing
similar
emission
units
to
be
grouped
together,
we
estimate
that
the
total
number
of
emission
units
subjected
to
initial
compliance
testing
would
be
reduced
from
346
to
176
units.
This
would
reduce
the
initial
compliance
burden
by
approximately
half
to
$
880,000.
Even
after
grouping
similar
emission
units,
most
plants
would
still
have
to
test
between
20
and
39
units
(
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
combined).
We
believe
that
180
days
does
not
allow
sufficient
time
to
schedule
and
test
this
number
of
emission
units.
In
addition,
plants
will
be
conducting
initial
compliance
tests
for
their
indurating
furnaces
at
the
same
time.
Therefore,
to
further
reduce
the
burden
of
initial
compliance
testing
for
both
emission
units,
we
are
allowing
plants
2
years
following
the
compliance
date
to
conduct
all
initial
compliance
tests
for
both
emission
units.
We
believe
that
by
grouping
similar
units
and
allowing
initial
testing
to
be
conducted
within
2
years,
the
initial
compliance
burden
will
be
minimized
while
still
providing
adequate
assurance
of
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limit
for
indurating
furnaces,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
furnace
stacks
for
each
furnace
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
Indurating
furnaces
must
demonstrate
their
performance
through
initial
testing.
The
performance
test
is
to
be
conducted
using
EPA
Method
5
or
17
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
As
mentioned
above,
factors
that
can
affect
the
compatibility
of
the
Method
5
and
Method
17
results
are
stack
temperature,
moisture
and
the
type
and
quantity
of
condensible
material.
Stack
emissions
from
indurating
furnaces
typically
range
from
200
to
315
°
F,
with
an
8
to
14
percent
moisture
content,
and
low
concentrations
of
condensible
material.
Under
these
conditions
we
consider
the
results
from
Method
5
and
Method
17
to
be
equivalent.
However,
if
the
stack
temperature
is
above
320
°
F
and
the
furnace
is
burning
a
fuel
other
than
natural
gas,
Method
5
must
be
used
for
the
performance
test.
The
initial
compliance
test
for
each
indurating
furnace
must
be
performed
within
180
calendar
days
of
the
compliance
date.
For
indurating
furnaces
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
indurating
furnace
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
The
180­
day
requirement
is
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63.
The
number
of
indurating
furnaces
per
plant
ranges
from
one
to
five,
as
well
as
the
number
of
stacks
per
furnace.
Based
on
the
relatively
small
number
of
indurating
furnaces,
we
believe
that
180
days
allows
sufficient
time
for
plants
to
complete
initial
testing
of
all
indurating
furnaces.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
PM
emission
limit
for
ore
dryers,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
PM
emissions
of
all
stacks
for
each
dryer
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
PM
emission
limit.
Ore
dryers
must
demonstrate
their
performance
through
initial
testing.
The
performance
test
is
to
be
conducted
using
EPA
Method
5
or
17
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
The
initial
compliance
test
for
each
ore
dryer
must
be
performed
within
180
calendar
days
of
the
compliance
date.
For
ore
dryers
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
ore
dryer
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
The
180­
day
requirement
is
consistent
with
the
requirements
in
subpart
A
of
40
CFR
part
63.
There
are
only
two
existing
ore
dryers
in
the
source
category.
As
such,
we
conclude
that
180
days
allows
sufficient
time
to
complete
initial
testing.
The
proposed
rule
would
also
require
that
certain
operating
limits
on
control
devices
be
established
during
the
initial
compliance
test
to
ensure
that
control
devices
operate
properly
on
a
continuing
basis.
All
operating
limits
must
be
established
during
a
performance
test
that
demonstrates
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit.
During
the
initial
compliance
tests,
operating
limits
must
be
established
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
for
all
wet
scrubbers,
and
opacity
(
using
a
COMS)
for
dry
ESP.

E.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Continuous
Compliance
Requirements?
For
continuous
compliance,
we
chose
periodic
performance
testing
for
PM,
which
is
consistent
with
current
permit
requirements.
We
consulted
with
the
two
States
in
which
taconite
ore
processing
plants
are
located
to
determine
how
they
were
implementing
title
V
permitting
requirements
for
performance
tests.
The
requirements
for
the
frequency
and
number
of
performance
tests
for
ore
crushing
and
handling,
and
finished
pellet
handling
and
ore
drying
units
were
determined
to
be
variable
and
highly
site­
specific.
Consequently,
for
ore
crushing
and
handling,
and
finished
pellet
handling
and
ore
drying
units,
we
decided
that
the
schedule
for
conducting
subsequent
performance
tests
should
be
based
on
schedules
established
in
each
plant's
title
V
operating
permit.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
then
the
plant
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
For
each
indurating
furnace,
the
proposed
rule
would
require
subsequent
testing
of
all
stacks
based
on
the
schedule
in
each
plant's
title
V
operating
permit,
but
no
less
frequent
than
twice
per
5­
year
permit
term.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
then
the
plant
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
The
testing
frequency
in
the
testing
plan
can
be
no
less
frequent
than
twice
per
5­
year
period.
Since
the
majority
of
the
HAP
emissions
from
this
source
category
result
from
the
operation
of
indurating
furnaces,
we
believe
that
testing
twice
per
permit
term
is
appropriate.
We
also
developed
procedures
to
ensure
that
control
equipment
are
operating
properly
on
a
continuous
basis.
Baghouses
must
be
equipped
with
a
bag
leak
detection
system.
Wet
scrubbers
must
be
monitored
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate,
and
they
must
not
fall
below
the
parametric
monitoring
limits
established
during
the
performance
test.
Dry
electrostatic
precipitators
must
be
monitored
for
opacity
using
COMS.
The
opacity
must
not
exceed
the
operating
limit
established
during
the
performance
test.
If
a
plant
uses
equipment
other
than
a
baghouse,
scrubber,
or
dry
ESP
to
control
emissions
from
an
affected
source,
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77577
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
owner
or
operator
is
required
to
send
us
a
monitoring
plan
containing
information
on
the
type
of
device,
performance
test
results,
appropriate
operating
parameters
to
be
monitored,
operating
limits,
and
operation
and
maintenance.

F.
How
Did
We
Select
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
We
selected
the
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
that
are
consistent
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A).
One­
time
notifications
are
required
by
the
EPA
to
identify
which
plants
are
subject
to
the
standards,
if
a
plant
has
complied
with
the
rule
requirements,
and
when
certain
events
such
as
performance
tests
and
performance
evaluations
are
scheduled.
Semiannual
compliance
reports
containing
information
on
any
deviation
from
rule
requirements
are
also
required.
These
reports
would
include
information
on
any
deviation
that
occurred
during
the
reporting
period;
if
no
deviation
occurred,
only
summary
information
(
such
as
a
statement
of
compliance)
is
required.
Consistent
with
the
General
Provisions,
we
also
require
an
immediate
report
of
any
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
where
the
actions
taken
in
response
were
not
consistent
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
This
information
is
necessary
to
determine
if
changes
to
the
plan
are
required.
Recordkeeping
requirements
are
limited
to
those
records
that
are
required
to
document
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule.
Recordkeeping
requirements
include:
a
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
submitted
and
all
supporting
documentation;
records
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction;
records
of
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations,
and
opacity
observations;
and
records
related
to
control
device
performance.
These
notifications,
reports,
and
records
are
the
minimum
required
to
ensure
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule.

IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
The
environmental,
energy,
and
economic
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
are
based
on
the
replacement
of
poor
performing
controls
at
existing
sources
with
new
controls
capable
of
meeting
the
emission
limits
established
in
the
proposed
rule.
We
estimated
no
impacts
for
new
sources
since
we
do
not
project
any
new
or
reconstructed
affected
sources
becoming
subject
to
the
new
source
MACT
requirements
in
the
foreseeable
future.
Specifically,
we
anticipate
that
four
plants
will
install
new
impingement
scrubbers
on
a
total
of
54
out
of
the
264
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units
to
meet
the
PM
emission
limit.
We
expect
that
four
plants
will
install
new
venturi
rod
wet
scrubbers
or
will
upgrade
existing
wet
scrubbers
on
at
least
one
of
their
indurating
furnaces.
In
total,
we
estimate
that
the
existing
controls
will
be
replaced
with
new
venturi
rod
wet
scrubbers
on
7
of
the
47
indurating
furnace
stacks.
We
estimate
that
the
existing
controls
will
be
upgraded
with
new
components
on
4
of
the
47
indurating
furnace
stacks.
We
anticipate
that
three
plants
will
install
new
impingement
scrubbers
on
a
total
of
11
out
of
the
82
finished
pellet
handling
units
to
meet
the
finished
pellet
handling
PM
emission
limit.

A.
What
are
the
Air
Emission
Impacts?
The
installation
of
new
controls
and
upgrades
discussed
in
the
preceding
paragraph
will
result
in
reductions
in
emissions
of
metal
HAP,
acid
gases,
and
PM.
Overall,
the
proposed
standards
are
expected
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
a
total
of
370
tons/
year,
a
reduction
of
about
40
percent.
Metallic
HAP
emissions
will
be
reduced
by
14
tons/
year
(
a
40
percent
reduction)
and
acid
gas
emissions
(
HCl
and
HF)
will
be
reduced
by
356
tons/
year
(
a
54
percent
reduction).
In
addition,
the
proposed
standards
are
expected
to
reduce
PM
emissions
by
9,438
tons/
year,
a
reduction
of
about
65
percent.

B.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?
The
total
installed
capital
costs
to
the
industry
for
the
installation
of
control
equipment
are
estimated
to
be
$
47.3
million.
Total
annualized
costs
are
estimated
at
$
7.0
million/
yr,
which
includes
$
4.1
million/
yr
in
capital
recovery
costs,
$
2.8
million/
yr
in
emission
control
device
operation
and
maintenance
costs,
and
$
0.1
million/
yr
for
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
These
costs
are
based
on
the
installation
of
new
wet
scrubbers
on
54
ore
crushing
and
handling
units,
seven
indurating
furnace
stacks,
and
11
finished
pellet
handling
units.
The
costs
are
also
based
on
upgrading
four
wet
scrubbers
for
one
indurating
furnace.
In
addition,
the
estimate
includes
the
cost
of
bag
leak
detection
systems
for
baghouses,
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
for
scrubbers,
and
continuous
opacity
monitors
for
ESP.

C.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?
We
prepared
an
economic
analysis
to
evaluate
the
impact
this
proposed
rule
would
have
on
the
producers
and
consumers
of
taconite
and
society
as
a
whole.
The
taconite
industry
consists
of
eight
companies
owning
eight
mining
operations,
concentration
plants,
and
pelletizing
plants.
The
total
annualized
social
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
is
$
7
million
(
in
2000
dollars).
This
cost
is
distributed
among
consumers
(
mainly
steel
mills)
who
may
buy
less
and/
or
spend
more
on
taconite
iron
ore
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
NESHAP,
including
merchant
taconite
producers
that
sell
their
output
on
the
market,
integrated
iron
and
steel
plants
that
produce
and
consume
the
taconite
captively
within
the
company,
steel
producers
that
use
electric
arc
furnace
(
EAF)
technology
to
produce
steel
from
scrap,
and
foreign
producers.
Consumers
incur
$
3.4
million
of
the
total
social
costs,
merchant
producers
incur
$
0.7
million
in
costs,
and
integrated
iron
and
steel
producers
incur
$
5
million
in
costs.
The
EAF
producers
and
foreign
producers
enjoy
a
net
gain
in
revenues
of
$
1.2
million
and
$
0.7
million,
respectively.
Our
analysis
indicates
that
the
taconite
iron
ore
market
will
experience
minimal
changes
in
the
price
and
quantity
of
produced,
and
in
the
prices
and
quantities
of
steel
mill
products
(
some
of
which
are
produced
using
taconite).
Prices
in
the
taconite
iron
ore
market
are
estimated
to
increase
by
2/
100th
of
a
percent
while
production
may
decrease
by
less
than
1/
100th
of
1
percent.
The
price
of
steel
mill
products
is
projected
to
increase
by
less
than
1/
100th
of
1
percent
and
the
quantity
produced
is
projected
to
change
by
less
than
1/
100th
of
1
percent.
The
EAF
steel
producers
who
make
steel
from
scrap
rather
than
iron
ore
are
projected
to
increase
their
output
by
approximately
2/
100th
of
1
percent
in
response
to
the
slight
increase
in
the
price
of
steel
mill
products.
While
the
market
overall
shows
minimal
impacts
associated
with
this
proposed
rule,
the
financial
stability
of
the
firms
operating
in
this
market
is
very
uncertain.
The
past
few
years
have
been
a
period
of
tremendous
change
in
the
iron
and
steel
industry,
during
which
more
than
27
companies
in
the
industry
have
declared
bankruptcy,
several
plants
have
closed,
and
EAF
technology
has
secured
a
growing
share
of
the
market.
These
changes
have
occurred
due
to
evolving
economic
conditions,
both
domestically
and
abroad,
and
technological
developments
within
the
industry.
Conditions
continue
to
be
challenging
for
iron
and
steel
producers.
In
an
assessment
of
the
impacts
on
the
companies
owning
taconite
plants,
we
find
the
estimated
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
are
uniformly
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77578
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
less
than
1
percent
of
baseline
sales
revenues,
and
typically
less
than
3
percent
of
baseline
profits.
However,
four
of
the
companies
had
negative
operating
income
in
2000,
a
period
of
time
during
in
which
the
entire
nation
experienced
a
drop
in
economic
activity.
Three
of
the
companies
owning
taconite
plants
have
filed
for
protection
under
Chapter
11
of
the
bankruptcy
code
since
September
2001.
Thus,
there
is
reason
to
be
concerned
about
the
financial
condition
of
companies
owning
taconite
plants.
The
incremental
effect
of
the
proposed
rule
on
firm
financial
stability,
however,
is
projected
to
be
very
small.
We
also
prepared
a
sensitivity
analysis
that
examined
the
regional
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule.
All
the
taconite
production
plants
are
located
within
four
counties
in
Minnesota
and
one
in
Michigan.
Thus,
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
are
expected
to
be
concentrated
geographically.
We
modeled
the
supply
and
demand
linkages
of
the
various
industries
and
households
within
each
county
to
estimate
changes
that
may
occur
in
the
region
as
the
taconite
industry
complies
with
the
proposed
NESHAP.
We
estimate
that
as
industries
that
interact
with
the
taconite
industry
(
such
as
construction
and
earth
moving
equipment
industries)
react
to
the
changes
in
the
taconite
market,
and
as
household
incomes
are
reduced
as
a
result
of
changes
in
all
the
various
industries
in
the
region,
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
will
add
approximately
$
4
million
in
economic
cost
to
the
region.
This
represents
approximately
2/
10ths
of
1
percent
of
total
sales
in
those
counties.
Thus,
even
though
the
impacts
are
concentrated
in
only
five
counties,
we
believe
that
the
impacts
on
those
county
economies
will
not
be
very
large.

D.
What
Are
the
Non­
Air
Health,
Environmental,
and
Energy
Impacts?
We
project
that
the
implementation
of
the
rule
as
proposed
would
increase
water
usage
by
8.4
billion
gallons
per
year
industrywide.
This
increased
water
usage
would
result
from
the
installation
of
new
wet
scrubbers
needed
for
compliance.
Much
of
this
water
will
be
discharged
as
scrubber
blowdown
to
the
tailings
basin(
s)
located
at
each
plant.
At
two
or
more
of
the
affected
facilities,
there
is
the
potential
that
this
increased
wastewater
burden
will
result
in
new
or
aggravated
violations
of
permitted
wastewater
discharge
limits
from
the
tailings
basins
unless
significant
measures
are
taken
to
install
new
or
upgrade
existing
wastewater
treatment
systems.
The
energy
increase
would
be
expected
to
be
15,298
megawatt­
hours
per
year,
primarily
due
to
the
energy
requirements
of
new
wet
scrubbers.

V.
Solicitation
of
Comments
and
Public
Participation
We
seek
full
public
participation
in
arriving
at
final
decisions
and
encourage
comments
on
all
aspects
of
this
proposal
from
all
interested
parties.
You
need
to
submit
full
supporting
data
and
detailed
analysis
with
your
comments
to
allow
use
to
make
the
best
use
of
them.
Be
sure
to
direct
your
comments
to
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket),
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0039
(
see
ADDRESSES).

VI.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and,
therefore,
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
regulatory
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
none
of
the
listed
criteria
apply
to
this
action.
Consequently,
this
action
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
the
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
rules
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
proposed
rule
is
mandated
by
statute
and,
does
not
impose
requirements
on
States,
however,
States
will
be
required
to
implement
the
rule
by
incorporating
the
rule
into
permits
and
enforcing
the
rule
upon
delegation.
States
will
collect
permit
fees
that
will
be
used
to
offset
the
resource
burden
of
implementing
the
rule.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.
Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
the
EPA
did
consult
with
State
and
local
officials
in
developing
this
rule.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
the
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
No
tribal
governments
own
or
operate
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plants.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
the
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
rule
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77579
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
rule.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
technology
based
and
not
based
on
health
or
safety
risks.
No
children's
risk
analysis
was
performed
because
no
alternative
technologies
exist
that
would
provide
greater
stringency
at
a
reasonable
cost.
Further,
this
proposed
rule
has
been
determined
not
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
the
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
costbenefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
the
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
as
to
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
the
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
The
maximum
total
annual
cost
of
this
rule
for
any
year
has
been
estimated
to
be
$
8.9
million.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
the
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
it
contains
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
As
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
``
small
entity''
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
whose
parent
company
has
fewer
than
500
employees
(
the
size
standard
set
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
for
small
businesses
in
NAICS
21221,
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Facilities);
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
or
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
Since
there
are
no
small
entities
within
the
taconite
industry,
this
proposed
rule
is
not
expected
to
impose
regulatory
costs
on
any
small
entities.
Therefore,
EPA
certifies
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
EPA
has
prepared
an
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
(
ICR
No.
2050.01),
and
you
may
obtain
a
copy
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
You
may
also
download
a
copy
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
effective
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
information
requirements
are
based
on
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
NESHAP.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
the
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
EPA's
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
applicable
one­
time
notifications
required
by
the
General
Provisions
for
each
affected
source.
As
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions,
all
plants
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
operate
by
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
Plants
also
would
be
required
to
prepare
an
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
control
devices
subject
to
operating
limits,
a
fugitive
emissions
control
plan,
and
a
performance
testing
plan.
Records
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
monitoring,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
control
devices
and
monitoring
systems.
Semiannual
compliance
reports
also
are
required.
These
reports
would
describe
any
deviation
from
the
standards,
any
period
a
continuous
monitoring
system
was
``
out­
of­
control,''
or
any
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
where
actions
taken
to
respond
were
inconsistent
with
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
If
no
deviation
or
other
event
occurred,
only
a
summary
report
would
be
required.
Consistent
with
the
General
Provisions,
if
actions
taken
in
response
to
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
are
not
consistent
with
the
plan,
an
immediate
report
must
be
submitted
within
2
days
of
the
event
with
a
letter
report
7
days
later.
Since
the
rule
provides
a
3­
year
compliance
period,
periodic
reporting,
initial
performance
testing,
and
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77580
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
subsequent
performance
testing
activities
would
be
conducted
beyond
the
3­
year
period
covered
by
the
ICR.
Therefore,
the
burden
for
these
items
is
not
included
in
the
burden
estimate.
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule)
is
estimated
to
total
518
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
29,052,
including
labor,
capital,
and
operation
and
maintenance.
This
burden
estimate
includes
the
preparation
of
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
an
operating
and
maintenance
plan,
a
fugitive
dust
emission
control
plan,
and
a
performance
testing
plan.
The
total
capital/
startup
costs
associated
with
the
monitoring
requirements
over
the
3­
year
period
of
the
ICR
are
estimated
at
$
3.2
million
(
annualized
capital/
startup
costs
are
$
271,089/
year)
with
operating
and
maintenance
equipment
costs
of
$
101,455
per
year.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
rules
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
EPA's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
By
U.
S.
Postal
Service,
send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
or
by
courier,
send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(
2822T),
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
6143,
Washington
DC
20460
(
202
 
566
 
1700);
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
December
18,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
January
17,
2003.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Pub.
L.
104
 
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
the
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rule
involves
technical
standards.
The
EPA
cites
the
following
standards
in
this
proposed
rule:
EPA
Methods
1,
2,
2F,
2G,
3,
3A,
3B,
4,
5,
and
17.
Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
EPA
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
2F
and
2G.
The
search
and
review
results
have
been
documented
and
are
placed
in
the
docket
(
Docket
Number
A
 
2001
 
14)
for
this
proposed
rule.
The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASME
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981
 
Part
10,
``
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
Analyses,''
is
cited
in
this
rule
for
its
manual
method
for
measuring
the
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
carbon
monoxide
content
of
exhaust
gas.
This
part
of
ASME
PTC
19
 
10
 
1981
 
Part
10
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
Method
3B.
This
search
for
emissions
measurement
procedures
identified
14
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
EPA
determined
that
12
of
these
14
standards
identified
for
measuring
emissions
of
the
HAP
or
surrogates
subject
to
emission
standards
in
this
proposed
rule
were
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
this
proposed
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
adopt
these
standards
for
this
purpose.
The
reasons
for
this
determination
for
the
12
methods
are
available
in
the
docket.
Two
of
the
14
voluntary
consensus
standards
identified
in
this
search
were
not
available
at
the
time
the
review
was
conducted
for
the
purposes
of
this
proposed
rule
because
they
are
under
development
by
a
voluntary
consensus
body:
ASME/
BSR
MFC
13M,
``
Flow
Measurement
by
Velocity
Traverse,''
for
EPA
Method
2
(
and
possibly
1);
and
ASME/
BSR
MFC
12M,
``
Flow
in
Closed
Conduits
Using
Multiport
Averaging
Pitot
Primary
Flowmeters,''
for
EPA
Method
2.
Sections
63.9621
and
63.9622
to
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
RRRRR,
list
the
EPA
testing
methods
included
in
the
proposed
rule.
Under
§
§
63.7(
f)
and
63.8(
f)
of
subpart
A
of
the
General
Provisions,
a
source
may
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
alternative
test
methods
or
alternative
monitoring
requirements
in
place
of
any
of
the
EPA
testing
methods,
performance
specifications,
or
procedures.

I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Energy
Effects
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Rules
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
November
26,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.

2.
Part
63
is
proposed
to
be
amended
by
adding
subpart
RRRRR
to
read
as
follows:

Subpart
RRRRR
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77581
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
What
This
Subpart
Covers
Sec.
63.9580
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
63.9581
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
63.9582
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
63.9583
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

Emission
Limitations
and
Work
Practice
Standards
63.9590
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet?
63.9591
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet?

Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
63.9600
What
are
my
operation
and
maintenance
requirements?

General
Compliance
Requirements
63.9610
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

Initial
Compliance
Requirements
63.9620
On
which
units
and
by
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
63.9621
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter?
63.9622
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
establish
and
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operating
limits?
63.9623
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
63.9624
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
me?
63.9625
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
63.9630
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
63.9631
What
are
my
monitoring
requirements?
63.9632
What
are
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
my
monitoring
equipment?
63.9633
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?
63.9634
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
63.9635
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
me?
63.9636
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?
63.9637
What
other
requirements
must
I
meet
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
63.9640
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.9641
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.9642
What
records
must
I
keep?
63.9643
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

Other
Requirements
and
Information
63.9650
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
63.9651
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
63.9652
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Tables
to
Subpart
RRRRR
of
Part
63
Table
1
to
Subpart
RRRRR
of
Part
63
 
Emission
Limits
Table
2
to
Subpart
RRRRR
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
RRRRR
of
Part
63
Subpart
RRRRR
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Pollutants
for
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.9580
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
taconite
iron
ore
processing.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
all
applicable
emission
limitations
(
emission
limits
and
operating
limits),
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart.

§
63.9581
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
a
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
that
is
(
or
is
part
of)
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions
on
the
first
compliance
date
that
applies
to
you.
Your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
is
a
major
source
of
HAP
if
it
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
10
tons
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
25
tons
or
more
per
year.

§
63.9582
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
each
new
and
existing
affected
source
at
your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant.
(
b)
The
affected
sources
are
each
new
or
existing
ore
crushing
and
handling
operation,
ore
dryer,
indurating
furnace,
and
finished
pellet
handling
operation
at
your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant,
as
defined
in
§
63.9652.
(
c)
This
subpart
covers
emissions
from
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units;
ore
dryer
stacks;
indurating
furnace
stacks;
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units;
and
fugitive
dust
emissions.
(
d)
An
ore
crushing
and
handling
operation,
ore
dryer,
indurating
furnace,
or
finished
pellet
handling
operation
at
your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
is
existing
if
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
of
the
affected
source
before
December
18,
2002.
(
e)
An
ore
crushing
and
handling
operation,
ore
dryer,
indurating
furnace,
or
finished
pellet
handling
operation
at
your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
is
new
if
you
commence
construction
or
reconstruction
of
the
affected
source
on
or
after
December
18,
2002.
An
affected
source
is
reconstructed
if
it
meets
the
definition
of
reconstruction
in
§
63.2.

§
63.9583
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
no
later
than
[
DATE
3
YEARS
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(
b)
If
you
have
a
new
affected
source
and
its
initial
startup
date
is
on
or
before
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
by
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(
c)
If
you
have
a
new
affected
source
and
its
initial
startup
date
is
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
upon
initial
startup.
(
d)
If
your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
is
an
area
source
that
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP,
the
compliance
dates
in
paragraphs
(
d)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
apply
to
you.
(
1)
Any
portion
of
the
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
that
is
a
new
affected
source
or
a
new
reconstructed
source
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
upon
startup.
(
2)
All
other
parts
of
the
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
no
later
than
3
years
after
it
becomes
a
major
source.
(
e)
You
must
meet
the
notification
and
schedule
requirements
in
§
63.9640.
Several
of
these
notifications
must
be
submitted
before
the
compliance
date
for
your
affected
source.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77582
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Emission
Limitations
and
Work
Practice
Standards
§
63.9590
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet?

(
a)
You
must
meet
each
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
(
b)
You
must
meet
each
operating
limit
for
control
devices
in
paragraphs
(
b)
(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
that
applies
to
you.
(
1)
For
each
negative
pressure
baghouse
or
positive
pressure
baghouse
equipped
with
a
stack
applied
to
meet
any
particulate
matter
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart,
you
must
operate
the
baghouse
such
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
does
not
alarm
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
total
operating
time
in
any
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
2)
For
each
scrubber
applied
to
meet
any
particulate
matter
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart,
you
must
maintain
the
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
or
above
the
minimum
levels
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
(
3)
For
each
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
applied
to
meet
any
particulate
matter
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart,
you
must
maintain
the
6­
minute
average
opacity
of
emissions
exiting
the
control
device
stack
at
or
below
the
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
(
4)
An
owner
or
operator
who
uses
an
air
pollution
control
device
other
than
a
baghouse,
scrubber,
or
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
must
submit
a
site
specific
monitoring
plan
as
described
in
§
63.9631(
d).

§
63.9591
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet?

(
a)
You
must
prepare,
and
at
all
times
operate
according
to,
a
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
that
describes
in
detail
the
measures
that
will
be
put
in
place
to
control
fugitive
dust
emissions
from
the
locations
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)
(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Stockpiles
(
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
stockpiles
of
uncrushed
ore,
crushed
ore,
or
finished
pellets);
(
2)
Material
transfer
points;
(
3)
Plant
roadways;
(
4)
Tailings
basin;
(
5)
Pellet
loading
areas;
and
(
6)
Yard
areas.
(
b)
A
copy
of
your
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
must
be
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
on
or
before
the
applicable
compliance
date
for
the
affected
source
as
specified
in
§
63.9583.
The
requirement
for
the
plant
to
operate
according
to
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
must
be
incorporated
by
reference
in
the
operating
permit
for
the
plant
that
is
issued
by
the
designated
permitting
authority
under
part
70
or
71
of
this
chapter.
(
c)
You
can
use
an
existing
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
provided
it
meets
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
plan
satisfies
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.
(
2)
The
plan
describes
the
current
measures
to
control
fugitive
dust
emission
sources.
(
3)
The
plan
has
been
approved
as
part
of
a
State
Implementation
Plan
or
title
V
permit.
(
d)
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
§
63.9600
What
are
my
operation
and
maintenance
requirements?

(
a)
As
required
by
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i),
you
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source,
including
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
in
a
manner
consistent
with
good
air
pollution
control
practices
for
minimizing
emissions
at
least
to
the
levels
required
by
this
subpart.
(
b)
You
must
prepare
and
operate
at
all
times
according
to
a
written
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
each
control
device
subject
to
an
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b).
Each
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
on
or
before
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583
and
must
address
the
elements
in
paragraphs
(
b)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
1)
Preventative
maintenance
for
each
control
device,
including
a
preventative
maintenance
schedule
that
is
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
instructions
for
routine
and
long­
term
maintenance.
(
2)
In
the
event
a
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
is
triggered
for
a
baghouse,
you
must
initiate
corrective
action
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
initiate
corrective
action
to
correct
the
cause
of
the
problem
within
24
hours
of
the
alarm,
and
complete
the
corrective
action
as
soon
as
practicable.
Actions
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
actions
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Inspecting
the
baghouse
for
air
leaks,
torn
or
broken
bags
or
filter
media,
or
any
other
condition
that
may
cause
an
increase
in
emissions.
(
ii)
Sealing
off
defective
bags
or
filter
media.
(
iii)
Replacing
defective
bags
or
filter
media
or
otherwise
repairing
the
control
device.
(
iv)
Sealing
off
a
defective
baghouse
compartment.
(
v)
Cleaning
the
bag
leak
detection
system
probe,
or
otherwise
repairing
the
bag
leak
detection
system.
(
vi)
Shutting
down
the
process
producing
the
particulate
emissions.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.9610
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart
at
all
times,
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
The
terms
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
are
defined
in
§
63.2.
(
b)
During
the
period
between
the
compliance
date
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.9583
and
the
date
upon
which
continuous
monitoring
systems
have
been
installed
and
certified
and
any
applicable
operating
limits
have
been
set,
you
must
maintain
a
log
detailing
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
process
and
emissions
control
equipment.
(
c)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).

Initial
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.9620
On
which
units
and
by
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?

(
a)
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
for
ore
crushing
and
handling,
you
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
for
particulate
matter
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
an
initial
performance
test
must
be
performed
on
all
stacks
associated
with
ore
crushing
and
handling.
(
2)
The
initial
performance
tests
must
be
conducted
within
2
years
of
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77583
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583.
(
b)
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
for
each
indurating
furnace,
you
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
for
all
stacks
associated
with
an
indurating
furnace
within
180
calendar
days
of
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583.
For
indurating
furnaces
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
indurating
furnace
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
(
c)
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
for
finished
pellet
handling,
you
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
for
particulate
matter
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
an
initial
performance
test
must
be
performed
on
all
stacks
associated
with
finished
pellet
handling.
(
2)
The
initial
performance
tests
must
be
conducted
within
2
years
of
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583.
(
d)
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
for
each
ore
dryer,
you
must
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
for
all
stacks
associated
with
an
ore
dryer
within
180
calendar
days
of
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583.
For
ore
dryers
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
ore
dryer
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
(
e)
For
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling,
in
lieu
of
conducting
initial
performance
tests
for
particulate
matter
on
all
stacks,
you
may
elect
to
group
similar
emission
units
together
and
conduct
an
initial
compliance
test
on
a
representative
sample
of
emission
units
within
each
group
of
similar
emission
units.
The
determination
of
whether
emission
units
are
similar
must
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
f)
of
this
section.
The
number
of
units
that
must
be
tested
within
each
group
of
similar
units
must
be
determined
using
the
criteria
in
paragraph
(
g)
of
this
section.
If
you
decide
to
test
representative
emission
units,
you
must
prepare
and
submit
a
testing
plan
as
described
in
paragraph
(
h)
of
this
section.
(
f)
If
you
elect
to
test
representative
emission
units
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
the
units
that
are
grouped
together
as
similar
units
must
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
f)
(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
emission
units
must
be
of
the
same
type,
which
may
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
primary
crushers,
secondary
crushers,
tertiary
crushers,
fine
crushers,
ore
conveyors,
ore
bins,
ore
screens,
grate
feed,
pellet
loadout,
hearth
layer,
cooling
stacks,
pellet
conveyor,
and
pellet
screens.
(
2)
The
emission
units
must
have
the
same
type
of
air
pollution
control
device,
which
may
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
venturi
scrubbers,
impingement
scrubbers,
rotoclones,
multiclones,
wet
and
dry
electrostatic
precipitators,
and
baghouses.
(
3)
The
volumetric
air
flow
rates
discharged
from
the
air
pollution
control
devices,
in
dry
standard
cubic
feet
(
dscf),
must
be
within
plus
or
minus
10
percent
of
the
representative
unit.
(
4)
The
actual
process
throughput
rate,
in
long
tons
per
hour,
must
be
within
plus
or
minus
10
percent
of
the
representative
unit.
(
g)
If
you
elect
to
test
representative
emission
units
as
provided
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
the
number
of
emission
units
tested
within
each
group
of
similar
units
must
be
based
on
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
g)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
each
group
of
similar
units
with
six
or
less
units,
you
must
test
at
least
one
unit.
(
2)
For
each
group
of
similar
units
with
greater
than
six,
but
equal
to
or
less
than
12
units,
you
must
test
at
least
two
units.
(
3)
For
each
group
of
similar
units
with
greater
than
12
units,
you
must
test
at
least
four
units.
(
h)
If
you
are
conducting
initial
testing
on
representative
emission
units
within
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
or
finished
pellet
handling,
you
must
submit
a
testing
plan
for
initial
performance
tests
as
required
under
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section.
This
testing
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
on
or
before
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583.
The
testing
plan
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
h)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
A
list
of
all
emission
units.
This
list
must
clearly
identify
all
emission
units
that
have
been
grouped
together
as
similar
emission
units.
Within
each
group
of
emission
units,
you
must
identify
the
emission
unit(
s)
that
will
be
the
representative
unit(
s)
for
that
group,
and
subject
to
initial
performance
testing.
(
2)
The
process
type,
type
of
emission
control,
the
air
flow
rate
in
dscf,
and
the
actual
process
throughput
rate
in
long
tons
per
hour
for
each
emission
unit.
(
3)
A
schedule
indicating
when
you
will
conduct
initial
performance
tests
for
particulate
matter
for
each
of
the
representative
units.
(
i)
For
each
work
practice
standard
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
that
applies
to
you
where
initial
compliance
is
not
demonstrated
using
a
performance
test,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
within
30
calendar
days
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.9583.
(
j)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
December
18,
2002,
and
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
either
the
proposed
emission
limit
or
the
promulgated
emission
limit
no
later
than
[
DATE
180
CALENDAR
DAYS
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
or
no
later
than
180
calendar
days
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).
(
k)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
December
18,
2002,
and
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
and
you
chose
to
comply
with
the
proposed
emission
limit
when
demonstrating
initial
compliance,
you
must
conduct
a
second
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
promulgated
emission
limit
by
[
DATE
3
YEARS
AND
180
CALENDAR
DAYS
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
or
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).

§
63.9621
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
the
conditions
detailed
in
paragraphs
(
b)
and
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
b)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
for
particulate
matter
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
for
ore
crushing
and
handling,
and
for
finished
pellet
handling,
you
must
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter
in
the
stack
gas
and
the
stack
gas
volumetric
flow
rate
for
each
emission
unit
according
to
the
test
methods
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
applicable
test
methods
are
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Method
1
or
1A
to
select
sampling
port
locations
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
Sampling
ports
must
be
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77584
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G,
as
applicable,
to
determine
the
volumetric
flow
rate
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iii)
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
to
determine
the
dry
molecular
weight
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iv)
Method
4
to
determine
the
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
(
v)
Method
5,
5D
or
17
to
determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter.
(
2)
Collect
a
minimum
sample
volume
of
60
dry
standard
cubic
feet
of
gas
during
each
particulate
matter
test
run.
Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.
(
3)
For
each
ore
crushing
and
handling
affected
source,
and
for
each
finished
pellet
handling
affected
source
you
must
determine
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
emissions
using
the
procedure
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Compute
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
emissions
using
Equation
1
of
this
section.

C
C
Eq
w
i
i
n
=
=
 

 
Q
Q
1)
i
i
i=
1
n
1
(
.

Where:
Cw
=
Flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
for
all
emission
units
within
the
affected
source,
grains
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(
gr/
dscf);
Ci
=
Three­
run
average
particulate
matter
concentration
from
emission
unit
``
i'',
gr/
dscf;
Qi
=
Three­
run
average
volumetric
flow
rate
of
stack
gas
from
emission
unit
``
i'',
dscf/
hr;
and
n
=
The
number
of
emission
units
in
the
affected
source.
(
ii)
If
you
are
grouping
similar
units
as
allowed
under
§
63.9620(
d),
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)(
ii)
(
A)
and
(
B)
of
this
section.
(
A)
All
emission
units
within
each
group
of
similar
units
must
be
assigned
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
emissions
for
the
representative
unit.
(
B)
All
emission
units
within
each
group
of
similar
units
must
be
assigned
the
actual
average
operating
volumetric
flow
rate
of
exhaust
gas
measured
for
each
emission
unit
within
each
group
of
similar
units.
You
cannot
assign
the
average
volumetric
flow
rate
of
exhaust
gas
measured
for
a
representative
unit
to
all
emission
units
within
each
group
of
similar
units.
(
c)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit
for
particular
matter
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
for
each
ore
dryer
and
for
each
indurating
furnace,
you
must
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
c)
(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter
for
each
stack
according
to
the
test
methods
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
The
applicable
test
methods
are
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Method
1
or
1A
to
select
sampling
port
locations
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
Sampling
ports
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Method
2,
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G,
as
applicable,
to
determine
the
volumetric
flow
rate
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iii)
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
to
determine
the
dry
molecular
weight
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iv)
Method
4
to
determine
the
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
(
v)
Method
5,
5D
or
17
to
determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter.
(
2)
Collect
a
minimum
sample
volume
of
60
dry
standard
cubic
feet
of
gas
during
each
particulate
matter
test
run.
Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.
(
3)
For
ore
dryers
and
indurating
furnaces
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
(
4)
For
each
ore
dryer
and
each
indurating
furnace,
compute
the
flowweighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
for
each
test
run
using
Equation
2
of
this
section.

C
C
Eq
a
i
i
n
=
=
 

 
Q
Q
2)
i
i
i=
1
n
1
(
.

Where:
Ca
=
Flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
for
run
``
a'',
gr/
dscf;
Ci
=
Concentration
of
particulate
matter
from
stack
``
i''
for
run
``
a'',
gr/
dscf;
Qi
=
Volumetric
flow
rate
of
stack
gas
from
stack
``
i''
for
run
``
a'',
dscf/
hr;
n
=
Number
of
stacks;
and
a
=
Run
number:
1,
2,
or
3.
(
5)
For
each
ore
dryer
and
each
indurating
furnace,
compute
the
flowweighted
mean
particulate
matter
concentration
for
the
three
test
runs
using
Equation
3
of
this
section.

C
C
C
C
Eq
=
+
+
1
2
3
3
(
.
3)
Where:
C
=
Flow­
weighted
mean
particulate
matter
concentration,
gr/
dscf;
C1
=
Flow­
weighted
particulate
matter
concentration
for
run
1,
gr/
dscf;
C2
=
Flow­
weighted
particulate
matter
concentration
for
run
2,
gr/
dscf;
and
C3
=
Flow­
weighted
particulate
matter
concentration
for
run
3,
gr/
dscf.

§
63.9622
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
establish
and
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operating
limits?

(
a)
For
a
wet
scrubber
subject
to
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
2),
you
must
establish
sitespecific
operating
limits
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Using
the
continuous
parameter
monitoring
system
(
CPMS)
required
in
§
63.9631(
b),
measure
and
record
the
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
every
15
minutes
during
each
run
of
the
particulate
matter
performance
test.
(
2)
Compute
and
record
the
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
for
each
individual
test
run.
Your
operating
limits
are
the
lowest
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
value
in
any
of
the
three
runs
that
meet
the
applicable
emission
limit.
(
b)
For
a
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
subject
to
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
3)
for
opacity,
you
must
establish
a
site­
specific
operating
limit
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)
(
1)
and
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Using
the
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS)
required
in
§
63.9631(
c),
measure
and
record
the
opacity
of
emissions
from
each
control
device
stack
during
the
particulate
matter
performance
test.
(
2)
Compute
and
record
the
6­
minute
opacity
averages
from
24
or
more
data
points
equally
spaced
over
each
6­
minute
period
(
e.
g.,
at
15­
second
intervals)
during
the
test
runs.
(
3)
Using
the
opacity
measurements
from
a
performance
test
that
meets
the
emission
limit,
determine
the
opacity
value
corresponding
to
the
99
percent
upper
confidence
level
of
a
normal
distribution
of
the
6­
minute
opacity
averages.
(
4)
In
your
semiannual
compliance
report
required
by
63.9641(
b),
report
as
a
deviation
any
6­
minute
period
during
which
the
average
opacity,
as
measured
by
the
COMS,
exceeds
the
opacity
value
corresponding
to
the
99
percent
upper
confidence
level
determined
under
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section.
(
c)
You
may
change
the
operating
limits
for
a
wet
scrubber,
or
dry
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
EP18DE02.000</
MATH>
EP18DE02.001</
MATH>
EP18DE02.002</
MATH>
77585
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
electrostatic
precipitator
if
you
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Submit
a
written
notification
to
the
Administrator
of
your
request
to
conduct
a
new
performance
test
to
revise
the
operating
limit.
(
2)
Conduct
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limitation
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
3)
Establish
revised
operating
limits
according
to
the
applicable
procedures
n
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.

§
63.9623
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
(
a)
For
each
affected
source
subject
to
an
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)
(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
ore
crushing
and
handling,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter,
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.9620(
a)
and
§
63.9621(
b),
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
For
indurating
furnaces,
the
flowweighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter,
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.9620(
b)
and
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
3)
For
finished
pellet
handling,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter,
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.9620(
c)
and
§
63.9621(
b),
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
4)
For
ore
dryers,
the
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter,
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.9620(
d)
and
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
5)
For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
2),
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
5)
(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Measure
and
record
the
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.9622(
a).
(
ii)
Establish
appropriate
site­
specific
operating
limits.
(
6)
For
each
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
subject
to
the
opacity
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
3),
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
6)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Measure
and
record
the
opacity
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.9622(
b).
(
ii)
Establish
an
appropriate
sitespecific
operating
limit.
(
b)
For
each
emission
limitation
that
applies
to
you,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
§
63.9640(
e).

§
63.9624
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
me?
(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
prepare
a
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.9591.
(
2)
You
must
submit
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.9591.
(
3)
You
must
implement
each
control
practice
according
to
the
procedures
specified
in
your
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan.
(
b)
[
Reserved]

§
63.9625
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?
You
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
by
certifying
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
have
met
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
c)
of
this
section.
(
a)
You
have
prepared
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9600(
b).
(
b)
You
operate
each
control
device
according
to
the
procedures
in
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
(
c)
You
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9640(
e).

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.9630
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
(
a)
You
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
continued
compliance
with
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
according
to
the
schedule
developed
by
your
permitting
authority
and
shown
in
your
title
V
permit.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
you
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule,
containing
the
information
specified
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
(
b)
You
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
on
all
stacks
from
indurating
furnaces
to
demonstrate
continued
compliance
with
the
indurating
furnace
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
according
to
the
schedule
developed
by
your
permitting
authority
and
shown
in
your
title
V
permit,
but
no
less
frequent
than
twice
per
5­
year
permit
term.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
you
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule,
containing
the
information
specified
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
For
indurating
furnaces
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
indurating
furnace
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
(
c)
You
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
finished
pellet
handling
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
according
to
the
schedule
developed
by
your
permitting
authority
and
shown
in
your
title
V
permit.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
you
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule,
containing
the
information
specified
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
(
d)
You
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
on
all
stacks
from
ore
dryers
to
demonstrate
continued
compliance
with
the
ore
dryer
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
according
to
the
schedule
developed
by
your
permitting
authority
and
shown
in
your
title
V
permit.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
you
must
submit
a
testing
plan
and
schedule,
containing
the
information
specified
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section,
to
the
permitting
authority
for
approval.
For
ore
dryers
with
multiple
stacks,
all
stacks
for
the
ore
dryer
must
be
tested
simultaneously.
(
e)
If
your
plant
does
not
have
a
title
V
permit,
you
must
submit
a
testing
plan
for
subsequent
performance
tests
as
required
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
This
testing
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
on
or
before
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.9583.
The
testing
plan
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
e)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
testing
plan
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
1)
A
list
of
all
emission
units.
(
2)
A
schedule
indicating
when
you
will
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
for
particulate
matter
for
each
of
the
emission
units.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77586
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
§
63.9631
What
are
my
monitoring
requirements?
(
a)
For
each
baghouse
subject
to
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
1)
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm,
you
must
at
all
times
monitor
the
relative
change
in
particulate
matter
loadings
using
a
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9632(
a)
and
conduct
inspections
at
their
specified
frequencies
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)
(
1)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Monitor
the
pressure
drop
across
each
baghouse
cell
each
day
to
ensure
pressure
drop
is
within
the
normal
operating
range
identified
in
the
manual.
(
2)
Confirm
that
dust
is
being
removed
from
hoppers
through
weekly
visual
inspections
or
other
means
of
ensuring
the
proper
functioning
of
removal
mechanisms.
(
3)
Check
the
compressed
air
supply
for
pulse­
jet
baghouses
each
day.
(
4)
Monitor
cleaning
cycles
to
ensure
proper
operation
using
an
appropriate
methodology.
(
5)
Check
bag
cleaning
mechanisms
for
proper
functioning
through
monthly
visual
inspection
or
equivalent
means.
(
6)
Make
monthly
visual
checks
of
bag
tension
on
reverse
air
and
shaker­
type
baghouses
to
ensure
that
bags
are
not
kinked
(
kneed
or
bent)
or
laying
on
their
sides.
You
do
not
have
to
make
this
check
for
shaker­
type
baghouses
using
self­
tensioning
(
spring­
loaded)
devices.
(
7)
Confirm
the
physical
integrity
of
the
baghouse
through
quarterly
visual
inspections
of
the
baghouse
interior
for
air
leaks.
(
8)
Inspect
fans
for
wear,
material
buildup,
and
corrosion
through
quarterly
visual
inspections,
vibration
detectors,
or
equivalent
means.
(
b)
For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
2),
you
must
at
all
times
monitor
the
average
pressure
drop
and
water
flow
rate
using
a
CPMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9632(
b)
and
(
c).
(
c)
For
each
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
subject
to
the
opacity
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
3),
you
must
at
all
times
monitor
the
6­
minute
average
opacity
of
emissions
exiting
each
control
device
stack
using
a
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9632(
d).
(
d)
An
owner
or
operator
who
uses
an
air
pollution
control
device
other
than
a
baghouse,
scrubber,
or
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
must
submit
a
site
specific
monitoring
plan
that
includes
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
d)
(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
The
monitoring
plan
is
subject
to
approval
by
the
Administrator.
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
monitoring
plan
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.
(
1)
A
description
of
the
device;
(
2)
Test
results
collected
in
accordance
with
§
63.9621
verifying
the
performance
of
the
device
for
reducing
emissions
of
particulate
matter
to
the
atmosphere
to
the
levels
required
by
this
subpart;
(
3)
A
copy
of
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
required
in
§
63.9600(
b);
and
(
4)
Appropriate
operating
parameters
that
will
be
monitored
to
maintain
continuous
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limitation(
s).

§
63.9632
What
are
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements
for
my
monitoring
equipment?

(
a)
For
each
baghouse
subject
to
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
1)
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)
(
1)
through
(
7)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
system
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
emissions
of
particulate
matter
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(
0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less.
(
2)
The
system
must
provide
output
of
relative
changes
in
particulate
matter
loadings.
(
3)
The
system
must
be
equipped
with
an
alarm
that
will
sound
when
an
increase
in
relative
particulate
loadings
is
detected
over
a
preset
level.
The
alarm
must
be
located
such
that
it
can
be
heard
by
the
appropriate
plant
personnel.
(
4)
Each
system
that
works
based
on
the
triboelectric
effect
must
be
installed,
operated,
and
maintained
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
guidance
document,
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance,''
EPA
 
454/
R
 
98
 
015,
September
1997.
This
document
is
available
on
the
EPA's
Technology
Transfer
Network
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
emc/
cem/
tribo.
pdf
(
Adobe
Acrobat
version)
or
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
emc/
cem/
tribo.
wpd
(
WordPerfect
version).
You
may
install,
operate,
and
maintain
other
types
of
bag
leak
detection
systems
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
(
5)
To
make
the
initial
adjustment
of
the
system,
establish
the
baseline
output
by
adjusting
the
sensitivity
(
range)
and
the
averaging
period
of
the
device.
Then,
establish
the
alarm
set
points
and
the
alarm
delay
time.
(
6)
Following
the
initial
adjustment,
do
not
adjust
the
sensitivity
or
range,
averaging
period,
alarm
set
points,
or
alarm
delay
time,
except
as
detailed
in
your
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
Do
not
increase
the
sensitivity
by
more
than
100
percent
or
decrease
the
sensitivity
by
more
than
50
percent
over
a
365­
day
period
unless
a
responsible
official
certifies,
in
writing,
that
the
baghouse
has
been
inspected
and
found
to
be
in
good
operating
condition.
(
7)
Where
multiple
detectors
are
required,
the
system's
instrumentation
and
alarm
may
be
shared
among
detectors.
(
b)
For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
2)
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
CPMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
the
pressure
drop
CPMS,
you
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
i)
through
(
vi)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Locate
the
pressure
sensor(
s)
in
or
as
close
to
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
measurement
of
the
pressure
and
that
minimizes
or
eliminates
pulsating
pressure,
vibration,
and
internal
and
external
corrosion.
(
ii)
Use
a
gauge
with
a
minimum
measurement
sensitivity
of
0.5
inch
of
water
or
a
transducer
with
a
minimum
measurement
sensitivity
of
5
percent
of
the
pressure
range.
(
iii)
Check
the
pressure
tap
for
pluggage
daily.
(
iv)
Using
a
manometer,
check
gauge
calibration
quarterly
and
transducer
calibration
monthly.
(
v)
Conduct
calibration
checks
any
time
the
sensor
exceeds
the
manufacturer's
specified
maximum
operating
pressure
range,
or
install
a
new
pressure
sensor.
(
vi)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
all
components
for
integrity,
all
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
all
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
2)
For
the
scrubber
water
flow
rate
CPMS,
you
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)
(
i)
through
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Locate
the
flow
sensor
and
other
necessary
equipment
in
a
position
that
provides
a
representative
flow
and
that
reduces
swirling
flow
or
abnormal
velocity
distributions
due
to
upstream
and
downstream
disturbances.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77587
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(
ii)
Use
a
flow
sensor
with
a
minimum
measurement
sensitivity
of
5
percent
of
the
flow
rate.
(
iii)
Conduct
a
flow
sensor
calibration
check
at
least
semiannually
according
to
the
manufacturer's
instructions.
(
iv)
At
least
monthly,
inspect
all
components
for
integrity,
all
electrical
connections
for
continuity,
and
all
mechanical
connections
for
leakage.
(
c)
You
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
CPMS
for
a
wet
scrubber
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Each
CPMS
must
complete
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
operation
for
each
successive
5­
minute
period.
(
2)
Each
CPMS
must
have
valid
data
for
at
least
95
percent
of
every
averaging
period.
(
3)
Each
CPMS
must
determine
and
record
the
average
of
all
recorded
readings.
(
d)
For
each
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
subject
to
the
opacity
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
3),
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)
(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
install
each
COMS
and
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
each
COMS
according
to
§
63.8
and
Performance
Specification
1
in
appendix
B
to
40
CFR
part
60.
(
2)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
quality
control
program
for
operating
and
maintaining
each
COMS
according
to
§
63.8.
At
a
minimum,
the
quality
control
program
must
include
a
daily
calibration
drift
assessment,
quarterly
performance
audit,
and
annual
zero
alignment
of
each
COMS.
(
3)
You
must
operate
and
maintain
each
COMS
according
to
§
63.8(
e)
and
your
quality
control
program.
Identify
periods
the
COMS
is
out
of
control,
including
any
periods
that
the
COMS
fails
to
pass
a
daily
calibration
drift
assessment,
quarterly
performance
audit,
or
annual
zero
alignment
audit.
(
4)
You
must
determine
and
record
the
6­
minute
average
opacity
collected
for
periods
during
which
the
COMS
is
not
out
of
control.

§
63.9633
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?

(
a)
Except
for
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
(
including
as
applicable,
calibration
checks
and
required
zero
and
span
adjustments),
you
must
monitor
continuously
(
or
collect
data
at
all
required
intervals)
at
all
times
an
affected
source
is
operating.
(
b)
You
may
not
use
data
recorded
during
monitoring
malfunctions,
associated
repairs,
and
required
quality
assurance
or
control
activities
in
data
averages
and
calculations
used
to
report
emission
or
operating
levels,
or
to
fulfill
a
minimum
data
availability
requirement.
You
must
use
all
the
data
collected
during
all
other
periods
in
assessing
compliance.
(
c)
A
monitoring
malfunction
is
any
sudden,
infrequent,
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
the
monitoring
to
provide
valid
data.
Monitoring
failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
considered
malfunctions.

§
63.9634
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?

(
a)
For
each
affected
source
subject
to
an
emission
limit
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
f)
of
this
section.
(
b)
For
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
for
finished
pellet
handling,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
for
all
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units
and
for
all
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
must
be
maintained
at
or
below
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
You
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
for
emission
units
in
the
ore
crushing
and
handling
and
finished
pellet
handling
affected
sources
following
the
schedule
in
your
title
V
permit.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
you
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
according
to
a
testing
plan
approved
by
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority.
(
c)
For
ore
dryers
and
indurating
furnaces,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
for
all
stacks
from
the
ore
dryer
or
indurating
furnace
must
be
maintained
at
or
below
the
emission
limits
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
(
2)
For
ore
dryers,
you
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
following
the
schedule
in
your
title
V
permit.
For
indurating
furnaces,
you
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
following
the
schedule
in
your
title
V
permit,
but
no
less
frequent
than
twice
per
5­
year
permit
term.
If
a
title
V
permit
has
not
been
issued,
you
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
according
to
a
testing
plan
approved
by
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority.
(
d)
For
each
baghouse
subject
to
the
operating
limit
for
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
1),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
completing
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)
(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Maintaining
each
baghouse
such
that
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
does
not
sound
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
during
any
semiannual
reporting
period.
To
determine
the
percent
of
time
the
alarm
sounded
you
must
follow
the
procedure
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
(
i)
through
(
v)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Alarms
that
occur
due
solely
to
a
malfunction
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
are
not
included
in
the
calculation.
(
ii)
Alarms
that
occur
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
not
included
in
the
calculation
if
the
condition
is
described
in
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
and
all
the
actions
you
took
during
the
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
were
consistent
with
the
procedures
in
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
iii)
Count
1
hour
of
alarm
time
for
each
alarm
when
you
initiated
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
1
hour.
(
iv)
Count
the
actual
amount
of
time
you
took
to
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
if
you
did
not
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm.
(
v)
Calculate
the
percentage
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounds
as
the
ratio
of
the
sum
of
alarm
times
to
the
total
operating
time
multiplied
by
100.
(
2)
Maintaining
records
of
the
times
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
sounded,
and
for
each
valid
alarm,
the
time
you
initiated
corrective
action,
the
corrective
action(
s)
taken,
and
the
date
on
which
corrective
action
was
completed.
(
3)
Inspecting
and
maintaining
each
baghouse
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9631(
a)
(
1)
through
(
8)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
If
you
increase
or
decrease
the
sensitivity
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
beyond
the
limits
specified
in
§
63.9632(
a)(
6),
you
must
include
a
copy
of
the
required
written
certification
by
a
responsible
official
in
the
next
semiannual
compliance
report.
(
e)
For
each
wet
scrubber
subject
to
the
operating
limits
for
pressure
drop
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77588
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
2),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
completing
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Maintaining
the
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
levels
no
lower
than
those
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test.
(
2)
Inspecting
and
maintaining
each
scrubber
CPMS
according
to
§
63.9632(
b)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
(
3)
Collecting
and
reducing
monitoring
data
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
according
to
§
63.9632(
c)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
(
f)
For
each
dry
electrostatic
precipitator
subject
to
the
site­
specific
opacity
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b)(
3),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
completing
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Maintaining
the
6­
minute
average
opacity
of
emissions
no
higher
than
the
site­
specific
limit
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test.
(
2)
Operating
and
maintaining
each
COMS
and
reducing
the
COMS
data
according
to
§
63.9632(
d).

§
63.9635
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
me?
(
a)
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standard
requirements
in
§
63.9591
by
operating
in
accordance
with
your
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
at
all
times.
(
b)
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
fugitive
dust
emissions
control
plan
required
in
§
63.9591
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

§
63.9636
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?
(
a)
For
each
control
device
subject
to
an
operating
limit
in
§
63.9590(
b),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
§
63.9600(
b)
by
completing
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Performing
preventative
maintenance
for
each
control
device
according
to
§
63.9600(
b)(
1)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements;
and
(
2)
Initiating
and
completing
corrective
action
for
a
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
according
to
§
63.9600(
b)(
2)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
(
b)
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
operation
and
maintenance
plan
required
in
§
63.9600(
b)
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plan
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

§
63.9637
What
other
requirements
must
I
meet
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?
(
a)
Deviations.
You
must
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
emission
limitation
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
You
also
must
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
the
work
practice
standards
in
§
63.9591
and
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
§
63.9600
that
applies
to
you.
These
instances
are
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart.
These
deviations
must
be
reported
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.9641.
(
b)
Startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
During
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
you
must
operate
in
accordance
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
1)
Consistent
with
§
§
63.6(
e)
and
63.7(
e)(
1),
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
not
violations
if
you
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator's
satisfaction
that
you
were
operating
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
2)
The
Administrator
will
determine
whether
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
violations,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e).

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.9640
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
(
a)
You
must
submit
all
of
the
notifications
in
§
§
63.7(
b)
and
(
c),
63.8(
f)(
4),
and
63.9(
b)
through
(
h)
that
apply
to
you
by
the
specified
dates.
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
2),
if
you
start
up
your
affected
source
before
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
you
must
submit
your
initial
notification
no
later
than
[
DATE
120
CALENDAR
DAYS
AFTER
THE
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register].
(
c)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
3),
if
you
start
up
your
new
affected
source
on
or
after
[
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
Federal
Register],
you
must
submit
your
initial
notification
no
later
than
120
calendar
days
after
you
become
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
d)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
as
required
in
§
63.7(
b)(
1).
(
e)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
§
63.9(
h)(
2)(
ii).
The
initial
notification
of
compliance
status
must
be
submitted
by
the
dates
specified
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
that
does
not
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
notification
of
compliance
status
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
30th
calendar
day
following
completion
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(
2)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
that
does
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
including
the
performance
test
results,
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
performance
test
according
to
§
63.10(
d)(
2).

§
63.9641
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?

(
a)
Compliance
report
due
dates.
Unless
the
Administrator
has
approved
a
different
schedule,
you
must
submit
a
semiannual
compliance
report
to
your
permitting
authority
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
first
compliance
report
must
cover
the
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.9583
and
ending
on
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
date
comes
first
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
source
in
§
63.9583.
(
2)
The
first
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
comes
first
after
your
first
compliance
report
is
due.
(
3)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
cover
the
semiannual
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77589
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
30
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
4)
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
comes
first
after
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
5)
For
each
affected
source
that
is
subject
to
permitting
regulations
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
and
if
the
permitting
authority
has
established
dates
for
submitting
semiannual
reports
pursuant
to
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
dates
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Compliance
report
contents.
Each
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
and,
as
applicable,
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
4)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official,
with
the
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
(
4)
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
(
5)
If
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
in
§
§
63.9634
through
63.9636
that
apply
to
you,
then
provide
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
during
the
reporting
period.
(
6)
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
a
CPMS
or
COMS)
was
outof
control
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
then
provide
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
which
the
CPMS
was
out­
of­
control
during
the
reporting
period.
(
7)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
that
occurs
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
not
using
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
a
CPMS
or
COMS)
to
comply
with
an
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart,
the
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
7)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
i)
The
total
operating
time
of
each
affected
source
during
the
reporting
period.
(
ii)
Information
on
the
number,
duration,
and
cause
of
deviations
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable)
as
applicable
and
the
corrective
action
taken.
(
8)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
occurring
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
using
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
a
CPMS
or
COMS)
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart,
you
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
and
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
8)(
i)
through
(
xi)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
i)
The
date
and
time
that
each
malfunction
started
and
stopped.
(
ii)
The
date
and
time
that
each
continuous
monitoring
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
low­
level)
and
highlevel
checks.
(
iii)
The
date,
time,
and
duration
that
each
continuous
monitoring
system
was
out­
of­
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
iv)
The
date
and
time
that
each
deviation
started
and
stopped,
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
v)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviation
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
vi)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
during
the
reporting
period
including
those
that
are
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
vii)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
continuous
monitoring
system
downtime
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
of
continuous
monitoring
system
downtime
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
the
reporting
period.
(
viii)
A
brief
description
of
the
process
units.
(
ix)
A
brief
description
of
the
continuous
monitoring
system.
(
x)
The
date
of
the
latest
continuous
monitoring
system
certification
or
audit.
(
xi)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
continuous
monitoring
systems,
processes,
or
controls
since
the
last
reporting
period.
(
c)
Immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report.
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period
that
was
not
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
you
must
submit
an
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).
(
d)
Part
70
monitoring
report.
If
you
have
obtained
a
title
V
operating
permit
for
an
affected
source
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
71,
you
must
report
all
deviations
as
defined
in
this
subpart
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A).
If
you
submit
a
compliance
report
for
an
affected
source
along
with,
or
as
part
of,
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
and
the
compliance
report
includes
all
the
required
information
concerning
deviations
from
any
emission
limitation
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart,
submission
of
the
compliance
report
satisfies
any
obligation
to
report
the
same
deviations
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report.
However,
submission
of
a
compliance
report
does
not
otherwise
affect
any
obligation
you
may
have
to
report
deviations
from
permit
requirements
for
an
affected
source
to
your
permitting
authority.

§
63.9642
What
records
must
I
keep?
(
a)
You
must
keep
the
records
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
A
copy
of
each
notification
and
report
that
you
submitted
to
comply
with
this
subpart,
including
all
documentation
supporting
any
initial
notification
or
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
submitted,
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv).
(
2)
The
records
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3)(
iii)
through
(
v)
related
to
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
3)
Records
of
performance
tests,
performance
evaluations
as
required
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
viii).
(
b)
For
each
COMS,
you
must
keep
the
records
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Records
described
in
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
vi)
through
(
xi).
(
2)
Monitoring
data
for
COMS
during
a
performance
evaluation
as
required
in
§
63.6(
h)(
7)(
i)
and
(
ii).
(
3)
Previous
(
that
is,
superceded)
versions
of
the
performance
evaluation
plan
as
required
in
§
63.8(
d)(
3).
(
4)
Records
of
the
date
and
time
that
each
deviation
started
and
stopped,
and
whether
the
deviation
occurred
during
a
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77590
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
c)
You
must
keep
the
records
required
in
§
§
63.9634
through
63.9636
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
that
applies
to
you.

§
63.9643
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?
(
a)
Your
records
must
be
in
a
form
suitable
and
readily
available
for
expeditious
review,
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.10(
b)(
1),
you
must
keep
each
record
for
5
years
following
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record.
(
c)
You
must
keep
each
record
on
site
for
at
least
2
years
after
the
date
of
each
occurrence,
measurement,
maintenance,
corrective
action,
report,
or
record
according
to
§
63.10(
b)(
1).
You
can
keep
the
records
offsite
for
the
remaining
3
years.

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.9650
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
Table
1
to
this
subpart
shows
which
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
in
§
§
63.1
through
63.15
apply
to
you.

§
63.9651
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
(
a)
This
subpart
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
us,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
U.
S.
EPA),
or
a
delegated
authority
such
as
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
If
the
U.
S.
EPA
Administrator
has
delegated
authority
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency,
then
that
agency
has
the
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
this
subpart.
You
should
contact
your
U.
S.
EPA
Regional
Office
to
find
out
if
this
subpart
is
delegated
to
your
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
b)
In
delegating
implementation
and
enforcement
authority
of
this
subpart
to
a
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency
under
subpart
E
of
this
part,
the
authorities
contained
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section
are
retained
by
the
Administrator
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
are
not
transferred
to
the
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
(
c)
The
authorities
that
will
not
be
delegated
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies
are
specified
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
2)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
3)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.

§
63.9652
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Terms
used
in
this
subpart
are
defined
in
the
Clean
Air
Act,
in
§
63.2,
and
in
this
section
as
follows.
Affected
source
means
each
new
or
existing
ore
crushing
and
handling
operation,
ore
dryer,
indurating
furnace,
or
finished
pellet
handling
operation,
at
your
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant.
Bag
leak
detection
system
means
a
system
that
is
capable
of
continuously
monitoring
relative
particulate
matter
(
dust)
loadings
in
the
exhaust
of
a
baghouse
to
detect
bag
leaks
and
other
upset
conditions.
A
bag
leak
detection
system
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
an
instrument
that
operates
on
tribroelectric,
light
scattering,
light
transmittance,
or
other
effect
to
continuously
monitor
relative
particulate
matter
loadings.
Conveyor
belt
transfer
point
means
a
point
in
the
conveying
operation
where
the
taconite
ore
or
taconite
pellets
are
transferred
to
or
from
a
conveyor
belt,
except
where
the
taconite
ore
or
taconite
pellets
are
being
transferred
to
a
bin
or
stockpile.
Crusher
means
a
machine
used
to
crush
taconite
ore
and
includes
feeders
or
conveyors
located
immediately
below
the
crushing
surfaces.
Crushers
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
gyratory
crushers
and
cone
crushers.
Deviation
means
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source:
(
1)
Fails
to
meet
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
emission
limitation
(
including
operating
limits)
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirement;
(
2)
Fails
to
meet
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
(
3)
Fails
to
meet
any
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Emission
limitation
means
any
emission
limit,
opacity
limit,
or
operating
limit.
Finished
pellet
handling
means
the
transfer
of
fired
taconite
pellets
from
the
indurating
furnace
to
the
finished
pellet
stockpiles
at
the
plant.
Finished
pellet
handling
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
furnace
discharge
or
grate
discharge,
and
finished
pellet
screening,
transfer,
and
storage.
Fugitive
dust
emission
source
means
a
stationary
source
from
which
particles
are
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
due
to
wind
or
mechanical
inducement
such
as
vehicle
traffic.
Fugitive
dust
sources
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
(
1)
Stockpiles
(
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
stockpiles
of
uncrushed
ore,
crushed
ore,
or
finished
pellets);
(
2)
Material
transfer
points;
(
3)
Plant
roadways;
(
4)
Tailings
basins;
(
5)
Pellet
loading
areas;
and
(
6)
Yard
areas.
Grate
feed
means
the
transfer
of
unfired
taconite
pellets
from
the
pelletizer
into
the
indurating
furnace.
Grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
means
a
furnace
system
that
consists
of
a
traveling
grate,
a
rotary
kiln,
and
an
annular
cooler.
The
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
begins
at
the
point
where
the
grate
feed
conveyor
discharges
the
green
balls
onto
the
furnace
traveling
grate
and
ends
where
the
hardened
pellets
exit
the
cooler.
The
atmospheric
pellet
cooler
vent
stack
is
not
included
as
part
of
the
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace.
Indurating
means
the
process
whereby
unfired
taconite
pellets,
called
green
balls,
are
hardened
at
high
temperature
in
an
indurating
furnace.
Types
of
indurating
furnaces
include
straight
grate
indurating
furnaces
and
grate
kiln
indurating
furnaces.
Ore
crushing
and
handling
means
the
process
whereby
dry
taconite
ore
is
crushed
and
screened.
Ore
crushing
and
handling
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
all
dry
crushing
operations
(
e.
g.,
primary,
secondary,
and
tertiary
crushing),
dry
ore
conveyance
and
transfer
points,
dry
ore
classification
and
screening,
dry
ore
storage
and
stockpiling,
dry
milling,
dry
cobbing
(
i.
e.,
dry
magnetic
separation),
and
the
grate
feed.
Ore
crushing
and
handling
specifically
excludes
any
operations
where
the
dry
crushed
ore
is
saturated
with
water,
such
as,
wet
milling
and
wet
magnetic
separation.
Ore
dryer
means
a
rotary
dryer
that
repeatedly
tumbles
wet
taconite
ore
concentrate
through
a
heated
air
stream
to
reduce
the
amount
of
entrained
moisture
in
the
taconite
ore
concentrate.
Pellet
cooler
vent
stacks
means
atmospheric
vents
in
the
cooler
section
of
the
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
that
exhaust
cooling
air
that
is
not
returned
for
recuperation.
Pellet
cooler
vent
stacks
are
not
to
be
confused
with
the
cooler
discharge
stack,
which
is
in
the
pellet
loadout
or
dumping
area.
Pellet
loading
area
means
that
portion
of
a
taconite
iron
ore
processing
plant
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77591
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
where
taconite
pellets
are
loaded
into
trucks
or
railcars.
Responsible
official
means
responsible
official
as
defined
in
§
63.2.
Screen
means
a
device
for
separating
material
according
to
size
by
passing
undersize
material
through
one
or
more
mesh
surfaces
(
screens)
in
series
and
retaining
oversize
material
on
the
mesh
surfaces
(
screens).
Storage
bin
means
a
facility
for
storage
(
including
surge
bins
and
hoppers)
of
taconite
ore
or
taconite
pellets
prior
to
further
processing
or
loading.
Straight
grate
indurating
furnace
means
a
furnace
system
that
consists
of
a
traveling
grate
that
carries
the
taconite
pellets
through
different
furnace
temperature
zones.
In
the
straight
grate
indurating
furnace
a
layer
of
fired
pellets,
called
the
hearth
layer,
is
placed
on
the
traveling
grate
prior
to
the
addition
of
unfired
pellets.
The
straight
grate
indurating
furnace
begins
at
the
point
where
the
grate
feed
conveyor
discharges
the
green
balls
onto
the
furnace
traveling
grate
and
ends
where
the
hardened
pellets
drop
off
of
the
traveling
grate.
Taconite
iron
ore
processing
means
the
separation
and
concentration
of
iron
ore
from
taconite,
a
low­
grade
iron
ore,
to
produce
taconite
pellets.
Taconite
ore
means
a
low­
grade
iron
ore
suitable
for
concentration
of
magnetite
or
hematite
by
fine
grinding
and
magnetic
or
flotation
treatment,
from
which
pellets
containing
iron
can
be
produced.
Tailings
basin
means
a
natural
or
artificial
impoundment
in
which
gangue
or
other
refuse
material
resulting
from
the
washing,
concentration
or
treatment
of
ground
taconite
iron
ore
is
confined.
Wet
grinding
and
milling
means
the
process
where
wet
taconite
ore
is
finely
ground
using
rod
and/
or
ball
mills.

Tables
to
Subpart
RRRRR
of
Part
63
As
required
in
§
63.9590(
a),
you
must
comply
with
each
applicable
emission
limit
in
the
following
table:

TABLE
1
TO
SUBPART
RRRRR
OF
PART
63.
 
EMISSION
LIMITS
For
.
.
.
You
must
comply
with
each
of
the
following
.
.
.

1.
Existing
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
b),
must
not
exceed
0.008
grains
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(
gr/
dscf).
2.
New
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
ore
crushing
and
handling
emission
units,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
b),
must
not
exceed
0.005
gr/
dscf.
3.
Each
existing
straight
grate
indurating
furnace
processing
magnetite.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.010
gr/
dscf.
4.
Each
new
straight
grate
indurating
furnace
processing
magnetite.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.006
gr/
dscf.
5.
Each
existing
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
processing
magnetite.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.011
gr/
dscf.
6.
Each
new
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
processing
magnetite.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.006
gr/
dscf.
7.
Each
existing
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
processing
hematite.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.025
gr/
dscf.
8.
Each
new
grate
kiln
indurating
furnace
processing
hematite.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.018
gr/
dscf.
9.
Existing
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units.
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
b),
must
not
exceed
0.008
gr/
dscf.
10.
New
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
finished
pellet
handling
emission
units,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
b),
must
not
exceed
0.005
gr/
dscf.
11.
Each
existing
ore
dryer
................................
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.052
gr/
dscf.
12.
Each
new
ore
dryer
......................................
The
flow­
weighted
mean
concentration
of
particulate
matter
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
all
stacks,
as
determined
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.9621(
c),
must
not
exceed
0.025
gr/
dscf.

As
required
in
§
63.9650,
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
shown
in
the
following
table:

TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
RRRRR
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
RRRRR
OF
PART
63
Citation
Subject
Applies
to
Subpart
RRRRR
Explanation
§
63.1
.....................................................
Applicability
..........................................
Yes.
§
63.2
.....................................................
Definitions
............................................
Yes.
§
63.3
.....................................................
Units
and
Abbreviations
.......................
Yes.
§
63.4
.....................................................
Prohibited
Activities
.............................
Yes.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2
77592
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
243
/
Wednesday,
December
18,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
2
TO
SUBPART
RRRRR
OF
PART
63.
 
APPLICABILITY
OF
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
TO
SUBPART
RRRRR
OF
PART
63
 
Continued
Citation
Subject
Applies
to
Subpart
RRRRR
Explanation
§
63.5
.....................................................
Construction/
Reconstruction
................
Yes.
§
63.6(
a)
 
(
g)
..........................................
Compliance
with
Standards
and
Maintenance
Requirements.
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)
................................................
Compliance
with
Opacity
and
Visible
Emission
(
VE)
Standards.
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
does
not
contain
opacity
and
VE
standards.
§
63.6(
i),(
j)
.............................................
Extension
of
Compliance
and
Presidential
Compliance
Extension.
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
1)
 
(
2)
.....................................
Applicability
and
Performance
Test
Dates.
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
specifies
performance
test
applicability
and
dates.
§
63.7(
a)(
3),
(
b)
 
(
h)
...............................
Performance
Testing
Requirements
....
Yes.
§
63.8(
a)(
1)
 
(
a)(
3),
(
b),
(
c)(
1)
 
(
3),
(
c)(
5)
 
(
8),
(
d),(
e),
(
f)(
1)
 
(
5),
(
g)(
1)
 
(
4).
Monitoring
Requirements
.....................
Yes
..........................
Continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS)
requirements
in
§
63.8(
c)(
5)
and
(
6)
apply
only
to
COMS
for
dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
§
63.8(
a)(
4)
............................................
Additional
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Control
Devices
in
§
63.11.
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
does
not
require
flares.
§
63.8(
c)(
4)
............................................
Continuous
Monitoring
System
Requirements
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
specifies
requirements
for
operation
of
CMS.
§
63.8(
f)(
6)
.............................................
Relative
Accuracy
Test
Alternative
(
RATA).
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
does
not
require
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
§
63.8(
g)(
5)
............................................
Data
Reduction
....................................
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
specifies
data
reduction
requirements.
§
63.9
.....................................................
Notification
Requirements
....................
Yes
..........................
Additional
notifications
for
CMS
in
§
63.9(
g)
apply
to
COMS
for
dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
§
63.10(
a),
(
b)(
1)
 
(
2)(
xii),
(
b)(
2)(
xiv),
(
b)(
3),(
c)(
1)
 
(
6)
(
c)(
9)
 
(
15),
(
d)(
1)
 
(
2),
(
d)(
4)
 
(
5),
(
e),
(
f).
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
Yes
..........................
Additional
records
for
CMS
§
63.10(
c)
(
1)
 
(
6),(
9)
 
(
15),
and
reports
in
§
63.10(
d)(
1)
 
(
2)
apply
only
to
COMS
for
dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiii)
...................................
CMS
Records
for
RATA
Alternative
....
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
doesn't
require
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
§
63.10(
c)(
7)
 
(
8)
....................................
Records
of
Excess
Emissions
and
Parameter
Monitoring
Exceedances
for
CMS.
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
specifies
record
requirements

§
63.10(
d)(
3)
..........................................
Reporting
opacity
or
VE
observations
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
does
not
have
opacity
and
VE
standards
§
63.11
...................................................
Control
Device
Requirements
..............
No
............................
Subpart
RRRRR
does
not
require
flares.
§
63.12
...................................................
State
Authority
and
Delegations
..........
Yes
§
63.13
 
­
§
63.15
....................................
Addresses,
Incorporation
by
Reference
Availability
of
Information.
Yes
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
31231
Filed
12
 
17
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
19:
56
Dec
17,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
18DEP2.
SGM
18DEP2