[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7149-7158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3531]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6301-1]
RIN 2060-AE08
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Ferroalloys Production, Mineral Wool Production,
Primary Lead Smelting, and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Supplement To
Proposed Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplement to proposed rules; Notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's proposal would alter the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) previously proposed for the
source categories of ferroalloys production, mineral wool production,
primary lead smelting, and wool fiberglass manufacturing. Today's
action proposes changes to the approach for determining compliance for
owners or operators of fabric filters (i.e., baghouses) with bag leak
detection systems, proposes changes to the approach for determining
compliance through the use of defined monitoring parameters for air
pollution control equipment and/or manufacturing processes, and
proposes to add performance evaluation requirements for temperature
monitoring devices. To determine which of these proposed changes would
affect specific source categories, see the appropriate Summary of
Proposed Changes section for each source category.
Under section 112(j)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), the ``hammer''
date is the date by which affected facilities will be required to apply
for a case-by-case emission limitation if the EPA has not promulgated a
generally applicable emission standard. For these source categories,
that date is May 15, 1999. The comment period for this action is 30
days. If a public hearing is held, the comment period for this action
will be extended to 45 days. The comment period for this action is
shorter than the normal comment period of 60 days so that these NESHAP
may be promulgated by the May 15, 1999 ``hammer'' date.
DATES: Comments are requested only on information presented in this
action. Comments on today's supplementary proposal must be received on
or before March 15, 1999, unless a request to speak at a public hearing
is received by February 22, 1999. If a hearing is held, written
comments must be received by March 29, 1999. If held, the hearing will
take place at 10 a.m. on February 26, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate) to the
docket for the source category being addressed, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Docket numbers are as
follows: ferroalloys production--Docket No. A-92-59; mineral wool
production--Docket No. A-95-33; primary lead smelting--Docket No. A-97-
33; and wool fiberglass manufacturing--Docket No. A-95-24. The EPA
requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to the
appropriate contact person for the specific source category listed
below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Comments and data
may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions
provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. No confidential
business information should be submitted through electronic mail.
Docket. The dockets, which contain supporting information used in
developing the NESHAP, are located at the above address in Room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Copies of
this information may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ferroalloys production. Mr. Conrad
Chin, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919)541-1512, electronic mail address
chin.conrad@epamail.epa.gov''.
Mineral wool production. Ms. Mary Johnson, Minerals and Inorganic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919)541-5025, electronic mail address
johnson.mary@epamail.epa.gov''.
Primary lead smelting. Mr. Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number
(919)541-2364, electronic mail address
cavender.kevin@epamail.epa.gov''.
[[Page 7150]]
Wool fiberglass manufacturing. Mr. Bill Neuffer, Minerals and
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919)541-5435, electronic mail address
neuffer.bill@epamail.epa.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technology Transfer Network. In addition to
being available in the dockets, an electronic copy of today's notice is
available through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
proposal, a copy of the supplement to the proposed rules, including the
proposed regulatory text, will be posted at the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules (http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). 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.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by the required date (see DATES), a public hearing will
be held at the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, 79 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons
interested in attending the hearing or in making an oral presentation
should notify Ms. Mary Hinson, Metals Group, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)541-5601 by
February 22, 1999.
Electronic filing. Electronic comments can be sent directly to the
EPA at a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov''. Electronic comments and data
must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the appropriate docket number. Electronic comments may be filed online
at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Confidential Business Information. Commenters wishing to submit
proprietary information for consideration should clearly distinguish
such information from other comments and clearly label it
``Confidential Business Information.'' Submissions containing such
proprietary information should be sent directly to the appropriate
contact person, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, Document Control Officer, OAQPS/
PRRMS (MD-11), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, and not to the public docket, to ensure that
proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket.
Information covered by such claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by the EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth
in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a
submission when it is received by the EPA, the submission may be made
available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Ferroalloys production
facilities (SIC 3313).
Industry.................................. Mineral wool production
facilities (SIC 3296).
Industry.................................. Primary lead smelting
facilities (SIC 3339).
Industry.................................. Wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities
(SIC 3296).
Federal government........................ None.
State/local/tribal government............. None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final
action on this supplemental proposal. To determine whether your
facility may be regulated by final action on this supplement to the
proposed rules, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria
in the proposed rule.
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
A. Ferroalloys Production NESHAP
B. Mineral Wool Production NESHAP
C. Primary Lead Smelting NESHAP
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
III. Summary of Proposed Changes
A. Ferroalloys Production NESHAP
B. Mineral Wool Production NESHAP
C. Primary Lead Smelting NESHAP
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
IV. Rationale for Changes to the Proposed Rules
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Public Hearing
C. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
D. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
E. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Regulatory Flexibility
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Pollution Prevention Act
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
L. Clean Air Act
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this supplement to the proposed rules
is provided by sections 101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This proposed
rulemaking is also subject to section 307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
7407(d)).
II. Background
A. Ferroalloys Production NESHAP
The proposed NESHAP for ferroalloys production was published in the
Federal Register on August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41508). Only two existing
facilities would be affected by the NESHAP, a producer of
ferromagnesium alloys and a producer of ferronickel alloys. The
proposed NESHAP would establish emission limits for particulate
emissions from the two regulated facilities. The proposal requires
owners and operators to develop and operate according to a Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual for the operation and maintenance of
baghouses. The proposal also requires owners and operators of new or
reconstructed ferroalloys production facilities to install and operate
a bag leak detection system as a part of the SOP for baghouses.
B. Mineral Wool Production NESHAP
The EPA proposed NESHAP for new and existing sources in mineral
wool production facilities on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). The proposed
rule would establish emission limits for particulate matter (PM)
emissions from existing cupolas. In addition to PM, emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO) would be regulated for new cupolas. Emissions of
formaldehyde would be regulated for new and existing curing ovens.
Particulate matter would serve as a surrogate for metal hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) and CO would be a surrogate for carbonyl sulfide
(COS). As well as being a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), formaldehyde
would serve as a surrogate for the HAP phenol. In addition to emission
limits, the proposed rule specifies requirements for air pollution
control equipment and/or manufacturing processes that would be
[[Page 7151]]
enforceable and would be used to determine compliance with the
applicable emission standards. The proposed rule requires that each
affected source perform an initial compliance test to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits. The initial compliance tests would
also be used to establish levels of control device parameters and
process parameters used to monitor compliance. The proposed rule
requires that these control device parameters and process parameters be
monitored on a regular basis in order to determine that the control
device or process equipment is operating properly. The proposed rule
also specifies requirements for notifications, reporting, and
recordkeeping.
C. Primary Lead Smelting NESHAP
The proposed NESHAP for primary lead smelting was published in the
Federal Register on April 17, 1998 (63 FR 19200). Three existing
primary lead facilities would be affected by the proposed rule. The
proposal would establish a ``plant wide'' emission limit of 380 grams
per megagram of lead produced from the aggregation of emissions
discharged from eight identified process and process fugitive sources.
The proposal also requires owners and operators of primary lead
smelters to develop and operate according to SOP Manuals for the
control of fugitive dust sources and for the operation and maintenance
of baghouses. The SOP for baghouses requires owners and operators of
primary lead smelters to install and operate bag leak detection
systems.
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
On March 31, 1997 (62 FR 15228), the EPA proposed the NESHAP for
new and existing sources in wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
The proposed rule would establish emission limits for PM emissions from
glass melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing plants
and formaldehyde emission limits for affected rotary spin and flame
attenuation manufacturing lines. The PM emission limits would serve as
a surrogate for metal HAPs (arsenic, chromium, and lead compounds).
Formaldehyde is a HAP and would serve as a surrogate for the HAPs
phenol and methanol. The proposed rule would require that each affected
source perform an initial compliance test to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits. For air pollution control devices and process
equipment used to comply with the emission limits, the initial
compliance tests would also be used to establish levels of control
device parameters and process parameters used to monitor compliance.
The proposed rule would require that these control device parameters
and process parameters be monitored on a regular basis in order to
determine that the control device or process equipment is operating
properly. The proposed rule would also specify requirements for
notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping.
III. Summary of Proposed Changes
A. Ferroalloys Production NESHAP
This supplement to the proposed rule would enhance the requirements
regarding bag leak detection systems in Secs. 63.1625 and 63.1655 of
the proposed rule to include an enforceable operating limit, such that
the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard's operating
limit if the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more than
five percent of the total operating time in each six-month reporting
period. This supplementary proposal also specifies that each time the
alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions
within one hour of the alarm, one hour of alarm time would be counted.
If the owner or operator takes longer than one hour to initiate
corrective actions, the EPA proposes that alarm time would be counted
as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective actions. If inspection of the fabric filter system
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
would be counted. This supplementary proposal also proposes that owners
and operators be required to continuously record the output from a bag
leak detection system and to maintain these records as specified in
Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
B. Mineral Wool Production NESHAP
This supplement to the proposed rule would enhance the requirements
regarding bag leak detection systems in Sec. 63.1178 of the proposed
rule to include an enforceable operating limit, such that the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard's operating limit if the
alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more than five percent
of the total operating time in each six-month reporting period. Section
63.1178(b)(9) of the proposed rule specifies that a quality improvement
plan (QIP) be developed and implemented when the alarm on a bag leak
detection system sounds for more than five percent of the total
operating time in each six-month reporting period. The EPA determined
that this requirement is not necessary because the proposed enforceable
operating limit would address the EPA's concerns that the fabric filter
be properly operated and maintained, and would help assure that the
emission limit would be met. Accordingly, this supplement to the
proposed rule would delete the proposed requirement for a QIP.
This supplement to the proposed rule also specifies that each time
the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions
within one hour of the alarm, one hour of alarm time would be counted.
If the owner or operator takes longer than one hour to initiate
corrective actions, the EPA proposes that alarm time would be counted
as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective actions. If inspection of the fabric filter system
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
would be counted. This supplementary proposal also proposes that owners
and operators be required to continuously record the output from a bag
leak detection system and to maintain these records as specified in
Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
This supplement to the proposed rule also would require the owner
or operator to conduct a performance evaluation for each temperature
monitoring device that is used to measure and record the operating
temperature of an incinerator that is used to control formaldehyde
emissions from new and existing curing ovens and CO emissions from new
cupolas according to Sec. 63.8(e) of the general provisions in subpart
A of this part. The following requirements are proposed:
(1) The definitions, installation specifications, test procedures,
and data reduction procedures for determining calibration drift,
relative accuracy, and reporting described in sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
9, and 10 of Performance Specification 2 of 40 CFR part 60 appendix B
must be used to conduct the performance evaluation;
(2) the recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature level used to monitor compliance;
(3) the monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed two
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature level used to monitor
compliance;
(4) the monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20
percent; and
(5) the reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and
[[Page 7152]]
Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system, or
an alternate reference system that must be approved by the
Administrator.
The table that specifies which general provisions apply, or do not
apply, to owners and operators subject to the requirements of the
proposed NESHAP is proposed to be revised as necessary to reflect
today's proposed changes.
C. Primary Lead Smelting NESHAP
This supplement to the proposed rule would enhance the requirements
regarding bag leak detection systems in Sec. 63.1547 of the proposed
rule to include an enforceable operating limit, such that the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard's operating limit if the
alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more than five percent
of the total operating time in each six-month reporting period. This
supplementary proposal also specifies that each time the alarm sounds
and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions within one hour
of the alarm, one hour of alarm time would be counted. If the owner or
operator takes longer than one hour to initiate corrective actions, the
EPA proposes that alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of
time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions. If
inspection of the fabric filter system demonstrates that no corrective
actions are necessary, no alarm time would be counted. This
supplementary proposal also proposes that owners and operators be
required to continuously record the output from a bag leak detection
system and to maintain these records as specified in Sec. 63.10 of the
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
This supplement to the proposed rule would enhance the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1386 of the proposed rule for control devices
and process modifications that are used to comply with the PM emission
limits for affected glass-melting furnaces and the formaldehyde
emission limits for affected rotary spin and flame attenuation
manufacturing lines. The proposed standard contains a number of
operating parameters, the monitoring of which helps ensure continuous
compliance with the emission limits through continuous emissions
reductions. Several parameters (those associated with electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs), glass-melting furnaces, and scrubbers, for
instance) must be monitored during and after performance tests, which
demonstrate on a site-specific basis that the source is complying with
the emission limits under certain operating parameter conditions.
Today's action would impose an enforceable operating limit, such that
the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard's operating
limits if the parameter(s) being monitored for a control device or a
process modification deviate from the established limits for more than
five percent of the total operating time, instead of the proposed ten
percent of the total operating time, during each six-month reporting
period.
Today's supplement to the proposed rule also changes the proposed
monitoring requirements for cold top electric furnaces. This
supplementary proposal would require the owner or operator to operate
each cold top electric furnace such that the air temperature, at a
location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the molten glass
surface, does not exceed 120 deg.C (250 deg.F). The proposal does not
specify that the air temperature above the glass melt must be
monitored. The EPA has determined that because, by definition, a cold
top electric furnace is designed and operated so that the air
temperature, at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above
the molten glass surface, does not exceed 120 deg.C (250 deg.F), it is
not necessary to allow cold top electric furnaces to exceed this
temperature for up to five percent of the total operating time in each
six-month reporting period. Based on this proposed revision, a
definition for cold top electric furnace is proposed to be added. The
supplement to the proposed rule specifically requires that the air
temperature above the molten glass surface of a cold top electric
furnace be monitored and that records be maintained. This would not
impose additional burden on the owner or operator since the proposed
rule includes a general requirement to record numerous operating
parameter data. See proposed Sec. 63.1386(d).
Today's action would also enhance the proposed rule's requirements
regarding bag leak detection systems to include an enforceable
operating limit, such that the owner or operator would be in violation
of the standard's operating limit if the alarm on a bag leak detection
system sounds for more than five percent of the total operating time in
each six-month reporting period. The proposed rule specifies that a QIP
be developed and implemented when the alarm on a bag leak detection
system sounds for more than five percent of the total operating time in
each six-month reporting period, or when a monitored control device or
process parameter is outside the level established during the
performance test for more than five percent of the total operating time
in each six-month reporting period. The EPA determined that this
requirement is not necessary because the proposed enforceable operating
limits would address the EPA's concerns that control devices and
manufacturing processes be properly operated and maintained, and would
help assure that the emission limits would be met. Accordingly, this
supplement to the proposed rule would delete the proposed requirement
for a QIP.
This supplement to the proposed rule also specifies that each time
the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions
within one hour of the alarm, one hour of alarm time would be counted.
If the owner or operator takes longer than one hour to initiate
corrective actions, the EPA proposes that alarm time would be counted
as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective actions. If inspection of the fabric filter system
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
would be counted. This supplementary proposal also proposes that owners
and operators be required to continuously record the output from a bag
leak detection system and to maintain these records as specified in
Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
This supplement to the proposed rule also would require the owner
or operator to conduct a performance evaluation for each temperature
monitoring device that is used to measure and record the operating
temperature of an incinerator that is used to control formaldehyde
emissions from rotary spin or flame attenuation manufacturing lines and
for each temperature monitoring device that is used to measure and
record the temperature above the molten glass surface in a cold top
electric furnace according to Sec. 63.8(e) of the general provisions in
subpart A of this part. The following requirements are proposed:
(1) The definitions, installation specifications, test procedures,
and data reduction procedures for determining calibration drift,
relative accuracy, and reporting described in sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
9, and 10 of Performance Specification 2 of 40 CFR part 60 appendix B
must be used to conduct the performance evaluation;
(2) the recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature level used to monitor compliance;
(3) the monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed two
percent of 1.5
[[Page 7153]]
times the average temperature level used to monitor compliance;
(4) the monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20
percent; and
(5) the reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system,
or an alternate reference system that must be approved by the
Administrator.
The table that specifies which general provisions apply, or do not
apply, to owners and operators subject to the requirements of the
proposed NESHAP is proposed to be revised as necessary to reflect
today's proposed changes.
IV. Rationale for Changes to the Proposed Rules
The EPA is proposing the changes to the monitoring provisions of
the proposed rules in conformance with its policy governing monitoring.
When determining appropriate monitoring options for the purpose of
demonstrating continuous compliance, the EPA considers the availability
and feasibility of the following monitoring options in a ``top-down''
fashion: (1) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for the HAP
emitted, (2) CEMS for HAP surrogates, (3) monitoring control device or
process operating parameters, and (4) monitoring work practices. Thus,
where available and feasible, the EPA specifies CEMS for continuous
compliance monitoring of HAPs. This option allows continuous compliance
with the emission limit to be determined directly. Where a CEMS for the
regulated HAP is not available or feasible, the EPA specifies
monitoring a surrogate pollutant with a CEMS or monitoring a control
device or process operating parameter that is relevant to compliance
status. Only when these options are not feasible does the EPA specify
the monitoring of work practice requirements as a means of ensuring
continuous compliance.
When compliance with a HAP or HAP surrogate emission limit cannot
be directly monitored on a continuous basis, the rule generally will
include a control device or process operating limit with which
continuous compliance can be assessed. The operating limit becomes an
enforceable limit of the rule. Section 302(k) of the Act specifically
defines ``emission standard'' and ``emission limitation'' to include
``any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source
to assure continuous emission reduction.'' Monitoring of a control
device or process operating parameter with an enforceable operating
limit helps assure continuous compliance with the emission limit
through continuous emission reduction. The operating limit is a
separately enforceable requirement of the rule and is not secondary to
the emission limit.
By requiring sources to continuously monitor their compliance with
specific control device and process operating parameters and by making
deviations from such operating parameters for more than five percent of
the total operating time in each six-month reporting period a violation
of the operating limit, the monitoring requirements help assure
continuous compliance with the emission limits through continuous
emissions reductions. Likewise, the continuous monitoring of the fabric
filter using a bag leak detection system, and the enforceable five
percent threshold level, will help ensure that the fabric filter is
being operated and maintained properly and thereby helps assure
continuous compliance with the emission limit through continuous
emission reduction. The EPA is proposing the requirement to
continuously record bag leak detection system output to ensure that
data necessary to assess compliance with the newly proposed operating
limit for bag leak detection system alarms would be available. In the
absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to
determine whether the operating limit is being met. The output records
would also provide data necessary to assess the magnitude of the output
level above the alarm set point, and would assist owners and operators
in properly operating and maintaining the fabric filter and in
diagnosing fabric filter upsets. As proposed, an alarm simply indicates
that the set point was exceeded, but it does not relate to the
deviation or magnitude of the output level above the set point.
By requiring that each temperature monitoring device meet certain
performance and equipment specifications, uniformity of requirements
across the affected industry will be achieved. Also, by conducting a
performance evaluation, the EPA can be sure that the temperature
measurements and, therefore, the records being kept by the owner or
operator, are accurate.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is intended to be an organized and complete file of the
administrative records compiled by the EPA. The docket is a dynamic
file because material is added throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that
they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with
the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the docket
will contain the record in case of judicial review. (See section
307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) The location of the dockets, which will
include all public comments received regarding this supplement to the
proposed rules, is in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
preamble.
B. Public Hearing
If a request to speak at a public hearing is received, a public
hearing will be held on this proposal in accordance with section
307(d)(5) of the Act. If a public hearing is held, the EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond
to the presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who
may wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes
each. Any member of the public may file a written statement (see
DATES). Written statements and supporting information will be
considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting
information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held. A
verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements will be
placed in the docket and will be available for public inspection and
copying, or mailed upon request, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).
C. 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 ``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;
[[Page 7154]]
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
D. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of
the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State,
local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of
any written communications from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 12875 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's supplement to the proposed rules does not create a mandate
on State, local or tribal governments. The supplement to the proposed
rules does not impose any enforceable duties on State, local or tribal
governments, because they do not own or operate any sources that would
be subject to this supplement to the proposed rules. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this supplement to the proposed rules.
E. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's supplement to the proposed rules does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No
affected facilities are owned or operated by Indian tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this supplement to the proposed rules.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
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 cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one 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 cost-effective
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 why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small 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 supplement to the proposed rules
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This supplementary
proposal would affect two ferroalloys production facilities, fifteen
mineral wool production facilities, three primary lead smelting
facilities, and twenty-seven wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
The EPA projects that annual economic impacts would be far less than
$100 million. Thus, today's supplement to the proposed rules is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, the EPA has determined that this supplement to the proposed
rules contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it does not impose any
enforceable duties on small governments; such governments own or
operate no sources subject to these proposed rules and therefore would
not be required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of
these proposed rules.
G. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. None of the firms in the ferroalloys production, primary
lead smelting, or wool fiberglass manufacturing industries are small
businesses. The EPA has determined that seven of the ten mineral wool
production firms that potentially would be subject to this supplement
to the proposed rules are small firms. The EPA has met with all of
these small firms and their trade association. Also, a representative
of the
[[Page 7155]]
EPA's Office of the Small Business Ombudsman participated in the
development of the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP proposal as a work
group member to ensure that the requirements of the standards were
examined for potential adverse economic impacts.
Due to the nature of this supplement to the proposed rules, it is
anticipated that there will be very little additional cost associated
with its implementation. Revision of the requirements regarding bag
leak detection systems on fabric filters such that it is a violation of
the operating limit if the alarm sounds for more than five percent of
the total operating time in each six-month reporting period does not
impose any cost on the affected firms. The only additional cost
associated with the proposed requirement to continuously record bag
leak detection system output would be the cost of a data recording
system (e.g., strip chart) and the cost of maintaining the associated
records. Capital and annual costs for a strip chart are estimated to be
$1,500 and $1,550/year, respectively, per bag leak detection system.
The EPA anticipates that no additional cost will result from the
proposed performance evaluation requirements for temperature monitoring
devices because the performance evaluation and calibration requirements
simply provide uniform guidance on how to meet the requirements in the
affected proposed rules to properly calibrate, operate, and maintain
all monitoring devices. Therefore, based on this information, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements associated with each of the
proposed NESHAP were submitted for approval to the OMB under the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. at
proposal. Today's supplement to the proposed rules would require owners
and operators of fabric filters with bag leak detection systems to
continuously record the output from each bag leak detection system. The
annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
requirement (averaged over the first three years after the effective
date of the rule) is estimated to be 32 labor hours per year at a total
annual cost of $880/year per bag leak detection system. This estimate
includes one-time purchase and installation of a data recording system
(e.g., strip chart), and recordkeeping and reporting. Upon promulgation
of each NESHAP, its information collection requirements will be revised
as necessary.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a request for the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers
for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR
chapter 15.
I. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that pollution should
be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. During the
development of the proposed NESHAP, the EPA explored opportunities to
eliminate or reduce emissions through the application of new processes
or work practices. Due to the nature of today's action, there are no
additional opportunities to eliminate or reduce emissions through the
application of new processes or work practices.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7, 1996), the EPA is
required to use voluntary consensus standards in its 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, and business practices) which are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are not used by
the EPA, the NTTAA requires the EPA to provide Congress, through the
OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
Today's action does not put forth any technical standards as part of
the proposed revisions. Therefore, consideration of voluntary consensus
standards was not required.
K. 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 the 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
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
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 Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This supplement to the proposed
rules is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and it is based on technology performance and not on
health or safety risks.
L. Clean Air Act
Pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the Act, the affected NESHAP will
be reviewed eight years from the date of promulgation. This review may
include an evaluation of the residual health risks under section
112(f), any overlap with other programs, the existence of alternative
methods, enforceability, improvements in emission control technology
and health data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Ferroalloys
production, Mineral wool production, Primary lead smelting, Wool
fiberglass manufacturing.
Dated: February 8, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended, as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart DDD--[Amended]
2. Section 63.1178, as proposed at 62 FR 25370 on May 8, 1997, is
amended by revising paragraph (b)(9), by adding new paragraph (b)(10),
and by removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(8) to read
as follows:
[[Page 7156]]
Sec. 63.1178 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the fabric
filter so that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not
sound for more than five percent of the total operating time in a six-
month reporting period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or
operator initiates corrective actions within one hour of the alarm, one
hour of alarm time will be counted. If the owner or operator takes
longer than one hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be
counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to
initiate corrective actions. If inspection of the fabric filter system
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
will be counted; and
(10) The owner or operator shall continuously record the output
from the bag leak detection system.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.1181, as proposed at 62 FR 25370 on May 8, 1997, is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) as
paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(5), and (d)(6) and by adding a new paragraph
(d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1181 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Procedures for properly operating and maintaining each
monitoring device. These procedures must be consistent with the
requirements for continuous monitoring systems in the general
provisions in subpart A of this part and must include a performance
evaluation for each temperature monitoring device according to
Sec. 63.8(e) of the general provisions. The following requirements must
be met:
(i) The definitions, installation specifications, test procedures,
and data reduction procedures for determining calibration drift,
relative accuracy, and reporting described in sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
9, and 10 of Performance Specification 2 of 40 CFR part 60 appendix B
must be used to conduct the performance evaluation.
(ii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times
the average temperature identified in Sec. 63.1179(b)(5) of this
subpart.
(iii) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed two
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature identified in
Sec. 63.1179(b)(5) of this subpart.
(iv) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20
percent.
(v) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system,
or an alternate reference system that must be approved by the
Administrator.
* * * * *
4. Appendix B to Subpart DDD, as proposed at 62 FR 25370 on May 8,
1997, is amended by revising the entries ``63.8(a)(2),'' ``63.8(d),''
``63.8(e),'' ``63.10(c)(6),'' and ``63.10(c)(14),'' by removing the
entries ``63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8),'' ``63.9(g),'' and ``63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2),''
and by adding the entries ``63.8(c)(4),'' ``63.8(c)(5),'' ``63.8(c)(6)-
(c)(8),'' ``63.9(g)(1),'' ``63.9(g)(2)-(g)(3),'' ``63.10(e)(1),''
``63.10(e)(2)(i),'' and ``63.10(e)(2)(ii)'' to read as follows:
Appendix B To Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
63.8(a)(2)........................... ..................... Yes....................
* * * * * *
*
63.8(c)(4)........................... ..................... Yes....................
63.8(c)(5)........................... ..................... No..................... Subpart DDD does not
require COMS.
63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8).................... ..................... Yes....................
63.8(d).............................. Quality Control........ Yes....................
63.8(e).............................. CMS Performance Yes....................
Evaluation.
* * * * * *
*
63.9(g)(1)........................... Additional CMS Yes....................
Notifications.
63.9(g)(2)-(g)(3).................... ..................... No..................... Subpart DDD does not
require COMS or CEMs.
* * * * * *
*
63.10(c)(6).......................... ..................... Yes....................
* * * * * *
*
63.10(c)(14)......................... ..................... Yes....................
* * * * * *
*
63.10(e)(1).......................... Additional CMS Reports. No..................... Subpart DDD does not
require CEMS.
63.10(e)(2)(i)....................... ..................... Yes....................
63.10(e)(2)(ii)...................... ..................... No..................... Subpart DDD does not
require COMS.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart NNN--[Amended]
5. Section 63.1381, as proposed at 62 FR 15228 on March 31, 1997,
is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Cold
top electric furnace'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cold top electric furnace means an all-electric glass-melting
furnace that
[[Page 7157]]
operates with a temperature of 120 deg.C (250 deg.F) or less as
measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the
molten glass surface.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1386, as proposed at 62 FR 15228 on March 31, 1997,
is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(9), (c)(3), (d)(3), (d)(4),
(e)(4), (f)(1), (h)(3), and (i)(3), by removing paragraphs (c)(4),
(e)(5), (h)(4), and (i)(4), and by adding new paragraph (b)(10) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1386 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the baghouse
such that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound for
more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator
initiates corrective actions within one hour of the alarm, one hour of
alarm time will be counted. If the owner or operator takes longer than
one hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate
corrective actions. If inspection of the baghouse demonstrates that no
corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted.
(10) The owner or operator shall continuously record the output
from the bag leak detection system.
(c) * * *
(3) The owner or operator shall operate the ESP such that the
monitored ESP parameter(s) is not outside the limit(s) established
during the performance test for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(d) * * *
(3) The owner or operator shall operate each glass-melting furnace,
which uses no add-on controls and which is not a cold top electric
furnace, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(4)(i) The owner or operator shall operate each cold top electric
furnace such that the temperature does not exceed 120 deg.C (250
deg.F) as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches)
above the molten glass surface.
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance evaluation
for each temperature monitoring device according to Sec. 63.8(e) of the
general provisions. The definitions, installation specifications, test
procedures, and data reduction procedures for determining calibration
drift, relative accuracy, and reporting described in Performance
Specification 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,
and 10 must be used to conduct the evaluation. The temperature
monitoring device must meet the following performance and equipment
specifications:
(A) The recorder response range must include zero and 180 deg.C
(375 deg.F).
(B) The monitoring system calibration drift shall not exceed 2
percent of 180 deg.C (375 deg.F).
(C) The monitoring system relative accuracy shall not exceed 20
percent.
(D) The reference system shall be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system
or an alternate reference, subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
(e) * * *
(4) The owner or operator shall operate each glass-melting furnace
such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent,
the average glass pull rate established during the performance test for
more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period.
(f)(1)(i) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to control
formaldehyde emissions from forming or curing shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures
and records the operating temperature in the firebox of each
incinerator.
(ii) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance evaluation
for each temperature monitoring device according to Sec. 63.8(e) of the
general provisions. The definitions, installation specifications, test
procedures, and data reduction procedures for determining calibration
drift, relative accuracy, and reporting described in Performance
Specification 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,
and 10 must be used to conduct the evaluation. The temperature
monitoring device must meet the following performance and equipment
specifications:
(A) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature identified in Sec. 63.1385(a)(12).
(B) The monitoring system calibration drift shall not exceed 2
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature identified in
Sec. 63.1387(a)(9).
(C) The monitoring system relative accuracy shall not exceed 20
percent.
(D) The reference system shall be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system
or an alternate reference, subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
* * * * *
(h)* * *
(3) The owner or operator shall operate the process such that the
monitored process parameter(s) is not outside the limit(s) established
during the performance test for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(i)* * *
(3) The owner or operator shall operate each scrubber such that
each monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during
the performance test for more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month block reporting period.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.1389, as proposed at 62 FR 15228 on March 31, 1997,
is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2)(ix), by removing the word ``and''
at the end of paragraph (e)(2)(vii), and by removing the period at the
end of paragraph (e)(2)(viii) and adding in its place ``; and'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1389 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) The temperature 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above
the molten glass surface for each cold top electric furnace that is not
equipped with an add-on control device for PM emissions control
including any period when the temperature exceeds 120 deg.C (250
deg.F) and a brief explanation of the cause of the exceedance and the
corrective action taken.
8. Table 1 to Subpart NNN, as proposed at 62 FR 15228 on March 31,
1997, is amended by removing the entries ``63.8(c),'' ``63.9(g),'' and
``63.10(e)(1)-(e)(3),'' and by adding the entries ``63.8(c)(1)-
(c)(4),'' ``63.8(c)(5),'' ``63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8),'' ``63.9(g)(1),''
``63.9(g)(2)-(g)(3),'' ``63.10(e)(1),'' ``63.10(e)(2)(i),''
``63.10(e)(2)(ii),'' and ``63.10(e)(3)'' to read as follows:
[[Page 7158]]
Table 1 to Subpart NNN--Applicability of General Provisions
[40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A to SUBPART NNN]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
63.8(c)(1)-(c)(4).................... CMS Operation/ Yes....................
Maintenance.
63.8(c)(5)........................... ....................... No..................... Subpart NNN does not
require COMS.
63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8).................... ....................... Yes....................
* * * * *
63.9(g)(1)........................... Additional CMS Yes....................
Notifications.
63.9(g)(2)-(g)(3).................... ....................... No..................... Subpart NNN does not
require COMS or CEMS.
* * * * *
63.10(e)(1).......................... Additional CMS Reports. No..................... Subpart NNN does not
require CEMS.
63.10(e)(2)(i)....................... ....................... Yes....................
63.10(e)(2)(ii)...................... ....................... No..................... Subpart NNN does not
require COMS.
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes....................
Reports.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart TTT--[AMENDED]
9. Section 63.147, as proposed at 63 FR 19200 on April 17, 1998, is
amended by adding new paragraphs (e)(9) and (e)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1547 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(9) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the fabric
filter so that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not
sound for more than five percent of the total operating time in a six-
month reporting period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or
operator initiates corrective actions within one hour of the alarm, one
hour of alarm time will be counted. If the owner or operator takes
longer than one hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be
counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to
initiate corrective actions. If inspection of the fabric filter system
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time
will be counted.
(10) The owner or operator shall continuously record the output
from the bag leak detection system.
* * * * *
Subpart XXX--[Amended]
10. Section 63.1625, as proposed at 63 FR 41508 on August 4, 1998,
is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(4)(viii) and (a)(4)(ix) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1625 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(viii) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
baghouse so that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not
sound for more than five percent of the total operating time in a six-
month reporting period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or
operator initiates corrective actions within one hour of the alarm, one
hour of alarm time will be counted. If the owner or operator takes
longer than one hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be
counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to
initiate corrective actions. If inspection of the baghouse demonstrates
that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be
counted.
(ix) The owner or operator shall continuously record the output
from the bag leak detection system.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-3531 Filed 2-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
