[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31351-31361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14856]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5836-2]
RIN 2060-AG33
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Standards of
Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates revisions and clarifications to
several provisions of the standards of performance for nonmetallic
mineral processing plants, which were proposed in the Federal Register
on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33415). This action presents the final
revisions to the applicability, definitions, test methods and
procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the
standards, and the basis for those revisions. The affected industries
and numerical emission limits remain unchanged.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 1997. See the Supplementary Information section
concerning judicial review.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-95-46, containing information
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated revisions to
the new source performance standards (NSPS) is available for public
inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548, fax (202) 260-4000. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Neuffer at (919) 541-5435,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by EPA's final action on this
promulgated rule are new, modified, or reconstructed affected
facilities in nonmetallic mineral processing plants that process any of
the 18 nonmetallic minerals listed in Table 1.
[[Page 31352]]
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity category Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial............................ Crushed and broken stone, sand
and gravel, clay, rock salt,
gypsum, sodium compounds,
pumice, gilsonite, talc and
pyrophyllite, boron, barite,
fluorospar, feldspar,
diatomite, perlite,
vermiculite, mica, and kyanite
processing plants.
Federal............................... Same as above
Government............................
State/Local/.......................... Same as above
Tribal................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions of this final rule apply to the following affected
facilities at fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral processing plants:
each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt
conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, enclosed truck or railcar
loading station. To determine whether your facility is regulated by
this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 60.670 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the final
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the revised requirements that are the subject of today's notice
may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by
the EPA to enforce these requirements.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background and Public Participation
II. Comments and Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS
A. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS
B. Responses to Comments
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
C. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
1. Paperwork Reduction Act
2. Executive Order 12866
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
I. Background and Public Participation
Standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral processing plants
were promulgated in the Federal Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR
31328). These standards implement section 111 of the Clean Air Act and
require all new, modified, and reconstructed nonmetallic mineral
processing plants to achieve emission levels that reflect the best
demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction, considering
costs, nonair quality health, and environmental and energy impacts.
On January 26, 1995, the National Stone Association (NSA)
petitioned the EPA, pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the
Administrative Procedures Act, to review the existing NSPS for
nonmetallic mineral processing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO). In
its petition, the NSA and its member companies requested the EPA to
review and consider revising, in particular, the provisions in the NSPS
that pertain to the test methods and procedures. Also, the NSA
requested that several of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
be reduced or eliminated.
Before proposal of the amendments to the NSPS, meetings were held
with representatives of several companies regulated under the NSPS for
nonmetallic mineral processing plants and the NSA to discuss potential
changes to the NSPS (subpart OOO). The EPA also received input from
representatives of State and local environmental agencies before the
proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register.
The amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for
nonmetallic mineral processing plants were proposed on June 27, 1996
(61 FR 33415). The public comment period ended on August 26, 1996.
Industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and environmental
groups had the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions and to
provide additional information during the public comment period that
followed proposal. A public hearing was offered at proposal to provide
interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation of data,
views, or arguments concerning the proposed amended rule. However, no
one requested a hearing and, therefore, no hearing was held. Forty-
three comment letters were received. The commenters included industry,
one national and several State trade associations, several State
regulatory agencies, and one environmental consultant. These comments
were considered and, today's final amended rule reflects consideration
of these comments. The public comments that were received along with
EPA's responses to the comments on the proposed amended rule are
summarized in this preamble. The summary of comments and responses
serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the final
amended rule between proposal and promulgation. The following section
discusses changes made as a result of public comments on the proposed
amendments to the NSPS. A more detailed discussion of comments and
responses is contained in the docket (Docket No. A-95-46; Item V-C-1.)
II. Comments and Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS
A. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS
There was general support for the amendments which reduced or
eliminated several of the paperwork requirements on the industry,
greatly reduced the costs of emission testing without sacrificing air
quality, provided a table specifying the applicability of subpart A
(General Provisions for part 60) to subpart OOO affected facilities,
and clarified that facilities located in underground mines are not
subject to the NSPS. The commenters requested further clarification of
the applicability of the NSPS to certain operations, additional
reductions in the Method 9 test duration for certain affected
facilities, and further reductions in the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The following is a summary of the changes made to the proposed
revisions as a result of EPA's evaluation of the public comments. Some
of these changes are clarifications of EPA's original intent. The
rationale for these changes is discussed in section II.B.
1. Section 60.670, Applicability and designation of affected
facility, is revised:
(a) To clarify the original intent of the NSPS that stand-alone
screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding mills are
not subject to the NSPS;
(b) To clarify the original intent of the NSPS that crushers and
grinding mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of
nonmetallic minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement, and
subsequent affected facilities in the production line up to, but not
including, the first storage silo or bin are subject to the NSPS; and
(c) To remove the exemption of wet screening and associated belt
conveyors from all provisions of this subpart
[[Page 31353]]
except reporting and recordkeeping because these sources are subject to
all provisions of this subpart except for Method 9 opacity tests.
2. Section 60.671, Definitions, is revised to add a definition of
wet mining operation and to make minor changes in the proposed
definition of wet screening operation.
3. Section 60.672, Standard for particulate matter, is revised to
require no visible emissions from
(a) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in the production line that
process saturated materials up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or
storage bin in the production line;
(b) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage
bin in the production line.
4. Section 60.675, Test methods and procedures, is revised:
(a) To exempt from the initial requirement in Sec. 60.11 for Method
9 emission testing;
(i) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in the production line that
process saturated materials up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or
storage bin in the production line;
(ii) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage
bin in the production line.
(b) To correct typographical error in paragraph (b).
(c) To allow crushers without emission capture systems to reduce
the duration of Method 9 observations of fugitive emissions for
compliance from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-
minute averages) if there are no individual readings greater than 15
percent opacity and there are no more than 3 readings of 15 percent for
the first 1-hour period.
(d) To add wording to clarify that if qualifying conditions are not
met by affected facilities subject to applicable fugitive emission
limits, then 3 hours, rather than 1 hour, of Method 9 testing would be
required to determine compliance.
5. Section 60.676, Reporting and recordkeeping, is revised:
(a) To require that both the address of the home office and the
current address/location of the portable aggregate plant be included in
the notification of the actual date of initial startup;
(b) To require the reporting within 30 days of any affected
facility that changes the saturated or unsaturated nature of the
material being processed. The affected facility is then subject to the
provisions of the standard applicable to the type of material being
processed.
B. Responses to Comments
Several commenters remarked that the proposed changes to the rule
were an important milestone in EPA's partnering efforts with the
regulated community to help reduce the administrative burden of subpart
OOO while maintaining protection of the health and welfare of the
general public.
The comments, the issues they address, and the EPA's responses to
comments are presented in the following sections according to the
following topics: (1) Applicability; (2) Definitions; (3) Standard for
Particulate Matter; (4) Test Methods and Procedures; and (5) Reporting
and Recordkeeping.
1. Applicability
(a) Comment. One commenter disagreed with the Agency's
clarification to exempt nonmetallic mineral processing facilities
located in underground mines from subpart OOO.
Response. Underground mining operations will continue to be
exempted from this regulation. As stated in the preamble to the
proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for
nonmetallic mineral processing plants, this regulation does not apply
to facilities located in underground mines because emissions from
crushers or other facilities in underground mines are vented in the
general mine exhaust and cannot be distinguished from emissions from
drilling and blasting operations which are not covered by the
regulation. In addition, a response to a comment in the background
information document for the original promulgated standards (EPA-450/3-
83-001b, April 1985, page 2-44) stated specifically that mining
operations are not covered under the proposed or final standards for
nonmetallic mineral processing plants.
(b) Comment. Four commenters were concerned whether ``wet mining
operations'' and subsequent processing of the mineral material should
be subject to this NSPS. Two of these commenters requested EPA to
include wet dredging operations/equipment in the definition of ``wet
screening operation'' to exempt those operations from all NSPS
requirements except for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
One of the two commenters suggested that the equipment exemption
include all screening, crushing and transfer operations (conveyors)
associated with dredging operations up to, but not including, the next
crusher, grinding mill or dry screening operation in the production
line of the plant. According to the commenter, fugitive dust emissions
from wet dredging operations have never been recorded during any site
visit by this State agency.
One of the previously mentioned commenters requested that overland
conveyor systems that are transporting sand and gravel that has been
mined below the water table be exempted from testing requirements. An
alternative performance testing program for these field conveyor
systems previously approved by an EPA Regional Office was recommended.
This alternative testing program consisted of reducing the Method 9
testing from 3 hours to 1 hour; conducting the Method 9 test at the
first and last transfer points in a series of transfer points; and
waiving the performance test for all intermediate transfer points if no
visible emissions are observed at the first and last transfer points.
Another commenter requested an exemption from emission testing
requirements or total exemption for facilities, such as sand and
gravel, dredge, and marine limestone, that mine and process a ``wet''
product with an inherent natural moisture content that does not have
the potential to create emissions. This commenter stated that many
State agencies already offer testing exemptions for these types of
facilities.
Another commenter suggested adding a definition of ``wet mining
operation'' in the regulation and revising the rule to exempt
operations at mining facilities that extract limestone, dolomite or
sand and gravel from deposits below the water table and saturated with
water except for reporting requirements.
Response. The EPA has considered these comments and agrees that
there is no potential for emissions from belt conveyors transporting
nonmetallic minerals that are saturated with water. Also, there is no
potential for emissions from other processes such as screens and bucket
elevators that handle nonmetallic minerals that are saturated with
water. Therefore, belt conveyors, screening operations and bucket
elevators that process materials saturated with water from wet mining
operations up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or stockpile in the
production line are exempted from the initial Method 9 performance
testing under Sec. 60.11 but are required to have no visible emissions
from these sources.
[[Page 31354]]
The no visible emission standard would allow plant and enforcement
officials to verify that the materials being processed were indeed
saturated with water.
If an affected facility that processes saturated material later
processes unsaturated material, a report of this change shall be sent
to EPA within 30 days of this change. Also, this affected facility
becomes subject to the Method 9 opacity test requirements of this
subpart and the 10 percent opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b).
As recommended by the last mentioned commenter, a definition of
``Wet mining operation'' has been added to ``Definitions'' in
Sec. 60.671 to identify which affected facilities are exempt from
Method 9 emission testing. To assure no emissions are possible, the
definition will state that the nonmetallic mineral must be saturated.
Crushers reduce the size of the process material and in so doing
increase the surface area of the material being processed. This crushed
material then has new surfaces which are not saturated and have the
potential to create air emissions. Therefore, crushers at dredging
operations are not exempt.
(c) Comment. A commenter requested clarification whether the NSPS
applies to stand-alone screening operations at plants without any
crushers.
Response. The commenter is correct that EPA did not intend to
regulate stand-alone screening operations at plants that have no
crushers. Subpart OOO affected facilities begin with the initial
crushing or grinding operation at the plant. Plants that do not employ
crushing or grinding, by definition, are not considered nonmetallic
mineral processing plants and thus are not subject to subpart OOO.
(d) Comment. One commenter supported the proposed exemption of wet
screening operations and associated conveyors and recommended that the
wet screening exemption be expanded to include all pieces of equipment
where the use of water is necessary to the operation of the process,
such as pugmills. Another commenter believed that the term ``dry'' in
the definition of wet screening operation was confusing because a
screen operated downstream from a wash screen will handle material that
is saturated by the wash process. Also, another commenter recommended
that the wet screening operations and associated downstream conveyors
exemption be expanded to include loadout bins and other wet process
operations.
Response. Equipment other than crushers and grinding mills where
the use of water may be necessary to the operation, such as pugmills
used for reblending of materials at the end of the process, are not
affected facilities and therefore not subject to subpart OOO.
Therefore, no further change has been made to expand the wet screening
exemption as requested by the first-mentioned commenter.
Screening is the process by which material is separated according
to size. Screening may be performed either wet or dry. Wet screening
where the product is saturated with water removes material from the
product, such as silt, clay, grit, etc., or separates marketable fines
by a washing process and there is no potential for air emissions.
Wet screening operations, which use a washing process, and
subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors
up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or storage bin are also exempt
from Method 9 initial performance tests per Sec. 60.11 and are required
to meet a no visible emissions standard. To assure there is no
potential for emissions from these operations following the wet
screens, the material that is being processed is required to be
saturated. The no visible emission standard is a means for both plant
and enforcement personnel to verify that the material being processed
is indeed saturated.
If an affected facility processes saturated material later
processes unsaturated material, a report of this change shall be sent
to EPA within 30 days of this change. Also, this affected facility
becomes subject to the Method 9 opacity test requirements of this
subpart and the opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b).
(e) Comment. A commenter requested clarification as to whether
recycled asphalt operations are covered under the NSPS. The commenter
attached a memo from an EPA Region which stated that during a visit to
a recycled asphalt facility, nonmetallic minerals of two to three
inches within the recycled asphalt were being crushed to less than half
an inch. The Region stated if the nonmetallic mineral is crushed or
ground by a recycled asphalt crusher, the crusher would be subject to
this NSPS.
Response. The EPA concurs with this determination as this is the
intent of the rule. A new, modified or reconstructed asphalt crusher or
grinding mill that reduces the size of a nonmetallic mineral embedded
in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected facilities up to,
but not including, the storage silo or bin at a hot mix asphalt
facility are subject to subpart OOO. A sentence has been added to
Sec. 60.670 Applicability that such a crusher or grinding mill is
subject to this NSPS.
2. Definitions
(a) Comment. Three commenters fully supported the Agency's
exemption of wet screening operations, except for reporting and
recordkeeping from the NSPS, but requested that the definition of ``wet
screening operation'' be revised to remove the term ``completely'' in
the definition because they believe it gives the connotation that the
rock is wet throughout and because the term is subject to various
interpretations by industry and regulatory personnel. In addition, one
commenter requested that the Agency change the term ``unwanted material
to ``fines'' in the definition. Quite often the ``unwanted material,''
or fines, that are washed from the rock surface on a washing screen are
collected and sold as a natural or manufactured sand or other
marketable product. Also, one commenter suggested that the definition
of wet screening operation be changed to a definition of ``wet
process'' to include other wet process operations such as log washers,
classifiers, sand screws, pugmills, belt presses, and dewatering
screens. However, if this change is not made, then he recommended
further defining the terms ``saturated'' and ``unwanted material'' to
avoid numerous interpretation conflicts.
Response. After review and consideration of these comments, the EPA
has decided to make changes in the definition of ``wet screening
operation.'' The term ``completely'' has been deleted from the
definition. ``Saturated'' is defined as ``to soak or load to capacity''
and therefore the term ``completely'' is not necessary to convey the
intent. Also, the revised definition includes the separation of
marketable fines and now more closely describes the types of screening
operations in the wet/wash end of a nonmetallic minerals processing
plant without changing the original intent of the definition. It is not
necessary to define ``unwanted material'' in the definition, which
could include silt, grit, etc., as requested.
``Wet screening operation'' is the appropriate term to be defined,
not ``wet process'' as suggested by one of the commenters. The other
processes cited are not affected facilities and therefore are not
subject to this NSPS. As stated in the preamble to the proposed
amendments, there is no potential for air emissions from either
screening or conveying operations in the wash process.
3. Test Methods and Procedures
(a) Comment. Several commenters maintained that the cost of dual
compliance tests for both the stack
[[Page 31355]]
emission limit and stack opacity standard was prohibitive to the
industry and requested that Method 9 testing be the sole test for
compliance of any affected facility. In addition, another commenter
disagreed with the dual stack emission testing of particulate and
opacity which he believes greatly increases the testing costs with no
data to support the environmental benefits.
Response. This NSPS requires an initial performance test to measure
the concentration of particulate matter in stack emissions for each
affected facility because the EPA has found that facilities with
similar control devices may not have the same emissions characteristics
due to variables in the processes, process operating conditions, and
control system design, installation, and operation. Because of this
variability, performance tests are necessary to demonstrate the
capability of each facility to meet the PM emission limit. The stack
opacity test is used as a continuing compliance tool during any
subsequent inspections by State and local air pollution agency
personnel. During the development of this NSPS, the cost of performance
testing was estimated and found to be reasonable and no new data was
submitted by the commenter.
(b) Comment. Two national trade associations and one State trade
association stated that many nonmetallic mineral producers that use
enclosed aggregate storage bins often have more than one of these bins
ducted to a fabric filter collection system and requested that the NSPS
require only Method 9 testing for single fabric filter systems that
control emissions from more than one enclosed storage bin.
Response. As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments to
the NSPS, Method 5 testing cannot be performed for baghouses that only
control emissions from individual, enclosed storage bins due to very
low air flows from individual, enclosed storage bins. However, if
emissions from multiple storage bins are ducted to a single fabric
collection system, the air flow is high enough for Method 5 testing,
accordingly, the combined emissions are subject to both Method 5 stack
emission testing and Method 9 opacity testing for determining
compliance. This requirement is specified in Sec. 60.672(g).
(c) Comment. A commenter referred to the original proposed rule for
subpart OOO that was published on August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39574), which
stated that ``Performance tests would not be required for fugitive
emission sources.'' Fugitive emissions as defined in that proposal
include emissions from crushers, conveyors, and screens that have no
capture system. According to the commenter, neither the current rule
nor the proposed amended rule for subpart OOO contain language that
would require performance testing immediately after startup for
fugitive emission sources. According to the commenter, Secs. 60.675 (b)
and (c) explain only how to determine compliance for the fugitive
emission limitations, not that performance testing is required. The
State agency requested that the wording, and true intent, of subpart
OOO be clarified so as to explicitly state whether performance testing
for fugitive emissions is required.
Response. The intent of subpart OOO is to require initial
compliance testing for fugitive emissions from applicable affected
facilities. The commenter referred to the statement in the proposed
rule published on August 31, 1983 at page 48 FR 39574. This statement
was in regard to performance tests by Method 5, which are not
applicable to fugitive emission sources. It was not intended to exempt
fugitive emission sources from initial compliance using Method 9 or
Method 22 as appropriate.
Section 60.8 of the General Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 requires
performance testing for affected facilities in each subpart
(regulation) and Sec. 60.11 contains requirements for compliance with
opacity standards. Each subpart specifies the applicable test methods
and any additional test procedures or exemptions specific to the
affected facility being regulated. The test methods and procedures for
affected facilities under subpart OOO, Sec. 60.675, require performance
tests on fugitive emission sources. This is also indicated by the
General Provisions requirements which are included in Table 1 of
Sec. 60.670 in these amendments to this NSPS. This Table has been added
to make clear in the regulation itself the requirements of this NSPS.
(d) Comment. There was total support in the public comments for the
proposed reduction of visible emission testing from 3 hours to 1 hour
(subject to the level of visible emissions observed during the first
hour) for fugitive emission sources. However, one commenter stated that
since crushers without capture systems are allowed 15 percent opacity,
a 3-hour test should not be required if three 10 percent opacity
readings are observed in the first hour. The commenter asserted that a
crusher operating uniformly at 5 percent opacity with several 10
percent puffs or constantly at 10 percent is well within compliance.
Several commenters also strongly believe that affected facilities
should be allowed to demonstrate compliance during the 1-hour test with
the existing opacity limits that are applicable for each affected
facility, i.e., 15 percent for crushers at which a capture system is
not used and 10 percent for other affected facilities as required in
the NSPS.
Response. The proposed revised rule did not change the existing 15
percent opacity limit for crushers without capture systems as
interpreted by several of the commenters, nor did the proposed revised
rule allow the Method 9 test reduction from 3 hours to 1 hour for these
crushers. However, the EPA's review of visible emission data submitted
by a State agency for crushers without capture systems showed that
these crushers generally had no emissions during 1-hour Method 9
observations. The visible emission data was from crushers using wet
suppression and from screens and conveyor transfer points without
capture systems. The test data showed 3 crushers with all Method 9
readings at 0 percent and 1 crusher with a few readings at 5 percent; 1
conveyor (prior to crushing) test showed several readings at 10 percent
and some at 15 percent. Therefore, based on this test data, the Method
9 emission test period for crushers without capture systems is reduced
from 3 hours to 1 hour to demonstrate compliance with the 15 percent
fugitive emissions limit if there are no individual readings greater
than 15 percent opacity and there are no more than 3 readings of 15
percent for the first 1-hour period. If these qualifying conditions are
not met during the first hour, then testing of crushers without capture
systems would be required for 3 hours.
(e) Comment. According to one commenter, the proposed revisions
fail to specify what an inspector or industry personnel must do to
demonstrate compliance if visible emissions are seen using Method 22
outside a building which does not comply with Sec. 60.672(e). The
commenter stated that the inspector must enter the building in these
cases. As an example, the commenter cited an incident that took place
after promulgation of the original rule in which an EPA inspector found
it impossible to read opacity inside a building located at a rock
crushing plant due to the lack of proper visibility. The commenter
stated that in some cases there was no room for an inspector to enter,
much less read the opacity from affected facilities. The commenter also
referred to OSHA rules which define such structures as confined spaces
and caution against exposing personnel to
[[Page 31356]]
such dangers. The commenter recommended that if visible emissions are
seen outside the building and it is unsafe to enter the building then
Method 9 readings should be taken outside the building. The recommended
opacity limit would be the same as allowed under Sec. 60.672 (b) or
(c).
Response. The commenter was concerned that the original rule failed
to address what must be done if the visible emission requirements that
apply to emissions observed outside the building are not met. Section
60.672(e)(standard for particulate matter) clearly states that
compliance is shown by complying with either Sec. 60.672 (a), (b) and
(c) or by complying with Sec. 60.672(e). Also, the requirements are
discussed in the preamble for the final rule published on August 1,
1985; at 50 FR 31333 and 31334. Accordingly, no change is required to
the regulation.
This NSPS is a national standard and it is impossible to prepare a
regulation that addresses every possible situation. This NSPS gives
industry flexibility by giving them the option of complying with
Sec. 60.672(e) or with Sec. 60.672 (a), (b) and (c). Section 60.672(e)
allows no visible emissions from a building except from a vent.
Emission limits from a vent are the same as for any stack emissions;
0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity. Thus, by complying with
Sec. 60.672(e) no one is required to enter the building. Sections
60.672 (a),(b) and (c) limit the stack emissions as mentioned above as
well as setting Method 9 opacity limits for fugitive emissions from
individual affected facilities. If Method 9 limits are set for the
building as suggested by the commenter, there is the potential of
allowing dilution air to be added to general building ventilation.
Also, the Method 9 opacity limits for fugitive emissions as shown in
Secs. 60.672 (b) and (c) are based on emission test data obtained while
observing emissions from individual affected facilities such as
crushers and belt conveyors and not from buildings containing these
affected facilities. Therefore, there will be no change made to the
proposed revisions based on this comment.
(f) Comment. One commenter recommended waiving the Method 9 opacity
compliance testing requirement for screens and conveyor transfer points
subject to this NSPS pursuant to Sec. 60.8(b)(4) of the General
Provisions, subpart A (which waives the requirement for performance
tests because an owner or operator has demonstrated compliance to EPA
by other means). The commenter based this request on more than 80
emissions evaluations performed at nonmetallic mineral processing
plants during the past nine years which demonstrate that these affected
facilities are in compliance with the opacity standard for fugitive
emissions. If a waiver of the initial testing requirement is not
granted, it was suggested that the cut-off point as applied to the
testing requirement for 3 hours of testing be 50 percent of the largest
applicable federally enforceable opacity standard.
A Regional Air Pollution Control Agency provided copies of a number
of actual Method 9 observation sheets that illustrated their experience
of gathering mostly ``zeros'' when conducting the subpart OOO visible
emission readings and offered these as corroboration that the proposed
Method 9 testing reduction from 3 hours to 1 hour, if there is not a
visible emission problem, should be promulgated. The visible emission
data were from crushers using wet suppression and from screens and
conveyor transfer points.
Response. With regard to the first comment, the EPA does not
believe that a waiver of the initial compliance testing requirement for
screening operations and conveyor transfer points is justified under
Sec. 60.8(b)(4). A Method 9 performance test is only required one time
(initially) under the regulation. This performance test is necessary to
demonstrate that the capture system is properly designed, installed and
operated to comply with this NSPS. The emission test data submitted by
the local agency support the use of this performance test. As to the
suggestion that the cut-off point for requiring 3 hours of testing be
50 percent of the largest applicable federally enforceable opacity
standard, the EPA believes that the proposed qualifying conditions in
Sec. 60.675(d) (no reading greater than 10 percent or 3 readings equal
to 10 percent) are more appropriate since these were based on several
emission tests submitted by industry and air pollution control
agencies. No emission test data were submitted by the commenter.
(g) Comment. A commenter requested further consideration of
alternate testing procedures for periodic operations such as enclosed
storage bins and loadout stations. The commenter provided procedures
approved previously by an EPA Regional Office and requested that these
procedures be incorporated into the final rule. The EPA Regional Office
agreed that if a storage tank's baghouse exhaust is in compliance with
this NSPS by using Method 9, Method 5 particulate emission testing
would not be required. Also the EPA Regional Office approved Method 9
testing that was conducted over two or three loading cycles of the
product storage tank in lieu of 3 hours of Method 9 observations. For
truck loadout stations, 30 minutes of visible emission testing were
allowed.
Response. As noted by the commenter, the proposed amended rule,
60.672(f), requires individual, enclosed storage bins to only comply
with the opacity standard. Also, the testing period has been reduced
from three hours to one hour. Section 60.8(b) of the General Provisions
allows the use of alternatives to performance testing based on the
review and approval by EPA of relevant supporting information. The
supporting data and information in requests for alternative testing are
evaluated for approval by EPA on a case-by-case basis. Even though
these alternate testing procedures that reduced the duration of Method
9 testing were approved by EPA under certain conditions for certain
affected facilities, no emission test data were submitted to warrant
incorporating these changes into the final rule for regulating such
affected facilities throughout the entire industry.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
(a) Comment. Several commenters were opposed to the requirement
under Sec. 60.4(a) of the General Provisions that all notifications,
reports, etc. be sent in duplicate to both the EPA Regional Office and
one copy to the State regulatory agency, provided the State has been
delegated authority for the NSPS. Also, the commenters recommended that
if the State has been delegated authority for this NSPS, notifications,
reports, etc. should only be sent to the States. According to the
commenters, for those States not delegated NSPS authority,
notifications and correspondence should be sent only to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office.
Response. The submittals of duplicate copies of notifications,
reports, etc. to the EPA Regional Offices and a copy to State agencies
with delegated authority are needed so that both groups can keep track
of this NSPS.
The commenters are correct that if a State has not been delegated
authority; notifications, reports, etc. are required to be sent only to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
(b) Comment. One commenter suggested that EPA consider the use of
fax or telephone notifications to States of the date of actual
construction and initial start-up.
Response. On September 11, 1996 (61 FR 47840), revisions to the
General Provisions, subpart A, 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, were
proposed allowing the use of electronic notifications if
[[Page 31357]]
approved by the relevant permitting authority.
(c) Comment. One commenter supported the proposed revision that
allowed a single notification for the actual date of initial startup
for multiple affected facilities that plan to begin initial startup
simultaneously (on the same day), in circumstances where, due to delays
and the time required to install the affected facilities, startup of
every affected facilities does not occur at the same time. Due to these
different startup times, the commenter requested a single notification
of startup for all affected facilities that startup within a 30-day
timeframe.
Response. If a 30-day window were allowed, sufficient prior
notification to the State or local agencies for the first affected
facilities that commence operations would not be provided. Companies
that choose to submit a single notification of initial startup for
multiple affected facilities must do appropriate planning to avoid such
simultaneous equipment installation delays. If such equipment
installation delays cannot be avoided, then a notification of initial
startup for each affected facility is required. Accordingly, a change
to accommodate this request is not appropriate.
(d) Comment. One commenter requested that the Agency eliminate the
notification in subpart A, General Provisions, Sec. 60.7(a)(1), of the
date of when construction commences of an affected facility (postmarked
no later than 30 days after construction commences) because the company
did not believe it served any useful purpose.
Response. The requirement under the General Provisions,
Sec. 60.7(a)(1), for an owner or operator to notify the EPA or State
agencies of the date of construction of an affected facility is
necessary for tracking purposes and enforcement. The EPA or State
agencies enforcing the standards have to track, or keep records of, new
equipment at both new plants and capacity expansions at existing
plants. Administrative reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
these standards are similar to those for other NSPS.
(e) Comment. One commenter suggested that under Sec. 60.676(i), the
current address/location be included in the notification of the actual
date of initial startup of each affected facility. Many aggregate
processing plants are portable, and are routinely moved from place-to-
place. In the past, this has led to confusion on where the plant is
located and where the visible emission observations are going to take
place. Currently, portable aggregate processing plants in the
particular State retain the identification address from the owner/
operator's business headquarters. When the portable plant is relocated,
it is still identified with that home office address even though it is
actually located elsewhere.
Response. The EPA agrees that, in the case of portable plants that
are routinely moved from place to place, the current address/location
should be included in the notification of the actual date of initial
startup of such portable plants. Therefore, Sec. 60.676(i) of the final
amended rule has been revised to require both the home office address
and the current address/location of the portable plant.
(f) Comment. One aggregate company requested 14 days lead time, in
lieu of 30 days for notifications of relocation of portable plants and
other notifications such as emission testing and date of construction
because portable plants have trouble anticipating the new location 30
days in advance.
Response. Notifications of relocations of portable plants are a
requirement of individual State and local agencies. For notifications
of emission testing, these agencies need adequate notice so that they
can observe opacity and emission testing. Personnel from these agencies
have stated they need 30 days prior notice to adequately plan to attend
opacity and emission testing. The requirements for other notifications
have decreased. The notification requirement of the actual date of
initial startup under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) is already 15 days and the
anticipated date of initial startup requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(2)
has already been waived under subpart OOO. Therefore, no additional
changes in notification lead times have been made for portable plants.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this final rulemaking. The
docket is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To
allow interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they
can effectively participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve
as the official record in case of judicial review (except for
interagency review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act)).
B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
1. The effective date of this revised regulation is June 9, 1997.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA provides that standards of performance
or revisions thereof become effective upon promulgation and apply to
affected facilities of which the construction or modification was
commenced after the date of proposal, June 27, 1996.
2. Administrator Listing--Under section 111 of the Act,
establishment of standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral
processing plants was preceded by the Administrator's determination (40
CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, dated August 21, 1979) that these sources
contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
3. External Participation--In accordance with section 117 of the
Act, publication of the final revisions to the NSPS was preceded by
consultation with a national trade association composed of 570 member
companies and several States.
4. Economic Impact Assessment--Section 317 of the Act requires the
Administrator to prepare an economic impact assessment for any new
source standard of performance promulgated under section 111(b) of the
Act. Today's final amended rule is for clarifications and minor
revisions to the applicability, definitions, test methods and
procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping sections of the regulation.
No additional controls or other costs are being incurred as a result of
these revisions. The final amended rule would result in a cost savings
for the industry (reduction of certain testing and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements) and the EPA and State/local agencies (reduction
in staff time needed to review fewer reports). Therefore, no economic
impact assessment for the proposed or final revisions to the rule was
conducted.
C. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
1. Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an ``information collection request'' (ICR) document has been
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1084.05) to reflect the revised/reduced
information requirements of the final revised regulation and a copy may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division
(2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Under the existing NSPS, the industry recordkeeping and reporting
burden and costs for an owner or operator of a new
[[Page 31358]]
nonmetallic mineral processing plant were estimated at 820 hours and
$27,060 for the first year of operation. The vast majority of the
estimated hours (670) was attributed to required Method 5 and Method 9
performance testing of affected facilities. Under the final revised
NSPS, a 1-hour Method 9 test is allowed in lieu of the Method 5 test
for individual, enclosed storage bins. In addition, the duration of
Method 9 tests for fugitive emission sources has been reduced from 3
hours to 1 hour if qualifying conditions are met as discussed in
Section II.3.3.d. Also, plant owners or operators are allowed to submit
one notification of actual startup for several affected facilities in a
production line that begin operation the same day, in lieu of multiple
notifications for each affected facility. The final revised NSPS is
also waiving the General Provisions requirement to submit a
notification of anticipated startup for each affected facility.
Therefore, the revised annual estimated industry recordkeeping and
reporting burden and costs for an owner or operator of a new
nonmetallic mineral processing plant are 480 hours and $16,000, the
majority of which is due to performance testing. This represents an
estimated reduction in the average annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden of 340 hours and $11,000 per plant. This collection of
information is estimated to have an average annual government
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 320 hours over the first 3 years.
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 purposes 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 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
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
2. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
EPA must determine whether the final regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of this Executive Order to
prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The 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 in 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 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the final revisions to the NSPS are ``not significant''
because none of the above criteria are triggered by the final
revisions. The final amended rule would decrease the cost of complying
with the revised NSPS.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final standards that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, of, in the aggregate, $100 million or more. Under
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the standard and
is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the standards.
The EPA has determined that today's action, which promulgates
revisions and clarifications to the existing regulation, decreases the
cost of compliance with this final revised regulation. Also, the final
revised regulation does not contain any requirements that apply to
State, local or tribal governments. Therefore, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this final action.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to the impact
of regulations on small entities, which are small businesses, small
organizations, and small governments. The major purpose of the RFA is
to keep paperwork and regulatory requirements from getting out of
proportion to the scale of the entities being regulated, without
compromising the objectives of, in this case, the Clean Air Act.
If a regulation is likely to have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the EPA may give special
consideration to those small entities when analyzing regulatory
alternatives and drafting the regulation. The impact of this regulation
upon small businesses was analyzed as part of the economic impact
analysis performed for the proposed standards for the nonmetallic
minerals processing plants (48 FR 39566, August 31, 1983). As a result
of this analysis, plants operating at small capacities were exempted
from the requirements of the standards. Today's final revisions to the
standards do not affect these exempted small plants; that is, they
continue to be exempted from the standards. In addition, the main
thrust of the final revisions to the standards is a reduction of the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of
all affected facilities.
Thus, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA
has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
[[Page 31359]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nonmetallic mineral processing
plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 30, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO is amended to read as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.
2. Section 60.670 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2),
and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.670 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), and (d)
of this section, the provisions of this subpart are applicable to the
following affected facilities in fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral
processing plants: each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation,
bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin,
enclosed truck or railcar loading station. Also, crushers and grinding
mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of nonmetallic
minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected
facilities up to, but not including, the first storage silo or bin are
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(2) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to the following
operations: All facilities located in underground mines; and stand-
alone screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding
mills.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) An owner or operator complying with paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall submit the information required in Sec. 60.676(a).
* * * * *
(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this Part 60 that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of affected facilities subject to this subpart.
Table 1.--Applicability of Subpart A To Subpart OOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A reference Applies to Subpart OOO Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.1, Applicability................ Yes........................
60.2, Definitions.................. Yes........................
60.3, Units and abbreviations...... Yes........................
60.4, Address:
(a)............................ Yes........................
(b)............................ Yes........................
60.5, Determination of construction Yes........................
or modification.
60.6, Review of plans.............. Yes........................
60.7, Notification and Yes........................ Except in (a)(2) report of anticipated date of
recordkeeping. initial startup is not required (Sec.
60.676(h)).
60.8, Performance tests............ Yes........................ Except in (d), after 30 days notice for an
initially scheduled performance test, any
rescheduled performance test requires 7 days
notice, not 30 days (Sec. 60.675(g)).
60.9, Availability of information.. Yes........................
60.10, State authority............. Yes........................
60.11, Compliance with standards Yes........................ Except in (b) under certain conditions (Secs.
and maintenance requirements. 60.675 (c)(3) and (c)(4)), Method 9
observation may be reduced from 3 hours to 1
hour. Some affected facilities exempted from
Method 9 tests (Sec. 60.675(h)).
60.12, Circumvention............... Yes........................
60.13, Monitoring requirements..... Yes........................
60.14, Modification................ Yes........................
60.15, Reconstruction.............. Yes........................
60.16, Priority list............... Yes........................
60.17, Incorporations by reference. Yes........................
60.18, General control device...... No......................... Flares will not be used to comply with the
emission limits.
60.19, General notification and Yes........................
reporting requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 60.671 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of Wet mining operation and Wet screening operation to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.671 Definitions.
* * * * *
Wet mining operation means a mining or dredging operation designed
and operated to extract any nonmetallic mineral regulated under this
subpart from deposits existing at or below the water table, where the
nonmetallic mineral is saturated with water.
Wet screening operation means a screening operation at a
nonmetallic mineral processing plant which removes unwanted material or
which separates marketable fines from the product by a washing process
which is designed and operated at all times such that the product is
saturated with water.
* * * * *
4. Section 60.672 is amended by removing the word ``or'' and adding
the word ``and'' after paragraph (a)(1); by revising paragraphs (b) and
(c); and by adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.672 Standard for particulate matter.
* * * * *
(b) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under
Sec. 60.11 of this part, no owner or operator subject to the provisions
of this
[[Page 31360]]
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
transfer point on belt conveyors or from any other affected facility
any fugitive emissions which exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity,
except as provided in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section.
(c) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under
Sec. 60.11 of this part, no owner or operator shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere from any crusher, at which a capture
system is not used, fugitive emissions which exhibit greater than 15
percent opacity.
* * * * *
(f) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under
Sec. 60.11 of this part, no owner or operator shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere from any baghouse that controls
emissions from only an individual, enclosed storage bin, stack
emissions which exhibit greater than 7 percent opacity.
(g) Owners or operators of multiple storage bins with combined
stack emissions shall comply with the emission limits in paragraph
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(h) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but
not later than 180 days after initial startup, no owner or operator
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any visible emissions
from:
(1) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors that process saturated material in
the production line up to the next crusher, grinding mill or storage
bin.
(2) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, where such
screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors process
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage
bin in the production line.
5. Section 60.675 is amended by revising paragraph (b),
introductory text, redesignating paragraphs (c) introductory text,
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iii) and adding new paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (g), and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.675 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the
particulate matter standards in Sec. 60.672(a) as follows:
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) In determining compliance with the opacity of stack emissions
from any baghouse that controls emissions only from an individual
enclosed storage bin under Sec. 60.672(f) of this subpart, using Method
9, the duration of the Method 9 observations shall be 1 hour (ten 6-
minute averages).
(3) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions
standard for any affected facility described under Sec. 60.672(b) of
this subpart, the duration of the Method 9 observations may be reduced
from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-minute
averages) only if the following conditions apply:
(i) There are no individual readings greater than 10 percent
opacity; and
(ii) There are no more than 3 readings of 10 percent for the 1-hour
period.
(4) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions
standard for any crusher at which a capture system is not used as
described under Sec. 60.672(c) of this subpart, the duration of the
Method 9 observations may be reduced from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute
averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-minute averages) only if the following
conditions apply:
(i) There are no individual readings greater than 15 percent
opacity; and
(ii) There are no more than 3 readings of 15 percent for the 1-hour
period.
* * * * *
(g) If, after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled performance
test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in
conducting any rescheduled performance test required in this section,
the owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit a notice to
the Administrator at least 7 days prior to any rescheduled performance
test.
(h) Initial Method 9 performance tests under Sec. 60.11 of this
part and Sec. 60.675 of this subpart are not required for:
(1) wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations,
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors that process saturated material in
the production line up to, but not including the next crusher, grinding
mill or storage bin.
(2) screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage
bin in the production line.
6. Section 60.676 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b); revising paragraph (f); revising and redesignating paragraph (g)
as paragraph (j); and adding new paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(b) [Removed and reserved.]
* * * * *
(f) The owner or operator of any affected facility shall submit
written reports of the results of all performance tests conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in Sec. 60.672 of
this subpart, including reports of opacity observations made using
Method 9 to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.672(b), (c), and (f),
and reports of observations using Method 22 to demonstrate compliance
with Sec. 60.672(e).
(g) The owner or operator of any screening operation, bucket
elevator, or belt conveyor that processes saturated material and is
subject to Sec. 60.672(h) and subsequently processes unsaturated
materials, shall submit a report of this change within 30 days
following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or
belt conveyor is then subject to the 10 percent opacity limit in
Sec. 60.672(b) and the emission test requirements of Sec. 60.11 and
this subpart. Likewise a screening operation, bucket elevator, or belt
conveyor that processes unsaturated material but subsequently processes
saturated material shall submit a report of this change within 30 days
following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or
belt conveyor is then subject to the no visible emission limit in
Sec. 60.672(h).
(h) The subpart A requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) for
notification of the anticipated date of initial startup of an affected
facility shall be waived for owners or operators of affected facilities
regulated under this subpart.
(i) A notification of the actual date of initial startup of each
affected facility shall be submitted to the Administrator.
(1) For a combination of affected facilities in a production line
that begin actual initial startup on the same day, a single
notification of startup may be submitted by the owner or operator to
the Administrator. The notification shall be postmarked within 15 days
after such date and shall include a description of each affected
facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number of the equipment,
if available.
[[Page 31361]]
(2) For portable aggregate processing plants, the notification of
the actual date of initial startup shall include both the home office
and the current address or location of the portable plant.
(j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under
section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In
that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of
the obligation to comply with the reporting requirements of this
section, provided that they comply with requirements established by the
State.
[FR Doc. 97-14856 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
