(,1 2 1/,1( and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum, sodium compounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite, boron, barite, fluorspar, feldspar, diatomite, perlite,

Citation: 50 Fed. Reg. 31328 1985

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Tue Apr 5 16:08:11 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

31328 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL-2820-4J

Standards of Performance for NewStationary Sources; NonmetallicMineral Processing Plants

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Standards of performance fornonmetallic mineral processing plantswere proposed in the Federal Registeron August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39566). Thisaction promulgates standards ofperformance for nonmetallic mineralprocessing plants. These standardsimplement section 111 of the Clean AirAct and are based on theAdministrator's determination thatnonmetallic mineral processing plantscause, or contribute significantly to airpollution which may reasonably beanticipated to endanger public health orwelfare. The intended effect of thesestandards is to require all new,modified, and reconstructed nonmetallicmineral processing plants to achieveemission levels that reflect the bestdemonstrated system of continuousemission reduction, considering costs,nonair quality health, andenvironmental and energy impacts.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1985. Undersection 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act,judicial review of this new sourceperformance standard (NSPS) isavailable only by the filing of a petitionfor review in the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia Circuitwithin 60 days of today's publication ofthis rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of theClean Air Act, the requirements that arethe subject of today's notice may not bechallenged later in civil or criminalproceedings brought by EPA to enforcethese requirements.ADDRESSES: Background InformationDocument. The background informationdocument (BID) for the promulgatedstandards may be obtained from theU.S. EPA Library (MD-35), ResearchTriangle Park, North Carolina 27711,telephone number (919) 541-2777. Pleaserefer to "Nonmetallic MineralProcessing Plants-BackgroundInformation for Promulgated Standards"(EPA-450/3-83-O01b). The BID contains:(1) A summary of all the publiccomments made on the proposedstandards and the Administrator'sresponse to the comments; (2) asummary of the changes made to thestandards since proposal; and (3) the

final Environmental Impact Statementwhich summarizes the impacts of thestandards.

Docket. Docket number OAQPS-78-11, containing information considered byEPA in development of the promulgatedstandards, is available for publicinspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00p.m., Monday through Friday, at theEPA's Central Docket Section (LE-131),West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 MStreet SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Doug Bell or Mr. William Harnett,(919) 541-5578, concerning regulatorydecisions, and Mr, Kenneth R. Durkee orMr. James A. Eddinger, (919) 541-5596,concerning technical aspects of theindustry and control technologies. Theaddress for the above parties is:Emission Standards and EngineeringDivision (MD-13), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Standards

Standards of performance for newsources established under Section 111 ofthe Clean Air Act reflect:

... application of the best technologicalsystem of continuous emission reductionwhich (taking into consideration the cost ofachieving such emission reduction, anynonair quality health and environmentalimpact and energy requirements) theAdministrator determines has beenadequately demonstrated (Section 111(a)(1)).

For convenience, this will be referred toas "best demonstrated technology" or"BDT."

The promulgated standards apply tonew, modified, and reconstructedfacilities at plants that process any ofthe following 18 nonmetallic minerals:crushed and broken stone, sand andgravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum, sodiumcompounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc andpyrophyllite, boron, barite, fluorspar,feldspar, diatomite, perlite, vermiculite,mica, and kyanite. The affected facilitiesare each crusher, grinding mill,screening operation, bucket elevator,belt conveyor, bagging operation,storage bin, and enclosed truck orrailcar loading station. Common clayplants and pumice plants withcapacities of 9 megagrams per hour(Mg/h) [10 tons per hour (tons/h)] orless, fixed sand and gravel plants andcrushed stone plants with capacities of23 Mg/h (25 tons/h) or less, and portablesand and gravel plants and crushedstone plants with capacities of 136 Mg/h(150 tons/h) or less are exempt from thestandards. All nonmetallic mineral

processing equipment at lime plants,power plants, steel mills, and othersource categories not already coveredby standards of performance for thosecategories is covered by the standards.Equipment used to process nonmetallicminerals at asphalt concrete plants andPortland cement plants will be coveredby these standards unless suchequipment is already covered by otherstandards of performance or followsequipment subject to other standards ofperformance.

It is believed that the addition of newprocess lines at new or existing plants isthe most likely way facilities wouldbecome affected by the standards. TheEPA's information shows thatreplacement or modification ofindividual pieces of equipment atexisting plants is not a commonpractice, and EPA believes thatreplacement will remain uncommon.Therefore, EPA did not calculate theimpacts of controlling replacement ofexisting pieces of equipment with newequipinent. While EPA believesreplacement of an individual affectedfacility in an existing process line isunlikely, EPA recognizes that if suchreplacements do occur, the costs ofretrofitting controls could be large.Therefore, EPA has provided anexemption for certain replacementswhich is consistent with theenvironmental and economic analysesperformed. Under the final standards thereplacement of an existing facility witha new facility of equal of smaller sizeand having the same function is exemptfrom compliance with the emissionslimits of these standards. Thereplacement exemption will not apply inthe case that all affected facilities in aproduction line are replaced with newfacilities. In such a case, all newaffected facilities will be subject to thestack and fugitive emissions limitscontained in the regulation. The EPA'sanalyses show that control of an entireproduction line is feasible. In order toqualify for the exemption, an owner oroperator replacing an existing facilitywith a new facility of equal or smallersize must report this to EPA and to theState, if the State has been grantedNSPS authority. The type and size of theexisting and new facilities, a descriptionof the control system for the existingfacility and the age of the existingfacility must also be reported to the EPAOffice of Air Quality Planning andStandards. This information will be usedduring the 4-year review of thestandards to assess the frequency andcharacteristics of such replacements andthe need for continuation of theexemption.

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

The standards are based on emissionlevels achievable using well designedand operated baghouse control or wetdust suppression techniques. Bothsystems are BDT. The promulgatedstandards limit both fugitive and stackemissions of particulate matter fromaffected facilities. Fugitive emissions areemissions not collected by a capturesystem. Fugitive emission are limited to10 percent opacity for all affectedfacilities with the following exception:fugitive emissions from crushers atwhich capture systems are not used arelimited to 15 percent opacity. Thestandards for stack emissions, which areemissions collected by a capture system,limit the concentration of particulatematter to 0.05 gram per dry standardcubic meter (g/dscm) [0.02 grain per drystandard cubic foot (gr/dscf)] and 7percent opacity.

The stack opacity standard does notapply to affected facilities that use wetscrubbers to control emissions. Instead,an owner or operator of an affectedfacility using a wet scrubber forcontrolling emissions is required toinstall a monitoring device tocontinuously measure the liquid flowrate to the scrubber and a device tomeasure the pressure drop across thescrubber. An operator of a wet scrubberis also required to record the pressuredrop and flow rate daily and to reportsemiannually the occasions when themeasurements of these parameters differby more than ±30 percent from thosemeasurements recorded during the lastperformance test.

If affected facilities are enclosed in abuilding for the purpose of controllingemissions, there must be no visiblefugitive emissions from the building andemissions from building vents must meetthe stack emissions standards of 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity; orindividual affected facilities inside thebuilding must meet the emission limitsrequired for each affected facility (i.e.,fugitive opacity of 15 percent forcrushers at which capture systems arenot used and 10 percent for all otheraffected facilities). "Vents" are definedas openings through which there ismechanically induced air flow for thepurpose of exhausting from a buildingair carrying particulate matteremissions, from one or more affectedfacilities.

Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, and 5 or 17will be used to determine compliancewith the stack concentration standard.Reference Method 9 will be used tomeasure the opacity of stack emissions,the opacity of process fugitiveemissions, and the opacity of emissionsfrom building vents. Reference Method

22 will be used to measure the visiblefugitive emissions from buildingsenclosing affected facilities.

Summary of Environmental, Energy, andEconomic Impacts

Environmental ImpactEmissions reductions were estimated

by comparing emissions from affectedfacilities at new and expanded plantsunder the proposed standards versusemissions which Would be allowed bytypical State process weight regulations.The method of calculating emissionsreductions is described in the BID forthe proposed standards.

By the fifth year following proposal,the promulgated standards areestimated to reduce the total amount ofparticulate matter emissions into theatmosphere by 41,000 megagrams peryear (Mg/yr) [45,000 tons per year (tons/yr)]. This reduction is 90 percent greaterthan that achievable with a typical Stateprocess weight regulation.

With the use of dry collectiontechniques (baghouses) to achieve thestandards, no water discharge isgenerated. Therefore, there would be noadverse water pollution impact from thestandards. Where wet dust suppressionis used to meet the standards, therewould be no significant water dischargebecause most of the water adheres tothe material being processed until itevaporates.

The solid waste impact of thestandards would be very small. Whendry collection techniques are used,about 1.4 Mg (1.5 tons) of solid wasteare collected for every 250 Mg (276. tons)of material processed. In many cases,this material can be recycled back intothe process, sold, or used for a variety ofpurposes. Where no market exists forthe collected material, it is typicallydisposed of in a mine or in an isolatedlocation in a quarry. No Subsequent airpollution problems should develop,provided the waste pile is protectedfrom wind erosion. Information oncontrol techniques for waste piles isincluded in the document entitled "AirPollution Control Techniques forNonmetallic Minerals Industry" (EPA450/3-82-014) available from the EPALibrary (MD-35), Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711, telephonenumber (919) 541-2777. Where wet dustsuppression is used to meet thestandards, no solid waste disposalproblem would result from implementingthe standards.

Energy ImpactThe incremental energy requirements

of the standards have been estimated bycomparing the energy required for the

use of baghouses to control particulatematter emissions to the energy requiredfor no control system. The estimatesindicate a greater impact than wouldactually occur because it is expectedthat less energy-consuming wet dustsuppression systems would be used inmany cases to achieve the standards. Inaddition, many new plants would usebaghouses or combinations ofbaghouses and water spray controls tomeet existing State regulations, and thefull cost of control would not beattributable to the NSPS.

The energy required to control all newnonmetallic mineral processing plantsconstructed by the fifth year afterproposal to the level of the promulgatedstandards would be about 430 terajoulesper year (1.2 terajoules per day),indicating a minor impact on nationalelectrical energy demand. This would beabout a 15 percent increase over theamount of energy that would otherwisebe required to meet the industry'sprojected capacity additions withoutcontrols. The increased energyconsumption for typical plants thatwould result from the promulgatedstandards would range from about 5percent for a 136 Mg/h (150 tons/h)plant having both crushing and grindingoperations to about 20 percent for a 9Mg/h (10 tons/h) plant having only acrushing operation.

Economic Impact

The costs and economic impactsassociated with the promulgatedstandards are considered to bereasonable. The estimated impacts arebased on a comparison of baghouse useto a no-control case. Less expensive wetdust suppression systems may be usedin many cases to achieve the standards.Also, many new plants would usebaghouses or a combination ofbaghouses and water sprays to meetexisting State regulations. Thus, theactual economic impact of the standardswould be expected to be considerablyless than the estimates summarizedbelow.

The impact of the standards on anindividual plant was evaluated bydeveloping a discounted cash flow(DCF) analysis for each new modelplant size. DCF is an investmentdecision analysis that shows theeconomic feasibility of a planned capitalinvestment project over the life of theproject. The results of the analysisindicate that the costs associated withimplementing the promulgatedstandards would not precludeconstruction of most new nonmetallicmineral processing plants that would bebuilt in the absence of the standards.

31329


However, the DCF analysis indicatedthat the incremental costs associatedwith baghouse control may preclude theconstruction of new pumice plants andcommon clay plants with capacities of 9Mg/h (10 tons/h) or less, fixed sand andgravel plants and crushed stone plantswith capacities of 23 Mg/h (25 tons/h) orless, and portable sand and gravelplants and crushed stone plants withcapacities of 136 Mg/h (150 tons/h ) orless. For this reason, these plants areexempt from the standards.Representatives of the crushed stoneand sand and gravel industries haveindicated that few, if any, fixed plantssmaller than 23 Mg/h (25 tons/h) andportable plants smaller than 136 Mg/h(150 tons/h) would be built in the future.Nevertheless, these exemptions areprovided for those few plants that maybe built.

All of the dollar figures presentedbelow are in 1979 dollars. Figures thatwere reported in 1976 dollars in theeconomic impact analysis in the BID forthe proposed standards have beenconverted to 1979 dollars for comparisonpurposes. The capital costs for baghousecontrol systems for plants having only acrushing operation would range from$70,000 for a 9 Mg/h (10 tons/h) plant to$396,000 for a 544 Mg/h (600 tons/h)plant or from 12 to 9 percent of theplant's total capital costs. Totalannualized costs would range from$17,000 to $105,000 per year. For plantshaving both crushing and grindingoperations, capital costs would rangefrom $109,000 for a 9 Mg/h (10 tons/h)plant to $219,000 for a 136 Mg/h (150tons/h) plant or from 16 to 6 percent,respectively, of the plant's total capitalcosts. For these plants, annualized costswould range from $25,000 to $53,000 peryear. For portable crushing plants,capital costs would range from $88,000for a 68 Mg/h (75 tons/h) plant to$260,000 for an 816 Mg/h (900 tons/h)plant or from 22 to 15 percent,respectively, of the plant's total capitalcosts. Annualized costs would rangefrom $34,000 to $105,000 per year. Thetotal additional capital cost to installbaghouses on all new plants would beabout $125 million for the first 5 yearsthe standards are in effect. Thenationwide annualized cost of control atplants covered by the standards wouldincrease by $34 million in the fifth yearfollowing proposal of the standards. Foreach mineral industry, the annualizedcontrol cost in the fifth year divided bythe annual output is less than 2 percentof the price of a ton of product.

The environmental, energy, andeconomic impacts are discussed ingreater detail in the two BID's for the

standards: (1) "Nonmetallic MineralProcessing Plants-BackgroundInformation for Proposed Standards"(EPA-450/3-83-OOla), and (2)"Nonmetallic Mineral ProcessingPlants-Background Information forPromulgated Standards" (EPA-450/3-83-o01b).

Public Participation

Prior to proposal of the standards,interested parties were advised bypublic notice in the Federal Register (40FR 34454, August 11, 1975; and 43 FR26797, June 22, 1978) of meetings of theNational Air Pollution ControlTechniques Advisory Committee todiscuss the standards for nonmetallicmineral processing plants recommendedfor proposal. These meetings were heldon September 3-4, 1975 and July 11-12,1978. The meetings were open to thepublic and each attendee was given anopportunity to comment on thestandards recommended for proposal.The proposed standards were publishedin the Federal Register on August 31,1983 (48 FR 39566). The preamble to theproposed standards discussed theavailability of the BID, "NonmetallicMineral Processing Plants-BackgroundInformation for Proposed Standards"(EPA-450/3-83-001a), which describedin detail the regulatory alternativesconsidered and the impacts of thosealternatives. Public comments weresolicited at the time of proposal and,when requested, copies of the BID weredistributed to interested parties. It wasstated in the Federal Register that apublic hearing would be held, ifrequested, to provide interested personsthe opportunity for oral presentation ofdata, views, or arguments concerningthe proposed standards. A publichearing was not requested or held. Thepublic comment period was from August31 to November 14, 1983. Fifty-twocomment letters were receivedconcerning issues relative to theproposed standards of performance fornonmetallic mineral processing plants.The comments have been carefullyconsidered and, where determined to beappropriate by the administrator,changes have been made in theproposed standard.

Significant Comments and Changes tothe Proposed Standards

Comments on the proposed standardswere received from industry, tradeassociations, State and local airpollution control agencies, and Senatorsand Members of Congress. A detaileddiscussion of these comments andresponses can be found in the BID,which is referred to in the ADDRESSESsection of this preamble. The summary

of comments and responses in the BIDserve as the basis for the revisionswhich have been made to the standardsbetween proposal and promulgation.The major comments and responses aresummarized in this preamble. Most ofthe comment letters contained multiplecomments. The comments have beendivided into the following areas: Needfor Regulation of Source Category,Selection of Industries Included inSource Category, Definition of AffectedFacility, Control Technology, EconomicImpact, Selection of Emission Limits,Test Methods and Monitoring, andMiscellaneous.

Need for Regulation of Source Category

Several commenters questioned theEPA's determination that nonmetallicmineral processing plants are sources ofemissions that cause or contributesignificantly to air pollution that mayreasonably be anticipated to endangerpublic health or welfare. Many of thesecommenters stated that nonmetallicmineral processing plants areinsignificant sources of fugitiveparticulate emissions when compared toother sources of these emissions. Somecommenters also stated that they are notaware of any documented cases ofanyone being harmed by the dust fromthe crushing and processing oflimestone. Several commenters felt thisindustry is not a significant source ofemissions into the ambient air becausethe emissions do not leave the plantboundaries. Commenters alsoquestioned the EPA's estimate that thestandards could reduce total particulateemissions by 41,000 megagrams/yr(45,000 tons/yr). They believed thisestimate was too high. For thesereasons, the commenters believedstandards of performance should not bepromulgated for nonmetallic mineralprocessing plants.

The EPA has determined thatnonmetallic mineral processing plantsas a category contribute significantly toparticulate matter air pollution, and thatsuch pollution may reasonably beanticipated to endanger public healthand welfare. The EPA has alsodetermined that a reduction inparticulate emissions can be achievedby application of best demonstratedtechnology. Under Section 111 of theClean Air Act, EPA is, therefore,required to promulgate standards ofperformance for this source category.

Nonmetallic mineral processing plantswere ranked 13th out of 59 major sourcecategories on the EPA's priority list ofsource categories (44 FR 49225, August21, 1979). This list was promulgatedunder section 111(f) of the Clean Air


Act. Source categories were included onthe list if, in the Administrator'sjudgment, they cause, or significantlycontribute to, air pollution which mayreasonably be anticipated to endangerpublic health or welfare. Sourcecategories were ranked in order ofpriority according to (1) quantity ofemissions, (2) potential impact on healthand welfare, and (3) mobility andcompetitive nature of the sourcecategory.

Nonmetallic mineral industries wereincluded on the NSPS priority list due topotentially significant emissions ofparticulate matter. Particulate matter isa criteria pollutant which has beendetermined to be an air pollutant whichmay endanger public health and welfareand for which a national ambient airquality standard (NAAQS) has beenpromulgated. (Limestone dust and otherdusts emitted by the nonmetallicmineral industry are types of particulatematter.) The Administrator'sdetermination that particulate emissionsmay endanger public health and welfareis documented in "Air Quality Criteriafor Particulate Matter and SulfurOxides" (EPA--600/8-82-029a).

The EPA examined controltechnologies and identified BDT forcertain facilities at nonmetallic mineralprocessing plants. Economic analyseshave shown that the costs and economicimpacts of applying BDT in accordancewith the proposed and promulgatedstandards are reasonable. Themagnitude of emissions reductionswhich would result from the standardswas estimated in the backgrounddocument for the proposed standards.

This estimate was made by EPA usingthe best available data and reasonableassumptions. Baseline emissions (thosewhich would occur in the absence of anNSPS) were estimated by assuming thatnew and expanded plants would complywith typical State process weightregulations. These were compared withemissions estimated to occur if new andexpanded plants were controlled to thelevel required by the proposed NSPS. Bythis method of estimation, the emissionsreduction achievable under theproposed NSPS was found to be 41,000Mg/yr (45,000 tons/yr). This is areduction of 90 percent over baselineemissions. The EPA recognizes thatthere are uncertainties in this emissionsreduction estimate. Variability incurrent control levels and variability inprocesses and emissions occurring atindividual plants within each industryand among the 18 nonmetallic mineralindustries lead to uncertainty inemissions estimates. Furthermore,economic predictions of the growth of

the industries are always uncertain.However, the estimates are based onreasonable assumptions and areadequate for decision-making purposes.

Selection of Industries Included inSource Category

Several commenters expressedconcern over the following statement inthe preamble to the proposed standards:"The 18 minerals covered by theproposed standards were selected onthe basis of production tonnage ratherthan on the basis of any health orwelfare considerations as compared tothe other minerals." They believed thisselection methodology violates theintent and scope of the Clean Air Act.Some believed that the goal of the CleanAir Act is improved air quality throughreduction of total suspendedparticulates but that the EPA's approachleads to control of relatively small pointsources of particulate emissions whilemissing major area sources. Others saidthat EPA must base regulation ofspecific industries on health and welfareconsiderations rather than on size.

The statement the commenters quotedconcerning the selection of industries tobe covered was an explanation of howEPA selected the particular 18 mineralsto be covered by the NSPS from all thenonmetallic minerals that exist. Thestatement was not intended to provideany rationale fordeveloping an NSPSfor nonmetallic mineral processingplants. The reasons for developing anNSPS for the nonmetallic mineral sourcecategory were discussed in the previousresponse.

For the purposes of standardsdevelopment, EPA had to define whichindustries within the nonmetallicmineral industry source category wouldbe regulated. Since similar grinding andcrushing processes occur at mostnonmetallic mineral industries, it isassumed that potential particulateemissions will be roughly proportionalto production tonnage. Therefore, thelargest sources of emissions will becontrolled by regulating the industrieswhich produce the largest volumes ofnonmetallic minerals. Since the largestemissions reductions can be achievedby regulating the largest nonmetallicmineral industries, the 18 largest havebeen selected for inclusion in the NSPS.These 18 categories are based uponBureau of Mines classifications and arethe largest mined production segmentsof the nonmetallic mineral industrywhich have crushing and grindingoperations, excluding coal, phosphaterock and asbestos. Crushing andgrinding of coal and phosphate rock arecovered under NSPS for coalpreparation plants and phosphate rock

plants. Processing of asbestos isregulated under the national emissionstandard for hazardous air pollutants(NESHAP) developed for asbestos.

Selection of Affected Facility

Fourteen commenters objected to thedesignation of each piece of equipmentat a processing plant as an affectedfacility. They believed that the entireplant should be designated as theaffected facility. The commenters statedthat control systems are designed for theentire processing plant, not for eachpiece of equipment. Therefore,retrofitting individual pieces ofequipment at existing plants could entaileither replacing existing multiple facilitycontrol technology completely orinstalling a separate control device foreach piece of equipment as it isreplaced. The commenters reasoned thatthe former would mean the entire plant,including existing facilities, would bemeeting the standards and the latterwould lead to an inefficient controltechnology design with each piecehaving its own control device. Thecommenters believed that it was not theEPA's intent to have either situationoccur. The commenters also stated thatnonmetallic mineral processing plantsare not similar to other manufacturingoperations regulated under section 111because they are designed as anintegrated unit. They pointed out that abroken crusher, screen, or conveyor beltcan render an entire production plantinoperative. They recommended that theentire plant be designated as theaffected facility. One commenter feltthat since crushers, grinding mills,screening operations, bucket elevators,belt conveyors, and storage bins arepart of an integral unit, they should beconsidered one affected facility. He feltthat since bagging operations and truckand railcarloading stations can operateindependently of the rest of the plant,they could be considered separateaffected facilities. Five commentersbelieved that Congress intended toprotect and enhance air quality bycontrolling new plants as they are builtand old plants when they aresubstantially rebuilt. They felt thatdesignating the entire plant as theaffected facility is more consistent withthis intent. The commenters felt thatspecific pieces of equipment within aplant that are replaced without causingany increase in emissions should not besubject to the NSPS if such replacementsfall under the 50 percent fixed capitalcost threshold as outlined in thereconstruction provisions.

One commenter suggested anotheralternatiye of having EPA provide a

31331


waiver for plants that can showtechnical and cost reasons fordesignating the entire plant as theaffected facility.

One commenter asked thatreplacement of a worn-out piece ofequipment with a new piece ofequipment of the same type and with thesame capacity be exempt from coverage.The commenter called this type ofreplacement common. Anothercommenter requested clarification ofwhether total replacement of anindividual piece of equipment is exemptfrom the NSPS. Another commenterstated that these replacements weremade on a regular and relatively routinebasis.

It is the EPA's interpretation thatthese comments fall essentially into twosubject areas: (1) Should the affectedfacility be defined more broadly thanproposed (i.e., the whole plant instead ofeach piece of equipment)? (2) Is itreasonable to subject owners oroperators to the standards if they arereplacing an existing piece of equipmentwith another piece of equipment ofequal or smaller size? In summary. EPAhas concluded that the narrow definitionshould be retained. However, theAgency agrees that the replacement ofan existing piece of equipment withanother piece of equipment of equal orsmaller size should be excluded fromcoverage in this case due to specialcharacteristics of this source category.The rationale for these conclusions isdiscussed in the remaining paragraphsof this response.

Broad Versus Narrow Definition OfAffected Facility. In accordance with itscongressional mandate to setperformance standards based on bestsystems of continuous emissionreduction considering cost, EPAreviewed all operations associated withthe mining and processing of nometallicminerals for possible coverage by theNSPS. Those facilities now listed asaffected and covered by the NSPSrepresent those for which EPA hadadequately demonstrated controltechniques which can be applied atreasonable cost.

As discussed in the proposalpreamble, the choice of the affectedfacility is based on the Agency'sinterpretation of Section 111 of the Actand judicial construction of its meaning.[The most important case is ASARCO,Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir.1978).] Under section 111, the NSPS mustapply to "new sources;" "source" isdefined as any building, structure,facility, or installation which emits ormay emit any air pollutant" (Section111(a)(3)). Most industrial plants,however, consist of numerous pieces or

groups of equipment that emit airpollutants and that might be viewed as"sources." The EPA, therefore, uses theterm "affected facility" to designate theequipment, within a particular kind ofplant, which is chosen as the "source"covered by a given standard.

Since the purpose of section 111 is tominimize emissions by application ofBDT (considering cost, health andenvironmental effects, and energyrequirements) at all new, modified, andreconstructed sources, there is apresumption that a narrowerdesignation of the affected facility isproper. In order to promulgate thebroader designation, EPA would have tofind that it would achieve greater totalemission reductions or equivalent totalreductions with significant otherbenefits such as reduced costs, energyconsumption or other environmentalimpacts. In determining the appropriatedesignation of affected facilities for thisNSPS, EPA considered the cost,environmental, energy, and economicimpacts associated with the narrowdesignation as it was proposed (i.e.,each crusher, grinding mill, screeningoperation, bucket elevator, beltconveyor, bagging operation, storagebin, enclosed truck or railcar loadingstation and determined them to bereasonable. For all new processingplants expected to be constructed in thefirst 5 years after proposal of the NSPS,cost and economic impact analyseswere prepared which analyzed the NSPSimpacts on the economic feasibility ofnew plants. Where the analysis showedthat the cost of control equipment hadunreasonable impacts on the economicfeasibility of a particular size of newplant, an exemption from compliancewith this NSPS was given (e.g., 25 tonper hour stationary crushed stoneplants, see § 60.670).

For existing facilities within thenonmetallic mineral industry, the EPA'sinformation about the industry indicatedthat there would be few modificationsand reconstructions. Modifications werenot expected to occur because of theindustry's operating characteristics. Forexample, changes to the equipment arenot typically made for processingdifferent types of raw materials becausethe equipment is designed to processdifferent materials and changing rawmaterials would, therefore, notconstitute a modification [40 CFR60.14(e)(4)]. In fact, the only plausiblecase the Agency found in whichemissions would be increased from anexisting facility was the case ofincreasing operating hours, a case whichis specifically exempt from coveragethrough modification provisions [40 CFR60.14(e)(3)]

Similarly, reconstruction in its usualsense was not expected to occurfrequently. While parts of affectedfacilities (narrow definition arereplaced, these replacements areregular, routine maintenance activities,such as replacement of ore contactsurfaces and other nondepreciableitems. These routine replacements areperformed to keep existing equipmentoperational. Because of thesemaintenance activities, the equipmenthas a long operational life and neitherreconstructions nor replacements areexpected to be frequent. Based oninformation available to the Agency, theEPA's judgment is that totalreplacements, if they occurred, wouldmost likely consist of replacing existingequipment with larger capacityequipment for purposes of increasingproduction capacity or changing productspecifications.

After considering processes usingexisting equipment and additions andchanges which might be made to them,EPA concluded that the most likelychange to occur would be the addition ofcompletely new production lines ofequipment with equipment designed forincrease production or changes inproduct specifications. Based on the costand economic impact analysesprepared, EPA concluded that it waseconomically reasonable to control newproduction lines.

Expansions of plant capacity typicallyoccur with the addition Df a newcrushing or grinding line, which mayinclude one or more of each of thefacilities listed above. With the entireplant designated as the affected facility(broader designation), the addition of anew crushing or grinding line wouldcause the entire plant to be covered bythe standards. This could causesignificant cost, economic and energyimpacts because of retrofitting controlequipment on the existing pieces ofequipment. Under the narrowdesignation of affected facility, thestandards would cover only the newequipment used to expand the plant.Because the economic impact analysisshowed it was reasonable to control thenew equipment and because of thepotential for unreasonable impactsassociated with the broader designation,it was concluded that the narrowdesignation of affected facility wasappropriate and reasonable.

Replacement Of Equipment WithSimilar Equipment Of Equal Or SmallerSize-Contrary to the informationdeveloped by EPA, representatives ofseveral major trade groups havecommented that replacements ofequipment with new equipment of the


same size do occur. In fact, oneassociation said that replacements,including replacements of existingpieces of equipment with similar piecesof equipment of equal size occur on aregular and relatively routine basis.

The EPA requested specific data onthe frequency of replacement ofequipment with equipment of the sameor smaller size from these industryrepresentatives but received nothingmore definitive. However, the nature ofthis industry may make this type ofinformation difficult to obtain. There areover 10,000 existing sand and gravel andcrushed stone plants in the U.S. Becausethere are so many producers, so widelydispersed, it is difficult for either theindustry or EPA to gathercomprehensive information needed tofully quantify the equipmentreplacement practices at all of theseplants. However, EPA agrees that thereplacement practices cited by theindustry are certainly possible. TheEPA's analyses show that control of anentire new production line isreasonable, but to the extent thatreplacement of individual facilitieswithin a production line does occurwhere controls are in place, separatecontrol of each individual piece ofequipment may impose unreasonablecosts.

Therefore, to resolve this issue, EPAhas included an exemption fromcompliance with the particulateemission limits of the standards forreplacement of existing equipment withsimilar equipment of equal or smallersize. However, if every facility in aproduction line is replaced with a newfacility, all new facilities will have tocomply with the stack and fugitiveemission limits contained in § 60.672 ofthe regulation. If all facilities in aproduction line are replaced over aperiod of time, every facility willbecome subject to the emission limits atthe time the last of the existing facilitiesin the line is replaced with a newfacility. The facilities in the productionline would become affected regardlessof the length of time over whichreplacement occurred. A production lineis defined as all affected facilities(crushers, grinding mills, screeningoperations, bucket elevators, beltconveyors, bagging operations, storagebins, and enclosed truck and railcarloading stations) that are connectedtogether either directly or by aconveying system.

Although industry commenters havesaid that replacement of individualfacilities is common, EPA has no datathat would indicate that it is awidespread practice. Moreover, the

EPA's growth and environmental impactprojections were not based on suchreplacements. Therefore, EPA expectsno significant impact on emissionreductions which could be achievedunder the standards. The EPA will,however, reassess this exemption in 4years during the review of thestandards.

Recordkeeping provisions have beenadded to the final standards to allow theAgency to obtain statistics on thenumber and type of such replacementswhich occur. Compliance with § 60.676of the standards requires an owner oroperator replacing an existing facilitywith a new facility of equal or smallersize to report the following informationto the Regional EPA Office or to theState if they have been delegated NSPSauthority and also to the EPA Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards: (1)The type and sizes of the existing andnew facilities, (2) a description of theemissions control system on the existingfacility, and (3) the age of the existingfacility. The EPA is authorized to collectinformation such as this for the purposesof standards development under Section114 of the Clear Air Act. During the 4-year review, EPA will use the collectedinformation to reconsider the need forthis exemption and, if appropriate,analyze the impacts of requiring suchreplacements to comply with theemission limits.

Control Technology

Some commenters perceived that theproposed standards did not allow for theenclosure of affected facilities inbuildings. One said that processingequipment at brick plants is normallyenclosed in buildings. Under theproposed standards, they said,emissions measurements would have tobe taken at each piece of equipmentinside a building, and facilities could befound in violation even if emissions didnot escape the building. They concludedthat in this situation, EPA would beregulating workplace rather thanambient air emissions. They requestedthat emissions measurements be takenoutside such buildings to determinecompliance.

The EPA met with the commenter inorder to better understand thiscomment. The commenter broughtphotographs of one brick plant in whichthe crushing and grinding equipmentappeared to be controlled veryeffectively with fabric filters. Both theprocess equipment and the controlsystems were located inside ofbuildings. Exhaust ducts from thecontrol equipment exited through thebuildings. However, fugitive emissionswere not in evidence in the photographs

taken inside the buildings, nor were theyseen exiting from the buildings. The EPAalso visited three brick plants operatedby two companies. The trip reports arein the docket. In general, emissions fromcrushing and grinding operations arewell controlled. Although the sides ofbuildings housing these operations wereopen and conditions during the visitswere windy, no visible emissions wereobserved exiting from the buildings attwo of the three plants. At the thirdplant, visible emissions from ahammermill were observed escapingfrom one side of a building.

The EPA agrees with the commenterthat the intent of section 111 is to limitemissions to the ambient air. The EPAalso agrees that in some cases enclosureof affected facilities in buildings isequivalent to BDT. For these reasons,EPA has expanded § § 60.672 and 60.675of the promulgated standards to addemissions limits and methods ofdetermining compliance which apply ifaffected facilities are enclosed by abuilding. Under the final standards,affected facilities inside an unventedbuilding will be determined to be incompliance if there are no visiblefugitive emissions from the building asdetermined by EPA Method 22. If thebuilding is vented and there are novisible fugitive emissions, and theemissions from the vent meet the stackparticulate standards of 0.05 g/dscm and'7 percent opacity, the affected facilitiesinside the building will be determined tobe in compliance. A vent is defined asan opening through which there ismechanically induced airflow for thepurpose of exhausting from a buildingair carrying particulate matter emissionsfrom one or more affected facilities. Ifthere are no fugitive emissions from thebuilding and any vent from the buildingmeets the emission limits, then theemissions control is equivalent to thatachieved using BDT.

However, if emissions from thebuilding exceed the "no visibleemissions" fugitive standard or thestack standards, opacity must bemeasured at each affected facility insidethe building, and the applicablestandards (i.e., 15 percent fugitiveopacity for crushers without capturesystems and 10 percent opacity for allother facilities) must be met by eachaffected facility. These provisions allowbuildings to be used as control devicesand compliance measurements to betaken outside the building if the buildingcan meet a "no visible emissions"fugitive standard and the applicablestack emissions standards.

When measuring compliance with thestandards, Method 22 shall be used to

31333

31334 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1. 1985 / Rules and Regulations

measure visible emissions frombuildings: The minimum totalobservation period for each buildingshall be 75 minutes, and each side of thebuilding and the roof shall be observedfor at least 15 minutes. If any visiblefugitive emissions are seen leaving thebuilding, regardless of whether theseemissions are generated by an affectedfacility, opacity measurements will beconducted at each affected facilityinside the building using Method 9. Inthis case, each affected facility mustmeet the applicable fugitive opacitylimits in order to be determined to be incompliance.

Economic Impact

Several commenters questioned theEPA's conclusion that requiringbaghouse control on portable plants isreasonable. They stated that each time afacility was relocated, the operatorwould have to modify the control

• system. They did not believe the costsassociated with this activity were ..included in the cost estimates. Somecommenters also questioned why EPAexempted portable plants of 150 tons/hor less from the regulation. Theybelieved portable plants of up to 300tons/h should have been exempted.

The EPA's analyses show that it isreasonable for portable plants withcapacities of over 150 tons/h to becovered by the standards. The EPAmodeled portable plants with twodifferent plant configurations and twocontrol options to account for variabilityin portable plants. The two types ofconfigurations are straight-line and L-shaped. Control Option 1 assumed onebaghouse is used to control the entireportable plant if the plant's capacity is270 Mg/h (300 tons/h) or less. For largerplants, it was assumed that the primarycrusher would be ducted to onebaghouse and all other pieces ofequipment would be ducted to a secondbaghouse. Option 2 assumed thefollowing sources are controlled byindividual baghouses: primary crusher,secondary crusher and associatedscreen, tertiary crusher and associatedscreen, and final screen. For bothoptions, emissions from conveyortransfer points are assumed to behooded and ducted to the baghousesystem.

Plants were assumed to move anaverage of 4 moves per year betweenquarries or 24 moves per year within aquarry. This is believed to be anunusually large or worst case estimateof the number of moves typically madeby portable plants and would lead tooverestimation of control costs in mostcases. It is believed the plant wouldusually be set up in a similar

configuration in order to minimizemoving and set-up costs and to avoidmodification of process equipment. Thecosts of dismantling, moving, andreassembling the control system wereestimated to be between $8,500 and$16,000 per move (EPA-450/3-83-011a).These costs were included in the DCFanalysis used to predict the profitabilityof portable plants with and without anNSPS. The estimated costs of movinginclude costs of minor modifications inthe duct work. Thus, the costs of movingportable plants have been included inthe EPA's ecomonmic analyses; and ithas been determined that the costs ofcontrols required by the standards arereasonable.

The EPA's DCF analysis indicates thatfor portable crushed stone and sand andgravel plants, controls required by thestandards would make investment inportable plants of 150 tons per houreconomically infeasible, but for plantslarger than 150 tons per hour theanalysis, does not indicate cleareconomic feasibility or infeasibility. Inthe DCF analysis, the feasibility ofindividual investments was judged bywhether or not the internal rate of returnis greater than the cost of equity (andthus economically feasible) or less thanthe cost of equity (and thuseconomically infeasible). For thestationary plant DCF analysis a cost ofequity of 11.8 percent was assumed. Forthe portable plant DCF analysis a rangefrom 12 to 15 percent was assumed forthe cost of equity.

However, in order to avoid theunderstatement of the adverse economicconsequences that would affect theindustry members, several "worst-case"(i.e., from the industry point-of-viewassumptions have been made by theDCF analysis. Among the assumptionsare: NSPS costs are calculated from anuncontrolled baseline (i.e., there are noSIP costs); the plant is operated as aseparate business entity; cost pass-through is limited by competition fromexisting plants in the same area; theplant will operate only 1,600 hours peryear (vs. 2,000 hours per year for astationary plant); a small crane andflatbed truck will be needed to move theportable plant baghouse, and baghouseswill be used as opposed to wet dustsuppression systems which costsignificantly less.

The cutoff point was set at 150 tons/hbecause the economic analysis showsthat even if the worst-case assumptionsnoted are relaxed, the economicviability of portable plants of this andsmaller sizes remains in doubt. On theother hand, for plants larger than 150tons/h, the benefits of "economies of

scale" increase the profitability of theseplants so that NSPS costs aresignificantly less burdensome. Finally, itshould be noted that although theeconomic analysis presented in the BIDfor the proposed standards does notshow clear economic feasibility orinfeasibility of the 300 tons/h portableplant with NSPS controls, it is highlyunlikely that all worst-case assumptionswould hold true for such a plant. Inreality, if only one or two of the worst-case assumptions are relaxed, the plantis shown to be economically feasible.For these reasons, portable sand andgravel plants and crushed stone plantsof 150 tons/h or smaller are exempt fromthe standards, but larger sized plantsare covered by the standards.

In addition to the exemption forportable plants with capacities of 150tons/h or less, exemptions have alsobeen provided for stationary sand andgravel plants and crushed stone plantswith capacities of 23 Mg/h (25 tons/h) orless and for common clay plants andpumice plants with capacities of 9 Mg/h(10 tons/h] or less. These exemptionswere also based on the results of DCFanalyses.

The determination of plant capacitywill be based on the rated capacity ofinitial crushers that are part of the plant.An initial crusher is any crusher intowhich nonmetallic minerals can be fedwithout prior crushing in the plant. If aplant has only one initial crusher, theplant capacity will be considered equalto the rated capacity of the initialcrusher (in tons/h). If the plant has twoor more initial crushers, their ratedcapacities shall be added together todetermine plant capacity. Productionlines are composed of initial crushingand screening operations, which may befollowed by secondary crushing,grinding, and screening operations. Avariety of sizes of crushed products maybe produced by the same line, sincematerial may be screened and sold asproduct at various points in theproduction line. Thus, some of theoutput of the initial crusher may becomeproduct without passing throughsecondary crushers. For this reasoninitial crushing equipment will be usedto determine the capacity of the plant.

Selection of Emission Limits

Several commenters stated that the 7percent opacity limit for emissionsdischarged from a stack unless a wetscrubbing device is used is too low.Commenters suggested the limit beraised to 10 or 15 percent. Most of thecommenters stated that the human eyeis not calibrated well enough todistinguish between 5, 7, and 10 percent


opacity. Because observers are trainedto read in 5 percent increments, they feltthe limit set should be divisible by 5.Several commenters stated that EPAReference Method 9 is only anestimation technique acdurate to plus orminus 7.5 percent opacity. Theyquestioned whether a 7 percent limit canbe consistently and reliably enforcedusing this method. On the other hand,one commenter felt that the limit wasnot entirely unreasonable because aproperly maintained baghouse fornonmetallic mineral processing willalmost always show less than 5 percentopacity. Another commenter stated theappropriateness of the standards isconfirmed through statements frompersons proposing new nonmetallicmineral processing plants in San DiegoCounty.

The EPA's opacity limit for stackemissions is well supported by test datasummarized in the BID for the proposedstandards. Test data from 25 baghousecontrolled facilities demonstrate theachievability of the 7 percent stackopacity standard. At 21 baghouses, themaximum 6-minute average opacity was0 percent; at 3 baghouses, the 6-minuteaverage was 1 percent; and at 1baghouse, it was 6 percent. Thecommenters did not submit any data toshow they could not meet the standard,nor has EPA found a reason to raise thestandard.

Opacity results from Method 9 testsrepresent the average of 24 readingsover a 6-minute period. While eachreading is recorded as an increment of 5percent opacity, the average of all thereadings can be any value. The NSPS isbased on 6-minute averages and,therefore, is not limited to an incrementof 5 percent opacity.

Contrary to the commenters'suggestions, Method 9 does not requirethat the maximum 7.5 percent positiveerror discussed in the section entitledCertification Requirements be takeninto account for enforcement purposes.The only portion of Method 9 addressingthe enforcement issue is theintroductory section. That sectionrequires that the accuracy of the methodbe considered for enforcement purposes,and describes the precision obtained fora single run by one observer. Theintroduction does not suggest anaverage positive error of 7.5 percent.

Several commenters objected to theopacity limits of 10 and 15 percent forfugitive sources. Commenters felt thatthere limits could not be consistentlymet. One commenter stated that impactcrushers will easily exceed the 15percent limit during startup periods orduring periods when there is a break ofmaterial feeding in. Other commenters

suggested an opacity limit of 15 to 20percent be set for the entire plant. Oneadditional commenter requested thelimits be 30 percent for crushers and 20percent for all other sources. Anotherstated that the results of emission testssupplied by the National LimeAssociation show that a 10 percent limitfor fugitive sources is nottechnologically feasible. On the otherhand, one commenter stated that theproposed standards would help theState of Colorado control these sourcesby decreasing the allowable opacityfrom 20 percent. None of thecommenters provided opacity data tosupport their comments.'The EPA's test data show that

affected facilities can meet a 10 percentfugitive emissions standard (15 percentfor crushers at which capture systemswere not used). The EPA measuredopacity of fugitives escaping from hoodsand enclosures of capture systems at 53affected facilities at 13 different types ofplants. Seven plants processednonmetallic minerals and six processedmetallic minerals. The 6-minute averageopacity at 35 of the 53 facilities was 0percent. Only 2 facilities exceed 5percent opacity at any time, and allcould meet the 10 percent opacity limit.

Fugitive emissions were also'tested atfour crushed stone and one sand andgravel plant using wet suppression, andat another plant using wet suppressionto control some operations. Two plantswere portable. The plants were selectedwith the aid of industry representatives.At all process equipment (exceptcrushers) being operated under normalconditions for which the wet dustsuppression system was properlydesigned and operated, emissions werebelow 5 percent opacity. At crushersoperated under the same conditions,emissions were below 15 percentopacity. Based on these data, plantsusing wet suppression should be able tomeet the fugitive opacity standards of 10percent for all affected facilities, exceptcrushers where capture systems are notused. The standard for such crushers is15 percent. If a plant cannot meet thesestandards using wet suppression,baghouses can be used.

Test Methods and Monitoring

Some commenters stated that whenpieces of processing equipment arelocated next to each other, it would beimpossible to ascertain how much dustis coming from each piece of equipmentor to state with certainty that each piecemeets the required level. Thecommenters questioned theenforceability of opacity standards forindividual pieces of equipment.

The EPA believes situations whereopacity of emissions from individualaffected facilities cannot be read will berare; however, provisions have beenadded to § 60.675(c) of the regulationclarifying how compliance will bedetermined if emissions from two ormore facilities interfere.

Section 60.675(c) of the proposedand final standards containsstipulations to be followed for usingMethod 9 to read fugitive emissions.These stipulations emphasize correctpositioning of the observer to minimizeinterference from other emissionsources. Following these stipulations,EPA found during its testing programthat situations where fugitive opacitycould not be measured due to emissionsfrom other pieces of equipment occurvery rarely. And they occur only whenwet dust suppression is used as acontrol technique, not when emissionsare collected by a capture system.Furthermore, EPA anticipates that themajority of facilities affected by thestandards will be at new plants orcapacity expansions at existing plants.In these cases, owners may choose todesign and locate facilities so thatemissions from different facilities do notcontinuously interfere and opacity ofemissions from each facility can bemeasured.

However, since it is possible thatthere may be cases where emissionsfrom two or more facilities continuouslyinterfere, provisions have been added to§ 60.675(c) clarifying the use of Method 9in such cases. Under these provisions, ifthe opacity of emissions from a singleaffected facility cannot be measured dueto the continuous interference ofemissions from other facilities, thenplants may take one of two courses ofaction: (1) The equipment may be movedor a physical barrier or ductwork maybe installed to separate emissions fromeach facility; or (2) if the opacity of thecombined emission stream from theinterfering facilities meets the highestopacity standard applicable to any ofthe affected facilities contributing to theemissions, then the facilities will bedetermined to be in compliance. Forexample, if emissions from a screen anda crusher controlled by wet dustsuppression continuously interfere, theowner or operator could meet thestandards by showing that combinedemissions from the two facilities meetthe 15 percent fugitive opacity standard.applicable to the crusher, or he couldseparate the equipment or the emissionsfrom the 2 facilities and meet theopacity limits for each (10 percent forthe screen and 15 for the crusher]. Underthe standards, the owner or operator

31335


would also have the option of capturingemissions, ducting them to a controldevice and meeting the applicable stackand fugitive emissions standards. Theeconomic analyses for the proposedstandards assumed emissions from allaffected facilities would be capturedand ducted to baghouses; and under thisassumption the costs of control werefound to be reasonable. However, EPAbelieves offering the other options toshow compliance may allow someplants to comply using a less costlymethod such as wet dust suppression.

Commenters disagreed with themonitoring requirements proposed forwet scrubbers. One commenter statedthat while he did not oppose thereplacement of an opacity standard withmonitoring of operating parameters, hesuggested that a range, rather than oneset of numbers, be selected during theinitial performance test. He said thisapproach would allow for slightvariations in processing conditions suchas outside temperature, clay content,and particle size. Another commenterstated that maintaining a given pressuredrop and flow rate is no guarantee thata scrubber is achieving the desiredefficiency. He also said that under theproposed standards pressure drops andwater flows could vary widely andemission rates could soar, but as long asmeasurements were recorded, thescrubber would be in compliance.

The EPA has made additions to§ 60.676 of the proposedstandards which address thesecomments. The section detailsrequirements for periodically recordingand reporting scrubber operatingparameters.

The EPA has provided for routinevariations in operating parameters butby a different method than thatsuggested by the first commenter. Theowner or operator is required in the finalstandards to record and report the liquidflow rate and pressure drop at the timeof the initial performance test, and theseparameters are to be recorded dailythereafter [40 CFR 60.676(c)]. Thesedaily readings need not be reportedunless one or more readings vary bymore than ±L30 percent from thereadings of the most recent performancetest. If one or more readings does varyby more than ±30 percent, these dailyreadings must be reported semiannually.The - percent allows for normalvariations in process conditions, soselecting a range of values at the time ofthe initial performance test is notnecessary.

In response to the comment onmonitoring scrubber operatingparameters, the recording and reportingof scrubber liquid flow rate and pressure

drop will provide an inexpensive andeasily verifiable check on the operationand maintenance of wet scrubbers. Theprincipal factors affecting theperformance of scrubbers include thepressure drop and the liquid to gas ratio.Monitoring liquid flow rate and pressuredrop will allow maintenance personnelto detect and correct decreases inscrubber performance before major,breakdowns occur, reducing overallcontrol cost, and maintaining controlefficiency. Routine recording andreporting will also allow EPA a check toensure that the scrubber is maintainedand operated properly, indicating thatthe emission limits continue to be metover time. As described above, dailyreadings must be recorded and theymust be reported to EPA semiannually ifone or more readings varies by morethan ±30 percent from the readings ofthe most recent performance test.

Miscellaneous Comments

One commenter requestedclarification as to whether the proposedstandards apply to crushers andgrinders that are used in combinationwith dryers operated by combustion orother means.

Such -crushers and grinders arecovered by the standards; they fallwithin the definitions in the proposedand promulgated standards.

Several commenters asked forclarification as to which conveyingsystems are subject to the standardsand which are exempt. In addition, theyrequested clarification on whichportions of the conveying systems arecovered.

To clarify, belt conveyors are thedesignated affected facilities; however,only transfer points must comply withthe emissions limits. In the preamble tothe proposed regulation, it is clearlystated that conveyors, other thantransfer points, are not covered by theemission limits (48 FR 39568). Theproposed and promulgated standards forparticulate matter emissions state thatno owner or operator "shall cause to bedischarged into the atmosphere fromany transfer point on belt conveyors orfrom any other affected facility anyfugitive emissions which exhibit greaterthan 10 percent opacity * *... [40 CFR60.672(b)]. A transfer point is defined as"a point in a conveying operation wherethe nonmetallic mineral is transferred toor from a belt conveyor except wherethe nonmetallic mineral is beingtransferred to a stockpile" (40 CFR60.671). Thus, belt conveyors areaffected facilities, but only transferpoints must meet the emission limits.

Commenters requested clarification asto when the 2-year period begins for

consideration for the reconstructionprovisions. In addition, they wereconfused about whether a continuousprogram of component replacement isone which is proposed or initiatedwithin a 2-year period or one where theequipment is actually installed within a2-year period.

The 2-year period begins whenreconstruction is commenced."Commenced" is defined in the generalprovisions (40 CFR 60.2) as meaning thatan owner or operator has undertaken acontinuous program of construction ormodification or that an owner oroperator has entered into a contractualobligation to undertake or complete,within a reasonable time, a continuousprogram 6f construction or modification.

There is not a single 2-year period thatbegins on any specified date. Rather,EPA will aggregate any continuousprograms of component replacementthat begin within any 2-year period indetermining whether "[tihe fixed capitalcost of the new components exceeds 50percent of the fixed capital cost thatwould be required to construct acomparable entirely new facility..[40 CFR 60.15(b){1)] (the "50 percenttest.") For example, suppose that anowner or operator of an existing facilitybegins program A of componentreplacement in month 1, program B inmonth 40, program C in month 60, andprogram D in month 80, and thatprograms B and C, considered together,meet the 50 percent test in 40 CFR60.15(b)(1). Since programs B and Ccommenced within a 2-year period (20months apart), the 50 percent test wouldbe satisfied (regardless of programs Aand D, and regardless of when programsB and C are finished.)

Administrative

The docket is an organized andcomplete file of all the informationconsidered by EPA in the developmentof this rulemaking. The docket is adynamic file, since material is addedthroughout the rulemaking development.The docketing system is intended toallow members of the public andindustries involved to readily identifyand locate documents so that they canintelligently and effectively participatein the rulemaking process. Along withthe statement of basis and purpose ofthe proposed and promulgatedstandards and EPA responses tosignificant comments, the contents ofthe docket will serve as the record incase of judicial review (Section307(d)(7)(A).

The effective date of this regulation isAugust 1, 1985. Section 111 of the CleanAir Act provides that standards of


performance or revisions thereofbecome effective upon promulgation andapply to affected facilities, construction,reconstruction, or modification of whichwas commenced after the date ofproposal (August 31, 1983).

As prescribed by section 111, thepromulgation of these standards waspreceded by the Administrator'sdetermination (40 CFR 60.16; 44 FR49222, August 21, 1979) that this sourcecategory contributes significantly to airpollution that may reasonably beauticipated to endanger public health orwelfare. In accordance with section 117of the Act, publication of thesepromulgated standards was preceded byconsultation with appropriate advisorycommittees, independent experts, andFederal departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed 4years from the date of promulgation asrequired by the Clean Air Act. Thisreview will include an assessment ofsuch factors as the need for integrationwith other programs, the existence ofalternative methods, enforceability,improvements in emission controltechnology, and reporting requirements.

Section 317 of the Clean Air Actrequires the Administrator to prepare aneconomic impact assessment for anyNSPS promulgated under Section 111(b)of the Act. An economic impactassessment was prepared for thisregulation and for other regulatoryalternatives. All aspects of theassessment were considered in theformulation of the standards to ensurethat cost was carefully considered indetermining BDT. The economic impactassessment is included in the BID for theproposed standards.

Information collection requirementsassociated with this regulation (thoseincluded in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Aand Subpart 000) have been approvedby the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44U.S.C. 350 et seq. and have beenassigned OMB control number 2060-.0050.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA isrequired to judge whether a regulation is"major" and therefore subject to therequirement of a regulatory impactanalysis (RIA). This regulation is notmajor because it would result in none ofthe adverse economic effects set forth inSection 1 of the Order as grounds forfinding a regulation to be major. Theindustry-wide annualized costs in thefifth year after the standards would gointo effect would be $34 million, muchless than the $100 million established asthe first criterion for a major regulationin the Order. The estimated priceincrease of less than 2 percent

associated with the standards would notbe considered a "major increase in costsor prices" specified as the secondcriterion in the Order. The economicanalysis of the proposed standards'effects on the industry did not indicateany significant adverse effects oncompetition, investment, productivity,employment, innovation, or the ability ofU.S. firms to compete with foreign firms(the third criterion in the Order).

This regulation was submitted toOMB for review as required byExecutive Order 12291. Any writtencommunications between OMB and EPApertaining to the standards have beenput in the docket.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980requires that adverse effects of allFederal regulations upon smallbusinesses be identified. In performingthe economic impact analysis, EPAassumed that each plant would operateas a separate business entity and couldnot expect to finance the controlequipment from another businessactivity or parent firm. In addition, noSIP control costs were assumed to beincurred in the absence of an NSPS. Theresults of this analysis showed that foreach mineral industry, the annualizedcontrol cost in the fifth year divided bythe annual output is less than 2 percentof the price of a ton of product. Theeconomic impacts associated withstandards based on baghouse controltechniques would not preclude thebuilding of most new plants. However,DCF analysis indicated that theincremental costs associated with theuse of baghouse control might precludethe construction of new common clayplants and pumice plants withcapacities of 9 Mg/h (10 tons/h) or less,fixed sand and gravel plants andcrushed stone plants with capacities of23 Mg/h (25 tons/h) or less, and portablesand and gravel plants and crushedstone plants with capacities of 136 Mg/h(105 tons/h) or less. Therefore, theseplants are exempt from the standards.Based on the economic analysis andexemptions, no plants would suffersignificant economic impacts under thisNSPS.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.605(b), I hereby certify that the rule willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of small entitiesbecause the impact of the final rule isnot significant.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Nonmetallic mineralprocessing plants, reporting andrecordkeeping requirements,Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: July 22, 1985.Lee M. Thomas,Administrator.

PART 60--[AMENDED]

40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows:1. The authority citation for Part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414, and 7601(a).

2. By adding a new Subpart 000 asfollows:

Subpart 000-Standards ofPerformance for Nonmetallic MineralProcessing Plants

Sec.60.670 Applicability and designation of

affected facility.60.671 Definitions.60.672 Standard for particulate matter.60.673 Reconstruction.60.674 Monitoring of operations.60.675 Test methods and procedures.60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.

Subpart 000-Standards ofPerformance for Nonmetallic MineralProcessing Plants.

§ 60.670 Applicability and designation ofaffected facility.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs(b), (c) and (d) of this section, theprovisions of this subpart are applicableto the following affected facilities infixed or portable nonmetallic mineralprocessing plants: each crusher, grindingmill, screening operation, bucketelevator, belt conveyor, baggingoperation, storage bin, enclosed truck orrailcar loading station.

(b) An affected facility that is subjectto the provisions of Subpart F or I orthat follows in the plant process anyfacility subject to the provisions ofSubparts F or I of this part is not subjectto the provisions of this subpart.

(c) Facilities at the following plantsare not subject to tpe provisions of thissubpart:

(1) Fixed sand and gravel plants andcrushed stone plants with capacities, asdefined in § 60.671, of 23 megagrams perhour (25 tons per hour) or less;

(2) Portable sand and gravel plantsand crushed stone plants withcapacities, as defined in § 60.671, of 136megagrams per hour (150 tons per hour)or less; and

(3) Common clay plants and pumiceplants with capacities, as defined in§ 60.671, of 9 megagrams per hour (10tons per hour) or less.

(d)(1) When an existing facility isreplaced by a piece of equipment ofequal or smaller size, as defined in§ 60.671, having the same function as the

31337


existing facility, the new facility isexempt from the provisions of § § 60.672,60.674, and 60.675 except as provided forin paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(2) An owner or operator seeking tocomply with this paragraph shall complywith the reporting requirements of§ 60.676 (a) and (b).

(3) An owner or operator replacing allexisting facilities in a production linewith new facilities does not qualify forthe exemption described in paragraph(d)(1) of this section and must complywith the provisions of § § 60.672, 60.674and 60.675.

(e) An affected facility underparagraph (a) of this section thatcommences construction, reconstruction,or modification after August 31, 1983 issubject to the requirements of this part.

§ 60.671 Definitions.All terms used in this subpart, but not

specifically defined in this section, shallhave the meaning given them in the Actand in Subpart A of this part.

"Bagging operation" means themechanical process by which bags arefilled with nonmetallic minerals.

"Belt conveyor" means a conveyingdevice that transports material from onelocation to another by means of anendless belt that is carried on a series ofidlers and routed around a pulley ateach end.

"Bucket elevator" means a conveyingdevice of nonmetallic mineralsconsisting of a head and foot assemblywhich supports and drives an endlesssingle or double strand chain or belt towhich buckets are attached.

"Building" means any frame structurewith a roof.

"Capacity" means the'cumulativerated capacity of all initial crushers thatare part of the plant.

"Capture system" means theequipment (including enclosures, hoods,ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used tocapture and transport particulate mattergenerated by one or more processoperations to a control device.

"Control device" means the airpollution control equipment used toreduce particulate matter emissionsreleased to the atmosphere from one ormore process operations at anonmetallic mineral processing plant.

"Conveying system" means a devicefor transporting materials from onepiece of equipment or location toanother location within a plant.Conveying systems include but are notlimited to the following: Feeders, beltconveyors, bucket elevators andpneumatic systems.

"Crusher" means a machine used tocrush any nonmetallic minerals, andincludes, but is not limited to, the

following types: jaw, gyratory, cone, roll,rod mill, hammermill, and impactor.

"Enclosed truck or railcar loadingstation" means that portion of anonmetallic mineral processing plantwere nonmetallic minerals are loadedby an enclosed conveying system intoenclosed trucks or railcars.

"Fixed plant" means any nonmetallicmineral processing plant at which theprocessing equipment specified in§ 60.670(a) is attached by a cable, chain,turnbuckle, bolt or other means (exceptelectrical connections) to any anchor,slab, or structure including bedrock.

"Fugitive emmission" meansparticulate matter that is not collectedby a capture system and is released tothe atmosphere at the point ofgeneration.

"Grinding mill" means a machine usedfor the wet or dry fine crushing of anynonmetallic mineral. Grinding millsinclude, but are not limited to, thefollowing types: hammer, roller, rod,pebble and ball, and fluid energy. Thegrinding mill includes the air conveyingsystem, air separator, or air classifier,where such systems are used.

"Initial crusher" means any crusherinto which nonmetallic minerals can befed without prior crushing in the plant.

"Nonmetallic mineral" means any ofthe following minerals or any mixture ofwhich the majority is any of thefollowing minerals:

(a) Crushed and Broken Stone,including Limestone, Dolomite, Granite,Traprock, Sandstone, Quartz, Quartzite,Marl, Marble, Slate, Shale, Oil Shale,and Shell.

(b) Sand and Gravel.(c) Clay including Kaolin, Fireclay,

Bentonite, Fuller's Earth, Ball Clay, andCommon Clay.

(d) Rock Salt.(e) Gypsum.(f) Sodium Compounds, including

Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Chloride,and Sodium Sulfate.

(g) Pumice.(h) Gilsonite.(i) Talc and Pyrophyllite.(j) Boron, including Borax, Kernite,

and Colemanite.(k) Barite.(1) Fluorospar.(m) Feldspar.(n) Diatomite.(o) Perlite.(p) Vermiculite.(q) Mica.(r) Kyanite, including Andalusite,

Sillimanite, Topaz, and Dumortierite."Nonmetallic mineral processing

plant" means any combination ofequipment that is used to crush or grindany nonmetallic mineral whereverlocated, including lime plants, power

plants, steel mills, asphalt concreteplants, portland cement plants, or anyother facility processing nonmetallicminerals except as provided in § 60.670(b) and (c).

"Portable plant" means anynonmetallic mineral processing plantthat is mounted on any chassis or skidsand may be moved by the application ofa lifting or pulling force. In addition,there shall be no cable, chain,turnbuckle, bolt or other means (exceptelectrical connections) by which anypiece of equipment is attached orclamped to any anchor, slab, orstructure, including bedrock that mustbe removed prior to the application of alifting or pulling force for the purpose oftransporting the unit.

"Production line" means all affectedfacilities (crushers, grinding mills,screening operations, bucket elevators,belt conveyors, bagging operations,storage bins, and enclosed truck andrailcar loading stations) which aredirectly connected or are connectedtogether by a conveying system.

"Screening operation" means a devicefor separating material according to sizeby passing undersize material throughone or more mesh surfaces (screens) inseries, and retaining oversize materialon the mesh surfaces (screens).

"Size" means the rated capacity intons per hour of a crusher, grinding mill,bucket elevator, bagging operation, orenclosed truck or railcar loading station;the total surface area of the top screenof a screening operation; the width of aconveyor belt; and the rated capacity intons of a storage bin.

"Stack emission" means theparticulate matter that is released to theatmosphere from a capture system.

"Storage bin" means a facility forstorage (including surge bins) ornonmetallic minerals prior to furtherprocessing or loading.

"Transfer point" means a point in aconveying operation where thenonmetallic mineral is transferred to orfrom a belt conveyor except where thenonmetallic mineral is being transferredto a stockpile.

"Truck dumping" means the unloadingof nonmetallic minerals from movablevehicles designed to transportnonmetallic minerals from one locationto another. Movable vehicles include butare not limited to: trucks, front endloaders, skip hoists, and railcars.

"Vent" means an opening throughwhich there is mechanically induced airflow for the purpose of exhausting froma building air carrying particulate matteremissions from one or more affectedfacilities.


§ 60.672 Standard for particulate matter.(a) On and after the date on which the

performance test required to beconducted by § 60.8 is completed, noowner or operator subject to theprovisions of this subpart shall cause tobe discharged into the atmosphere fromany transfer point on belt conveyors orfrom any other affected facility anystack emissions which:

(1) Contain particulate matter inexcess of 0.05 g/dscm; or

(2) Exhibit greater than 7 percentopacity, unless the stack emissions aredischarged from an affected facilityusing a wet scrubbing control device.Facilities using a wet scrubber mustcomply with the reporting provisions of§ 60.676(c), (d), and (e).

(b) On and after the sixtieth day afterachieving the maximum production rateat which the affected facility will beoperated, but not later than 180 daysafter initial startup, no owner oroperator subject to the provisions of thissubpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any transferpoint on belt conveyors or from anyother affected facility any fugitiveemissions which exhibit greater than 10percent opacity, except as provided inparagraphs (c), (d) and (e) of thissection.

(c) On and after the sixtieth day afterachieving the maximum production rateat which the affected facility will beoperated, but not later than 180 daysafter initial startup, no owner oroperator shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any crusher, atwhich a capture system is not used,fugitive emissions which exhibit greaterthan 15 percent opacity.

(d) Truck dumping of nonmetallicminerals into any screening operation,feed hopper, or crusher is exempt fromthe requirements of this section.

(e) If any transfer point on a conveyorbelt or any other affected facility isenclosed in a building, then eachenclosed affected facility must complywith the emission limits in paragraphs(a], (b) and (c) of this section, or thebuilding enclosing the affected facilityor facilities must comply with thefollowing emission limits:

(1) No owner or operator shall causeto be discharged into the atmospherefrom any building enclosing any transferpoint on a conveyor belt or any otheraffected facility any visible fugitiveemissions except emissions from a ventas defined in § 60.671.

(2) No owner or operator shall causeto be discharged into the atmospherefrom any vent of any building enclosingany transfer point on a conveyor belt orany other affected facility emissions

which exceed the stack emissions limitsin paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 60.673 Reconstruction.(a) The cost of replacement of ore-

contact surfaces on processingequipment shall not be considered incalculating either the "fixed capital costof the new components" or the "fixedcapital cost that would be required toconstruct a comparable new facility"under § 60.15. Ore-contact surfaces arecrushing surfaces; screen meshes, bars,and plates; conveyor belts; and elevatorbuckets.

(b) Under § 60.15, the "fixed capitalcost of the new components" includesthe fixed capital cost of all depreciablecomponents (except componentsspecified in paragraph (a) of thissection) which are or will be replacedpursuant to all continuous programs ofcomponent replacement commencedwithin any 2-year period followingAugust 31, 1983.

§ 60.674 Monitoring of operations.The owner or operator of any affected

facility subject to the provisions of thissubpart which uses a wet scrubber tocontrol emissions shall install, calibrate,maintain and operate the followingmonitoring devices:

(a) A device for the continuousmeasurement of the pressure loss of thegas stream through the scrubber. Themonitoring device must be certified bythe manufacturer to be accurate within±250 pascals ±1 inch water gaugepressure and must be calibrated on anannual basis in accordance withmanufacturer's instructions.

(b) A device for the continuousmeasurement of the scrubbing liquidflow rate to the wet scrubber. Themonitoring device must be certified bythe manufacturer to be accurate within±5 percent of design scrubbing liquidflow rate and must be calibrated on anannual basis in accordance withmanufacturer's instructions.

§ 60.675 Test methods and procedures.(a) Reference methods in Appendix A

of this part, except as provided under§ 60.8(b), shall be used to determinecompliance with the standardsprescribed under § 60.672 as follows:

(1) Method 5 or Method 17 forconcentration of particulate matter andassociated moisture content;

(2) Method 1 for sample and velocitytraverses;

(3) Method 2 for velocity andvolumetric flow rate;

(4) Method 3 for gas analysis;(5) Method 9 for measuring opacity

from stack emissions and process

fugitive emissions, and emissions frombuilding vents;

(6) Method 22 for measurement ofvisible fugitive emissions whendetermining compliance with thestandard prescribed in § 60.672(e).

(b) For Method 5, the followingstipulations shall apply:

(1) The sampling probe and filterholder may be operated without heatersif the gas stream being sampled is atambient temperature;

(2) For gas streams above ambienttemperature, the sampling train shall beoperated with a probe and filtertemperature high enough to preventwater condensation on the filter but nohigher than 121°C (250°F);

(3) The minimum sample volume shallbe 1.7 dstcm (60 dscf).

(c) When determining compliancewith the standard prescribed under§ 60.672(b) and (c), the Administratorshall adhere to the followingstipulations in addition to those listed inMethod 9:

(1) The minimum distance betweenthe observer and the emission sourceshall be 4.57 meters (15 feet).

(2) The observer shall, when possible,select a position that minimizesinterference from other fugitive emissionsources (e.g., road dust). Note that therequired observer position relative tothe sun (Method 9, Section 2.1) must befollowed.

(3) For affected facilities utilizing wetdust suppression for particulate mattercontrol, a visible mist is sometimesgenerated by the spray. The water mistmust not be confused with particulatematter emissions and is not to beconsidered a visible emission. When awater mist of this nature is present, theobservation of the emissions is to bemade at a point in the plume where themist is no longer visible.

(4) If emissions from two or morefacilities continuously interfere so thatthe opacity of fugitive emissions from anindividual affected facility cannot beread, the owner or operator may showcompliance with the fugitive opacitystandards in § 60.672(b) and (c) by-

(i) Causing the opacity of thecombined emission stream from thefacilities to meet the highest fugitiveopacity standard applicable to any ofthe individual affected facilitiescontributing to the emissions stream, or

(ii) Separating emissions so that theopacity of emissions from each affectedfacility can be read to determinecompliance with the applicable fugitiveopacity limits specified for each facilityin § 60.672(b) and (c).

(d) When determining compliancewith the standard prescribed under

31339


§ 60.672(b) and (c), using Method 9, eachperformance test shall consist of aminimum of 30 sets of 24 consecutiveobservations recorded at 15-secondintervals, as described in Method 9 atsections 2.4 and 2.5.

(e) When determining compliancewith the standard prescribed under§ 60.672(e), using Method 22, theminimum total observation period foreach building shall be 75 minutes, andeach side of the building and the roofshall be observed for a minimum of 15minutes. Performance tests shall beconducted while all affected facilitiesinside the building are operating.

§ 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeplng.(a) Each owner or operator seeking to

comply with § 60.670(d) shall submit tothe Administrator the followinginformation about the existing facilitybeing replaced and the replacementpiece of equipment.

(1) For a crusher, grinding mill, bucketelevator, bagging operation, or enclosedtruck or railcar loading station:

(i) The rated capacity in tons per hourof the exising facility being replaced and

(ii) The rated capacity in tons per hourof the replacement equipment.

(2) For a screening operation:(i) The total surface area of the top

screen of the existing screeningoperation being replaced and

(ii) The total surface area of the topscreen of the replacement screeningoperation.

(3) For a conveyor belt:

(i) The width of the existing belt beingreplaced and

(ii) The width of the replacementconveyor belt.

(4) For a storage bin:(i) The rated capacity in tons of the

existing storage bin being replaced and(ii) The rated capacity in tons of

replacement storage bins.(b) Each owner or operator seeking to

comply with § 60.670(d) shall submit thefollowing data to the Director of theEmission Standards and EngineeringDivision, (MD-13), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711.

(1) The information described in§ 60.676(a).

(2) A description of the control deviceused to reduce particulate matteremissions from the existing facility anda list of all other pieces of equipmentcontrolled by the same control device;and

(3) The estimated age of the existingfacility.

(c) During the initial performance testof a wet scrubber, and daily thereafter,the owner or operator shall record themeasurements of both the change inpressure of the gas stream across thescrubber and the scrubbing liquid flowrate.

(d) After the initial performance testof a wet scrubber, the owner or operatorshall submit semiannual reports to theAdministrator of occurrences when themeasurements of the scrubber pressureloss (or gain) and liquid flow rate differ

by more than ±30 percent from thosemeasurements recorded during the mostrecent performance test.

(e) The reports required underparagraph (d) shall be postmarkedwithin 30 days following end of thesecond and fourth calendar quarters.

(f) The owner or operator of anyaffected facility shall submit writtenreports of the results of all performancetests conducted to demonstratecompliance with the standards set forthin § 60.672, including reports of opacityobservations made using Method 9 todemonstrate compliance with § 60.672(b) and (c) and reports of observationsusing Method 22 to demonstratecompliance with § 60.672(e).

(g) The requirements of this paragraphremain in force until and unless theAgency, in delegating enforcementauthority to a State under Section 111(c)of the Act, approves reportingrequirements or an alternative means ofcompliance surveillance adopted bysuch States. In that event, affectedsources within the State will be relievedof the obligation to comply withparagraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of thissubsection, provided that they complywith requirements established by theState. Compliance with paragraph (b) ofthis section will still be required.

(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060-0050)

[FR Doc. 18268 Filed 7-31-85; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

(,1 2 1/,1( and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum, sodium compounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite, boron, barite, fluorspar, feldspar, diatomite, perlite,

Documents