[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77562-77592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31231]



[[Page 77561]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite 
Iron Ore Processing; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 77562]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0039; FRL-7417-1]
RIN 2060-AJ02


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing plants. The 
EPA has identified taconite iron ore processing plants as a major 
source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. These proposed 
standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by 
requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting 
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    The HAP emitted by plants in the taconite iron ore processing 
source category include metal compounds (primarily manganese, arsenic, 
lead, nickel, and chromium), products of incomplete combustion 
(primarily formaldehyde), and acid gases (hydrochloric acid and 
hydrofluoric acid). Exposure of these substances has been demonstrated 
to cause adverse health effects, including chronic and acute disorders 
of the blood, heart, kidneys, liver, reproductive system, respiratory 
system, and central nervous system. Some of these pollutants are 
considered to be carcinogens.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by January 7, 2003, a public hearing will be held on 
January 17, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Send comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to: Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP Docket, 
EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room 
B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0039. Follow the detailed instructions as 
provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC beginning at 10 
a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conrad Chin, Metals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-1512, electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Example of regulated
             Category                NAICS*             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taconite Iron Ore Processing           21221   Taconite Iron Ore
 Facilities.                                    Processing Facilities
                                                [taconite ore crushing
                                                and handling operations,
                                                indurating furnaces,
                                                finished pellet handling
                                                operations, and ore
                                                dryers].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*North American Information Classification System.

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

Docket

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

Electronic Access

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

Comments

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification

[[Page 77563]]

number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please 
ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment 
period. Comments submitted after the close of the comment period will 
be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late 
comments.

Electronically

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

By Mail

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

By Hand Delivery or Courier

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

By Facsimile

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

CBI

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

Public Hearing

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

Worldwide Web (WWW)

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

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

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

[[Page 77564]]

    C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy 
Impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category 
of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP, Taconite Iron Ore 
Processing, was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of 
HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr 
of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

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

C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule?

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

D. What Processes Are Used at Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants?

    Taconite iron ore processing includes crushing and handling of the 
crude ore; concentrating (milling, magnetic separation, chemical 
flotation, etc.); agglomerating (dewatering, drying, and balling); 
indurating; and finished pellet handling. The main processes of 
interest because of their potential to generate HAP emissions include 
ore crushing and handling, ore drying, indurating, and finished pellet 
handling.
    Taconite ore is obtained from the ground using a strip mining 
process. First, millions of tons of surface material and rock are 
removed to expose the taconite ore-bearing rock layers. Next, the 
taconite ore is blasted, scooped up with large cranes with shovels, and 
loaded into transport vehicles such as 240-ton haulage trucks or 
railcars. The transport vehicles move the ore from the mine to the 
primary crushers. At most plants the mine is located adjacent to the 
ore processing plant. However, at a few plants the mine and the ore 
processing plant are miles apart. In these cases, the taconite ore is 
loaded onto railcars and transported by train to the processing plant.
    The ore crushing process begins where the taconite ore from the 
mine is dumped from trucks or railcars into the primary crusher or into 
feed stockpiles for the primary crusher. The ore is dry-crushed in one 
to four stages depending on the hardness of the ore. Gyratory cone 
crushers are generally used for all stages of crushing. Primary 
crushing reduces the crude ore from run-of-mine size to a size about 
six inches in diameter, while fine crushing further reduces the 
material to a size about \3/4\ of an inch in diameter. Intermediate 
vibratory screens remove the undersized material from the feed before 
it enters the next crusher. Dry ore crushing and handling also includes 
a number of conveying and transfer points as the ore is moved from one 
crushing stage to the next. After it is adequately crushed, the ore is 
conveyed to large ore storage bins at the concentrator building.
    In the concentrator building, water is typically added to the ore 
as it is conveyed into rod and ball mills which further grind the 
taconite ore to the consistency of coarse beach sand. A rod/ball mill 
is a large horizontal cylinder that rotates on its horizontal axis and 
is charged with heavy steel rods or balls and the taconite ore/water 
slurry. As the rods/balls tumble inside the mill, they grind the ore 
into finer particles.
    In a subsequent process step, taconite ore is separated from the 
waste rock material using a magnetic separation process. During 
magnetic separation, a series of magnetized cylinders rotate while 
submerged in the taconite iron ore slurry. The iron-bearing taconite 
particles adhere to the magnetized cylinder surface and are collected 
as a iron-rich slurry. The iron content of the slurry is further 
increased using a combination of hydraulic concentration (gravity 
settling) and chemical flotation.
    Since the concentrating processes are completely wet operations, 
any potential particulate or HAP metal emissions are suppressed. 
However, there are exceptions, such as one plant that conducts dry 
cobbing (a dry magnetic separation process) instead of a wet magnetic 
separation process.
    The concentrated taconite slurry then enters the agglomerating 
process. Water is typically removed from the taconite slurry using 
vacuum disk filters or similar equipment. One plant, which

[[Page 77565]]

processes a finer grained ore, uses rotary dryers after the disc 
filters to dry the ore further. These dryers are rotary dryers, which 
repeatedly tumble the wet ore concentrate through a heated air stream 
to reduce the amount of entrained moisture in the ore. Next, the 
taconite is mixed with various binding agents such as bentonite or 
dolomite in a balling drum which tumbles and rolls the taconite into 
unfired pellets. When the unfired pellets exit the balling drum, they 
are transferred to a metal grate that conveys them to the furnace. Once 
the pellets exit the balling drum they are relatively dry and, 
therefore, have the potential to emit particulate HAP.
    During the indurating process, the unfired taconite pellets are 
hardened and oxidized in the indurating furnace at a fusion temperature 
between 2,290 to 2,550 [deg]F. Two types of indurating furnaces are 
currently used within this source category: straight grate furnaces and 
grate kiln furnaces. The indurating furnace process begins at the point 
where the grate feed conveyor discharges the unfired pellets onto the 
furnace traveling grate and ends where the hardened pellets exit the 
indurating furnace cooler.
    In straight grate indurating furnaces, a continuous bed of unfired 
pellets is carried on a metal grate through different furnace 
temperature zones. Each zone will have either a heated upward draft or 
downward draft blown through the pellets. A layer of fired pellets is 
placed on the metal grate prior to the addition of unfired pellets. 
This hearth-layer allows for even airflow through the pellet bed and 
acts as a buffer between the metal grate and the exothermic heat 
generated from the oxidation of taconite pellets in the indurating 
stage. Before the pellets can be oxidized, all remaining moisture is 
driven off in the first two stages of the furnace, the updraft and 
downdraft drying zones. Unfired pellets must be heated gradually; 
otherwise, moisture in the unfired pellets expands too quickly and 
causes the pellets to explode. After they are dried, the pellets enter 
a preheat zone of the furnace where the temperature is gradually 
increased for the indurating stage. The next zone is the actual firing 
zone for induration, where the pellets are exposed to the highest 
temperature. The fired pellets then enter the post-firing zone, where 
the oxidation process is completed. Finally, the pellets are cooled by 
the intake of ambient air typically in two stages of cooling. A unique 
characteristic of straight grate furnaces is that approximately 30 
percent of the fired pellets are recycled to the feed end of the 
furnace for use as the hearth layer. The remaining pellets are 
transported by conveyor belts to storage areas.
    Waste gases from the straight grate furnace are discharged 
primarily through two ducts: the hood exhaust, which handles the 
cooling and drying gases; and the windbox exhaust, which handles the 
preheat, firing, and after-firing gases. For a typical straight grate 
furnace, the two discharge ducts are combined into one common header 
before the flow is divided into several ducts to be exhausted to the 
atmosphere after control.
    The grate kiln indurating furnace system consists of a traveling 
grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate kiln system 
represents a newer generation of indurating furnaces and is widely used 
by the taconite plants. As with the straight grate furnace system, the 
grate kiln system is also a counterflow heat exchanger, with the 
unfired pellets and indurated pellets moving in a direction opposite to 
that of the process gas flow. A six-inch bed of unfired pellets is laid 
on a continuously moving, horizontal grate. The traveling grate carries 
the unfired pellets into a dryer/preheater that resembles a large 
rectangular oven. In the first half of the traveling grate, unfired 
pellets are gradually dried by hot air at a temperature of 700 [deg]F. 
The second half of the traveling grate is called the preheater, where 
the unfired pellets are heated to a temperature of 2,000 [deg]F prior 
to dropping into the rotary kiln furnace.
    Pellets are discharged from the traveling grate and into the rotary 
kiln. Final indurating of the pellets occurs in the kiln as the pellets 
tumble down the rotating kiln. The rotary kiln typically operates at a 
temperature of 2,300 to 2,400 [deg]F to ensure that the kiln oxidizes 
the iron pellets from a magnetite structure into a hematite structure. 
The hardened pellets are then discharged to a large annular-shaped 
cooler, which is an integral part of an elaborate energy recuperation 
system. The fired pellets discharged from the kiln first enter the 
primary cooling zone of the annular cooler, where ambient air is 
brought in to cool the pellets in a counter-current flow. After the 
pellets heat the ambient air to approximately 2,000 [deg]F, it is then 
used as preheated combustion air in the rotary kiln. As the cooled 
pellets enter a final cooling zone, additional ambient air is used to 
cool the pellets further. Air exiting the final cooling zone is heated 
to approximately 1,000 [deg]F and is used to maintain the temperature 
in the dryer section of the traveling grate. Pellets exiting the final 
cooling zone are cooled to an average temperature of 175 to 225 [deg]F. 
Combustion air from the rotary kiln, which is approximately 2,000 
[deg]F, is used to maintain the temperature in the preheat section of 
the traveling grate.
    Pellet cooler vent stacks are atmospheric vents in the cooler 
section of a grate kiln indurating furnace. Pellet cooler vent stacks 
exhaust cooling air that is not returned for heat recuperation. 
Straight grate furnaces do not have pellet cooler vent stacks. The 
pellet cooler vent stack should not be confused with the cooler 
discharge stack, which is in the pellet loadout or dumping area. New 
grate kiln furnace designs eliminate the cooler vent stack by 
recirculating the air through the furnace.
    The finished pellet handling process begins where the fired 
taconite pellets exit the indurating furnace cooler (i.e., pellet 
loadout) and ends at the finished pellet stockpile. Operations include 
finished pellet screening, transfer, and storage.

E. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled?

    Ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and finished pellet handling 
are all potentially significant points of particulate matter (PM) 
emissions. In addition, because taconite ore inherently contains trace 
metals, such as manganese, chromium, cobalt, arsenic, and lead, they 
are also emitters of HAP metal compounds. Manganese compounds are the 
predominate metal HAP emitted from ore crushing and handling, ore 
drying, and finished pellet handling, accounting for 10 tons/year. All 
other metal HAP compounds are emitted from ore crushing and handling, 
ore drying, and finished pellet handling at rates of less than 0.1 tons 
per year.
    Approximately 70 percent of the ore crushing and handling and 
finished pellet handling units control PM emissions with wet scrubbers, 
such as venturi scrubbers, marble bed scrubbers, or impingement 
scrubbers. The remaining units control PM emissions with baghouses, low 
energy scrubbers (i.e., rotoclones), multiclones, and electrostatic 
precipitators (ESP). The two ore dryers are controlled by cyclones and 
impingement scrubbers in series.
    The indurating furnaces are the most significant sources of HAP 
emissions, accounting for about 99 percent of the total HAP emissions 
from the taconite iron ore processing source category. Three types of 
HAP are emitted from the waste gas stacks of indurating furnaces. The 
first type of HAP is metallic HAP existing as a portion of particulate 
emissions from the taconite ore or fuel (such as coal) fed into the 
furnaces. Manganese and arsenic compounds are

[[Page 77566]]

the predominate metal HAP emitted by indurating furnaces (approximately 
5.8 and 6.5 tons/year, respectively, for the industry); chromium, lead, 
and nickel compounds are emitted in smaller amounts (each approximately 
between 2 to 5 tons/year for the industry); and antimony, beryllium, 
cadmium, cobalt, mercury, and selenium compounds are emitted in yet 
smaller amounts (each approximately less than 1 ton/year for the 
industry). The second type of HAP is organic HAP resulting as products 
of incomplete combustion, primarily formaldehyde. Emissions test data 
from indurating furnaces confirm the presence of formaldehyde. The 
third type of HAP is acidic gases, such as hydrochloric acid and 
hydrofluoric acid. Fluorine and chlorine compounds in the raw materials 
are liberated during the indurating process and combine with moisture 
in the exhaust to form hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid. Both 
formaldehyde and the acid gases are present in exhaust gas from the 
indurating furnace stacks at concentrations around a few parts per 
million (ppm). Formaldehyde emissions from the entire industry are 
estimated to be 181 tons/year. Total emissions of hydrogen chloride and 
hydrogen fluoride are approximately 349 and 308 tons/year, 
respectively.
    Emissions from the indurating furnace stacks are typically 
controlled with either a venturi wet scrubber or an ESP. One indurating 
furnace controls emissions with a multiclone and another furnace 
controls emissions with a gravity collector.
    F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From 
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants?
    As previously mentioned in this preamble, there are a variety of 
metal HAP contained in the PM emitted from taconite iron ore 
processing. These include primarily manganese and arsenic compounds, 
with smaller quantities of lead, nickel and chromium compounds. 
Antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, and selenium compounds 
are emitted in yet smaller amounts. Other HAP, such as formaldehyde, 
hydrochloric acid, and hydrofluoric acid, are present in the waste gas 
stream from the indurating furnace pelletizing stacks on the order of 
ppm.
    Manganese and arsenic compounds comprise the majority of the metal 
HAP emissions. Adverse health effects in humans have been associated 
with manganese dietary deficiencies and excessive exposure to 
manganese. Chronic exposure to low levels of manganese in the diet is 
considered to be nutritionally essential in humans, with a recommended 
daily allowance of 2 to 5 milligrams per day. Chronic exposure to high 
levels of manganese by inhalation in humans results primarily in 
central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, 
and eye-hand coordination were affected in chronically-exposed workers. 
Manganism, characterized by feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, 
a mask-like face, and psychological disturbances, may result from 
chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have 
been noted in male workers afflicted with manganism attributed to 
inhalation exposures. We have classified manganese in Group D, not 
classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.
    Arsenic can be toxic in humans. Acute inhalation exposure to 
arsenic causes gastrointestinal effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, and 
abdominal pain, hemolysis, and central nervous system disorders. 
Chronic inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic is associated with 
irritation of the skin and mucous membranes and is strongly associated 
with lung cancer. We have classified inorganic arsenic as a Group A, a 
known human carcinogen of high carcinogenic hazard.
    Exposure to formaldehyde can result in irritation of the skin and 
mucous membranes. We have classified formaldehyde as a Group B1, 
probable human carcinogen of medium carcinogenic hazard.
    Acute exposure to the acid gases can cause severe respiratory 
damage in humans including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. 
Chronic exposure to hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause 
gastritis, chronic bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Chronic 
exposure to low levels of fluoride has a beneficial effect of dental 
cavity prevention and may be helpful in the treatment of osteoporosis. 
However, exposure to higher levels of hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid 
may cause dental discoloration and erosion.
    In addition to HAP, the proposed rule would also reduce PM 
emissions, which are controlled under national ambient air quality 
standards. Emissions of PM have been associated with aggravation of 
existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of 
premature death.
    We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
experienced by exposed individuals can range from mild to severe. The 
extent and degree to which the health effects may be experienced depend 
on:
    [sbull] Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
    [sbull] The ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as 
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
    [sbull] The frequency and duration of exposures; and
    [sbull] Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, 
age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary 
significantly within the general population.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

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

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

    The proposed rule includes PM emission limits, work practice 
standards, and operating limits for control devices. Particulate matter 
serves as a surrogate measure of metallic HAP emissions.
    The proposed PM emissions limits for ore crushing and handling and 
finished pellet handling operations are 0.008 grains per dry standard 
cubic foot (gr/dscf) for existing sources and 0.005 gr/dscf for new 
sources. Compliance with the proposed PM emissions limits for ore 
crushing and handling are determined based on the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of emissions for all ore crushing and handling units at 
the

[[Page 77567]]

plant. Similarly, compliance with the proposed PM emissions limits for 
finished pellet handling are determined based on the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions for all pellet handling units at the 
plant.
    The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits that must be 
achieved by each individual ore dryer. The proposed emission limit is 
0.052 gr/dscf for existing dryers and 0.025 gr/dscf for new dryers. Ore 
dryers with multiple stacks would calculate their PM emissions as a 
flow-weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks.
    The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits that must be 
achieved by each individual indurating furnace. Indurating furnaces 
with multiple stacks would calculate their PM emissions as a flow-
weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks. For each 
straight grate indurating furnace processing magnetite, the proposed 
emissions limit is 0.010 gr/dscf for existing straight grate furnaces 
and 0.006 gr/dscf for new straight grate furnaces. For each grate kiln 
indurating furnace processing magnetite, the proposed emissions limit 
is 0.011 gr/dscf for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.006 gr/dscf for 
new grate kiln furnaces. For each grate kiln indurating furnace 
processing hematite, the proposed emissions limit is 0.025 gr/dscf for 
existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.018 gr/dscf for new grate kiln 
furnaces.
    The proposed rule also includes specific requirements for 
continuous parameter monitoring and associated operating limits for 
baghouses, wet scrubbers, and dry ESP. Baghouses are to be equipped 
with a bag leak detection system (BLDS) capable of monitoring relative 
changes in PM loading in the baghouse exhaust, which is to alarm 
whenever a predetermined set point is exceeded, indicating an increase 
in emissions above that allowed at the set point. The proposed rule 
would limit the frequency and duration of alarms to no more than 5 
percent of a source's total operating time in any semiannual reporting 
period. In the case of wet scrubbers, sources would be required to 
continuously monitor scrubber pressure drop and water flow rate and 
operate at all times at or above specified hourly average values 
established during initial performance testing. For dry ESP, sources 
would be required to install and operate continuous opacity monitoring 
systems (COMS). Each source must report as a deviation any 6-minute 
period during which the average opacity exceeds the opacity value 
corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence level established 
during the performance test. The proposed rule would require sources to 
submit information on alternative monitoring parameters and operating 
limits if a control device other than a baghouse, wet scrubber, or dry 
ESP is used.
    All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to 
prepare and implement a written fugitive dust emissions control plan. 
The plan would describe in detail the measures that will be put in 
place to control fugitive dust emissions from the following sources at 
a plant, as applicable: stockpiles, material transfer points, plant 
roadways, tailings basin, pellet loading areas and yard areas. Existing 
fugitive dust emission control plans that describe current measures to 
control fugitive dust emission sources that have been approved as part 
of a State implementation plan or title V permit would be acceptable, 
provided they address the prior-listed fugitive dust emission sources.

C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

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

D. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
the ore crushing and handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source 
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Similarly, for the 
finished pellet handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source 
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. In all cases, initial 
compliance must be demonstrated through a performance test. The 
performance test must be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. All initial compliance tests must be completed no 
later than 2 years following the compliance date. In lieu of conducting 
performance tests for all emission units, the plant may elect to group 
similar emission units together and conduct initial performance tests 
on a representative sample of units within each group. Each plant must 
submit a testing plan to the permitting authority for approval. The 
testing plan must identify the emission units that will be grouped as 
similar, identify the representative unit(s) that will be tested for 
each group, and the proposed schedule for testing.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
each indurating furnace and each ore dryer, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all stacks for each furnace or each 
ore dryer must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Initial 
compliance must be demonstrated through an initial performance test. 
The performance test must be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A. The initial compliance test for each 
indurating furnace and each ore dryer must be completed no later than 
180 calendar days after the compliance date. For indurating furnaces 
and ore dryers with multiple stacks, all stacks for the indurating 
furnace or ore dryer must be tested simultaneously.
    The proposed rule would also require that certain operating limits 
on control devices be established during the initial compliance test to 
ensure that control devices operate properly on a continuing basis. All 
operating limits must be established during a performance test that 
demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limit. During the 
initial compliance tests, operating limits must be established for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate for all wet scrubbers, and 
opacity (using a COMS) for dry ESP.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed work practice 
standards, plants would prepare, submit, and implement a fugitive dust 
emission control plan on or before the applicable compliance date as 
specified in Sec.  63.9583 of the proposed rule. To demonstrate initial 
compliance with the proposed operation and maintenance requirements, 
plants would certify in their notification of compliance status that 
they have prepared the written

[[Page 77568]]

plans and will operate control devices according to the procedures in 
the plan.

E. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

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

F. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

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

G. What are the Compliance Deadlines?

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

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?

    An affected source is the collection of equipment, processes and 
activities within a source category to which an emission limitation, 
work practice standard, or other regulatory requirement in a MACT 
standard will apply. Depending on circumstance, we have adopted broader 
or narrower definitions of affected source. In some instances, we have 
adopted a definition as broad as all processes, equipment and 
activities at a source, while in other instances, we have defined 
affected source as narrowly as a single piece of equipment. The 
selection of affected

[[Page 77569]]

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

[[Page 77570]]

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

B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

    Pollutants emitted by plants in the taconite iron ore processing 
source category include metallic HAP (primarily naturally occurring 
compounds of manganese, arsenic, lead, nickel, and chromium, and lesser 
quantities of mercury), organic HAP resulting from incomplete 
combustion (mainly formaldehyde), and acid gases (hydrochloric acid and 
hydrofluoric acid).
    Metallic HAP are emitted from ore crushing and handling units, 
indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling units, and ore dryers. We 
determined that it is not practical to establish individual standards 
for each metallic HAP that could be present in the various processes 
(e.g., separate standards for manganese compound emissions, separate 
standards for lead compound emissions, and so forth for each metal 
compound group listed as HAP and which potentially could be present). 
When released, each of the metallic HAP compounds, except elemental 
mercury, behave as PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between 
PM emissions and emissions of the individual metallic HAP compounds. 
Control technologies used for the reduction of PM emissions achieve 
comparable levels of reduction of metallic HAP emissions. Standards 
requiring good control of PM emissions will also achieve a similar 
level of control of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, we are 
establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the 
individual metallic HAP. Establishing separate standards for each 
metallic HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex 
compliance and monitoring requirements. In addition, establishing 
separate standards for each metallic HAP would achieve little, if any, 
HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the total 
PM surrogate pollutant approach.
    Products of incomplete combustion, such as formaldehyde, are 
released from indurating furnaces at very low concentrations as a 
result of the burning of fuels, such as natural gas. Formaldehyde has 
been measured through stack testing at concentrations that are 
typically less than 1 ppm.
    Formaldehyde emissions are currently uncontrolled. Existing PM 
emission controls on indurating furnaces include ESP and wet scrubbers, 
neither of which are capable of controlling formaldehyde. In addition, 
since formaldehyde emissions are produced as a byproduct of burning 
fuels, generally natural gas, taconite plants cannot lower their 
formaldehyde emissions by switching raw materials or changing fuels.
    We know of no feasible control technology for reducing formaldehyde 
emissions at these extremely low concentrations and at the exhaust gas 
temperatures typically encountered at indurating furnaces. The only 
known technology for the control of formaldehyde emissions at

[[Page 77571]]

concentrations of less than 1 ppm is thermal catalytic oxidation in 
which formaldehyde is contacted with a precious metal catalyst in the 
presence of oxygen and high temperature (650 to 1,350 [deg]F) to yield 
carbon dioxide and water. Destruction efficiencies of 85 to 90 percent 
have been demonstrated on formaldehyde emissions contained in the 
exhaust gas from stationary combustion turbines at concentrations in 
the parts per billion range and temperatures of 1,000[deg]F or higher. 
Destruction efficiencies, however, decrease exponentially at reaction 
temperatures below 650[deg]F, down to eventually less than 10 percent 
at exhaust gas temperature of 300[deg]F or less, which is typical of 
most indurating furnaces. Accordingly, the burning of large quantities 
of additional fuel, such as natural gas, would be needed to heat the 
exhaust gases to the desired temperature, which would generate 
additional quantities of carbon dioxide (a global warming gas) and 
nitrogen oxides (an ozone precursor). In addition, given the large 
volume of exhaust gas to be treated, on the order of several hundred 
thousand cubic feet per minute per furnace, and the complexity of 
retrofitting multiple stacks with gas burners and thermal catalytic 
oxidation units, the capital cost and operating cost for control would 
be enormous.
    Since formaldehyde emissions are currently uncontrolled, we 
conclude that the MACT floor for formaldehyde is no emissions 
reduction. In addition, due to the severe technical and economic 
constraints of controlling formaldehyde at high volumetric flow rates, 
very low concentrations and relatively low temperatures, we conclude 
that no beyond-the-floor control is feasible. Accordingly, specific 
emission limitations for formaldehyde are not included in the proposed 
rule.
    Acid gases (hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid) are also 
emitted from indurating furnaces at very low concentrations, typically 
less than 3 ppm. Acid gases are formed in the indurating furnace due to 
the presence of chlorides and fluorides in pellet additives, such as 
dolomite and limestone. The taconite industry has not installed 
equipment to specifically control acid gases. The MACT floor for acid 
gases was determined to be no emissions reduction. Unlike formaldehyde, 
some air pollution control devices currently used by the industry to 
reduce PM emissions can achieve incidental control of acid gases. Due 
to the strong affinity of these acid gases for water, control equipment 
that use water, such as wet wall electrostatic precipitators and wet 
scrubbers, have the capability of reducing hydrochloric acid and 
hydrofluoric acid emissions substantially. Therefore, a specific 
emission limitation for acid gases is not included in today's proposal.
    Indurating furnaces are also a source of mercury emissions. Mercury 
is a naturally occurring element in the taconite ore. As the taconite 
pellets are heated in the furnace, the naturally occurring mercury 
compounds are volatilized. The key factor affecting emissions is the 
mercury content of the ore. Currently, none of the plants in this 
industry have installed controls for mercury emissions. We also have 
not been able to identify any currently employed operating practices 
which effectively reduce mercury emissions. Since specific controls for 
mercury are not currently present in the industry and operating 
practices which effectively reduce mercury emissions have not been 
identified, the MACT floor for mercury was determined to be no 
emissions reduction. In evaluating potential above-the-floor options, 
we were unable to identify any viable control technologies or operating 
practices for achieving reductions in mercury emissions from indurating 
furnaces at taconite iron ore plants. As a result, a specific emission 
limitation for mercury has not been included in the proposed rule. We 
will reevaluate the feasibility of controlling mercury emissions from 
taconite iron ore plants as part of the assessment for residual risk 
standards.
    Due to the nature of the taconite iron ore deposits on the Mesabi 
Range in Northeast Minnesota, there is some potential for the 
occurrence of contaminant asbestos in some taconite ore mining areas. 
Asbestos is the name applied to a group of six different minerals that 
occur naturally in the environment. These minerals are made up of long 
thin fibers similar to fiberglass. The concern is mainly limited to two 
taconite plants located at the eastern end of the Mesabi Range where 
acicular (needle-like) minerals may be present in the ore.
    Asbestos emissions are currently regulated under NESHAP promulgated 
in April 1984 (40 CFR part 61, subpart M) that regulate the milling of 
commercial asbestos and the manufacturing and fabricating of asbestos 
products. The provisions of the NESHAP also apply to the demolition and 
renovation of buildings where asbestos-containing material is present. 
The NESHAP do not apply to ore or other mineral processing operations 
that may contain asbestos as a contaminant. A work group within EPA is 
currently studying the complex issues involved with asbestos emissions 
from beneficiation and subsequent processing of minerals where asbestos 
may be present as a contaminant. That study was initiated in response 
to the events surrounding exposures of citizens to asbestos which 
occurred as a contaminant in a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. The 
work group has developed an action plan which identifies steps 
necessary to gather the information that EPA needs to decide whether 
regulations for sources of contaminant asbestos are warranted. The work 
group has targeted vermiculite mining and processing operations as the 
first priority in the study. The work group also plans to study 
asbestos that occurs as a contaminant from other mining and processing 
operations, including taconite ore mining and processing. Decisions on 
whether to regulate asbestos that occurs as a contaminant in taconite 
ore mining and processing and other potential industries will be based 
on information gathered in the study.

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

    We have taken alternative approaches to establishing the MACT 
floor, depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available 
data. The three approaches most commonly used involve reliance on the 
following: State and Federal regulations or permit limits, source test 
data that characterize actual emissions, and use of a technology floor 
with an accompanying demonstrated achievable emission level that 
accounts for process and/or air pollution control device variability. 
We evaluated each of these MACT floor approaches when developing the 
MACT floor for each of the four affected sources: Ore crushing and 
handling, indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling, and ore 
dryers. As previously discussed in this preamble, we are establishing 
standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for individual metallic 
HAP compounds.
1. Ore Crushing and Handling and Finished Pellet Handling
    Although ore crushing handling and finished pellet handling are 
defined as separate affected sources, we combined the available test 
data on both sources for the MACT floor and MACT analyses. This is 
consistent with our usual practice in developing MACT standards in 
organizing, as appropriate, the available information for similar HAP-
emitting equipment into related groups for the purpose of determining 
MACT floors and MACT; yet, as appropriate, maintaining separate 
affected source

[[Page 77572]]

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

[[Page 77573]]

new source MACT. The 0.005 gr/dscf level corresponds to the best 
performing source (plant) with the lowest flow-weighted mean PM 
concentration.
2. Indurating Furnaces Processing Magnetite
    There are 21 indurating furnaces at the eight operating taconite 
plants. Fourteen of the furnaces are grate kiln designs and seven are 
straight grate designs. As discussed previously in this preamble, we 
are establishing subcategories within the indurating furnace affected 
source to accommodate differences in the two furnace designs. We have 
determined that these furnace design types have unique physical and 
operational differences which warrant their separation into two 
subcategories. We are also differentiating the grate kiln furnaces 
based on type of ore processed (i.e., hematite versus magnetite ore).
    We evaluated the existing State PM emission limitations as an 
option for establishing the MACT floor. However, a comparison of the 
State limits with data on actual PM emissions shows that the State 
limits are generally much more lenient than the actual emissions and, 
as such, are not appropriate for establishing the MACT floor.
    Most of the indurating furnaces in Minnesota are subject to the 
State's IPER. Particulate matter emission limits for indurating 
furnaces under the IPER range from 0.025 to 0.05 gr/dscf. Due to its 
proximity to Lake Superior, one of the Minnesota plants, which operates 
straight grate furnaces, is subject to a more stringent State limit of 
0.01 gr/dscf. The two Michigan plants, both of which operate grate kiln 
furnaces, are subject to State PM emission limits also based on air 
flow rates. One plant which operates two furnaces has a PM emission 
limit of 0.065 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which 
equates to 0.04 gr/dscf. The other plant which operates four grate 
kilns has a PM emission limit of 0.10 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of 
exhaust gas for two larger kilns, and 0.15 pounds of PM per 1,000 
pounds of exhaust gas for two smaller kilns. The two emission limits 
equate to 0.06 to 0.09 gr/dscf, respectively. By contrast, the 
available information on actual PM emissions for 19 of 21 furnaces for 
which we have emissions test data indicate that the actual emissions 
are considerably lower than the levels allowed under the State limits. 
The average concentration of actual emissions measured from all 19 
furnaces when processing magnetite range from 0.005 to 0.02 gr/dscf, 
which is about 5 times lower than the typical State limit. Therefore, 
we concluded that the State PM emission limits and permit conditions do 
not realistically represent the emission levels actually achieved in 
practice by the best performing sources.
    We next examined the available emissions data to determine if the 
MACT floor could be based on actual emissions. We have credible PM test 
data for six of the seven straight grate furnaces and thirteen of the 
fourteen grate kiln furnaces. The test data for each furnace consists 
of a test for each furnace stack, with multiple tests for furnaces that 
discharge through more than one stack. Each test consists of three 1-
hour test runs expressed in gr/dscf. For the furnaces with multiple 
stacks, the PM emissions from each indurating furnace were calculated 
as the flow-weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all 
stacks. Given the amount and quality of available PM emissions test 
data, we conclude that the available information on actual emissions is 
more than adequate for the purpose of determining the requisite MACT 
floors for new and existing sources.
    As a first step in our MACT floor and MACT analysis for indurating 
furnaces, we initially explored the appropriateness of using a 
plantwide average approach similar to that used for ore crushing and 
handling and finished pellet handling. After an assessment of the 
available test data, we determined that the plantwide average approach 
was not feasible due to insufficient data, and that an alternative 
approach that focuses on individual furnace emissions rather than 
plantwide emissions is more suitable. For plants using grate kiln 
furnaces, we have sufficient test data to calculate a plantwide value 
for only three of the five plants. For plants using straight grate 
furnaces, we have sufficient test data to calculate a plantwide value 
for only two of the three plants. Therefore, due to a lack of test data 
on some furnaces, it is not possible to use a plantwide approach to 
determine the MACT floor for indurating furnaces.
    As an alternative approach, we treated each of the 21 indurating 
furnaces as separate emission units. As a first step, we looked at all 
furnaces (straight grate and grate kiln) with multiple PM emissions 
tests to account for the variability inherent in the performance tests. 
There are 12 grate kiln furnaces and three straight grate furnaces for 
which there were two or more emissions tests. To quantify the 
variability between tests for each of these furnaces, we calculated a 
relative standard deviation (RSD) for each furnace. The RSD is 
calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the data by the mean 
of the data and multiplying the result by 100. The RSD provides a 
measure of the variability of the PM test data for each furnace 
relative to the mean of the PM test data for each furnace. The RSD is 
expressed as a percentage for each furnace, and these percentages were 
then compared between furnaces.
    The variability between tests for a given indurating furnace is due 
to normal variability in process operation and control device 
performance, as well as measurement error. These factors affect all 
furnaces similarly, and their affect on emissions is largely 
independent of furnace type and ore type. Therefore, we looked at the 
range of RSD values for all furnaces together (grate kilns and straight 
grates) when determining the overall variability. The RSD for the 15 
furnaces with multiple test data ranged from 9 to 112 percent and 
averaged 37 percent. This indicates that on average, the PM emissions 
tests for each furnace are within plus or minus 37 percent of the mean 
of the emissions tests.
    We then applied the average RSD of 37 percent to each emission test 
to include a measure of variability to each test. Next, we assigned a 
level of performance to each of the 19 furnaces for which we have 
actual emissions data. For furnaces for which we have two or more 
tests, we chose the higher of the test results as the representative 
value of performance for that furnace. We believe that selecting the 
higher of the test results provides more assurance that the inherent 
operational variability is fully accounted for in the selection of the 
representative value. For furnaces for which we have only one test, we 
used that single test result as the assigned value of performance.
    Since there are fewer than 30 sources in the straight grate and 
grate kiln indurating furnace subcategories, the MACT floors were 
determined using the best five performing sources. Each indurating 
furnace was then ranked within its subcategory according to its flow-
weighted mean concentration of PM emissions after application of the 
RSD adjustment for variability. The five furnaces in each subcategory 
with the lowest adjusted PM concentration were identified as the best 
performing sources. The MACT floor was then determined as the mean PM 
concentration value for the five best performing sources. The adjusted 
PM concentration values for the five best performing straight grate 
furnaces were 0.0083, 0.0090, 0.0093, 0.0105, and 0.0126. The mean of 
the five best performing straight grate furnaces was determined to be 
0.010 gr/dscf. The

[[Page 77574]]

adjusted PM concentration values for the five best performing grate 
kiln furnaces were 0.0085, 0.0090, 0.0111, 0.0123, and 0.0123. The mean 
of the five best performing grate kiln furnaces was determined to be 
0.011 gr/dscf.
    We then examined a beyond-the-floor option. The next increment of 
control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers or 
dry ESP capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.006 gr/dscf, 
which is equivalent to the level of control required for new straight 
grate furnaces and new grate kiln furnaces. For straight grate 
furnaces, we estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level 
of 0.010 gr/dscf to a level of 0.006 gr/dscf to be $71.2 million and 
the total annual cost to be $11.4 million per year. We estimate the 
corresponding additional reduction in HAP achieved from straight grate 
furnaces to be 30 tons. The cost per ton of HAP for straight grate 
furnaces is $379,000/ton. The energy increase would be expected to be 
17,139 mega-watt hours per year, primarily due to the energy 
requirements of new wet scrubbers and dry ESP. For grate kiln furnaces, 
we estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.011 
gr/dscf to a level of 0.006 gr/dscf to be $28.5 million and the total 
annual cost to be $5.3 million per year. We estimate the corresponding 
additional reduction in HAP achieved from grate kilns to be 12.8 tons. 
The cost per ton of HAP for grate kiln furnaces is $414,000/ton. The 
energy increase would be expected to be 36,297 mega-watt hours per 
year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new wet scrubbers and 
dry ESP. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the small 
reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond-the-floor 
alternative for either furnace subcategory. We could not identify any 
other beyond-the-floor alternatives. Consequently, we chose the MACT 
floor levels of control of 0.010 gr/dscf for straight grate furnaces 
and 0.011 gr/dscf for grate kiln furnaces as MACT for existing 
indurating furnace.
    For the new source MACT analysis, we did not adjust the PM 
emissions test results for variability. We believe that a variability 
adjustment is not necessary because new emission controls can be 
engineered to account for variability in process operation and control 
device performance, as well as measurement error. We ranked the 
representative PM concentrations for each straight grate furnace and 
for each grate kiln furnace from the lowest to the highest values.
    We selected the furnace with the lowest PM outlet concentration of 
0.006 gr/dscf as new source MACT for new straight grate indurating 
furnaces. We believe that this furnace, which is controlled by a 
venturi scrubber, represents the best controlled similar source among 
the seven operating straight grate furnaces.
    We selected the furnace with the lowest PM outlet concentration of 
0.006 gr/dscf as the new source MACT for new grate kiln indurating 
furnaces processing magnetite. We believe that this furnace, which is 
controlled by a dry ESP, represents the best controlled similar source 
among the 14 operating grate kiln furnaces.
3. Indurating Furnaces Processing Hematite
    There are two indurating furnaces that process hematite ore. Both 
furnaces are grate kiln designs and are located at the same plant in 
Michigan. Hematite is processed approximately 8 months of the year and 
magnetite is processed the remainder of the year.
    Both furnaces are similar in design, size, operating conditions and 
air pollution control. Each furnace is of the grate kiln design, which 
consists of a continuous traveling grate followed by a rotary kiln. The 
two kilns are both 25 feet in diameter and 160 feet long and have 
similar production rates. Exhaust gases from each furnace are 
controlled by three ESP, three dry units on one furnace and one wet and 
two dry units on the other furnace. All corresponding ESP for each 
furnace have similar configurations, including number of chambers and 
fields, and collection area; and similar operating conditions, 
including volumetric air flow, gas inlet temperature, primary and 
secondary currents, and primary and secondary voltages.
    We evaluated the existing State PM emission limitations as an 
option for establishing the MACT floor. However, a comparison of the 
State limit with data on actual PM emissions shows that the State limit 
is much more lenient than the actual emissions and, as such, is not 
appropriate for establishing the MACT floor.
    Both furnaces are subject to Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.065 
pounds of particulate per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to 
approximately 0.04 gr/dscf. In comparison, available information on 
actual PM emissions for the two furnaces indicate that the actual 
emissions are considerably lower than the levels allowed under the 
State limit. The average concentration of actual emissions measured 
from the two furnaces when processing hematite range from 0.017 to 
0.018 gr/dscf, which is about half the State limit. Therefore, we 
concluded that the State PM emission limit does not realistically 
represent the emission levels actually achieved in practice by the two 
furnaces when processing hematite.
    We next examined the available emissions data to determine if the 
MACT floor could be based on actual emissions. We have credible PM test 
data for both furnaces while processing hematite. The test data for 
each furnace consists of a PM test of each furnace stack (three tests 
per furnace). Each test consists of three 1-hour test runs. The PM 
emissions from each furnace were calculated as the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions in gr/dscf from all stacks. We believe 
that this available information on actual emissions is adequate for the 
purpose of determining the requisite MACT floors for new and existing 
sources.
    A variability analysis for furnaces processing hematite could not 
be conducted because multiple valid PM emissions tests are not 
available for these furnaces. As a result, we relied on the RSD 
adjustment used when processing magnetite to account for process, 
control device, and measurement variability. As noted previously, these 
factors affect all furnaces similarly, and their affect on emissions is 
largely independent of furnace type and ore type. Therefore, we believe 
it is appropriate to apply the RSD calculated for furnaces processing 
magnetite to furnaces processing hematite. Since there are only two 
indurating furnaces processing hematite, and these furnaces are 
ostensibly identical in design, size, operation and emissions control, 
we selected the MACT floor based on the higher of the two PM 
concentration values (0.023 and 0.025 gr/dscf) after application of the 
RSD adjustment for variability. The resulting MACT floor for existing 
grate kiln indurating furnaces processing hematite is 0.025 gr/dscf.
    We then examined a beyond-the-floor alternative. The next increment 
of control beyond the floor is the installation of a dry ESP capable of 
consistently meeting a concentration limit of 0.018 gr/dscf, which is 
equivalent to the level of control required for new grate kiln furnaces 
processing hematite. We estimate the additional capital cost of going 
from a level of 0.025 gr/dscf to a level of 0.018 gr/dscf to be $25.9 
million and the total annual cost to be $4.9 million per year. We 
estimate the corresponding additional reduction in HAP achieved from 
grate kiln furnaces processing hematite to be 0.3 tons. The cost per 
ton of HAP for grate kiln furnaces processing hematite is $19.6 
million/

[[Page 77575]]

ton. The energy increase would be expected to be 34,898 mega-watt hours 
per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new dry ESP. We 
believe that the high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP 
emissions, does not justify this beyond-the-floor alternative at this 
time. We could not identify any other beyond-the-floor alternatives. 
Consequently, we chose the MACT floor level of control of 0.025 gr/dscf 
as MACT for existing grate kiln furnaces processing hematite.
    For the new source MACT analysis, we relied on the same emission 
source test data used above in the existing source MACT determination. 
However, we did not adjust the values from the emissions tests with a 
RSD adjustment for the new source MACT analysis. We believe that a 
variability adjustment is not necessary because new emission controls 
can be engineered to account for variability in process operation and 
control device performance.
    As noted previously, both furnaces are ostensibly identical in 
design, operation and control, with measured PM emissions based on one 
performance test per furnace of 0.017 and 0.018 gr/dscf. Given the 
similarities between the two furnaces and their demonstrated 
performance, we selected a PM concentration of 0.018 gr/dscf as the new 
source MACT for new grate kiln indurating furnaces when processing 
hematite.
4. Ore Dryers
    There are only two ore dryers in the source category. Both are 
rotary designs and are located at the same plant in Michigan. The first 
dryer measures 10 feet in diameter and 80 feet in length and has a 
rated capacity of 400 tons per hour. It is equipped with two cyclones 
and an impingement scrubber in series for PM control. The second dryer 
is somewhat larger measuring 12.5 feet in diameter and 100 feet in 
length with a rated capacity of 650 tons per hour. The exhaust gas from 
the second dryer is split into two streams, with each exhaust stream 
controlled by two cyclones and an impingement scrubber in series and 
discharging through a separate stack. Both ore dryers are subject to 
Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.1 pound of particulate per 1,000 
pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to approximately 0.052 gr/dscf.
    We have one PM emission test for each dryer. Both dryers were 
tested in May 2002 while processing hematite. Tests were conducted at 
each of the three dryer stacks and included three 1-hour test runs per 
stack. In the case of the two stack dryer, the test results were 
calculated on a flow-weighted basis. The results, expressed in units of 
PM concentration, are 0.017 and 0.040 gr/dscf for the smaller and 
larger dryer, respectively.
    We examined the test conditions under which each dryer was tested 
and have determined that the smaller dryer was tested under conditions 
not representative of normal long-term operations. Specifically, the 
dryer had been idle prior to testing and brought back on-line solely 
for the purpose of testing only 2 hours ahead of commencing the 
performance test, which was 3 hours in duration. We do not believe that 
a warm-up period of only a few hours is adequate to produce conditions 
representative of the worst-case circumstance reasonably expected to 
occur under normal long-term operations. We have, therefore, excluded 
these data from further consideration in our MACT assessment.
    We evaluated the existing State PM emission limit as an option for 
establishing the MACT floor. A comparison of the State limit of 0.052 
gr/dscf with the only credible data on actual PM emissions of 0.040 gr/
dscf indicates that the State limit is a reasonable proxy of actual 
performance and, as such, is appropriate for establishing the MACT 
floor level. Consequently, the MACT floor for ore dryers is determined 
to be the level of control indicated by the existing State limit of 
0.052 gr/dscf.
    We then examined a beyond-the-floor alternative. The next increment 
of control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers 
capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.025 gr/dscf, which is 
equivalent to the level of control required for new ore dryers. We 
estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.052 gr/
dscf to a level of 0.025 gr/dscf to be $98,000 and the total annual 
cost to be $256,000 per year. We estimate the corresponding additional 
reductions in HAP achieved from ore dryers to be 0.32 tons. The cost 
per ton of HAP for ore dryers is $790,000/ton. The energy increase 
would be expected to be 3,520 mega-watt hours per year, primarily due 
to the energy requirements of new wet scrubbers. We believe that the 
high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not 
justify this beyond-the-floor alternative at this time. We could not 
identify any other beyond the floor alternatives. Consequently, we 
chose the MACT floor level of control of 0.052 gr/dscf as MACT for 
existing ore dryers.
    For new ore dryers, we are selecting a PM outlet concentration of 
0.025 gr/dscf as new source MACT. The 0.025 gr/dscf level corresponds 
to the standard for dryers in the NSPS for calciners and dryers in 
mineral industries (40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU). The dryers used to 
develop the NSPS limit are very similar to the dryers that are used by 
the taconite industry. Specifically, many of the dryers studied in the 
NSPS were of the rotary design, were controlled by wet scrubbers, and 
processed material with a particle size distribution similar to that of 
taconite ore. Therefore, due to these similarities, we believe that the 
level of 0.025 gr/dscf from the NSPS for calciners and dryers in 
mineral industries is a reasonable proxy of the performance that can be 
achieved by new ore dryers in the taconite industry.

D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?

    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
the ore crushing and handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source 
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Similarly, for the 
finished pellet handling affected source, the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source 
must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. For both affected 
sources, emission units must demonstrate their performance through 
initial testing. The performance test is to be conducted using EPA 
Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    Factors that can affect the compatibility of the Method 5 and 
Method 17 results are stack temperature, moisture and the type and 
quantity of condensible material. Stack emissions from ore crushing and 
handling and finished pellet handling emission units are typically at 
ambient temperature, and are low in moisture and condensible material. 
Therefore, under the conditions encountered at taconite plants for both 
units, we consider the results from Method 5 and Method 17 to be 
equivalent.
    There are a total of 346 ore crushing and handling and finished 
pellet handling emission units in the industry. Combined, these units 
account for only 1 percent of the total HAP emitted from the entire 
source category. Requiring an initial EPA Method 5 or 17 PM test for 
all 346 units would cost approximately $1.73 million ($5,000 per test). 
The ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling operations 
at most taconite iron ore processing plants consist of parallel lines 
of crushers, screens, bins, and conveyors. In most cases, the parallel 
lines consist of nearly identical process units and emission control 
equipment. Therefore, to reduce

[[Page 77576]]

the burden of initial testing, we are allowing plants to group similar 
emission units with similar control equipment together and then conduct 
an initial performance test on one or more representative emission 
units within each group, depending on the number of similar units 
within the group. To ensure consistency in the grouping of similar 
emission units, the rule includes the following criteria: emission 
units must be the same type of process unit (e.g., primary crushers are 
separate from secondary crushers); emissions from the units must be 
controlled by the same type of emission control device (e.g., 
impingement scrubbers are separate from venturi scrubbers); the 
difference in the volumetric flow rate among similar emission units in 
dscf cannot vary by more than 10 percent; and the difference in the 
actual process throughput rate among similar emission units in long 
tons per hour cannot vary by more than 10 percent. Each plant must 
submit a testing plan to the permitting authority for approval. The 
testing plan must identify the emission units that will be grouped as 
similar and identify the representative unit that will be tested for 
each group.
    By allowing similar emission units to be grouped together, we 
estimate that the total number of emission units subjected to initial 
compliance testing would be reduced from 346 to 176 units. This would 
reduce the initial compliance burden by approximately half to $880,000.
    Even after grouping similar emission units, most plants would still 
have to test between 20 and 39 units (ore crushing and handling and 
finished pellet handling combined). We believe that 180 days does not 
allow sufficient time to schedule and test this number of emission 
units. In addition, plants will be conducting initial compliance tests 
for their indurating furnaces at the same time. Therefore, to further 
reduce the burden of initial compliance testing for both emission 
units, we are allowing plants 2 years following the compliance date to 
conduct all initial compliance tests for both emission units. We 
believe that by grouping similar units and allowing initial testing to 
be conducted within 2 years, the initial compliance burden will be 
minimized while still providing adequate assurance of initial 
compliance with the emission limits.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
indurating furnaces, the flow-weighted mean concentration of PM 
emissions of all furnace stacks for each furnace must not exceed the 
applicable PM emission limit. Indurating furnaces must demonstrate 
their performance through initial testing. The performance test is to 
be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    As mentioned above, factors that can affect the compatibility of 
the Method 5 and Method 17 results are stack temperature, moisture and 
the type and quantity of condensible material. Stack emissions from 
indurating furnaces typically range from 200 to 315[deg]F, with an 8 to 
14 percent moisture content, and low concentrations of condensible 
material. Under these conditions we consider the results from Method 5 
and Method 17 to be equivalent. However, if the stack temperature is 
above 320[deg]F and the furnace is burning a fuel other than natural 
gas, Method 5 must be used for the performance test.
    The initial compliance test for each indurating furnace must be 
performed within 180 calendar days of the compliance date. For 
indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, all stacks for the indurating 
furnace must be tested simultaneously. The 180-day requirement is 
consistent with the requirements in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. The 
number of indurating furnaces per plant ranges from one to five, as 
well as the number of stacks per furnace. Based on the relatively small 
number of indurating furnaces, we believe that 180 days allows 
sufficient time for plants to complete initial testing of all 
indurating furnaces.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for 
ore dryers, the flow-weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all 
stacks for each dryer must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. 
Ore dryers must demonstrate their performance through initial testing. 
The performance test is to be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A.
    The initial compliance test for each ore dryer must be performed 
within 180 calendar days of the compliance date. For ore dryers with 
multiple stacks, all stacks for the ore dryer must be tested 
simultaneously. The 180-day requirement is consistent with the 
requirements in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. There are only two 
existing ore dryers in the source category. As such, we conclude that 
180 days allows sufficient time to complete initial testing.
    The proposed rule would also require that certain operating limits 
on control devices be established during the initial compliance test to 
ensure that control devices operate properly on a continuing basis. All 
operating limits must be established during a performance test that 
demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limit. During the 
initial compliance tests, operating limits must be established for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate for all wet scrubbers, and 
opacity (using a COMS) for dry ESP.

E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    For continuous compliance, we chose periodic performance testing 
for PM, which is consistent with current permit requirements. We 
consulted with the two States in which taconite ore processing plants 
are located to determine how they were implementing title V permitting 
requirements for performance tests. The requirements for the frequency 
and number of performance tests for ore crushing and handling, and 
finished pellet handling and ore drying units were determined to be 
variable and highly site-specific. Consequently, for ore crushing and 
handling, and finished pellet handling and ore drying units, we decided 
that the schedule for conducting subsequent performance tests should be 
based on schedules established in each plant's title V operating 
permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, then the plant must 
submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting authority for 
approval.
    For each indurating furnace, the proposed rule would require 
subsequent testing of all stacks based on the schedule in each plant's 
title V operating permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-year 
permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, then the plant 
must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting authority for 
approval. The testing frequency in the testing plan can be no less 
frequent than twice per 5-year period. Since the majority of the HAP 
emissions from this source category result from the operation of 
indurating furnaces, we believe that testing twice per permit term is 
appropriate.
    We also developed procedures to ensure that control equipment are 
operating properly on a continuous basis. Baghouses must be equipped 
with a bag leak detection system. Wet scrubbers must be monitored for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, and they must not fall 
below the parametric monitoring limits established during the 
performance test. Dry electrostatic precipitators must be monitored for 
opacity using COMS. The opacity must not exceed the operating limit 
established during the performance test. If a plant uses equipment 
other than a baghouse, scrubber, or dry ESP to control emissions from 
an affected source, the

[[Page 77577]]

owner or operator is required to send us a monitoring plan containing 
information on the type of device, performance test results, 
appropriate operating parameters to be monitored, operating limits, and 
operation and maintenance.

F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

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

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

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

A. What are the Air Emission Impacts?

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

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

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

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impact this 
proposed rule would have on the producers and consumers of taconite and 
society as a whole. The taconite industry consists of eight companies 
owning eight mining operations, concentration plants, and pelletizing 
plants. The total annualized social cost of the proposed rule is $7 
million (in 2000 dollars). This cost is distributed among consumers 
(mainly steel mills) who may buy less and/or spend more on taconite 
iron ore as a result of the proposed NESHAP, including merchant 
taconite producers that sell their output on the market, integrated 
iron and steel plants that produce and consume the taconite captively 
within the company, steel producers that use electric arc furnace (EAF) 
technology to produce steel from scrap, and foreign producers. 
Consumers incur $3.4 million of the total social costs, merchant 
producers incur $0.7 million in costs, and integrated iron and steel 
producers incur $5 million in costs. The EAF producers and foreign 
producers enjoy a net gain in revenues of $1.2 million and $0.7 
million, respectively.
    Our analysis indicates that the taconite iron ore market will 
experience minimal changes in the price and quantity of produced, and 
in the prices and quantities of steel mill products (some of which are 
produced using taconite). Prices in the taconite iron ore market are 
estimated to increase by 2/100th of a percent while production may 
decrease by less than 1/100th of 1 percent. The price of steel mill 
products is projected to increase by less than 1/100th of 1 percent and 
the quantity produced is projected to change by less than 1/100th of 1 
percent. The EAF steel producers who make steel from scrap rather than 
iron ore are projected to increase their output by approximately 2/
100th of 1 percent in response to the slight increase in the price of 
steel mill products.
    While the market overall shows minimal impacts associated with this 
proposed rule, the financial stability of the firms operating in this 
market is very uncertain. The past few years have been a period of 
tremendous change in the iron and steel industry, during which more 
than 27 companies in the industry have declared bankruptcy, several 
plants have closed, and EAF technology has secured a growing share of 
the market. These changes have occurred due to evolving economic 
conditions, both domestically and abroad, and technological 
developments within the industry. Conditions continue to be challenging 
for iron and steel producers. In an assessment of the impacts on the 
companies owning taconite plants, we find the estimated costs of the 
proposed rule are uniformly

[[Page 77578]]

less than 1 percent of baseline sales revenues, and typically less than 
3 percent of baseline profits. However, four of the companies had 
negative operating income in 2000, a period of time during in which the 
entire nation experienced a drop in economic activity. Three of the 
companies owning taconite plants have filed for protection under 
Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code since September 2001. Thus, there is 
reason to be concerned about the financial condition of companies 
owning taconite plants. The incremental effect of the proposed rule on 
firm financial stability, however, is projected to be very small.
    We also prepared a sensitivity analysis that examined the regional 
impacts of the proposed rule. All the taconite production plants are 
located within four counties in Minnesota and one in Michigan. Thus, 
the impacts of the proposed rule are expected to be concentrated 
geographically. We modeled the supply and demand linkages of the 
various industries and households within each county to estimate 
changes that may occur in the region as the taconite industry complies 
with the proposed NESHAP. We estimate that as industries that interact 
with the taconite industry (such as construction and earth moving 
equipment industries) react to the changes in the taconite market, and 
as household incomes are reduced as a result of changes in all the 
various industries in the region, the impact of the proposed rule will 
add approximately $4 million in economic cost to the region. This 
represents approximately 2/10ths of 1 percent of total sales in those 
counties. Thus, even though the impacts are concentrated in only five 
counties, we believe that the impacts on those county economies will 
not be very large.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

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

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

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

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

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

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

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

[[Page 77579]]

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the rule. This proposed rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is technology based and not based 
on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed 
because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater 
stringency at a reasonable cost. Further, this proposed rule has been 
determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), As Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. et seq.

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

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 2050.01), and you may obtain a copy 
from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental 
Information, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download 
a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require applicable one-time notifications 
required by the General Provisions for each affected source. As 
required by the NESHAP General Provisions, all plants would be required 
to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 
Plants also would be required to prepare an operation and maintenance 
plan for control devices subject to operating limits, a fugitive 
emissions control plan, and a performance testing plan. Records would 
be required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the monitoring, 
operation, and maintenance requirements for control devices and 
monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are required. 
These reports would describe any deviation from the standards, any 
period a continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-control,'' or any 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to respond 
were inconsistent with startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. If no 
deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report would be 
required. Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in 
response to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not 
consistent with the plan, an immediate report must be submitted within 
2 days of the event with a letter report 7 days later. Since the rule 
provides a 3-year compliance period, periodic reporting, initial 
performance testing, and

[[Page 77580]]

subsequent performance testing activities would be conducted beyond the 
3-year period covered by the ICR. Therefore, the burden for these items 
is not included in the burden estimate.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 518 labor hours 
per year at a total annual cost of $29,052, including labor, capital, 
and operation and maintenance. This burden estimate includes the 
preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, an operating 
and maintenance plan, a fugitive dust emission control plan, and a 
performance testing plan. The total capital/startup costs associated 
with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are 
estimated at $3.2 million (annualized capital/startup costs are 
$271,089/year) with operating and maintenance equipment costs of 
$101,455 per year.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search existing data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
rules are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments 
on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA 
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by 
courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection 
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 (202-566-1700); and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after December 18, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 17, 2003. The 
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding subpart RRRRR to 
read as follows:
Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Taconite Iron Ore Processing

[[Page 77581]]

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.9580 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.9582 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet?
63.9591 What work practice standards must I meet?

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Initial Compliance Requirements

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of
General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants 
for Taconite Iron Ore Processing

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.9580  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing. This subpart 
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with all applicable emission limitations (emission limits 
and operating limits), work practice standards, and operation and 
maintenance requirements in this subpart.


Sec.  63.9581  Am I subject to this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.9582  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

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


Sec.  63.9583  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

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

[[Page 77582]]

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards


Sec.  63.9590  What emission limitations must I meet?

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


Sec.  63.9591  What work practice standards must I meet?

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

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec.  63.9600  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

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

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9610  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

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

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9620  On which units and by what date must I conduct 
performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in 
Table 1 of this subpart for ore crushing and handling, you must conduct 
an initial performance test for particulate matter as specified in 
paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an initial 
performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with ore 
crushing and handling.
    (2) The initial performance tests must be conducted within 2 years 
of the

[[Page 77583]]

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


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

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for 
particulate matter in Table 1 of this subpart for ore crushing and 
handling, and for finished pellet handling, you must follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b) (1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter in the stack 
gas and the stack gas volumetric flow rate for each emission unit 
according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 
The applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) (i) through 
(v) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number 
of traverse points. Sampling ports must be

[[Page 77584]]

located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases 
to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine 
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5D or 17 to determine the concentration of 
particulate matter.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test runs 
are needed to comprise a performance test.
    (3) For each ore crushing and handling affected source, and for 
each finished pellet handling affected source you must determine the 
flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter emissions using 
the procedure in paragraph (b)(3) (i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) Compute the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate 
matter emissions using Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE02.000


Where:

Cw = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter 
for all emission units within the affected source, grains per dry 
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);
Ci = Three-run average particulate matter concentration from 
emission unit ``i'', gr/dscf;
Qi = Three-run average volumetric flow rate of stack gas 
from emission unit ``i'', dscf/hr; and
n = The number of emission units in the affected source.

    (ii) If you are grouping similar units as allowed under Sec.  
63.9620(d), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) (A) 
and (B) of this section.
    (A) All emission units within each group of similar units must be 
assigned the flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter 
emissions for the representative unit.
    (B) All emission units within each group of similar units must be 
assigned the actual average operating volumetric flow rate of exhaust 
gas measured for each emission unit within each group of similar units. 
You cannot assign the average volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas 
measured for a representative unit to all emission units within each 
group of similar units.
    (c) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for 
particular matter in Table 1 of this subpart for each ore dryer and for 
each indurating furnace, you must follow the test methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (c) (1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter for each 
stack according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter. The applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 
(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number 
of traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine 
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5D or 17 to determine the concentration of 
particulate matter.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test runs 
are needed to comprise a performance test.
    (3) For ore dryers and indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, 
all stacks must be tested simultaneously.
    (4) For each ore dryer and each indurating furnace, compute the 
flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for each test 
run using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE02.001

Where:

Ca = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter 
for run ``a'', gr/dscf;
Ci = Concentration of particulate matter from stack ``i'' 
for run ``a'', gr/dscf;
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas from stack ``i'' for 
run ``a'', dscf/hr;
n = Number of stacks; and
a = Run number: 1, 2, or 3.

    (5) For each ore dryer and each indurating furnace, compute the 
flow-weighted mean particulate matter concentration for the three test 
runs using Equation 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE02.002

Where:

C = Flow-weighted mean particulate matter concentration, gr/dscf;
C1 = Flow-weighted particulate matter concentration for run 
1, gr/dscf;
C2 = Flow-weighted particulate matter concentration for run 
2, gr/dscf; and
C3 = Flow-weighted particulate matter concentration for run 
3, gr/dscf.


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

    (a) For a wet scrubber subject to operating limits for pressure 
drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), you must 
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
required in Sec.  63.9631(b), measure and record the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate every 15 minutes during each run of the 
particulate matter performance test.
    (2) Compute and record the average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are the 
lowest average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate value in any 
of the three runs that meet the applicable emission limit.
    (b) For a dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating 
limit in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3) for opacity, you must establish a site-
specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs (b) 
(1) and (4) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required 
in Sec.  63.9631(c), measure and record the opacity of emissions from 
each control device stack during the particulate matter performance 
test.
    (2) Compute and record the 6-minute opacity averages from 24 or 
more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period (e.g., at 15-
second intervals) during the test runs.
    (3) Using the opacity measurements from a performance test that 
meets the emission limit, determine the opacity value corresponding to 
the 99 percent upper confidence level of a normal distribution of the 
6-minute opacity averages.
    (4) In your semiannual compliance report required by 63.9641(b), 
report as a deviation any 6-minute period during which the average 
opacity, as measured by the COMS, exceeds the opacity value 
corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence level determined under 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (c) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber, or dry

[[Page 77585]]

electrostatic precipitator if you meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(c) (1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your 
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating 
limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures n paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.


Sec.  63.9623  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

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


Sec.  63.9624  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

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


Sec.  63.9625  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.9630  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

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

[[Page 77586]]

Sec.  63.9631  What are my monitoring requirements?

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


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

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

[[Page 77587]]

    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 
percent of the flow rate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (c) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a wet 
scrubber according to the requirements in paragraphs (c) (1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 5-minute period.
    (2) Each CPMS must have valid data for at least 95 percent of every 
averaging period.
    (3) Each CPMS must determine and record the average of all recorded 
readings.
    (d) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3), you must install, operate, and 
maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (d) (1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation 
of each COMS according to Sec.  63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
    (2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for 
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec.  63.8. At a 
minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration 
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero 
alignment of each COMS.
    (3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to Sec.  
63.8(e) and your quality control program. Identify periods the COMS is 
out of control, including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a 
daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, or 
annual zero alignment audit.
    (4) You must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity 
collected for periods during which the COMS is not out of control.


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

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


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

    (a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 
1 of this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.
    (b) For ore crushing and handling and for finished pellet handling, 
you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements 
in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for 
all ore crushing and handling emission units and for all finished 
pellet handling emission units must be maintained at or below the 
emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (2) You must conduct subsequent performance tests for emission 
units in the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling 
affected sources following the schedule in your title V permit. If a 
title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct subsequent 
performance tests according to a testing plan approved by the 
Administrator or delegated authority.
    (c) For ore dryers and indurating furnaces, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (c) (1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) The flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for 
all stacks from the ore dryer or indurating furnace must be maintained 
at or below the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (2) For ore dryers, you must conduct subsequent performance tests 
following the schedule in your title V permit. For indurating furnaces, 
you must conduct subsequent performance tests following the schedule in 
your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5-year permit 
term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct 
subsequent performance tests according to a testing plan approved by 
the Administrator or delegated authority.
    (d) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit for the bag 
leak detection system alarm in Sec.  63.9590(b)(1), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements in 
paragraphs (d) (1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection 
system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during any semiannual reporting period. To determine the percent 
of time the alarm sounded you must follow the procedure in paragraphs 
(d)(1) (i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak 
detection system are not included in the calculation.
    (ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took 
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the 
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
    (iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm.
    (v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak 
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the 
total operating time multiplied by 100.
    (2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system 
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated 
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on 
which corrective action was completed.
    (3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.9631(a) (1) through (8) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If 
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 
system beyond the limits specified in Sec.  63.9632(a)(6), you must 
include a copy of the required written certification by a responsible 
official in the next semiannual compliance report.
    (e) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop

[[Page 77588]]

and scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.9590(b)(2), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the average pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each scrubber CPMS according to 
Sec.  63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements.
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec.  63.9632(c) and recording 
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (f) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the site-
specific opacity operating limit in Sec.  63.9590(b)(3), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Maintaining the 6-minute average opacity of emissions no higher 
than the site-specific limit established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    (2) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data 
according to Sec.  63.9632(d).


Sec.  63.9635  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

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


Sec.  63.9636  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

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


Sec.  63.9637  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.9640  What notifications must I submit and when?

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


Sec.  63.9641  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance 
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.9583 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in 
Sec.  63.9583.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
first compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual

[[Page 77589]]

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


Sec.  63.9642  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations as 
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as 
required in Sec.  63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
    (3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.8(d)(3).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a

[[Page 77590]]

period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (c) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec.  63.9634 
through 63.9636 to show continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance 
requirement that applies to you.


Sec.  63.9643  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

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

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.9650  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.9651  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.9652  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows.
    Affected source means each new or existing ore crushing and 
handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, or finished pellet 
handling operation, at your taconite iron ore processing plant.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on tribroelectric, light scattering, 
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    Conveyor belt transfer point means a point in the conveying 
operation where the taconite ore or taconite pellets are transferred to 
or from a conveyor belt, except where the taconite ore or taconite 
pellets are being transferred to a bin or stockpile.
    Crusher means a machine used to crush taconite ore and includes 
feeders or conveyors located immediately below the crushing surfaces. 
Crushers include, but are not limited to, gyratory crushers and cone 
crushers.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such 
failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or 
operating limit.
    Finished pellet handling means the transfer of fired taconite 
pellets from the indurating furnace to the finished pellet stockpiles 
at the plant. Finished pellet handling includes, but is not limited to, 
furnace discharge or grate discharge, and finished pellet screening, 
transfer, and storage.
    Fugitive dust emission source means a stationary source from which 
particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to wind or mechanical 
inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Stockpiles (includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of 
uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets);
    (2) Material transfer points;
    (3) Plant roadways;
    (4) Tailings basins;
    (5) Pellet loading areas; and
    (6) Yard areas.
    Grate feed means the transfer of unfired taconite pellets from the 
pelletizer into the indurating furnace.
    Grate kiln indurating furnace means a furnace system that consists 
of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate 
kiln indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate feed 
conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling grate 
and ends where the hardened pellets exit the cooler. The atmospheric 
pellet cooler vent stack is not included as part of the grate kiln 
indurating furnace.
    Indurating means the process whereby unfired taconite pellets, 
called green balls, are hardened at high temperature in an indurating 
furnace. Types of indurating furnaces include straight grate indurating 
furnaces and grate kiln indurating furnaces.
    Ore crushing and handling means the process whereby dry taconite 
ore is crushed and screened. Ore crushing and handling includes, but is 
not limited to, all dry crushing operations (e.g., primary, secondary, 
and tertiary crushing), dry ore conveyance and transfer points, dry ore 
classification and screening, dry ore storage and stockpiling, dry 
milling, dry cobbing (i.e., dry magnetic separation), and the grate 
feed. Ore crushing and handling specifically excludes any operations 
where the dry crushed ore is saturated with water, such as, wet milling 
and wet magnetic separation.
    Ore dryer means a rotary dryer that repeatedly tumbles wet taconite 
ore concentrate through a heated air stream to reduce the amount of 
entrained moisture in the taconite ore concentrate.
    Pellet cooler vent stacks means atmospheric vents in the cooler 
section of the grate kiln indurating furnace that exhaust cooling air 
that is not returned for recuperation. Pellet cooler vent stacks are 
not to be confused with the cooler discharge stack, which is in the 
pellet loadout or dumping area.
    Pellet loading area means that portion of a taconite iron ore 
processing plant

[[Page 77591]]

where taconite pellets are loaded into trucks or railcars.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    Screen means a device for separating material according to size by 
passing undersize material through one or more mesh surfaces (screens) 
in series and retaining oversize material on the mesh surfaces 
(screens).
    Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins and 
hoppers) of taconite ore or taconite pellets prior to further 
processing or loading.
    Straight grate indurating furnace means a furnace system that 
consists of a traveling grate that carries the taconite pellets through 
different furnace temperature zones. In the straight grate indurating 
furnace a layer of fired pellets, called the hearth layer, is placed on 
the traveling grate prior to the addition of unfired pellets. The 
straight grate indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate 
feed conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling 
grate and ends where the hardened pellets drop off of the traveling 
grate.
    Taconite iron ore processing means the separation and concentration 
of iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore, to produce taconite 
pellets.
    Taconite ore means a low-grade iron ore suitable for concentration 
of magnetite or hematite by fine grinding and magnetic or flotation 
treatment, from which pellets containing iron can be produced.
    Tailings basin means a natural or artificial impoundment in which 
gangue or other refuse material resulting from the washing, 
concentration or treatment of ground taconite iron ore is confined.
    Wet grinding and milling means the process where wet taconite ore 
is finely ground using rod and/or ball mills.

Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.9590(a), you must comply with each 
applicable emission limit in the following table:

          Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63.--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must comply with each of the
          For . . .                         following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing ore crushing and   The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 handling emission units.       particulate matter discharged to the
                                atmosphere from all ore crushing and
                                handling emission units, as determined
                                using the procedures in Sec.
                                63.9621(b), must not exceed 0.008 grains
                                per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf).
2. New ore crushing and        The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 handling emission units.       particulate matter discharged to the
                                atmosphere from all ore crushing and
                                handling emission units, as determined
                                using the procedures in Sec.
                                63.9621(b), must not exceed 0.005 gr/
                                dscf.
3. Each existing straight      The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 grate indurating furnace       particulate matter discharged to the
 processing magnetite.          atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.010 gr/
                                dscf.
4. Each new straight grate     The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 indurating furnace             particulate matter discharged to the
 processing magnetite.          atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.006 gr/
                                dscf.
5. Each existing grate kiln    The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 indurating furnace             particulate matter discharged to the
 processing magnetite.          atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.011 gr/
                                dscf.
6. Each new grate kiln         The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 indurating furnace             particulate matter discharged to the
 processing magnetite.          atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.006 gr/
                                dscf.
7. Each existing grate kiln    The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 indurating furnace             particulate matter discharged to the
 processing hematite.           atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.025 gr/
                                dscf.
8. Each new grate kiln         The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 indurating furnace             particulate matter discharged to the
 processing hematite.           atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.018 gr/
                                dscf.
9. Existing finished pellet    The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 handling emission units.       particulate matter discharged to the
                                atmosphere from all finished pellet
                                handling emission units, as determined
                                using the procedures in Sec.
                                63.9621(b), must not exceed 0.008 gr/
                                dscf.
10. New finished pellet        The flow-weighted mean concentration of
 handling emission units.       particulate matter discharged to the
                                atmosphere from all finished pellet
                                handling emission units, as determined
                                using the procedures in Sec.
                                63.9621(b), must not exceed 0.005 gr/
                                dscf.
11. Each existing ore dryer..  The flow-weighted mean concentration of
                                particulate matter discharged to the
                                atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.052 gr/
                                dscf.
12. Each new ore dryer.......  The flow-weighted mean concentration of
                                particulate matter discharged to the
                                atmosphere from all stacks, as
                                determined using the procedures in Sec.
                                 63.9621(c), must not exceed 0.025 gr/
                                dscf.4755
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

      Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                      Subject            Applies  to Subpart RRRRR          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1.......................  Applicability........  Yes.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions..........  Yes.
Sec.   63.3.......................  Units and              Yes.
                                     Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4.......................  Prohibited Activities  Yes.

[[Page 77592]]

 
Sec.   63.5.......................  Construction/          Yes.
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)-(g)................  Compliance with        Yes.
                                     Standards and
                                     Maintenance
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(h)....................  Compliance with        No.............................  Subpart RRRRR does
                                     Opacity and Visible                                     not contain opacity
                                     Emission (VE)                                           and VE standards.
                                     Standards.
Sec.   63.6(i),(j)................  Extension of           Yes.
                                     Compliance and
                                     Presidential
                                     Compliance Extension.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2).............  Applicability and      No.............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                     Performance Test                                        specifies
                                     Dates.                                                  performance test
                                                                                             applicability and
                                                                                             dates.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)........  Performance Testing    Yes.
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b),      Monitoring             Yes............................  Continuous
 (c)(1)-(3), (c)(5)-(8), (d),(e),    Requirements.                                           monitoring system
 (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4).                                                                     (CMS) requirements
                                                                                             in Sec.
                                                                                             63.8(c)(5) and (6)
                                                                                             apply only to COMS
                                                                                             for dry
                                                                                             electrostatic
                                                                                             precipitators.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4).................  Additional Monitoring  No.............................  Subpart RRRRR does
                                     Requirements for                                        not require flares.
                                     Control Devices in
                                     Sec.   63.11.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  Continuous Monitoring  No.............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                     System Requirements.                                    specifies
                                                                                             requirements for
                                                                                             operation of CMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).................  Relative Accuracy      No.............................  Subpart RRRRR does
                                     Test Alternative                                        not require
                                     (RATA).                                                 continuous emission
                                                                                             monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(g)(5).................  Data Reduction.......  No.............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                                                                             specifies data
                                                                                             reduction
                                                                                             requirements.
Sec.   63.9.......................  Notification           Yes............................  Additional
                                     Requirements.                                           notifications for
                                                                                             CMS in Sec.
                                                                                             63.9(g) apply to
                                                                                             COMS for dry
                                                                                             electrostatic
                                                                                             precipitators.
Sec.   63.10(a), (b)(1)-(2)(xii),   Recordkeeping and      Yes............................  Additional records
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3),(c)(1)-(6)      Reporting                                               for CMS Sec.
 (c)(9)-(15), (d)(1)-(2), (d)(4)-    Requirements.                                           63.10(c) (1)-
 (5), (e), (f).                                                                              (6),(9)-(15), and
                                                                                             reports in Sec.
                                                                                             63.10(d)(1)-(2)
                                                                                             apply only to COMS
                                                                                             for dry
                                                                                             electrostatic
                                                                                             precipitators.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..........  CMS Records for RATA   No.............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                     Alternative.                                            doesn't require
                                                                                             continuous emission
                                                                                             monitoring systems
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)............  Records of Excess      No.............................  Subpart RRRRR
                                     Emissions and                                           specifies record
                                     Parameter Monitoring                                    requirements.
                                     Exceedances for CMS.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)................  Reporting opacity or   No.............................  Subpart RRRRR does
                                     VE observations.                                        not have opacity
                                                                                             and VE standards
Sec.   63.11......................  Control Device         No.............................  Subpart RRRRR does
                                     Requirements.                                           not require flares.
Sec.   63.12......................  State Authority and    Yes
                                     Delegations.
Sec.   63.13--Sec.   63.15........  Addresses,             Yes
                                     Incorporation by
                                     Reference,
                                     Availability of
                                     Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-31231 Filed 12-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P