(,1 2 1/,1( · performance of baghouses or high energy venturi scrubbers. electrostatic...

Citation: 47 Fed. Reg. 16582 1982

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Tue Apr 5 13:29:46 2016

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 74 / Friday; April 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL 1782-1]

Standards of Performance for NewStationary Sources; Phosphate RockPlants

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

SUMMARY: Standards of performance forphosphate rock plants were proposed inthe Federal Register on September 21,1979 (44 FR 54970). This action finalizes-standards of performance for phosphaterock plants. These standards implementthe Clean Air Act and are based on theAdministrator's determination thatemissions from phosphate rock plantscontribute significantly to air pollutionwhich may reasonably be anticipated toendanger public health or welfare. Theintended effect of the standards is torequire the application of the bestdemonstrated systems of continuousemission reduction to new, modified, orreconstructed phosphate rock dryers,calciners, grinders, and ground rockstorage and handling systems atphosphate rock plants. The designatedbest demonstrated systems of'continuous emission reduction weredetermined considering costs and nonairquality health and environmental andenergy impacts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1982.Judicial Review: Under Section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, judicialreview of this new source performancestandard is available only by the filingof a petition for review in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit within 60 days oftoday's publication of this rule. UnderSection 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,the requirements that are the subject oftoday's notice may not be challengedlater in civil or criminal proceedingsbrought by EPA to enforce theserequirements.ADDRESSES: Background InformationDocument. The background informationdocuments for the proposed and finalstandards are available on request fromthe U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), ResearchTriangle Park, North Carolina 27711,telephone number (919) 541-2777 or(FTS) 629-2777 or (FTS) 629-2777. Pleaserefer to "Phosphate Rock Plants,Background Information for ProposedStandards, Volume I," (EPA-450/3-79-017) and/or "Phosphate Rock Plants,Background Information for

Promulgated Standards, Volume II"(EPA-450/3-79-017b).

Docket. Docket No. OAQPS-79-6,containing all supporting informationused by EPA in developing thestandards, is available for inspectionand copying during normal business.hours Monday through Friday at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, West TowerLobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 MStreet SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:John D. Crenshaw, Emission Standardsand Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5624or (ITS) 629-5624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Standards of performance for new,reconstructed or modified phosphaterock plants were proposed onSeptember 21, 1979. The proposedstandards would have limitedparticulate emissions to 0.02 kilogram(kg) per megagram (Mg) of feed rock(0.04 lb/ton) from dryers, 0.055 kg/Mg(0.11 lb/ton) from calciners and 0.006kg/Mg (0.012 lb/ton) from grinders.Visible emission limits for these affectedfacilities were proposed at zero percentopacity. A zero percent opacity limitwas also proposed for ground rockhandling and storage systems.

During the public comment period, atotal of 16 comment letters werereceived. Several commentersquestioned the proposed emission limits.They argued that the particulate andopacity limits for both dryers andcalciners were too stringent. Afterreviewing these comments, EPAconcluded that the data base supportingthe proposed standards was incompletebecause it was not representative of allcombinations of control conditions thatare likely to recur. EPA requested andreceived emission source test data fromboth the industrial commenters andseveral State air pollution controlagencies. Based on this additional data,several changes were made to theproposed standards. The mostsignificant changes were a relaxation ofthe particulate emission limits forcalciners processing unbeneficiated rockand for dryers. The opacity limits forboth dryers and calciners were alsorevised.

Other changes were to. exclude fromthe standards facilities with aproduction'capacity less than 3.6 Mg/hr(4.0 ton/hr) and to.exempt ground rockstorage and handling systems from thecontinuous monitoring requirements.Several wording and definition changes

were made to clarify the applicability ofthe promulgated standards.

Standards of Performance

The promulgated standards apply tonew, modified, or reconstructedphosphate rock dryers, calcihers,grinders, and ground rock handling andstorage facilities at phosphate rockplants with a maximum production rategreater than 3.6 megagrams of rock perhour (4 tons/hr). The promulgatedstandards will limit emissions ofparticulate matter to 0.03 kilogram (kg)'per megagram (Mg) of rock feed (0.06 lb/ton) from phosphate rock dryers, 0.12kg/Mg (0.23 lb/ton) from phosphate rockcalciners processing unbeneficiated rockor blends of beneficiated andunbeneficiated rock, 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11lb/ton) from phosphate rock calcinersprocessing beneficiated rock, and 0.006kg/Mg (0012 lb/ton) from phosphaterock grinders. Opacity levels fromgrinders and ground rock storage andhandling systems are limited to zeropercent. Opacity levels from dryers andcalciners are limited to no more than 10percent.

The emission limits are based on theperformance of baghouses or highenergy venturi scrubbers. Electrostaticprecipitators (ESP) are also capable of -meeting the standards. However,because of the higher cost of ESP controlon phosphate rock applications, ESP'swere not designated as a basis for thestandard.

Compliance with the mass emissionlimits is to be determined by source test(EPA Method 5). Continuous monitoringequipment will be required for dryers,calciners, and grinders. However, whenscrubbers are used for emission control,continuous opacity monitors would notbe required. Instead, the pressure dropof the scrubber and the liquid supplypressure will be monitored as indicatorsof the scrubber performance.

Environmental, Energy, and EconomicImpacts

The promulgated standards wouldreduce particulate emissions fromphosphate rock plants by about 99percent from the levels that would occurwith no emission control, and by about91 percent from the levels allowed bytypical Statestandards. Thesereductions would reduce nationwideparticulate emissions allowed by StateImplementation Plan (SIP) regulationsby about 14,100 Mg (15,600 tons) peryear in 1985. However, the level ofcontrol existing on many affectedsources is already more stringent thanthat required by SIP regulations. Forexample, many existing grinder facilities

16582

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 74 /, Friday, April 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

are controlled by baghouses to preventthe loss of valuable product rock. As aresult, the actual emission reductionresulting from implementation of thestandard will be less than 14,100 Mg(15,600 tons). The standards will cause areduction in particulate matteremissions from the level which wouldoccur with typical existing industrycontrol practices of about 3,300megagrams (3,600 tons] in 1985 and 5,100megagrams (5,600 tons] in 1990.

None of the alternative controltechnologies required by thesestandards (baghouse, scrubber) wouldresult in significant adverseenvironmental impacts. If scrubbers areused to meet the requirements of thestandard, there would be a smallincrease in solid waste disposal andwater pollution. However, theincremental increase (over theprevailing controls) of solid materialsand wastewaters produced duringcontrol of emissions is insignificant incomparison with the large volume ofsuch wastes generated by productionprocesses. Baghouse technology ismarginally more environmentallyacceptable than other controlalternatives because it generates noliquid effluents.

Compliance with the promulgatedstandards will require additionalelectrical energy above that required atthe SIP level of control. The incrementalincrease in energy will depend on thetype of control system that is selected. Ifhigh-energy venturi scrubbers are used,the total process energy requirementswill increase by 8 percent above theenergy required at the existing SIP levelof control. The incremental energyincrease above the SIP level would be 5percent with baghouses.

The costs of operating controlequipment that would be needed toattain the promulgated standards wereestimated using model plants. Phosphaterock plants are concentrated primarilyin Florida, North Carolina, Idaho,Wyoming, Utah and Montana.Phosphate rock deposits in NorthCarolina and Florida consist of aconsolidated mass of phosphate pebblesand clays normally occurringbelow thewater table. Western deposits consist ofhard rock. Because of these processingdifferences, costs were presentedseparately for eastern and westernplants. A typical Florida plant wasselected as representative of easternfacilities. The control costs per ton ofproduction are typically lower foreastern plants because they have alarger capacity than western plants.

The annualized cost of installing andoperating prevailing controls used tomeet existing State standards at typical

eastern phospha'te rock plants isestimated at $0.35 per megagram. Theadditional cost of employing controltechnology to meet the promulgatedstandards at a new eastern plant isestimated at $0,02/megagram whenusing baghouses and $0.07/megagramfor scrubbers.

The annualized control cost ofexisting SIP standards at a typical newwestern plant is $0.87/megagram. Theadditional cost of using controltechnology to meet the promulgatedstandards at new western plants isestimated at $0.08/megagram forbaghouse control and $0.28/megagramfor scrubbers.

The incremental cost of thepromulgated standards above SIPcontrol costs will have negligibleimpacts on the profitability of the plantand the future growth of the phosphaterock industry. By the year 1985,compliance with the standards wouldincrease the industry cost of productionof phosphate rock by 0.1 percent(baghouse controls) to 0.2 percent(scrubber controls) above the cost tomeet existing SIP regulations. A moredetailed discussion of the economicanalysis is discussed in the BackgroundInformation Document for ProposedStandards, Volume I.Public Participation

In accordance with Section 117 of theClean Air Act, proposal of the standardswas preceded by consultation withappropriate advisory committees,independent experts, industryrepresentatives, and Federaldepartments and agencies. Theproposed standards were published inthe Federal Register on September 21,1979, with a request for public comment.The public comment period wasextended to February 15, 1980, to allowinterested persons to obtain and reviewthe proposed standards and thebackground information document forproposal. To provide interested personsthe opportunity for oral presentation ofdata, views, or arguments concerningthe proposed standards, a public hearingwas held on October 25, 1979, atResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina.The hearing was open to the public andeach attendee was given the opportunityto comment on the proposed standards.Significant Comments and Changes tothe Proposed Regulations

Many comment letters received byEPA contained multiple comments. Adetailed discussion of these commentsand EPA's responses to them arepresented in the BackgroundInformation for Promulgated Standards,Volume II. The most significant

comments and changes made to theproposed standards have been groupedaccording to topic and are discussedbelow.

GeneralSeveral commenters were concerned

with the applicability of the proposedstandards. They questioned whether thestandard was intended to apply tomining operations, elementalphosphorus plants, and ground rocktransfer facilities at fertilizer plants.

The promulgated standard is notintended to apply to crushing or mining,beneficiation, thermal defluorination,elemental phosphorus production orground rock handling at fertilizer plants.The standards are intended to apply tonew, reconstructed, or modifiedphosphate rock dryers, calciners,grinders, and ground rock storage andhandling systems at phosphate rockplants. There have been several wordingand definition changes in the standardsto clarify the applicability of thepromulgated standards.

Several commenters questioned theneed for a standard since some existingfacilities were not causing ambient airquality violations.

The purpose of new sourceperformance standards is not limited toensuring compliance with ambient airquality standards. The primary purposeof new source performance standards isto prevent future air pollution problemsand to prevent costly retrofits of controlequipment that might result from suchproblems. New source performancestandards will require the uniformapplication of control requirementsnationwide and will prevent unfaircompetition between States forindustrial development based onvarying environmental regulations.

As required by Section III of the CleanAir Act, the Administrator haspublished a list of categories of sourceswhich contribute significantly to airpollution which may reasonably beanticipated to endanger public health orwelfare (Section III(b)(1)(A)), and forwhich new source performancestandards will therefore be developed(40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, August 21,1979). The proposed list was publishedin the Federal Register with a request forpublic comment.-After review of thecomments, the list was published onAugust 21, 1979. The sources on this listwere selected and ranked according toan established screening procedure.Phosphate rock plants ranked accordingto an established screening procedure.Phosphate rock plants ranked 16th inpriority of the 59 sources on the list. Inthe Administrator's judgment the

16583

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 74 / Friday, April 16, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

revised estimate of emissions for thiscategory of sources still justifies theconclusion that it contributessignificantly to air pollution which mayreasonably be anticipated to endangerpublic health or welfare.

Environmental Impact

Several commenters questioned theneed for a standard because they feltthe environmental benefits presentedwith the original proposal wereexaggerated. The commenters felt thatthe emission reductions resulting fromimplementation of the standard wereexaggerated because they were basedon outdated and excessive productionforecasts. These commenters arguedthat EPA should use the most recentproduction estimates from the Bureau ofMines. In addition, several commenterspointed out that existing sources werecontrolled at a more stringent level thanactually required by existing StateImplementation Plan regulations, whichreduces the projected air qualityimprovement resulting fromimplementation of the standard.

EPA has reevaluated theenvironmental benefits presented withthe original proposal. The reevaluationof environmental benefits as presentedin Section 2.1.2 of the "BackgroundInformation for Promulgated Standards,Volume II" indicates a significant.decrease in the environmental benefitsof the standards. However, in theAdministrator's judgement, the revisedestimates of environmental benefits stilljustify the implementation of thestandards.

The environmental impacts presentedwith the original proposal were basedon an expected 5-percent annualincrease in production. This expectedincrease was based on actual yearlyproduction figures for 1950 compared tothose projected for 1980. The projectedproduction was based on data from theBureau of Mines (1971). However,annual phosphate rock production hasbeen fluctuating recently. Therefore, themost recent Bureau of Mines (1979)

.production forecast data were obtainedto more accurately project the impact ofthe standards.

These Bureau of Mines productionforecast data show that U.S. phosphaterock production will increase from 47.0million megagrams in 1977 to 64.0million megagrams in 1986, with adecrease to 56.0 million megagrams in1995. With the routine replacement ofexisting equipment, approximately 23.3million megagrams of phosphate rockproduction will be subject to thepromulgated standards by 1985. Thisfigure was used as the basis for theenvironmental benefits presented'in this

notice in "Environmental, Energy andEconomic Impacts".

A lower size cutoff was requested toexclude from the standards small pilotscale and laboratory facilities used fortesting and research. Economic analysis,presented in the "BackgroundInformation for PromulgatedStandards," indicates that emissionsfrom facilities with low productioncapacities are relatively small and thecost of controlling these emissions isexcessive. The Administrator, therefore,has determined that an exemption forsmall facilities is appropriate. Thepromulgated standards apply only toplants with a production capacitygreater than 3.6 megagrams per hour (4tons/hr). This capacity is representativeof the upper limit of the size range fortesting and research facilities. There areno existing production facilities withcapacities less than 3.6 mg/hr (4.0 tons/hr).

Particulate Emission Limits

Several commenters indicated that theproposed particulate matter emissionlimits for phosphate rock dryers andcalciners were too stringent to beachieved on a continuous basis. Thecommenters contended that theproposed emission limits from dryersand calciners were not based on theperformance of control systemsoperating on worst case particulateemission conditions. One of theproblems cited was that the Agency'sdata base was outdated. In order toevaluate the comments, EPA requestedsource test data from the industrialcommenters. In cases where thecommenters could not supply data tosupport their position, EPA soliciteddata from State air pollution controlagencies. The evaluation of the reviseddata base indicated that the proposedemission limits for dryers and calcinerscould not be achieved continuouslyunder all operating conditions which arelikely to recur. Therefore, the emissionlimits for both calciners and dryers havebeen revised.

The major variables that have thepotential to affect emission levels fromphosphate rock dryers and calciners arethe type of feed rock and the type offuel. Industrial experience indicated thatthe most important variable affectingparticulate matter emission levels fromdryers and calciners is the feed rockcharacteristics. With residual oil or coalfiring, the process rock will account forgreater than 80 and 90 percent of theuncontrolled emissions from dryers andcalciners, respectively. Feed rock variesfrom mine site to mine site. Rock typesvary from coarse pebbles to fineconcentrates with many blends of rock

between these extremes. Surfaceproperties, organic content, level ofbeneficiation, and residence time in theprocessing unit vary with rock type.Beneficiation removes fines andincreases the average particle size ofemissions. Smaller average particle sizecauses the most difficult controlsituations. Therefore, beneficiationreduces emission levels. Increasedresidence time increases the volume ofair per unit of rock and, therefore,increases the emission rate per unit ofrock. These variations can effect boththe particulate matter emission levelsand the particle size distribution of theemissions. Florida coarse pebble rockand unbeneficiated Western rock arethe least beneficiated and have longestunit residence times. As a result, theyhave the smallest average particle sizeand highest emission levels of all thephosphate rock types. UnbeneficiatedWestern rock, which has a slightlyhigher percentage of fines and smalleraverage particle size than coarse pebble,is the most difficult control case.

The four combustion fuels used indryers and calciners are natural gas,distillate and residual oil, and coal. Theparticulate matter emissions resultingfrom the combustion of natural gas anddistillate oil are insignificant, and willnot affect particulate emission levels orthe designated best control equipmentperformance. However, the combustionof both residual oil and coal producessignificant amounts of particulatematter. Although coal usually producesa greater mass of particulate matter,residual oil combustion produces asmaller average particle size that ismore difficult to control. An analysis ofcontrol device performance indicatesthat particulate levels after controlwould be higher with residual oil firingthan with coal firing. Therefore, theAdministrator has determined thatresidual oil-fired units represent themost adverse control situation withrespect to fuel.

The data base of worst-caseconditions for dryers consisted of fivesource tests from two dryer facilitiesprocessing coarse pebble rock and firingresidual oil. Because dryers are not usedin conjunction with unbeneficiatedWestern rock, these data represent themost adverse control conditions fordryers. An evaluation of theperformance of a high energy venturiscrubber on these sources indicated anachievable emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg(0.06 lb/ton). Therefore, the particulatematter emission limit for phosphate rockdryers had been revised from theproposed 0.02 kg/Mg (0.04 lb/ton) to 0.03kg/Mg (0.06 lb/ton).

16584


Additional source test data wereacquired for calciners processingunbeneficiated Western rock. The dataacquired were from the only existingfacility calcining unbeneficiatedWestern rock. The data were from anatural gas-fired calciner controlledwith a high energy wet scrubber. Duringthe tests used as the basis for theemission limit, the calciner wasprocessing a blend of unbeneficiatedand beneficiated rock. The highestcontrolled emission level during thetests was 0.11 kg/Mg (0.21 lb/ton). Theanalysis of the tests indicated that thiscontrolled emission level isrepresentative of the highest level thatwould occur with any mix ofbeneficiated and unbeneficiated rock.1Although this unit is processing theworst-case rock type, there is a potentialfor residual oil or coal firing of newunits. An analysis of the impacts ofresidual oil and firing indicate thatresidual oil would have the greaterimpact on controlled emission levels.The analysis indicated that residual oilfiring could increase controlledemissions by about 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02 lb/ton). Therefore, a particulate matteremission limit of 0.12 kg/Mg (0.23 lb/ton) has been added to the standards forcalciners processing unbeneficiated rockor blends of beneficiated andunbeneficiated rock. Calcinersprocessing blends with a smallpercentage of unbeneficiated rock couldprobably comply with the proposedemission limit of 0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 lb/ton). However, existing data areinsufficient to determine a preciserelationship between emission level andblend ratios. The promulgated emissionlimit, therefore, applies to all mixtures ofunbeneficiated and beneficiated rock.

Because the majority of new calcinerswill process beneficiated rock only, anemission limit for calciners based solelyon unbeneficiated rock would allow newsources processing beneficiated rock tocomply with the emission limits withless than the best demonstrated controlsystems. Therefore, the originallyproposed particulate emission limit of0.055 kg/Mg (0.11 lb/ton) is retained forfacilities calcining beneficiated rock.The potential impacts of residual oil orcoal firing are accounted for in thisemission limit.

A comment was also made that theparticulate matter emission limits couldnot be achieved continuously because itwould require continuous operation ofthe control equipment at the maximumperformance level. As required by the

IPhosphate Rock Plants. Background Informationfor Promulgated Standards. Volume II. EPA-450/3-79-017b. p. 2-20.

Clean Air Act, the promulgatedparticulate matter emission limits arebased on the performance of the bestavailable conitrol equipment on theworst case uncontrolled emission levels.The best control systems have beendemonstrated to be continuouslyeffective. Therefore, there should be noproblems achieving the standards if thecontrol equipment is properlymaintained and operated. The costs ofoperation and maintenance wereincluded in the economic analysis of thestandards and were concluded to bereasonable.

Opacity StandardSeveral commenters questioned the

need for opacity standards sinceparticulate matter emissions were alsosubjected to mass emission limits.

Opacity limits are included in thestandards to lower compliance costsand simplify enforcement procedures.Effective enforcement includes initialdemonstration of compliance androutine evaluation of control equipmentoperation and maintenance. Compliancewith particulate mass emission limitscan only be demonstrated with EPAMethod 5 performance tests. However,Method 5 tests are too expensive andmaintenance of emission controlequipment, which is the key factor incontinuous compliance-with theemission limit. In contrast, EPA Method9 opacity tests are quicker, simpler, andless expensive than EPA Method 5.Therefore, opacity limits have beenadopted in the standards as an effectivetool to assure proper operation andmaintenance of control equipment. SeeClean Air Act, Section 302(k). Thepromulgated opacity limits have beenset at levels no more restrictive than theparticulate mass emission limits toensure that any observed violations ofthe opacity standards accuratelyindicate a violation of the particulatemass emission limits. In addition theUnited States Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit hasspecifically upheld the use of opacitystandards to aid in controlling massemission under NSPS. "Portland CementAssociation v. Train," 513F. 2d 506, 508(1975).

In criticizing the opacity limits,several commenters recommended thatthe opacity limits for dryers andcalciners should be set at 5- or 10-percent opacity. EPA has reevaluatedthe proposed opacity standards,considering the revisions in theparticulate emission limits, and hasrevised the opacity limits for phosphaterock dryers and calciners to 10 percent.

Typically, visible emission standardsare based on opacity observations

collected simultaneously with theparticulate emission-tests on which themass emission limits are based. In this

-case, the source test data that were usedas the basis for the revised dryer andcalciner particulate limits did notcontain corresponding opactiy data. Inthe absence of corresponding opacitydata, the visible emission limits fordryers and calciners were based onengineering evaluations.

The evaluations involved the use ofopacity observations from an ESP-controlled phosphate rock dryer and anempirical correlation between particleconcentration and opacity. AlthoughESP's are not designated as a basis forthis standard, the visible emissions fromthis unit are characteristic of any dryeror calciner with a similar particleconcentration. The correlation ofconcentration and opacity was takenfrom an EPA study of an asphaltaggregate dryer. 2The use of the asphaltstudy was judged reasonable becauseasphalt aggregate dryers, phospate rockdryers, and phospate rock calcinershave similar outlet particulateconcentrations and particle sizedistributions.

The observed opacity from the ESP-controlled dryer was 7.7 percent. Thislevel was corrected to 6 percent toadjust for an over-designed stack.Particulate mass emissions were 0.02kg/Mg (0.039 lb/ton) at the time of theopacity observations, with acorresponding particulate concentrationof 0.023 g/m 3 (0.010 gr/acf). The'emission test used as the basis for thepromulgated particulate emission limitof 0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 lb./ton) forphosphate rock dryers had acorresponding particulate concentrationof 0.037 g/m 3 (0.016 gr/acfj. The asphaltcorrelation was used to estimate theimpact of a 0.006 gr/acf increase on abase of 6 percent opacity. Based on thisapproach the'opacity level expected at0.037 g/m 3 (0.016 gr/acfl would beapproximately 7 percent. Allowing for asafety margin in the, calculations, theopacity limit for dryers was set at 10percent.

The particulate concentration used asthe basis for the mass emission limit forcalciners processing unbeneficiated rockwas 0.06 g/m 3 (0.025 gr/acf). Based onthe same approach used for dryers, theexpected opacity at this concentrationwould be appoximately 8 percent. Theparticulate concentration used as thebasis for the mass emission limit for

In-Stack Transmissometer Measurement of

Particulate Opacity and Mass Concentration. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Publication No.EPA--050/2-74-120. November 1974. p. 34-35.

16585


calciners processing beneficiated rockwas 0.073 g/m 3 (0.032 gr/acfo. However,this unit was controlled by a 3.0 kPa (12inches of water) pressure drop venturiscrubber. If the pressure drop isincreased to the designated best level ofcontrol at 7.5 kPa (30 inches of water),the particulate concentration should bereduced to 0.23 g/m 3 (0.010 gr/acf). Atthis concentration an opacity level ofapproximately 6 percent.would beexpected. Allowing for a safety marginin the calculations, a 10 percent opacitystandard was set for calcinersprocessing either beneficiated orunbeneficiated, rock.

Although the opacity limits forcalciners and dryers have been revised,the proposed zero percent opacity limithas been retained for grinders andground rock storage and handlingsystems. Several commenters criticizedthe concept of zero percent opacity.They contended that any deviation ofopacity above zero percent would causethe average for the observation period toexceed zero percent and would preventcompliance with the standards.

The zero percent opacity limit forgrinders and ground rock storage andhandling systems was retained becauseall data base opacity observations ofwell-controlled sources had zero percentopacity. Method 9 procedures can allowsome visible emissions during ademonstration of compliance with thezero percent limit. Opacity readings arerecorded every 15 seconds for 6 minutes(24 readings). These readings arerecorded in 5 percent increments-(i.e., 0,5, 10, etc.). The arithmetic average of the24 readings rounded off to the nearestwhole number (i.e., 0.4 would berounded off to 0) is the value of opacityused for determining dompliance withthe opacity standards. Consequently, azero percent opacity standard does notnecessarily mean there are never anyvisible emissions. It means either that'visible emissions during a 6-minuteperiod are insufficient to cause acertified observer to record them as 5percent opacity, or thAt the average ofthe twenty-four 15-second readings iscalculated to be less than 0.5 percent.Therefore, although emissions releasedto the atmosphere from a grinder orground rock handling and storagesystem may be visible to a certifiedobserver, at some time during theobservation period, the source may stillbe found in compliance with the zeropercent opacity standard.

The commenters also requested thatthe standards contain site-specific relief

.from the opacity limits in situationswhere particulate emission limits werebeing achieved while opacity limfts

were violated. Such a provision is notnecessary. In specific cases where it canbe demonstrated that the opacitystandards are being violated while the'particulate mass emission limits arebeing met, provisions for individualreview and site-specific relief areincluded in the general provisions tothese regulations (40 CFR 60.11(e)).

Continuous Monitoring

Several comments indicated amisunderstanding of the purpose andrequirements for continuous monitoringequipment. The commenters felt that thepurpose of the continuous monitors wasto demonstrate compliance with theopacity limits. They indicated thatcontinuous opacity monitors could notbe used to accurately determinecompliance with the opacity limits.

Continuous opacity monitors are notintended for demonstration ofcompliance with opacity or particulatematter standards. Only EPA ReferenceMethods can be used to demonstratecompliance. The purpose of continuousmonitoring at phosphate rock plants isto ensure that emission controlequipment is properly maintained andoperated continuously. Continuousmonitoring equipment has beendemonstrated to be accurate, reliable,and suitable for purposes of monitoringexcess emissions. Without continuousmonitoring requirements there would beno incentive for the proper operationand maintenance of emission controlequipment except during performancetesting. Further, the United States Courtof Appeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit has specifically upheld the use ofcontinuous opacity monitors in"National Lime Association v. EPA," 627F. 2d 416, 450-451 (1980).

A comment was made that theproposed requirement for continuousmonitoring equipment on ground rockstorage and handling systems wasunreasonable. The commenter pointedout that transfer points on ground rockhandling systems were often controlledby small baghouses which were far lessexpensive than continuous monitoringequipment.

The requirement of continuousmonitoring equipment on ground rockhandling and storage systems has beenreconsidered and has been determinedto be unnecessary. The design of groundrock storage and handling systems varygreatly from plant to plant. Therefore, notypical handling and storage system canbe defined. Most of the potentialemissions from storage and handlingsystems are fugitive in nature and canbe prevented by proper operation andmaintenance. Because of the fugitivenature of emissions, it is difficult to

define or predict specific emissionpoints and emission control equipmentrequirements. Therefore, storage andhandling systems are subject only tovisible emission limits, compliance withwhich can be routinely demonstratedwith Method 9. The annualized cost of atypical opacity monitoring system isabout $12,500 per year (1978). Theabsolute costs of continuous ftonitoringsystems is considered excessive relativeto the control costs. Therefore, therequirement for continuous opacitymonitors on ground rock storage andhandling systems has been deleted.

Two commenters stated that anopacity averaging period of 6 minuteswith overlapping time intervals wouldproduce an excessively large anduseless volume of paperwork.

The 6-minute opacity averagingperiods required of continuous opacitymonitors are discrete successive 6-minute periods and are not composed ofoverlapping time intervals. The generalprovisions (40 CFR 60.13(e)(i)) state thatcontinuous opacity monitors shallcomplete a minimnum of one cycle ofsampling and analyzing for eachsuccessive 10-second period and onecycle for data recording for eachsuccessive 6-minute period. Therefore,the volume of data produced will not beas large as stated by the commenters.

Emission Control Technology

Several commenters questioned thedesignation of baghouses as bestavailable control technology. The'commenters stated that no baghousesare in current use on existing dryers orcalciners, and that technologicalproblems associated with hightemperatures and moisture blinding ofbags would limit their use.

EPA agrees that there are nobaghouses currently in use on phosphaterock dryers or calciners. However,baghouses have been installed and areoperating effectively on similarapplications, including kaolin rotary kilndryers and asphalt aggregate dryers.The control conditions in theseapplications are more severe than thosetypically occurring with phbsphate rockdryers or calciners. Baghousemanufacturers have stated thatbaghouses could be applied successfullyto dryers and calciners. Design andoperational procedures are availablewhich prevent high temperature damageand moisture blinding. These includeinsulation of the baghouse and ductwork, high temperature bags andpreheating of the unit before cold start-

16586-


up.3 Furthermore, baghouses are not theonly technique that can be used tocomply with the promulgated emissionlimits. If an operator believes that due tosite-specific circumstances, there iseconomic risk in using a baghouse, thena high energy venturi scrubber can beused to comply with the standards.

The comment was made that Volume Iof the BID should not have containedESPs as a control technique because itwas stated in Volume I that ESPs werenot the best demonstrated system,although they are equally efficient asbaghouses and high-energy venturiscrubbers. The commenters furtherquestioned EPA's judgment that ESPswere equally as efficient as baghousesor high-energy venturi scrubbers ondryers and calciners. The commentersfelt that the source test data base didnot support this judgment, and ESPsshould not be used as a basis for thestandards.

Alternative particulate controlequipment options with controlefficiency levels in the range of, orabove, existing controls for phosphaterock plants are baghouses, venturiscrubbers, and ESPs. Therefore, ESPswere analyzed in Volume I as a controlalternative. The level of control requiredby the standards is estimated to beapproximately 9.3 percent whenprocessing the worst-case rock types.EPA agrees that the source tests of ESPspresented in the BID, Volume I, do notachieve this level of control. The ESPstested achieved efficiencies in the rangeof 93 to 99 percent efficiency. However,ESP efficiency is a direct function of thecollector plate area to gas volume ratio.By increasing the collector plate area ofthe tested ESPs, the efficiency can beincreased to 99.3 percent. The economicevaluation of ESPs presented in VolumeI of the BID presented the cost of ESPsat the increased plate area to gasvolume ratio necessary to achieve 99.3percent control. Because the cost'ofESPs is primarily a function of collectorplate area, the larger plate area resultsin significantly higher costs. Theannualized costs of an ESP on a modeldryer or calciner are 2 to 2.5 timeshigher than high-energy venturi scrubberor baghouse costs on the same source.Because of these higher costs, ESPswere not designated as a-basis for thestandards. The promulgated emissionlimits are based on the performance ofhigh-energy venturi scrubbers andbaghouses.

'Phosphate Rock Plants. Background Informationfor Promulgated Standards. Volume I1. EPA-450/3-79-017b. p. 2-26. 27.

Economic Impact

Several commenters stated that thecosts to control dryers and calciners tothe required level were underestimated,because the costs were based on typicaluncontrolled emission rates rather thanworst case uncontrolled emission rates.The promulgated emission limitsrepresent the level of control achievablewith the best demonstrated controlsystems on worst case emissionconditions. The available controloptions which are capable of achievingthe promulgated emission limits arebaghouses and high energy venturiscrubbers. The reevaluation of worstcase emission levels caused a revisionin the achievable emission limits fordryers and calciners processingunbeneficiated rock. These revisionswere caused by changes in the infetloadings and particle size distributionsto the control device. However, therewas no change in the design oroperating parameters of the designatedbest emission control systems.Therefore, there is no change in the -costs of the control alternatives fromthose presented in the analysis for theproposed standard.

Other commenters stated that thecontrol cost estimates should be higherfor Western plants since unbeneficiatedWestern rock contains a higherpercentageof fines. UnbeneficiatedWestern rock does have a typicallyhigher percentage of fines than Easternrock. However, the analysis of controlcosts for the proposed standardincluded the economic analysis of atypical Western plant. The economicanalysis of the standards presented inChapter 7 of the "BackgroundInformation for Proposed Standards,Volume I" indicates that, while controlcosts may be higher for Western plants,the control costs are not excessive.

The commenters also felt that controlcosts for Western plants wereunderestimated because no phosphaterock dryer had been costed for thetypical model Western plant. EPA alsoagrees that the addition of a dryer to amodel Western rock processing facilitywill result-in increased annual controlcosts for typical Western plants.However, existing SIP regulationsalready require dryer emissions controlusually achieved with wet scrubbers.Based on industrial comments, industrywould probably install high-energyventuri scrubbers as a means ofcomplying with the promulgatedstandards. With imprementation of thepromulgated standards, there would beno significant increase in installation-costs, because scrubber installationcosts do not vary significantly at

different efficiency levels. There would,however, be an increase in operatingcosts for the higher energy venturiscrubber. For a typical 160-ton/hr dryer,the increased annualized cost of thepromulgated standard above theexisting level of control wpuld beapproximately $0.06 (1978) permegagram ($0.07/ton) of product rock.The price of phosphate rock under thepromulgated standard would increasefrom $24.53 per megagram ($22.25/tonto $24.61 per megagram ($22.32/ton) in1978 dollars. Therefore, there would beno significant change in the economicimpact of the promulgated standard withthe addition of a dryer facility at aWestern plant.

The commenters also questioned thecosts 'of applying a baghouse tophospate rock dryers or calciners. Thecommenters stated that an auxiliaryheat source would be necessary lomaintain the required temperaturedifferential necessary to preventcondensation of moisture on the bags.An auxiliary heat source fQr baghouseson phosphate rock dryers and calcinerswas not costed or addressed because itshould be unnecessary. The temperaturedifferential necessary to preventcondensation can be maintained byproperly insulating the baghouse and allductwork to prevent heat loss. Duringstart-up, the baghouse can be.heated tooperating temperature by operating theburners at low fire with no rock in thedryer or calciner. Baghouses areoperating on similar -applications suchas asphalt dryers and kaolin dryerswithout auxiliary heat sources.

The commenters also argued thatbaghouse costs for calciners had beenunderestimated because the air flowthat was costed for the model facilitywas too low. However, as pointed out inVolume I of the BID, calciner air flowsfor typical 45.4 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr} unitsrange from 850 to 1,700 standard m3/min(30,000-60,000 scfm). At a typicalexhaust temperature of 120 C, thesefigures would present an air flow rangeof 1,160 to 2,310 actual m3/min (40,800 to81,600 acfm]. The air volume costed forthe model calciner facility was 2,930actual m3/min (103,460 acfm) for a 54Mg/hr (60 ton/hr) unit. Therefore, the airflow costed is representative of theupper range of air flows and does notcause an underestimation of controlcosts.

Commenters also questioned the costeffectiveness of continuous monitoringequipment. They felt that the costsassociated with continuous monitoringhad not been adequately evaluated. Thecost to purchase, install, operate, andmaintain continuous opacity monitoring

16587


equipment was addressed andevaluated during the development of thestandards. The annualized cost of atypical continuous opacity monitoringsystem is about $12,500 (1978 dollars)per year. This cost is relatively minorcompared to the annualized cost of theemission control equipment required bythe promulgated standard (about 4.2percent of a venturi scrubber on a 145-Mg/hr dryer) and was concluded to bereasonable.

The comment was also made that the* control costs required by the standard

were underestimated because the costsrequired to install, calibrate, maintain,and operate a device for measuringphosphate rock mass feed to theemission sources were not included inthe control costs.

The cost of rock feed rate (by weightmeasurement equipment was addressedand considered during the economicanalysis of the standards. Rock feedmeasuring equipment is normallyutilized at phosphate rock plants tomeasure production process feed ratesand is not solely a part of controlrequirements. The installed cost of rockfeed measurement' equipment is about$14,000 (1978) for a facility processing135 megagrams per hour (150 tons/hr) ofrock, and has an annualized cost of

-about $3,500 (1978) per year. These costsare insignificant (about 1.1 percent ofthe annualized cost of a venturiscrubber on a 145/Mg/hr dryer) whencompared to the control equipment costsof the same facility.

Docket

The docket is an organized andcomplete file of all the informationconsidered by EPA in the developmentof the rulemaking. The docket is adynamic file, since material is addedthroughout the rulemaking development.The docketing system is intended toallow members of the public andindustries involved to readily identifyand locate documents so that they canintelligently and effectively participatein the rulemaking process. Along Withthe statement of basis and purpose ofthe promulgated standards and EPAresponses to significant comments, thecontents of the docket will serve as therecord in case of judicial review(Section 307(d)(7(A)).Miscellaneous

Standards of performance for newsources established under Section 111 ofthe Clean Air Act reflect the degree ofemission limitation achievable throughapplication of the best technologicalsystem of continuous emission reductionwhich (taking into consideration the costof achieving such emission reduction,

and nonair-quality health,environmental impact, and energyrequirements] the Administratordetermines has been adequatelydemonstrated.

Althought there may be emissioncontrol technology available that canreduce emissions below those levelsrequired to comply with the standards ofperformance, this technology might notbe selected as the basis of standards ofperformance because of the costsassociated with its use. Accordingly,standards of performance should not beviewed as the ultimate in achievableemission control. In fact, the Actrequires (or has the potential forrequiring] the imposition of a morestringent emission standard in severalsituations. For example, applicable costs

- do not play as prominent a role indetermining the "lowest achievableemission rate" for. new or modifiedsources located in nonattainment areas(i.e., those areas where statutorilymandated health and welfare standardsare being violated. In this respect,Section 173 of the Act requires that newor modified sources constructed in anarea which violates the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS} must reduce emissions to alevel that reflects the "lowestachievable emission rate" (LAER), asdefined in Section 171(3), for suchcategory of source. The statute definesLAER as that rate of emissions based onthe following, whichever is morestringent:

(A) The most stringent emissionlimitation contained in theimplementation plan of any State forsuch class or category of source, unlessthe owner or operator of the proposedsource demonstrates that suchlimitations are not achievable; or,

(B) The most stringent emissionlimitation achieved in practice by suchclass or category of source.

In no event can the emission rateexceed any applicable new sourceperformance standard (Section 171(3]).

A similar situation may arise underthe prevention of significantdeterioration of air quality provisions ofthe Act (Part C]. These provisionsrequire that certain sources (referred toin Section 169(1)) employ "bestavailable control technology" (asdefined in Section 169(3]) for allpollutants regulated under the Act. Bestavailable control technology (BACTImust be determined on a case-by-casebasis, taking energy, environmental, andeconomic impacts and other costs intoaccount. In no event may the applicationof BACT result in emissions of anypollutants which will exceed theemissions allowed by any applicable

standard established pursuant toSection I11 (or 112) of the Act.

In all events, State ImplementationPlans (SIPS) approved or promulgatedunder Section 110 of the Act mustprovide for the attainment andmaintenance of National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS) designed toprotect public health and welfare. Forthis purpose, SIPs must in some casesrequire greater emission reductions thanthose required by standards ofperformance for new sources.

Finally, States are free under Section116 of the Act to establish even morestringent emission limits than thoseestablished under Section 111, or thosenecessary to attain or maintain theNAAQS under Section 110. Accordingly,new sources may in some cases besubject to limitations more stringentthan EPA's standards of performanceunder Section 111, and prospectiveowners and operators of new sourcesshould be aware of this possibility inplanning for such facilities.

EPA will review this regulation 4years from the date of promulgation.This review will include an assessmentof such' factors as the need forintegration with other programs, theexistence of alternative methods,enforceability, improvements inemission control technology andreporting requirements. The reportingrequirements in this regulation will bereviewed as required under EPA'ssunset policy for reporting requirementsin regulations.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPAmust judge whether a regulation is"Major" and therefore subject to therequirement of a Regulatory ImpactAnalysis. This regulation is nqt Majorbecause: (1) The national annualizedcompliance costs, including capitalcharges resulting from the standardstotal less'than $100 million; (2) thestandards do not cause a major increasein prices or production costs; and (3] thestandards do not cause significantadverse effects on domestic competition,employment, investment, productivity,innovation or competition in, foreignmarkets. This regulation was submittedto the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for review as required byExecutive Order 12291. The docket isavailable for public inspection at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, West TowerLobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Although no regulatory impactanalysis is required, an economic impactassessment of alternative emissionstandards has been prepared, asrequired under Section 317 of the CleanAir Act, and is included in the

16588


"Background Information Document forProposal for Phosphate Rock Plants,Volume I." EPA considered all theinformation in the economic impactanalysis in assessing the cost of thestandard.

In addition to economics, the costeffectiveness of alternative standardswas evaluated in order to determine theleast costly way to reduce emissionsand to assure that the controls requiredby this rule are reasonable relative toother regulations for particulate matter.The cost per ton of pollutant removedwas computed for each process affectedby the standard, both on an average andincremental basis. The incremental costranged from $51 to $235 per ton ofparticulate removed, which comparesfavorably with particulate mattercontrol at other industrial sources wherecosts typically range up to $1,000 per tonand in certain cases may exceed $2,000per ton. Additional detail on thisanalysis can be found in the docket.

The information collection activitycontained in this Final Rule is notcovered by the Paperwork ReductionAct (PRA) because there are fewer than.ten respondents.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60:

Air pollution control, Aluminum,Ammonium sulfate plants, Cementindustry, Coal, Copper, Electric powerplants, Glass and glass products, Grains,Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acidplants, Paper and paper productsindustry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewagedisposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants,Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.

Dated: April 9, 1982.Anne M. Gorsuch,Administrator

PART 60-STANDARDS OFPERFORMANCE FOR NEWSTATIONARY SOURCES

40 CFR Part 60 is amended by addinga new subpart as follows:

Subpart NN-Standards of Performance forPhosphate Rock Plants

Sec.60.400 Applicability and designation ofaffected facility.

60.401 Definitions.60.402 Standard for particulate matter.60.403 Monitoring of emissions and

operations.60.404 Test methods and procedures.

Authority: Secs. 111 and 301(a) of the CleanAir Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7411,7601(a)), and additional authority as notedbelow:

Subpart NN-Standards ofPerformance for Phosphate RockPlants

§ 60.400 Applicability and designation ofaffected facility.

(a) The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to the following affectedfacilities used in phosphate rock plantswhich have a maximum plantproduction capacity greater than 3.6megagrams per hour (4 tons/hr): dryers,calciners, grinders, and ground rockhandling and storage facilities, exceptthose facilities producing or preparingphosphate rock solely for consumptionin elemental phosphorus production,

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) ofthis section which commencesconstruction, modification, orreconstruction after September 21, 1979,is subject to the requirements of thispart.

§ 60.401 Definitions.(a) "Phosphate rock plant" means any

plant which produces or preparesphosphate rock product by any or all ofthe following processes: Mining,beneficiation, ciushing, screening,cleaning, drying, calcining, and grinding.

(b) "Phosphate rock feed" means allmaterial entering the process unitincluding, moisture and extrafieousmaterial as well as the following oreminerals: Fluorapatite, hydroxylapatite,chlorapatite, and carbonateapatite.

(c) "Dryer" means a unit in which themoisture content of phosphate rock isreduced by contact with a heated gasstream.

(d) "Calciner" means a unit in whichthe moisture and organic matter ofphosphate rock is reduced within acombustion chamber.

(e) "Grinder" means a unit which isused torpulverize dry phosphate rock tothe final product size used in themanufacture of phosphate fertilizer anddoes not include crushing devices usedin mining.

(f) "Ground phosphate rock handlingand storage system" means a systemwhich is used for the conveyance andstorAge of ground phosphate rock fromgrinders at phosphate rock plants.

(g) "Beneficiation" means the processof washing the rock to removeimpurities or to.separate size fractions.§ 60.402 Standard for particulate matter.

(a) On and after the date on which theperformance test required to beconducted by § 60.8 is completed, noowner or operator subject to theprovisions of this subpart shall cause tobe discharged into the atmosphere:

(1) From any phosphate rock dryerany gases which:

(i) Contain particulate matter inexcess of 0.030 kilogram per megagramof phosphate rock feed (0.06 lb/ton, or

(ii) Exhibit greater than 10-percentopacity.

(2) From any phosphate rock calcinerprocessing unbeneficiated rock orblends of beneficiated andunbeneficiated rock, any gases which:

(i) Contains particulate matter inexcess of 0.12 kilogram per megagram ofphosphate rock feed (0.23 lb/ton), or


(3] From any phosphate rock calcinerprocessing beneficiated rock any gaseswhich:

(i] Contain particulate matter inexcess of 0.055 kilogram per megagramof phosphate rock feed (0.11 lb/ton), or


(4) From any phosphate rock grinderany gases which:

(i) Contain particulate matter inexcess of 0.006 kilogram per megagramof phosphate rock feed (0.012 lb/ton), or

(ii) Exhibit greater than zero-percentopacity.

(5) From any ground phosphate rockhandling and storagesystem any gaseswhich exhibit greater than zero-percentopacity.

§ 60.403 Monitoring of emissions andoperations.

(a) Any owner or operator subject tothe provisions of this subpart shallinstall, calibrate, maintain, and operatea continuous monitoring system, exceptas provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) ofthis section, to monitor and record theopacity of the gases discharged into theatmosphere from any phosphate rockdryer, calciner, 'or grinder. The span ofthis system shall be set at 40-percentopacity.

(b) For ground phosphate rock storageand handling systems, continuousmonitoring systems for measuringopacity are not required.

(c) The owner or operator of anyaffected phosphate rock facility using awet scrubbing emission control deviceshall not be subject to the requirementsin paragraph (a) of this section, but shallinstall, calibrate, maintain, and operatethe following continuous monitoringdevices: 0

(1) A monitoring device for thecontinuous measurement of the pressureloss of the gasstream.through thescrubber. The monitoring device must becertified by the manufacturer to beaccurate within ±250 pascals (±1 inchwater) gauge ,pressure.

(2] Amonitofing device for thecontinuous measurement of the.

16589


scrubbing liquid supply pressure to thecontrol device. The monitoring' devicemust be accurate within __L5 percent ofdesign scrubbing liquid supply pressure.

(d) For the purpose of conducting aperformance test under § 60.8, the owneror operator of any phosphate rock plantsubject to the provisions of this subpartshall install, calibrate, maintain, andoperate a device for measuring thephosphate rock .feed to any affecteddryer, calciner, or grinder. Themeasuring device used must be accurateto within "L5 percent of the mass rateover its operating range.

(e) For the purpose of reports requiredunder § 60.7(c), periods of excessemissions that shall be reported aredefined as all 6-minute periods duringwhich the average opacity of the plumefrom any phosphate rock dryer, calciner,or grinder subject to paragraph (a) ofthis section exceeds the applicableopacity limit.

(f) Any owner or operator subject tothe requirements under paragraph (c) ofthis section shall report for eachcalendar quarter all measurementresults that are less than 90 percent ofthe average levels maintained during the

most recent performance test conductedunder § 60.8 in which the affectedfacility demonstrated compliance withthe standard under § 60.402.(Sec. 114, Clean Air Act as amended (42U.S.C. 7414))

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

of this part, except as provided under§ 60.8(b), shall be used to determinecompliance with § 60.402 as follows:

(1) Method 5 for the measurement ofparticulate matter and associatedmoisture content,

(2) Method 1 for sample and velocitytraverses,

(3) Method 2 for velocity andvolumetric flow rates,

(4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and(5) Method 9 for the measurement of

the opacity of emissions.(b) For Method 5, the sampling time

for each run shall be at least 60 minutesand have a minimum sampled volume of0.84 dscm (30 dscf). However, shortersampling times and smaller samplevolumes, when necessitated by processvariables or other factors, may beapproved by the Administrator.

(c) For each run, the averagephosphate rock feed rate in megagramsper hour shall be determined using adevice meeting the requirements of§ 60.403(d).

(d) For each run, emissions expressedin kilograms per megagram of phosphaterock feed shall be determined using thefollowing equation:

E= (CsQs)10-M

where, E=Emissions of particulates in kg/Mgof phosphate rock feed.

Cs =Concentration of particulates in mg/dscm as measured by Method 5.

Qs= Volumetric flow rate in dscm/hr asdetermined by Method 2.

10-6= Conversion factor for milligrams tokilograms.

M =Average phosphate rock feed rate in mg/hr.

Note.-The reporting and recordkeepingrequirements in this section are not subject toSection 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Actof 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3507, because theserequirements are expected to apply to fewerthan 10 persons by 1985.(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act, as amended, (42U.S.C. 7414))IFR Doc. 82-10476 Filed 4-15-82; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 6S60-50-M

16590

(,1 2 1/,1( · performance of baghouses or high energy venturi scrubbers. electrostatic...

Documents