[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41508-41536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20511]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6132-5]
RIN 2060-AF29
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Ferroalloys Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rules; notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for ferroalloys production, which is comprised
of ferronickel production facilities and ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, and ferrochromium production facilities. The EPA has
identified these facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions such as nickel and manganese. Nickel compounds such as
nickel carbonyl and nickel subsulfate are some of the most toxic
compounds of nickel. They can affect the lungs and the kidneys.
Symptoms such as headaches, vomiting, chest pains, dry coughing, and
visual disturbances have been reported from short-term exposure in
humans. Additionally, human and animal studies reveal an increased risk
of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to nickel refinery dusts and
nickel subsulfate. Chronic exposure to nickel in humans also results in
respiratory effects such as asthma due to primary irritation or an
allergic response, and an increased risk of chronic respiratory tract
infections.
[[Page 41509]]
Manganese can also adversely affect human health. Chronic exposure to
high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans primarily affects the
central nervous system. This health effect is known as ``manganism''
and typically begins with feelings of weakness and lethargy and
progresses to other symptoms such as speech disturbances, a mask-like
face, tremors, and psychological disturbances. The NESHAP provides
protection to the public by requiring HAP emission sources at these
facilities to meet emission standards that reflect the application of
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments regarding this proposed
NESHAP on or before October 5, 1998.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 25, 1998, a public hearing will be held at 10
a.m. on September 3, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-59, Room M-1500, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact
person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Comments and
data may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions
listed in Supplementary Information. Any confidential business
information (CBI) should be submitted following the procedures in
section VII.I. of this preamble.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should call the contact
person listed below.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-59, containing information relevant to
today's proposed rulemaking, is available for public inspection and
copying between 8: a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except
for Federal holidays) at the following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), 401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260-
7548. The docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Metals Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919)
541-1512; facsimile (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address
``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those industrial
facilities that produce ferronickel, ferromanganese, silicomanganese,
or ferrochromium. Regulated categories and entities include those
sources listed in the primary Standard Industrial Classification code
for these sources (3313, Electrometallurgical Products, except Steel).
This description is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by final action on this proposal. This description lists the types of
entities that the EPA is now aware of that could potentially be
regulated by final action on this proposal. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by final action on this proposal, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in sections IV.A. and V.A.
of this preamble and in Secs. 63.1620 and 63.1650 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.
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
This document, the proposed regulatory texts, and other background
information are available in Docket No. A-92-59 or by request from the
EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES)
or access through the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
For further information, contact the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Electronic comments on the proposed NESHAP may be submitted by
sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected].
Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on
diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 or ACSII file format. Identify all
comments and data in electronic form by the docket number (A-92-59). No
confidential business information should be submitted through
electronic mail. You may file comments on the proposed rule online at
many Federal Depository Libraries.
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
II. Background
A. Description of the Source Category
B. Emissions
III. NESHAP Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
C. Determining the MACT Floor
IV. Summary of Proposed Ferronickel Rule
A. Sources to be Regulated
B. Emission Limits and Maintenance Requirements
C. Compliance Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Proposed Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, and
Ferrochromium Rule
A. Sources to be Regulated
B. Emission Limits and Maintenance Requirements
C. Compliance Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants
B. Selection of Affected Sources
C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for
Existing and New Sources
D. Selection of Format
E. Selection of Emission Limits
F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
G. Selection of Test Methods
H. Selection of Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
I. Solicitation of Comments
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risk Under Executive Order 13045
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
IX. Statutory Authority
I. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires that the EPA
promulgate regulations requiring the control of HAP emissions from
major and area sources. The control of HAP is achieved through
promulgation of emission standards under section 112(d) and (f) and
operational and work practice standards
[[Page 41510]]
under section 112(h) for categories of sources that emit HAP.
An initial list of categories of major and area sources selected
for regulation in accordance with section 112(c) of the Act was
published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The
``Ferroalloys Production'' source category is listed under the
``Ferrous Metals Processing'' industry group. Based on information
gathered since that time, the EPA determined that only two ferroalloys
facilities in the United States are, in fact, major sources with the
potential to emit HAP at levels greater than 9.1 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy)
of any combination of HAP.
II. Background
A. Description of the Source Category
The EPA believes that this source category is comprised of two
major sources. Both sources produce ferroalloy products that contain
metallic HAP as a major constituent of the final product. However,
because of the significant differences in processes at the two
facilities, the EPA has determined that each facility comprises a
separate subcategory.
The first facility, Glenbrook Nickel Company (Glenbrook Nickel) is
located in Riddle, Oregon and is the only domestic producer of
ferronickel. However, this facility has recently ceased its operations,
and it may permanently shut down in the next year. The EPA will
consider the operational status of this facility prior to promulgating
a final rule affecting ferronickel production. If the facility has
permanently shut down, and there are no other domestic sources with the
potential to produce ferronickel, the EPA may withdraw the proposed
requirements related to ferronickel production rather than finalizing
the proposed rule.
The second facility, which is owned by the Elkem Metals Company
(Elkem Marietta), is located in Marietta, Ohio and is the only domestic
producer of ferromanganese and silicomanganese. In addition, this
facility has the potential to produce ferrochromium, but it is not
doing so at present. Based on an extensive survey of emissions data
provided by other ferroalloy producers, an evaluation of available test
data, and an EPA-sponsored emissions test, the EPA has determined that
none of the remaining ferroalloy producers have the potential to emit
major quantities of metallic or organic HAP.
Subpart XXX, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production consists of two groups of
requirements. The first group of requirements, which are found in
Secs. 63.1620 through 63.1649, describes the Ferronickel Production
standard, which will hereafter be referred to as the Ferronickel rule
in this preamble. The second group of requirements, which are found in
Secs. 63.1650 through 63.1679, describes the Ferromanganese,
Silicomanganese, and Ferrochromium Production standard, which will
hereafter be referred to as the Ferromanganese rule in this preamble.
B. Emissions
As part of its Title V permit application, Glenbrook Nickel
reported a potential to emit, considering controls of 37 Mg/yr (41 tpy)
of combined HAP emissions. As part of its Title V permit application,
Elkem Marietta reported an actual emissions rate of manganese compounds
of 148 Mg/yr (163 tpy).
III. NESHAP Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 directs the EPA to develop a list of all categories of
major and such area sources as appropriate that emit one or more of the
188 HAP listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) (section 112(c)).
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 replaces the
previous system of pollutant-by-pollutant health-based regulation that
proved ineffective at controlling the high volumes and concentrations
of HAP in air emissions. Instead, the current version of section 112
directs the EPA to impose technology-based controls on sources emitting
HAP, and provides that these technology-based standards may later be
reduced further to address residual risk that may remain even after
imposition of technology-based controls. A major source is any source
that emits or has the potential to emit 9.1 Mg (10 tons) of any one HAP
or 22.7 Mg (25 tons) of any combination of HAP annually. The EPA
published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR
31576), and may amend the list at any time.
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
The EPA will develop NESHAP to control HAP emissions from both new
and existing sources according to the statutory directions set out in
section 112, as amended. The statute requires the standard to reflect
the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emission that is achievable
taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction,
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
Emission reductions may be accomplished through application of
measures, process, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not
limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of,
such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, or
other modifications, (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate
emissions, (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point,
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operation standards (including
requirements for operator training or certification) as provided in
section 112(h), or (5) a combination of the above (section 112(d)(2)).
To develop a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about the
industry, including information on emission source characteristics,
control technologies, data from HAP emissions tests at well-controlled
facilities, and information on the costs and other energy and
environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this
information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.
Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical
emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In
some cases, for example, physically measuring emissions from a source
may be impossible, or at least impractical, because of technological
and economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator
to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or a combination thereof, in those cases where it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
If sources in the source category are major sources, a MACT
standard is required for those major sources. The regulation of area
sources in a source category is discretionary. If EPA finds a threat of
adverse effects on human health or the environment, then the source
category can be added to the list of area sources to be regulated.
C. Determining the MACT Floor
After the EPA identifies the specific source categories or
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must
set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 limits
the EPA's discretion by establishing a minimum baseline or ``floor''
for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory cannot be less stringent
[[Page 41511]]
than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator (section
112(d)(3)).
The 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 (excluding certain sources) for categories or
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing 5 sources
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section
112(d)(3)).
After the floor has been determined for new or existing sources in
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set a MACT
standard for each category or subcategory that is no less stringent
than the floor. Such standard must then be met by all sources within
the category or subcategory.
Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the EPA shall establish standards
that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP ``that
the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable * * *.''
In establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory
(section 112(d)(1)). For example, the Administrator could establish two
classes of sources within a category or subcategory based on size and
establish a different emissions standard for each class, provided both
standards are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for that class of
sources.
The next step in establishing MACT standards is the investigation
of regulatory alternatives. For MACT standards, only alternatives at
least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the
industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting
national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels, costs,
energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative levels
are then evaluated to select the regulatory alternative that best
reflects the appropriate MACT level.
The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor,
but the control level selected, if it is more stringent than the floor,
must be technically and economically achievable. In selecting a
regulatory alternative that represents MACT, the EPA considers the
achievable emission reductions of HAP (and possibly other pollutants
that are co-controlled), cost, and economic impacts, energy impacts,
and other environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the
maximum degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or
other impacts (section 112(d)(2)). The regulatory alternatives selected
for new and existing sources may be different because of different MACT
floors, and separate regulatory decisions may be made for new and
existing sources.
The selected regulatory alternative is translated into a proposed
regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT decision typically
includes sections on applicability, standards, test methods and
compliance demonstrations, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.
The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an explanation of the
rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the
proposed regulation during the public comment period. Based on an
evaluation of these comments, the EPA reaches a final decision and
promulgates the standard.
IV. Summary of Proposed Ferronickel Rule
A. Sources To Be Regulated
The proposed NESHAP would apply to new and existing ferronickel
production facilities that are major sources or are co-located at major
sources. The HAP emission sources at a ferronickel production facility
that would be affected by this rule are: (1) Ferronickel ore processing
(which includes the ore dryer, raw material crushing and screening, ore
storage bins, and hot ore transfer), (2) calcining and ferronickel
electric arc melt furnaces, (3) ferronickel refining furnaces, and (4)
fugitive dust sources.
B. Emission Limits and Maintenance Requirements
Emission limits are being proposed for the air pollution control
devices serving the following emission units: calcining and ferronickel
electric arc melt furnaces, ferronickel ore processing, and ferronickel
refining furnaces. The proposed standard would require that the
emissions of particulate matter (PM)(as a surrogate for metallic HAP)
from each air pollution control device serving new and existing
calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces shall not exceed
34 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.015 grains per
dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). The weighted average emissions of
PM from the air pollution control devices serving ferronickel ore
processing shall not exceed 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). Finally, the
emissions of PM from each air pollution control device serving the
ferronickel refining furnaces shall not exceed 2.3 mg/dscm (0.001 gr/
dscf).
The proposed standard would also establish a 20 percent opacity
limit on air pollution control devices serving the existing calciners
and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces and on the smelter building,
which houses one or more of the ferronickel electric arc furnaces. The
smelter building opacity limit would focus on those furnace emissions
escaping capture by the furnace hood.
The proposed standard also imposes a duty on the owner or operator
to prepare and at all times operate according to a fugitive dust
control plan that describes the measures that will be put in place to
control fugitive dust sources. Fugitive dust HAP emissions can be
generated when dust containing metallic HAP is released into the
outdoor air. The entrainment of dust containing metallic HAP into the
outdoor air may be caused by natural events (e.g., wind erosion of feed
storage piles) or by operations conducted by facility personnel.
Potential fugitive dust emission sources at ferronickel facilities
include: (1) Dust entrained when transporting on unpaved roads at the
site, HAP-containing materials in dump trucks, front-end loaders, and
other vehicles; (2) dust generated when unloading or loading HAP-
containing materials from or into trucks or railcars; (3) wind erosion
of outdoor storage piles, and (4) transferring HAP-containing materials
to or from conveyor systems.
This written plan would be prepared by the owner or operator and
would describe the specific control measures that are used to limit
fugitive dust emissions from the individual sources at the ferronickel
facility. The duty of the owner or operator to operate according to the
fugitive dust control plan would be incorporated into the operating
permit for the ferronickel facility that is issued by the designated
permitting authority under 40 CFR part 70 (the actual fugitive dust
control plan for a facility would not be part of the permit itself).
Examples of control measures that could be included in the written
fugitive dust control plan include, but are not limited to, covering
conveyor systems and using local ventilation hoods vented to a control
device at the conveyor transfer points; placing metallic HAP-containing
stockpiles below grade or installing wind screens or wind fences around
the stockpiles; and spraying water or applying
[[Page 41512]]
appropriate dust suppression agents on roadways or outdoor storage
piles.
Proper maintenance of emission sources and air pollution control
devices to minimize HAP emissions is an essential component of the
proposed standard. In addition to satisfying the maintenance
requirements imposed by Sec. 63.6(e) of the part 63 General Provisions
(the General Provisions), owners and operators would be required to
develop and implement a written maintenance plan for each air pollution
control device subject to this subpart. The procedures specified in the
maintenance plan shall include, at a minimum, a preventive maintenance
schedule that is consistent with good air pollution control practices
for minimizing emissions.
Finally, the owner or operator must also perform monthly
operational status inspections of the equipment that is important to
the performance of the capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, dampers,
and damper switches).
C. Compliance Provisions
Compliance with the standards would need to be achieved within 2
years of promulgation for existing sources, and upon startup for new or
reconstructed sources.
The owner or operator would be required to conduct an initial
compliance test as well as subsequent performance tests at each renewal
of the source's Title V operating permit for all of the air pollution
control devices subject to the emission limitations to demonstrate
compliance with them. Thereafter, the owner or operator would conduct
annual performance tests for the air pollution control devices serving
the calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces.
Compliance with the emission limit for the calciners and
ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces and for the ferronickel refining
furnaces is achieved if the outlet concentration value is less than or
equal to the applicable emission limitation. Compliance with the
emission limit for the ferronickel ore processing operation is achieved
if the weighted average outlet concentration is less than or equal to
the emission limitation based on the combined mass emission rates of
all streams divided by the total air flow rates of the combined
streams.
In addition to satisfying specified test conditions, if the
emission source is controlled with a venturi scrubber, the owner or
operator shall also establish as a site-specific operating parameter
the average pressure drop across the scrubber during the performance
test. The owner or operator may choose to augment the data obtained
from the initial compliance test by either conducting multiple
performance tests to establish a range of compliant operating values or
by using historic compliance data obtained in a manner consistent with
the test methods and other compliance requirements of the subpart to
establish the range. In either case, the lowest value of the range
would be selected as the operating parameter monitoring value. This
value will serve as a direct measure of compliance with the PM
concentration limit.
To demonstrate compliance with the opacity standard, the owner or
operator would be required to conduct initial opacity observations for
the air pollution control devices serving the existing calciners and
ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces and for the smelter buildings
subject to the standards. Compliance would be demonstrated by
observations that are less than the limit specified in the proposed
standard. The owner or operator would then conduct weekday opacity
observations for the air pollution control devices serving the existing
calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces to demonstrate
ongoing compliance with the opacity standard.
Ongoing compliance with the smelter building standard is
established through the use of parameter monitoring. During the period
when the initial smelter building opacity observations are conducted,
the owner or operator would establish the capture system operating
parameters selected by the owner or operator for ongoing monitoring.
The operating parameters to be established are either the control
system fan motor amperes and damper positions, the total volumetric
flow rate to the air pollution control device and all damper positions,
or the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood. In
order to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the smelter building
opacity standard, the owner or operator would monitor the selected
capture system parameters.
Compliance with the work practice standard would be demonstrated by
having a fugitive dust control plan. In addition, the owner or operator
would be required to report any deviations in operation from the manual
and any failure to take necessary corrective action. Failure to achieve
compliance would be a violation of the general duty to ensure that
fugitive dust sources are operated and maintained in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimize
emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.
Sampling locations for all compliance tests would be determined by
EPA Reference Method 1. Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate
would be determined by EPA Reference Method 2. Gas analysis would be
conducted according to EPA Reference Methods 3 and 4. Determination of
PM emissions would require use of EPA Method 5 (negative pressure
baghouses and scrubbers) or Method 5D (positive pressure baghouses).
The State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Source Sampling
Method 8, Sampling Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources (High
Volume Method), may be used instead of Method 5 for negative pressure
baghouses. The use of Oregon Method 8 would be limited to ferronickel
sources located in the State of Oregon. The EPA Reference Method 9 will
be used to determine compliance with the opacity limits.
D. Monitoring Requirements
The proposed standard would establish monitoring requirements for
the air pollution control devices serving the affected units subject to
the emission limitation standard. The requirements would vary depending
on the type of air pollution control device and the affected units. For
the baghouses serving the existing calciners and ferronickel electric
arc melt furnaces, the owner or operator shall conduct weekday opacity
observations in accordance with Method 9 for at least one 6-minute
period during normal operation of the baghouse. Observations that
exceed the opacity limitation would be a violation of the opacity
standard, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the exceedance was due to an upset
condition or malfunction.
For those remaining units or for any new or reconstructed
ferronickel electric arc furnaces served by baghouses, the owner or
operator would be required to monitor for the presence of visible
emissions on a daily basis. If any visible emissions are observed, the
owner or operator would be required to take corrective action as soon
as practicable after the occurrence of the visible emissions
observation. Failure to conduct observations or to take correction
action would be a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimize
emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.
In addition to the weekday opacity observations or the visible
emissions observations, compliance assurance would also be achieved for
all affected
[[Page 41513]]
baghouses by monitoring specified baghouse parameters. The parameters
include daily monitoring of pressure drop, weekly confirmation that
dust is being removed from hoppers, daily check of compressed air
supply for pulse-jet baghouses, monitoring cleaning cycles, monthly
checks of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning, quarterly
confirmation of the physical integrity of the baghouse, and semiannual
inspection of the fans. Negative pressure baghouses or positive
pressure baghouses equipped with a stack would also be required to be
equipped with a bag leak detection system capable of detecting PM
emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter
(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) and satisfying other design
criteria specified in Sec. 63.1625(a)(4).
For those sources controlled with a venturi scrubber, the owner or
operator would be required to monitor and record the pressure drop at
the venturi at least every 5 minutes and to maintain the average hourly
pressure drop at or above the average pressure drop measured during the
compliance demonstration. A pressure drop measurement lower than this
limit would be considered a violation of the standard, unless the owner
or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that a
decrease in the pressure drop was due to an upset condition or
malfunction.
As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan developed
pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop and
implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the following
instances: (1) A bag leak detection system alarm, (2) the observation
of visible emissions from the baghouse, or (3) an indication through
the periodic baghouse system inspections that the system is not
operating properly. The owner or operator shall initiate corrective
action as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the observation
or event indicating a malfunction. Failure to monitor or failure to
take corrective action under the requirements of this section would be
a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
An important element of the proposed NESHAP is to ensure that the
capture system, which means the equipment (including hoods, ducts,
fans, dampers) used to capture or transport PM generated by an affected
ferronickel electric arc furnace, is properly operated and maintained.
Unless the owner or operator uses the provisions of Sec. 63.8(f) of the
General Provisions to request approval to use an alternative monitoring
method, the owner or operator has three options to select from in
performing this monitoring. First, the owner or operator may elect to
check and record the control system fan motor amperes and damper
positions on a once-per-shift basis. Alternatively, the owner or
operator may elect to install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring
device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each
separately ducted hood. Finally, the owner or operator may choose to
continuously record the volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the air
pollution control device in addition to checking and recording damper
positions on a once-per shift basis. Operation of the control system
fan motor amperes at values less than the value established during the
performance test or operation at flow rates lower than those
established during the performance test would establish the need to
initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the monitoring
exceedance. Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action
would be a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimizes
emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator would be required to submit notifications
described in the General Provisions, which include initial notification
of applicability, notifications of performance tests and of opacity and
visible emissions observations, and notification of compliance status.
As required by the General Provisions, the owner or operator would
be required to submit a report of performance test results and opacity
or visible emissions observations, and report semiannually any events
where the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan was not followed. In
addition to the information required under Sec. 63.10 of the General
Provisions, the owner or operator shall submit semiannual reports
required under the baghouse maintenance plan and the fugitive dust
control plan. The owner or operator shall also submit reports of excess
emissions events such as the exceedance of the scrubber pressure drop
limit or the exceedance of the opacity limit on a quarterly basis,
unless the owner or operator can satisfy the requirements in
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions. Finally, the owner or
operator must submit semiannual reports on the capture system that
address any monitoring parameter exceedances and the corrective actions
taken.
The owner or operator also would be required to maintain records
required by the General Provisions and records needed to document
compliance with the standard. These records would include operating
parameter measurements, a copy of the written operation and maintenance
plans, and air pollution control device inspection records.
All records must be retained for at least five years following the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record. The records for the most recent two years must be
retained on site; records for the remaining three years may be retained
off site, but still must be readily available for review. The files may
be retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a computer, or on computer or
magnetic disks. The owner or operator may report required information
on paper or a labeled computer disk using commonly available and
compatible computer software.
V. Summary of Proposed Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, and
Ferrochromium Rule
A. Sources To Be Regulated
The proposed NESHAP would apply to new and existing ferroalloy
production facilities that manufacture ferromanganese, silicomanganese,
and ferrochromium and are major sources or are co-located at major
sources. The HAP emission sources at a ferroalloy production facility
that would be affected by the rule are: Open submerged arc furnaces,
semi-closed submerged arc furnaces, metal oxygen refining (MOR)
process, crushing and screening operations, and fugitive dust sources.
B. Emission Limits and Maintenance Requirements
Emission limits are being proposed for new and reconstructed open
submerged arc furnaces and semi-closed submerged arc furnaces. The
proposed requirement is that the combined emissions collected from the
furnace surface (primary emissions) and from the tapping operation may
not exceed 0.23 kilograms of PM per hour per megawatt (kg/hr/MW) (0.51
pounds of PM per hour per megawatt (lb/hr/MW)). In addition, the EPA
proposes that emission streams from any new or reconstructed MOR
process or
[[Page 41514]]
individual equipment associated with the crushing and screening
operation may not exceed 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). Fugitive dust
sources at the plant would be subject to the applicable work practice
standards for existing sources.
Standards for existing ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces depend on
the design of the furnace. Elkem Marietta has a single semi-closed
submerged arc furnace, whose design is unique in the industry. This
furnace is equipped with a cover over the furnace surface with openings
in the cover to accommodate the electrodes. Emissions that are not
ducted to a control device are collected above the cover and vented
through four stacks directly to the atmosphere. Emissions from the
control device containing primary emissions from this furnace would be
limited to 0.04 kg/hr/MW (0.09 lb/hr/MW) of PM. Combined vent stack
emissions may not exceed 0.67 kg/hr/MW (1.48 lb/hr/MW) of PM.
The remaining furnaces at Elkem Marietta are of the open furnace
design, which is characterized by the presence of a canopy hood above
the furnace surface that collects primary emissions. Combined primary
and tapping emissions from each of the open furnaces would be limited
to 0.51 kg/hr/MW (1.13 lb/hr/MW) of PM.
Other emission sources at the facility include the MOR process and
crushing and screening operations. In addition, tapping emissions from
the semi-closed submerged arc furnace are controlled by the baghouse
that controls emissions from the MOR process. Emissions from each air
pollution control device serving these sources would be limited to 69
mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) of PM.
The proposed standard would establish a 20 percent opacity limit on
the shop buildings housing one or more of the open submerged arc
furnaces. The shop building opacity limit would focus on those furnace
emissions escaping capture by the furnace hood. A different limit is
proposed for the shop building housing the semi-closed submerged arc
furnace because two of the furnace draft stacks exhaust directly into
the roof monitor. Visible emissions from this building may exceed
greater than 20 percent opacity, for not more than one distinct 6-
minute period in any 60 minutes, but shall not exceed 60 percent, as a
distinct 6-minute block average at any time.
The proposed standard also imposes a duty on the owner or operator
to prepare and at all times operate according to a fugitive dust
control plan that describes the measures that will be put in place to
control fugitive dust sources. Fugitive dust HAP emissions can be
generated when dust containing metallic HAP is released into the
outdoor air. The entrainment of dust containing metallic HAP into the
outdoor air may be caused by natural events (e.g., wind erosion of feed
storage piles) or by operations conducted by facility personnel.
Potential fugitive dust emission sources at ferromanganese facilities
include: (1) Dust entrained when transporting on unpaved roads at the
site, HAP-containing materials in dump trucks, front-end loaders, and
other vehicles; (2) dust generated when unloading or loading HAP-
containing materials from or into trucks or railcars; (3) wind erosion
of outdoor storage piles, and (4) transferring HAP-containing materials
to or from conveyor systems.
This written plan would be prepared by the owner or operator and
would describe the specific control measures that are used to limit
fugitive dust emissions from the individual sources at the
ferromanganese facility. The duty of the owner or operator to operate
according to the fugitive dust control plan would be incorporated into
the operating permit for the ferromanganese facility that is issued by
the designated permitting authority under 40 CFR part 70 (the actual
fugitive dust control plan for a facility would not be part of the
permit itself). Examples of control measures that could be included in
the written fugitive dust control plan include, but are not limited to,
covering conveyor systems and using local ventilation hoods vented to a
control device at the conveyor transfer points; placing metallic HAP-
containing stockpiles below grade or installing wind screens or wind
fences around the stockpiles; and spraying water or applying
appropriate dust suppression agents on roadways or outdoor storage
piles.
Proper maintenance of emission sources and air pollution control
devices to minimize HAP emissions is an essential component of the
proposed standard. In addition to satisfying the maintenance
requirements imposed by Sec. 63.6(e) of the part 63 General Provisions,
owners and operators would be required to develop and implement a
written maintenance plan for each air pollution control device subject
to this subpart. The procedures specified in the maintenance plan shall
include, at a minimum, a preventive maintenance schedule that is
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions.
Finally, the owner or operator must also perform monthly
operational status inspections of the equipment that is important to
the performance of the capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, dampers,
and damper switches).
C. Compliance Provisions
Compliance with the standards would need to be achieved within 2
years of promulgation for existing sources, and upon startup for new or
reconstructed sources.
The owner or operator would be required to conduct an initial
compliance test for the air pollution control devices and vent stacks
subject to the standard to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
emission limits. Thereafter, the owner or operator must conduct annual
performance tests for the air pollution control devices associated with
the ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, with the exception of any air
pollution control devices that also serve non-furnace emission sources.
In addition to satisfying specified test conditions, if the
emission source is controlled with a venturi scrubber, the owner or
operator shall also establish as a site-specific operating parameter
the average pressure drop across the scrubber during the performance
test. The owner or operator may choose to augment the data obtained
from the initial compliance test by either conducting multiple
performance tests to establish a range of compliant operating values or
by using historic compliance data obtained in a manner consistent with
the test methods and other compliance requirements of the subpart to
establish the range. In either case, the lowest value of the range
would be selected as the operating parameter monitoring value. This
value will serve as a direct measure of compliance for purposes of
monitoring.
To demonstrate compliance with the opacity standard, the owner or
operator would be required to conduct initial opacity observations for
the shop buildings subject to the standards. Compliance would be
demonstrated by observations that are less than the limit specified in
the proposed standard. Ongoing compliance with the shop building
standard is established through the use of parameter monitoring. During
the period when the initial shop building opacity observations are
conducted, the owner or operator would establish the capture system
operating parameters selected by the owner or operator for ongoing
monitoring. The operating parameters to be established are either the
control system fan motor amperes and damper positions, the total
volumetric flow rate to the air pollution control device and all damper
positions, or the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted
hood. In order to
[[Page 41515]]
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the shop building opacity standard,
the owner or operator would monitor the selected capture system
parameters.
Compliance with the work practice standard would be demonstrated by
having a fugitive dust control plan. In addition, the owner or operator
would be required to report any deviations in operation from the manual
and to take necessary corrective action. Failure to achieve compliance
would be a violation of the general duty to ensure that fugitive dust
sources are operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practices that minimize emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.
Sampling locations for all compliance tests would be determined by
EPA Reference Method 1. Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate
would be determined by EPA Reference Method 2. Gas analysis would be
conducted according to EPA Reference Methods 3 and 4. Determination of
PM emissions would require use of EPA Method 5 (negative pressure
baghouses and scrubbers) or Method 5D (positive pressure baghouses).
The EPA Reference Method 9 will be used to determine compliance with
the opacity limits.
D. Monitoring Requirements
The proposed standard would establish monitoring requirements for
the air pollution control devices serving the affected units subject to
the emission limitation standard. The requirements would vary depending
on the type of air pollution control device and the affected units.
The baghouse monitoring requirements for the Ferromanganese rule
would require the owner or operator to monitor on a daily basis for the
presence of any visible emissions for the baghouses serving the
ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, the MOR process, and the crushing
and screening operation. If any visible emissions are observed, the
owner or operator would be required to take corrective action as soon
as practicable after the occurrence of the visible emissions
observation. Failure to conduct observations or to take corrective
action would be a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices that minimize
emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.
In addition to the visible emissions observations, compliance
assurance would also be achieved for all affected baghouses by
monitoring specified baghouse parameters. The parameters include daily
monitoring of pressure drop, weekly confirmation that dust is being
removed from hoppers, daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-
jet baghouses, monitoring cleaning cycles, monthly checks of bag
cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning, quarterly confirmation of
the physical integrity of the baghouse, and semiannual inspection of
the fans. Negative pressure baghouses or positive pressure baghouses
equipped with a stack would also be required to be equipped with a bag
leak detection system capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains
per actual cubic foot) and satisfying other design criteria specified
in Sec. 63.1625(a)(4).
For those sources controlled with a venturi scrubber, the owner or
operator would be required to monitor and record the pressure drop at
the venturi at least every 5 minutes and to maintain the average hourly
pressure drop at or above the average pressure drop measured during the
compliance demonstration. A pressure drop measurement lower than this
limit would be considered a violation of the standard, unless the owner
or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that a
decrease in the pressure drop was due to an upset condition or
malfunction.
As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan developed
pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop and
implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the following
instances: (1) A bag leak detection system alarm, (2) the observation
of visible emissions from the baghouse, or (3) and the indication
through the periodic baghouse system inspections that the system is not
operating properly. The owner or operator shall initiate corrective
action as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the observation
or event indicating a malfunction. Failure to monitor or failure to
take corrective action under the requirements of this section would be
a violation of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
The owner or operator shall monitor the capture system, which means
the equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans, dampers) used to capture
or transport PM generated by an affected ferroalloy electric arc
furnace, to ensure it is properly operated and maintained. Unless the
owner or operator uses the provisions of Sec. 63.8(f) of the General
Provisions to request approval to use an alternative monitoring method,
the owner or operator has three options to select from in performing
this monitoring. First, the owner or operator may elect to check and
record the control system fan motor amperes and damper positions on a
once-per-shift basis. Alternatively, the owner or operator may elect to
install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously
records the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood.
Finally, the owner or operator may choose to continuously record the
volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the air pollution control device
in addition to checking and recording damper positions on a once-per-
shift basis. Operation of the control system fan motor amperes at
values less than the value established during the performance test or
operation at flow rates lower than those established during the
performance test would establish the need to initiate corrective action
as soon as practicable after the monitoring exceedance. Failure to
monitor or failure to take corrective action would be a violation of
the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator would be required to submit notifications
described in the General Provisions, which include initial notification
of applicability, notifications of performance tests and of opacity or
visible emissions observations, and notification of compliance status.
As required by the General Provisions, the owner or operator would
be required to submit a report of performance test results and opacity
or visible emissions observations, and report semiannually any events
where the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan was not followed. In
addition to the information required under Sec. 63.10 of the General
Provisions, the owner or operator shall submit semiannual reports
required under the baghouse maintenance plan and the fugitive dust
control plan. The owner or operator shall also submit reports of excess
emissions events such as the exceedance of the scrubber pressure drop
limit on a quarterly basis, unless the owner or operator can satisfy
the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions.
Finally, the owner or operator must submit semiannual reports on the
capture system that address any monitoring parameter exceedances and
the corrective actions taken.
[[Page 41516]]
The owner or operator also would be required to maintain records
required by the General Provisions and records needed to document
compliance with the standard. These records would include operating
parameter measurements, a copy of the written operation and maintenance
plans, and air pollution control device inspection records.
All records must be retained for at least five years following the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record. The records for the most recent two years must be
retained on site; records for the remaining three years may be retained
off site, but still must be readily available for review. The files may
be retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a computer, or on computer or
magnetic disks. The owner or operator may report required information
on paper or a labeled computer disk using commonly available and
compatible computer software.
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
The following discussion of environmental, energy, and economic
impacts is limited to the only two facilities that exist and that will
be subject to these standards if adopted. As discussed earlier, it is
possible that the existing ferronickel facility will be permanently
shut down, which would then limit impacts of this rule to the
ferromanganese facility. No new facilities are currently anticipated.
If Glenbrook Nickel continues to operate, the EPA anticipates that
the proposed levels of control for the Ferronickel rule will have the
primary effect of codifying existing control equipment and practices.
Elkem Marietta should also be able to comply with the proposed
standards with existing control equipment and practices. Therefore, no
additional emission control equipment would be required to comply with
the proposed standards, and no significant emission reduction or other
environmental impacts are anticipated to result from this rulemaking.
When compared to existing State permit conditions, however,
apparent differences in the levels of allowable emissions occur for
some of the proposed standards. In the case of Glenbrook Nickel, the
baghouses serving the calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt
furnaces have allowable emissions of approximately 1,550 tons per year
of PM based on the July 1997 test results. However, if those baghouses
were emitting at the level of the proposed standard (i.e., 34 mg/dscm
or 0.015 gr/dscf) their combined emissions would be 350 tons per year
of PM, which represents a 77-percent reduction in allowable PM
emissions. Based on discussions with plant personnel, the EPA believes
that a baghouse upgrade being planned should substantially improve the
performance of these baghouses, and the baghouses' actual performance
will be much closer to the proposed standard. If the EPA proceeds with
the final rule and test results are available that demonstrate the
performance of the upgraded baghouses, the EPA will consider these data
in setting the final standard.
In the case of Elkem Marietta, there are apparent differences in
the level of control required under existing permit conditions on the
ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces compared to the level of control
proposed in the MACT standard. A calculation of permitted, allowable
emissions reveals that the source could emit approximately 70 more tons
of PM per year than would be allowed under the proposed MACT limits.
However, because the proposed MACT limits were established to reflect
actual performance of the associated air pollution control devices, the
EPA believes that there would be no measurable difference in emissions
in the absence of the MACT standard.
Cost and economic impacts are expected to be minimal. The only
costs associated with the proposed standards are those required to
perform compliance assurance activities such as performance testing,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. However, these costs are
minor compared to costs already incurred by the facilities in meeting
their permit obligations. Section VIII.F. of this preamble addresses
the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with Federal rules.
VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
This section describes the rationale for the decisions made by the
Administrator in selecting the proposed standards.
A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants
The EPA published an initial list of categories of major and area
sources of HAP selected for regulation in accordance with section
112(c) of the Act in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR
31576). Ferroalloys production is one of the 174 categories of sources
listed. The category, as initially defined, consisted of any facility
engaged in producing ferroalloys such as ferrosilicon, ferromanganese,
and ferrochromium and similarly produced products such as calcium
carbide. A preliminary survey of the industry revealed the presence of
18 ferroalloys facilities producing ferronickel and related products
such as silicon metal and calcium carbide in addition to the products
listed above. The 1992 listing was based on the Administrator's
determination that ferroalloys production facilities may reasonably be
anticipated to emit several of the 188 listed HAP in quantities
sufficient to designate them as major sources. Major sources are
defined in the Act as those sources that emit or have the potential to
emit, considering controls, greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of a single
HAP or greater than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of a combination of HAP
(section 112(a)(1)).
Ferroalloys production facilities emit several of the HAP listed in
section 112(b) of the Act. For example, the Agency has determined that
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are a surrogate for
polycylcic organic matter (POM), are emitted from ferroalloy
facilities. However, estimated quantities from the entire industry are
0.26 tons per year to 0.56 tons per year, depending on the number of
PAH compounds included in the estimate.
Metallic HAP such as arsenic, chromium, manganese, nickel, lead,
antimony, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and cobalt are also emitted.
However, at most ferroalloy facilities these emissions are the result
of metals present in trace quantities in raw materials, and the sources
do not emit major source quantities. For these sources, potential HAP
emissions per facility were estimated to range from 40 pounds per year
up to 11 tons per year, which are all below major source thresholds.
However, at facilities that produce products containing a metallic
HAP as a major constituent of the final product, HAP emissions approach
or exceed major source thresholds. One facility, the only existing
ferrochromium producer, has certified in its Title V permit application
that its potential emissions are below major source thresholds. Both
the State and EPA have reviewed the supporting calculations, and concur
with the facility's conclusion. The only other domestic producers of
products containing HAP as a major constituent (i.e., the production of
ferronickel at Glenbrook Nickel and the production of ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, and, potentially, ferrochromium at Elkem Marietta)
have a potential to emit, and actually do emit, at levels above the
[[Page 41517]]
major source thresholds. Therefore, the proposed standards will limit
metallic HAP (and PM (most of which are less than 1.5 microns in
diameter)) emissions from existing and new and reconstructed
ferronickel production facilities and ferromanganese, silicomanganese,
and ferrochromium production facilities.
B. Selection of Affected Sources
For the purpose of implementing a NESHAP, an affected source is
defined to mean the stationary source, group of stationary sources, or
portion of a stationary source that is regulated by a relevant standard
or other requirement established under section 112 of the Act. Each
relevant standard is to designate the affected source for the purpose
of implementing that standard. Within a source category, the EPA
selects the emission sources (i.e., emission points or groupings of
emission points) for which emission standards and other requirements
are to be established according to the statutory directives set out in
section 112. In selecting the specific emission sources requiring the
development of air standards, primary consideration is given to the
constituent HAP and quantity emitted from individual or groups of
emission points.
In selecting the affected sources for both the Ferronickel rule and
the Ferromanganese rule, the EPA sought to identify the HAP-emitting
operations at each of the existing facilities. At the ferronickel
facility, these operations consist of ferronickel ore processing,
calcining and the ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces, the
ferronickel refining furnaces, and fugitive dust sources. These
operations comprise the collection of affected sources for the
Ferronickel rule. The proposed standards for new, reconstructed, and
existing sources would apply to these operations.
The operations at the Elkem Marietta plant can be divided into two
areas. One area contains operations related to the production of
silicomanganese and ferromanganese alloys in the three operating
submerged arc furnaces, is physically located on the south side of the
facility, and emits over 99 percent of the HAP emissions at the
facility. These HAP-emitting operations consist of the ferroalloy
submerged arc furnaces, the MOR process, crushing and screening
operations, and fugitive dust sources. These operations comprise the
collection of affected sources for the Ferromanganese rule. The
proposed standards for new, reconstructed, and existing sources would
apply to these operations.
Under the proposed Ferronickel rule, new or reconstructed sources
are subject to the same emission limits as existing sources. This is
because new source and existing source MACT are the same. However,
under the proposed Ferromanganese rule, new or reconstructed open
submerged arc furnaces, semi-closed submerged arc furnaces, MOR
processes, and crushing and screening operations would be subject to
more stringent standards (e.g., new source MACT) than existing sources.
As described in the proposed emission standards, the construction or
reconstruction of any one of these operations would trigger the
applicability of new source MACT on that emission unit. The remaining
affected sources at the facility would continue to be subject to
existing source MACT.
Other operations at Elkem Marietta, which are all located on the
north side of the plant, include a Simplex process, which
uses a low-pressure vacuum furnace to remove impurities from briquettes
to produce low carbon ferrochrome, high chromium ferrochrome, and
nitrided ferromanganese products. Elkem Marietta also operates a
briquetting operation that produces several types of specialty products
including low carbon ferrochrome, vacuum grade electrolytic chromium,
manganese nitride, and aluminum alloy briquettes. Finally, Elkem
Marietta also operates two electrolytic processes, manganese metal and
chromium metal, along with their associated acid waste treatment
system. While these other operations emit some HAP, their combined
emissions are only 0.19 percent of total actual emissions, which
represents fewer than 800 pounds per year. Another way of viewing the
relative impact of the other operations' emission potential is that
they only represent 4 percent of the ferroalloy submerged arc furnace
mass production capacity. The limited HAP emitting potential of these
sources has led the EPA to exclude them from the proposed affected
source definition for the Ferromanganese rule.
C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for Existing
and New Sources
1. Background
In general terms, ferroalloys production consists of charging the
electric arc furnace (EAF) with raw materials, smelting the ores, and
tapping or pouring the molten product. Other emission sources relate to
raw material and product handling (e.g., crushing and screening
operations). However, there are three operations that occur only at the
ferronickel production facility. The first operation consists of an ore
dryer followed by rotary kiln calciners to remove water from the ore
and increase the nickel and carbon content of the ore. The second
operation is that of hot ore transfer. After calcining, the hot ore is
transferred by inclined hoists to hot ore bins, from which it is batch
fed to the open arc melt EAF. Finally, ladle treatment, which is where
the ferronickel reaction occurs, is the third operation that is unique
to ferronickel production. Because of these process differences, and
the impact they have on control equipment configurations at the two
facilities, the EPA proposes to regulate emissions from ferronickel
processing separately from emissions from ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, and ferrochromium processing.
2. Selection of MACT
Because there are only two existing major sources in the source
category, and the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to
distinguish between them, the MACT floor for existing sources for each
facility type is based on current emissions control practices at each
individual facility.
There are no viable, cost-effective beyond-the-floor options for
the control devices already employed at Glenbrook Nickel. Therefore,
the existing emission controls represent MACT for both new and existing
sources.
With the exception of fugitive dust sources, all of the emission
units at Glenbrook Nickel are currently controlled with baghouses or a
scrubber (in the case of the ore dryer). These emission units can be
further grouped as (1) the baghouses controlling emissions from the
combined calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces, (2)
ferronickel ore processing, which consists of the ore dryer, crushing
and screening operations, ore storage bins, and hot ore transfer, and
(3) the ferronickel refining furnaces. The baghouses serving the
combined calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces emit over
90 percent of the stationary source PM emissions within the affected
facility. The remaining 8 percent of emissions are spread over 14
individual stationary sources and comprise fewer than 32 lb/hour of PM
and 0.8 lb/hour of nickel compounds on average.
In the case of Elkem Marietta, the controls (e.g., scrubbers) in
place on the furnaces represent good air pollution control practices.
While the installation of new baghouses represents a beyond-the-floor
option, the costs of the
[[Page 41518]]
wholesale replacement of functioning control devices is not justified.
For example, the cost effectiveness of replacing both of the scrubbers
controlling open furnace emissions at the Elkem Marietta facility is
$29 thousand per ton of HAP emissions reduced, based on the annualized
cost of the new baghouses. Therefore, the MACT floor for existing
sources is selected as the MACT for the Ferromanganese rule. However,
the owner or operator of a new or reconstructed ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, or ferrochromium electric arc furnace would be
expected to install a baghouse, which represents the MACT level of
technology for new sources, because it is technically and economically
feasible for new sources.
The EPA has considerable experience in developing new source
performance standards (NSPS) for similar sources (part 60, subpart N
Standards of Performance for Primary Emissions from Basic Oxygen
Process Furnaces for which Construction or Reconstruction Commenced
after June 11, 1973 and part 60, subpart LL Standards of Performance
for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants.) As a result of this
experience, the EPA believes that new, state-of-the-art baghouses are
capable of achieving greater levels of emissions reductions than are
currently permitted for the Elkem Marietta MOR process and the crushing
and screening operations. Therefore, new source MACT for these emission
units is represented by the performance that should be achievable by
new baghouses.
Fugitive dust emissions at existing ferroalloy facilities
(including Glenbrook Nickel and Elkem Marietta) are controlled by using
a variety of different methods. Not all facilities control the same
sources or use the same type of control. The fugitive dust control
measures used at a given facility vary depending on the dust controls
required by the facility's State air permit and the facility owner's
preferences and policies regarding fugitive dust control. These
controls can range from daily water spraying of plant roads and outdoor
storage piles to enclosure and venting of the source to a control
device. No specific group of fugitive dust control measures could be
identified that reflected an average emission limitation for the
existing facilities. The EPA decided to propose that the MACT floor for
fugitive dust sources is to develop and implement a site-specific set
of fugitive dust control measures to be implemented according to a
written plan. No best-controlled fugitive dust sources could be
identified by the EPA. Therefore, the proposed new source MACT floor is
the same as the existing source MACT floor for fugitive dust sources.
For these reasons, the EPA proposes that the MACT floor should equal
MACT.
D. Selection of Format
Section 112 of the Act requires the Administrator to prescribe
emission control standards for HAP control unless, in the
Administrator's judgement, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce
emission standards. Section 112(h) defines two conditions under which
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards: (1) If
the HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance device designed and
constructed to emit or capture the HAP, and (2) if the application of a
measurement methodology to a particular class of sources in not
practicable because of technological or economic limitations. If it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards, then the
Administrator may instead promulgate equipment, work practice, design,
or operational standards, or a combination thereof.
For the Ferronickel rule, an emission standard is feasible for the
controlled emission sources at the facility. The EPA considered both a
mass concentration (mg/dscm (gr/dscf)) format and various process
emission rate formats. Although the process emission rate formats had
the advantage of being consistent with the source's existing permit
conditions, this approach seemed unnecessarily complex for purposes of
the MACT standards. Instead, the EPA selected an outlet concentration
format because it represents a direct measure of compliance and is
consistent with other similar standards in the metallurgical industry.
The EPA chose to establish the emission limitation using PM
emissions as a surrogate for the primary HAP, which is nickel. The main
reason is that the facility faces differences in the incoming grades of
nickel, and emissions can vary depending on the nickel content of the
ore. A PM standard overcomes this variability. In addition, the
metallic HAP to be controlled by the proposed standards, i.e., nickel,
is a component of the total PM released by the emission sources at the
facility. Control of PM results in control of nickel.
The EPA selected an opacity standard for the air pollution control
devices serving the existing calciners and ferronickel electric arc
melt furnaces. The need for this limit was driven by the fact that an
opacity limit represents the best means for allowing ongoing compliance
determinations from these air pollution control devices. As they are
presently configured, these devices are known to consistently emit
visible emissions, so a monitoring requirement based on the baseline
assumption of no visible emissions is not appropriate. The proposed
opacity standard is also consistent with the facility's Title V
operating permit conditions for these sources.
The EPA also proposes to establish an opacity standard for the
smelter building housing the ferronickel EAF. The limit on smelter
building opacity is a means of ensuring that the facility operates and
maintains good capture systems on the furnaces to reduce fugitive HAP
emissions.
The third standard proposed is a work practice standard on fugitive
dust sources within the plant, which include plant roadways, yard
areas, and outdoor material storage and transfer operations. Work
practices are required because it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce emission standards for these sources. The inherent mechanisms
by which pollutants are emitted from fugitive dust sources prevents the
application of batch stack sampling methods to measure the level of the
emissions from these sources. It is not feasible to capture the
emissions and subsequently discharge these emissions through a duct or
other conveyance to a control device. Therefore, as allowed under
section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA decided to use a work practice
format for the proposed standards for fugitive sources.
The proposed standards would require the owner or operator to
implement appropriate work practice control measures specific to the
types of fugitive dust sources at a facility. For many fugitive dust
sources there are several equivalent control measures available for
controlling fugitive dust emissions from a particular type of source.
Therefore, the standard for each affected owner or operator to develop
and implement a site-specific fugitive dust control plan is being
proposed rather than the EPA establishing the specific individual work
practices that all owners and operators must use. The EPA believes that
flexibility provided to the owner and operator by the site-specific
approach is needed because the best fugitive dust control options for a
given facility are determined by the physical layout of the facility,
the types of fugitive dust sources, and the control measures that are
already being implemented. These factors vary significantly from
facility to facility.
An emission standard is feasible for the controlled emission
sources at
[[Page 41519]]
ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferrochromium production facilities.
The selection of specific formats was driven in part by the body of
data available to establish the standard and existing permit
conditions. As discussed in section VII.E. of this preamble, there are
numerous emission tests on the control devices serving the three
existing furnaces at the Elkem Marietta facility. Because these tests
were conducted to demonstrate compliance with State PM limits, most of
the tests do not provide HAP emissions data. This lack of HAP data
combined with the fact that variations in ore grade can affect HAP
emissions, has led EPA to propose PM standards as a surrogate for HAP.
In addition, the metallic HAP to be controlled by the proposed
standard, i.e., manganese and chromium, is a component of the total PM
released by the emission sources at the facility. Therefore, control of
PM results in control of metallic HAP.
An analysis of these test data has led EPA to propose a standard
for the control devices serving the ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces
in units of kg/hr/MW. An advantage of this format is that it allows the
source to determine compliance on the basis of combined emission
streams from the affected furnaces. For example, the semi-closed
submerged arc furnace is equipped with four draft stacks. The EPA is
proposing a standard for the combined emissions from these stacks,
which offers some flexibility in the compliance determination, because
higher than ``normal'' emissions from one stack could be offset by
lower emissions in another stack. Similarly, the open submerged arc
furnaces would be subject to a standard for combined primary emissions
from the furnace surface and tapping emissions. The other advantage of
this format is that power consumption is a function of production and
is related to emission rates. The plant continuously monitors power
consumption, so this data should be readily available. Another
advantage to this format is that it is consistent with the ferroalloys
NSPS (part 60, subpart Z), and is widely accepted by the industry.
An emission limit in mg/dscm (gr/dscf) is proposed for the MOR
process and the crushing and screening operation air pollution control
devices. As discussed in section VII.E. of this preamble, there are
only limited data available on the actual performance of these control
devices. This selected format reflects existing permit conditions and
engineering judgement that well operated and maintained sources are
capable of achieving these limits on a continuous basis.
The EPA also proposes to establish opacity standards for the shop
buildings housing the ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces. The limits on
shop building opacity will ensure that the facility operates and
maintains good capture systems on the furnaces to reduce fugitive HAP
emissions.
The third standard proposed for the Ferromanganese rule is a work
practice standard on fugitive dust sources within the plant, which
include plant roadways, yard areas, and outdoor material storage and
transfer operations. Work practices are required because it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards for these sources.
The inherent mechanisms by which pollutants are emitted from fugitive
dust sources prevents the application of batch stack sampling methods
to measure the level of the emissions from these sources. It is not
feasible to capture the emissions and subsequently discharge these
emissions through a duct or other conveyance to a control device.
Therefore, as allowed under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA decided
to use a work practice format for the proposed standards for fugitive
sources.
The proposed standards would require the owner or operator to
implement appropriate work practice control measures specific to the
types of fugitive dust sources at a facility. For many fugitive dust
sources there are several equivalent control measures available for
controlling fugitive dust emissions from a particular type of source.
Therefore, the standard for each affected owner or operator to develop
and implement a site-specific fugitive dust control plan is being
proposed rather than the EPA establishing the specific individual work
practices that all owners and operators must use. The EPA believes that
flexibility provided to the owner and operator by the site-specific
approach is needed because the best fugitive dust control options for a
given facility are determined by the physical layout of the facility,
the types of fugitive dust sources, and the control measures that are
already being implemented. These factors vary significantly from
facility to facility.
E. Selection of Emission Limits
As discussed, each plant's existing emission controls represent the
MACT floor for each of the facility types. Therefore, the EPA reviewed
the test data available on the emission control devices at each of the
plants. In most cases, the performance measured in the body of emission
tests showed that the sources were routinely achieving levels of
performance better than their currently permitted emission limits for
PM. The EPA determined that the HAP emission limits should reflect
these actual performance capabilities, and is proposing standards on
this basis.
1. Ferronickel Rule Emission Limits
At Glenbrook Nickel, the body of test data is clouded by two
factors. One factor is that control device configurations have changed
significantly over the years, and the majority of the historical test
data are not representative of current operating conditions. Another
factor is that, except for the two most recent tests, the outlet air
flow rates on the positive pressure baghouses were improperly
calculated, leading to erroneously low emission rates. Therefore, the
plant agreed to undertake a comprehensive test program of all of the
control devices serving affected emission units to obtain up-to-date
measures of performance. The test program occurred in July 1997. Since
that time, the plant has upgraded both of the baghouses serving the
combined calciner and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces by
replacing the fabric filter bags. Both the plant and the EPA would
expect the performance of the baghouses to improve after the upgrade,
perhaps substantially. However, confirming test data are not available
at this time and may not be available prior to promulgation of the
final rule.
The July 1997 test results revealed good overall performance of the
control devices associated with the ferronickel ore processing
operation. The EPA intends to base the proposed emission limit for
ferronickel ore processing at a level that reflects the overall
performance of these sources, which is 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). The
proposed emission limit would be calculated as a weighted average based
on the combined mass emission rates of all streams divided by the total
air flow rates of the combined streams. The emission limit would result
in the same level of control that would be achieved by applying
individual emission limits on each piece of equipment without resulting
in unnecessary replacement of individual controls with no additional
environmental benefit. In addition, the emission characteristics of the
group of sources are similar, if not identical, because all of the
units are handling similar materials, i.e., nickel ore. Finally, the
proposed level of control is consistent with the proposed level of
control for similar ore handling equipment at Elkem Marietta.
[[Page 41520]]
The EPA also considered the July 1997 test results in establishing
the proposed emission limit for the ferronickel refining furnaces. The
EPA proposes to set the emission limit at 2.3 mg/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf),
which reflects the highest outlet concentration recorded on the six
test runs (3 runs for each control device). These units are unique in
the industry and their actual performance reflects MACT. Because of the
limited test data available, (data from 1996 was determined to reflect
less optimal operation and maintenance of the control devices), the EPA
is proposing to base the standards on the highest reported
concentration to address the possibility of variability in performance.
The July 1997 test results on the baghouses controlling the
combined calciner and ferronickel electric arc melt furnace emissions
indicated a level of performance that is not an acceptable basis for
the MACT standard (outlet concentrations of 120 to 180 mg/dscm (0.052
to 0.080 gr/dscf)). Therefore, the EPA proposes to set an emission
limit on each baghouse that reflects the anticipated performance
achievable by MACT level performance on other similar units. The EPA
considered several sources of information to establish the proposed
limit. For the calciners, the EPA looked to the performance required by
the NSPS for calciners and dryers, subpart UUU in 40 CFR part 60, which
is 92 mg/dscm (0.040 gr/dscf). For the furnaces, the EPA considered the
NSPS for electric arc furnaces, subpart AA in 40 CFR part 60, which
establishes furnace outlet concentration limits at 12 mg/dscm (0.0052
gr/dscf), and the NSPS for basic oxygen process furnaces, subpart N in
40 CFR part 60, which establishes furnace outlet concentration limits
at 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). Also, the EPA considered the performance
of other large positive pressure baghouses serving electric arc
furnaces producing ferrosilicon and silicon metal, which use many of
the same raw materials (coal, woodchips, silicon, metallic ore) as do
the ferronickel furnaces. Based on data gathered during a 1993-1994
test program conducted by the industry, the top five performing
baghouses are capable of achieving performance levels of 5 to 14 mg/
dscm (0.0022 to 0.006 gr/dscf). (A summary of these test results are in
the project docket number A-92-59.)
When these emission rates are weighted by the relative air flows
between the calciners (15 percent) and the ferronickel electric arc
melt furnaces (85 percent) at Glenbrook Nickel, an overall performance
level of 57 mg/dscm (0.025 gr/dscf) is indicated if the furnace factor
analogous to the NSPS for basic oxygen furnaces is selected. However,
if a furnace factor represented by the performance of air pollution
control devices on electric arc furnaces subject to the NSPS or to
other ferroalloy furnaces is selected (14 mg/dscm (0.006 gr/dscf)) is
selected, then an overall level of performance of 25 mg/dscm (0.011 gr/
dscf) is indicated. The EPA believes that the MACT level of performance
lies between these two values, and is probably better represented by
the data from existing ferroalloy furnaces. Therefore, the EPA proposes
an emission limit of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf).
As noted above, the plant has upgraded the affected baghouses by
replacing the fabric filter bags. Should test data confirming the
performance of these bags become available prior to promulgation of the
final rule, the EPA would consider these data in setting the final
standard.
The EPA selected 20 percent opacity as the standard for the smelter
building. This limit is based on the limit required in the source's
Title V permit and is representative of good performance.
Because of the unique nature of the ferronickel production process,
there are no data on which to base a MACT determination for new sources
that differs from the existing source determination. Therefore, MACT
for existing sources is equivalent to MACT for new sources.
2. Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, and Ferrochromium Standard Emission
Limits
As discussed in the previous section, the majority of available
test data from the Elkem Marietta facility is for the control devices
serving the three submerged arc furnaces. These data were used to
establish the emission limits for these sources. Because of its unique
configuration, the data from the semi-closed submerged arc furnace were
evaluated separately. The data from four compliance tests on this
furnace were considered. Data from four additional tests were excluded
from consideration. One test was excluded because the pressure drops
measured during the test indicated abnormal operation of the control
device (a scrubber). Three other tests were excluded because they were
not conducted using certified EPA methods.
In order to monitor performance of the scrubber serving the semi-
closed submerged arc furnace, the EPA decided to separate the emission
limit on the scrubber from the limit on the uncontrolled vent stacks.
The maximum scrubber emissions from the test data was 0.04 kg/hr/MW
(0.09 lb/hr/MW). The maximum total emissions from the four vent stacks
were 0.67 kg/hr/MW (1.48 lb/hr/MW). The EPA believes these data
represent the expected variability of the emission sources. These
limits are the proposed MACT for the semi-closed submerged arc furnace.
The remaining two open submerged arc furnaces are similar in
design, and both primary and tapping emissions are controlled. Fourteen
compliance tests comprise the body of available test data over the last
seven years. The maximum combined primary and tapping emissions from
either of the furnaces was determined to be 0.51 kg/hr/MW (1.13 lb/hr/
MW), which the EPA selected as the MACT emission limit. This value
represents the normal variability in emissions from these sources.
The EPA also considered whether new source MACT for an affected
open submerged arc furnace should be more stringent (no new or
reconstructed semi-closed submerged arc furnaces are currently
anticipated). In the absence of recent test data on new, state-of-the-
art ferromanganese, silicomanganese, or ferrochromium submerged arc
furnaces, the EPA chose to draw on the fact that the existing NSPS for
ferroalloy production facilities would require a new ferroalloy
submerged arc furnace producing these products to meet an emission
limit on the combined primary emissions and tapping emissions stream of
0.23 kg/hr/MW (0.51 lb/hr/MW). This limit is proposed as new source
MACT.
There are no reliable data on the MOR process baghouse and the
crushing and screening baghouses, because the facility is not required
to test them in order to satisfy existing permit conditions. In the
absence of these data, the EPA selected the existing permit
requirements limiting emissions to 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) on several
of the existing control devices as representative of MACT performance.
Permit requirements also included process weight rate limitations, but
because of the extremely generic nature of these limitations and the
lack of an equipment specific correlation to actual performance, the
EPA did not consider these in selecting the MACT floor.
For new or reconstructed MOR processes or the equipment associated
with the crushing and screening operation, the EPA believes that new
source MACT is represented by the NSPS for similar sources. For
example, the part 60, subpart N Standards of Performance for Primary
Emissions from Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces for which Construction or
Reconstruction
[[Page 41521]]
Commenced after June 11, 1973, limits PM emissions to the equivalent of
50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). A basic oxygen process furnaces melts
metallic materials in a vessel where oxygen rich gas is introduced. The
EPA believes that a new or reconstructed MOR process should be capable
of meeting this level of emissions reduction as well. Similarly, the
EPA believes that new source MACT emission limits for equipment
associated with the crushing and screening operation should be capable
of meeting the limits specified in the part 60, subpart LL Standards of
Performance for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants. The NSPS limits
crusher PM emissions to the equivalent of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
Therefore, new source MACT limits of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) are
proposed for the MOR process and for individual equipment associated
with the crushing and screening operation.
The EPA selected 20 percent opacity as the standard for the shop
buildings housing the open submerged arc furnaces. For the shop
building housing the semi-closed submerged arc furnace, the EPA
selected a 20 percent opacity limit, with the allowance for
``excursions'' of up to 60 percent opacity for not more than one
distinct six-minute period in any sixty minutes. The shop opacity
limits are based on the limits required in the source's existing
operating permits, are representative of good performance for existing
sources, and address the unique configuration of the semi-closed
furnace.
F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
1. Ferronickel Rule Monitoring Requirements
The proposed monitoring requirements for the emission limit
standard are dependent on the type of air pollution control device
used. For the majority of baghouses, the EPA proposes to require the
owner or operator to monitor for the presence of visible emissions on a
daily basis combined with regular monitoring and maintenance of the
baghouse operation. This approach is consistent with the source's
overall monitoring requirements established in the Title V permit and
will provide sufficient information for enforcement and compliance
assurance.
As discussed earlier, the EPA also proposes the application of
weekday opacity observations for the baghouses serving the existing
calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces based on the
presence of frequent visible emissions. The use of continuous opacity
monitors requires an outlet stack to function and are not feasible for
the positive pressure baghouses controlling these sources. At Glenbrook
Nickel, as in many other applications of the positive pressure baghouse
technology, emissions are discharged through roof monitors rather than
through discrete stacks.
Finally, new baghouses meeting the criteria for implementation of
bag leak detection systems (i.e., negative pressure baghouses or
positive pressure baghouses equipped with a stack), would be required
to be equipped with such systems. Bag leak detection is a cost-
effective option that results in real time monitoring to detect changes
in particle mass loading to identify upset conditions within the
baghouse (e.g., torn bags). In combination with the required
maintenance and corrective action plan for the baghouse, the EPA
believes that this technology will ensure ongoing compliance with the
standard.
The Glenbrook Nickel facility also operates a scrubber on the ore
dryer. The correlation between scrubber performance and pressure drop
has been well established by EPA in the past. This, combined with the
fact that pressure monitors can easily be installed on the scrubber,
means this monitoring option is viable for the source and is proposed
as a monitoring requirement in the proposed rule.
The smelter building opacity monitoring requirements would allow
the source to either (1) check and record the control system fan motor
amperes and damper positions on a once-per-shift basis, (2) install,
calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records
the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood, or (3)
install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously
records the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the air
pollution control device and check and record damper positions on a
once-per-shift basis. These options would require the source to have
established the appropriate monitoring parameter envelope during the
compliance test showing that the overall system is in compliance with
the emission limits prescribed by the standards. These options
represent valid monitoring parameters, and have been used in a variety
of Federal rules, including the NSPS for Steel Mills (40 CFR part 60,
subpart AA and subpart AAa).
2. Ferromanganese Rule Monitoring Requirements
The proposed monitoring requirements for the Ferromanganese rule
emission limits are dependent on the type of air pollution control
device used. For existing baghouses, the EPA proposes to require the
owner or operator to monitor for the presence of visible emissions on a
daily basis combined with regular monitoring and maintenance of the
baghouse operation. Elkem Marietta personnel have indicated that their
baghouses routinely emit zero visible emissions. Therefore, a
monitoring requirement based on an assumption of no routine visible
emissions is appropriate for all of the affected baghouses.
New baghouses meeting the criteria for implementation of bag leak
detection systems (i.e., negative pressure baghouses or positive
pressure baghouses equipped with a stack), would be required to be
equipped with such systems. Bag leak detection is a cost-effective
option that results in real time monitoring to detect changes in
particle mass loading to identify upset conditions within the baghouse
(e.g., torn bags). In combination with the required maintenance and
corrective action plan for the baghouse, the EPA believes that this
technology will ensure ongoing compliance with the standard.
Elkem Marietta operates scrubbers on the ferroalloy electric arc
furnaces. The correlation between scrubber performance and pressure
drop has been well established by EPA in the past. This, combined with
the fact that pressure monitors can easily be installed, means this
monitoring option is viable for the source and is proposed as a
monitoring requirement in the proposed rule.
The shop building opacity monitoring requirements would allow the
source to either (1) check and record the control system fan motor
amperes and damper positions on a once-per-shift basis, (2) install,
calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records
the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood, or (3)
install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously
records the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the air
pollution control device and check and record damper positions on a
once-per-shift basis. These options would require the source to have
established the appropriate monitoring parameter envelope during the
compliance test showing that the overall system is in compliance with
the emission limits prescribed by the standards. These options
represent valid monitoring parameters, and have been used in a variety
of Federal rules, including the NSPS for Steel Mills (40 CFR part 60,
subpart AA and subpart AAa).
[[Page 41522]]
G. Selection of Test Methods
The proposed NESHAP would require an initial performance test to
determine compliance. The initial test would consist of emission
testing of exhaust gases from air pollution control devices and vent
stacks serving the affected emission units. In addition, at Glenbrook
Nickel, these tests should be repeated at least once per permit term,
i.e., every 5 years. Annual performance testing at both facilities
would be limited to the emissions sources that result in the largest
quantity of HAP emissions, that is the ferroalloy submerged arc
furnaces at Elkem Marietta and the combined ferronickel electric arc
melt furnace/calciners at Glenbrook Nickel. This testing frequency is
consistent with each facility's current permit requirements and ensures
that the performance of air pollution control devices on the
significant HAP sources remains high.
Standard EPA particulate test methods, as described in section
IV.C. of this preamble, would be used to obtain the needed methods.
Opacity observations would be conducted using Method 9.
The EPA also proposes to incorporate the State of Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality Source Sampling Method 8, Sampling Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources (High Volume Method), as an optional
alternative in the Ferronickel rule to the use of EPA Method 5 on
negative pressure baghouses. The use of this method would be consistent
with Glenbrook Nickel's Title V permit and offers advantages in reduced
sampling time for sources with low grain loadings and better sampling
access in some cases. The use of this rule would be limited to
ferronickel sources located in the State of Oregon.
In a recent separate rulemaking (published in the Federal Register
on August 27, 1997 at page 45369), the EPA proposed changes to Method
5D for positive pressure baghouses that are not equipped with outlet
stacks. The proposed amendment would change the outlet volumetric flow
rate calculation procedure to be used in those cases where the outlet
measurement site(s) velocity is too low to accurately measure using a
type S pitot. Originally the method instructed testers to close up all
leaks, measure the inlet volume, and assume that the outlet volume was
the same as the inlet. Many people have told EPA that this was not
practical. The proposed change is based on the assumption that
differences between the average fabric filter gas inlet and outlet
temperatures are due to cooling with ambient air. This information on
temperature differences can be used to calculate the outlet volume.
A copy of the proposed Method 5D is available on the Emission
Measurement Center (EMC) home page (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/emc)
by choosing ``test methods'', then ``proposed'', then ``EPA Methods
(New EMMC Format)''. For those already familiar with the EMTIC home
page under the TTN electronic umbrella, the files can be similarly
obtained via that electronic route. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn), then
choose ``Directory of TTN Sites'', then ``EMTIC'', then ``Proposed
Methods'', then ``EPA Methods (New EMMC Format)'.
H. Selection of Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed rules require the owner or operator to comply with the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the General
Provisions.
In addition, the rules establish subpart-specific reporting and
recordkeeping requirements needed to ensure compliance with rule-
specific requirements. For example, sources must submit baghouse
monitoring reports, fugitive dust control reports, and capture system
monitoring reports. Similarly, the sources must also retain a copy of
the written maintenance plan for each emission control device, a copy
of the fugitive dust control plan, and records of each maintenance
inspection and repair, replacement, or other corrective action.
I. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this
proposal from all interested parties. Whenever applicable, full
supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted to allow the
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be
directed to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket
No. A-92-59 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice must be submitted
on or before the date specified in DATES.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''
(CBI). Send submissions containing such proprietary information
directly to the following address to ensure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention:
Conrad Chin, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential Business
Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711. Do not send CBI to the public docket or through e-
mail. The EPA will disclose information covered by a claim of
confidentiality only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the
submission when it is received by the EPA, it may be made available to
the public without further notice to the commenter.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must submit to OMB for review significant regulatory actions. The
Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
OMB determines 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 entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because the proposed rules will only affect two existing
facilities, the projected nationwide economic impacts are estimated to
be far less than $100 million. Furthermore, because the
[[Page 41523]]
proposed rules result in the codification of existing controls and
practices, no significant adverse effects to the facilities are
anticipated. Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not a
significant regulatory action, and is, therefore, not subject to review
by OMB.
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State
governments in the development of the proposed rule. Although this
proposal does not impose requirements on State, local, or tribal
governments, these entities will be required to implement the rule by
incorporating the rule into permits and enforcing the rule upon
delegation. They will collect permit fees that will be used to offset
the resource burden of implementing the rule. Comments have been
solicited from State partners and have been carefully considered in the
rule development process. In addition, all State, local, and tribal
governments and other representatives are encouraged to comment on this
proposed rule during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to
fully consider these comments in the development of the final rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year.
Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input
from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Because this proposed rule, if promulgated, does not include a
Federal mandate and is estimated to result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments or the private sector of significantly
less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
In addition, because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments. Therefore, the requirements of
the UMRA do not apply to this action.
E. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
business, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because it only applies
currently to two sources, neither of which is a small business.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with the proposed
standards (those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and subpart XXX)
have been submitted to the OMB for approval under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1831), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE, Regulatory
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202)260-2740.
The total 3-year monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden
for this collection is estimated at 5,052 labor hours at a total cost
of $140,626 for the two facilities, and the annual average burden is
1,684 labor hours and $46,875 for the two facilities. This estimate
includes a one-time performance test and report; subsequent performance
tests and reports for some sources; semiannual reports when the
procedures in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan were not
followed; quarterly and semiannual excess emissions reports;
maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. There are no
separate capital/startup costs associated with the proposed rules.
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 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
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Send comments on the Agency'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, to the Director, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.''
Include the EPA ICR number in any correspondence. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
G. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risk Under Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) OMB
determines is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) EPA determines the environmental health or safety
risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety aspects of the planned rule on
children; and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately
affect children.
[[Page 41524]]
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations
when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This action does not involve the proposal of any new technical
standards. It does, however, incorporate by reference existing
technical standards. Incorporated are longstanding EPA Reference test
methods and procedures for demonstrating compliance with particulate
standards and opacity standards, specifically EPA test methods 1
through 5 and 9, as codified under 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. Consequently,
the Agency searched for voluntary consensus standards that might be
applicable. The search was conducted through the National Standards
System Network (NSSN), an automated service provided by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) for identifying available national
and international standards. The search identified no applicable
standards. Therefore, the EPA proposes to use the government-unique
technical standards cited above for determining compliance. The EPA
welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
As part of a larger effort, the EPA is undertaking a project to
cross-reference existing voluntary consensus standards on testing,
sampling, and analysis, with current and future EPA test methods. When
completed, this project will assist the EPA in identifying potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards which can then be evaluated
for equivalency and applicability in determining compliance with future
regulations.
IX. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Ferroalloys production, Ferromanganese, silicomanganese,
and ferrochromium production, Ferronickel production, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 23, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart XXX to read as follows:
Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Ferroalloys Production
Sec.
Ferronickel Production Rule
63.1620 Applicability and compliance dates.
63.1621 Definitions.
63.1622 Standards for new and existing sources.
63.1623 Maintenance requirements.
63.1624 Compliance demonstrations, performance testing, and test
methods.
63.1625 Monitoring requirements.
63.1626 Notification requirements.
63.1627 Reporting requirements.
63.1628 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1629 Delegation of authorities.
63.1630-63.1649 [Reserved].
Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, Ferrochromium Production Rule
63.1650 Applicability and compliance dates.
63.1651 Definitions.
63.1652 Emission standards for new and existing sources.
63.1653 Maintenance requirements.
63.1654 Compliance demonstrations, performance testing, and test
methods.
63.1655 Monitoring requirements.
63.1656 Notification requirements.
63.1657 Reporting requirements.
63.1658 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1659 Delegation of authorities.
63.1660-63.1679 [Reserved].
Table 1 to Subpart XXX--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart XXX
Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production
Ferronickel Production Rule
Sec. 63.1620 Applicability and compliance dates.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all new and existing
ferronickel production facilities that are major sources or are co-
located at major sources.
(b) For the purpose of implementing this subpart, the affected
sources at a ferronickel production facility subject to this subpart
are the sources listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this
section:
(1) Ferronickel ore processing,
(2) Calcining and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces,
(3) Ferronickel refining furnaces, and
(4) Fugitive dust sources.
(c) A new affected source is an affected source for which
construction or reconstruction commences after August 4, 1998.
(d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of ferronickel production facilities subject to this subpart.
(e) Compliance dates: (1) Each owner or operator of an existing
affected source shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this
subpart no later than [Insert date 2 years from publication of final
rule in Federal Register.]
(2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected
source subject to this subpart that commences construction or
reconstruction after August 4, 1998 shall achieve compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by [Insert date of publication of final
rule in Federal Register] or upon startup of operations, whichever is
later.
Sec. 63.1621 Definitions.
Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (the Act),
in subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust
of a baghouse in
[[Page 41525]]
order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but
is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric light
scattering, transmittance or other effect to monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Calcining means the use of calciners to reduce the dried and sized
ore to less than 4 percent total moisture.
Capture system means the equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,
dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport particulate matter
generated by an affected ferronickel electric arc furnace.
Ferronickel means an alloy consisting of iron and nickel.
Ferronickel electric arc furnace means any furnace that produces
molten materials and heats the charge materials with electric arcs from
carbon electrodes. These furnaces include those used to melt the nickel
ore (ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces) or to refine the
ferronickel product (ferronickel refining furnaces).
Ferronickel ore processing means the following group of emissions
sources: Ore dryer, raw material crushing and screening operation, ore
storage bins, and hot ore transfer.
Fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which nickel-
bearing particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to wind or
mechanical inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources
include plant roadways, yard areas, and outdoor material storage and
transfer operations.
Hot ore transfer means the system of skip hoists and skip cars or
other means that carry the calcined ore to hoppers above the
ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces.
Ore dryer means a rotary kiln used to dry mined ore up to 10
percent free moisture.
Ore storage bins means the bins used to store the dried ore prior
to being calcined.
Plant roadway means any area at a ferronickel production facility
that is subject to plant mobile equipment, such as fork lifts, front
end loaders, or trucks, carrying nickel-bearing materials. Excluded
from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas, provided
they are not subject to traffic by plant mobile equipment.
Raw material crushing and screening means the hoppers, crushers,
grinders, mills and/or screens used to crush, size, and prepare
ferronickel raw materials for calcining.
Smelter building means the building which houses one or more
ferronickel electric arc furnaces.
Weekday opacity observations means observations conducted using EPA
Method 9 once each weekday (Monday through Friday) of operation,
excluding company work holidays.
Sec. 63.1622 Standards for new and existing sources.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted in Sec. 63.7(a) is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall cause:
(1)(i) The emissions of particulate matter from an air pollution
control device serving the calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt
furnaces to exceed 34 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)
(0.015 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)).
(ii) The emissions of particulate matter from an air pollution
control device serving the ferronickel refining furnaces to exceed 2.3
mg/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf).
(iii) The weighted average emissions of particulate matter from air
pollution control devices serving the ferronickel ore processing
operation to exceed 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).
(iv) In addition, no owner or operator shall cause the emissions of
particulate matter from the air pollution control devices serving
existing calciners and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces to
exhibit more than 20 percent opacity.
(2) No owner or operator shall cause the emissions of particulate
matter that exit from a smelter building to exhibit more than 20
percent opacity.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected ferronickel production
facility shall prepare and at all times operate according to a fugitive
dust control plan in accordance with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) The fugitive dust control plan shall describe the specific
control measures that are used to reduce emissions from the individual
fugitive dust sources at the facility. Examples of control measures
that may be used include, but are not limited to: Installing an
enclosure, installing and operating a local hood capture system vented
to a control device, placing stockpiles below grade, Installing wind
screens or wind fences, using water sprays, applying appropriate dust
suppression agents, or any combination of these control measures as
appropriate for a given fugitive dust source.
(2) The fugitive dust control plan shall include, at a minimum, a
description of the control measures implemented for each of the
fugitive dust sources listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v)
of this section.
(i) Roads or other areas within the plant property boundary used by
trucks or other motor vehicles (e.g., front-end loaders) transporting
bulk quantities of fugitive dust materials. Paved roads and areas of
the facility that are not used by these vehicles are not required to be
included in the plan (e.g., employee and visitor parking lots);
(ii) Operations to unload or load fugitive dust materials from or
into trucks or railcars;
(iii) Outdoor piles used to store fugitive dust materials;
(iv) Transfer points in conveying systems used to convey fugitive
dust materials. These points include, but are not limited to, those
points where the material is transferred from a conveyor belt to a
second conveyor belt or discharged from a conveyor to a hopper or bin;
and
(v) Other fugitive dust sources at a facility as designated by the
Administrator or delegated permitting authority.
(3) The owner or operator shall submit a copy of the fugitive dust
control plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the
applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in
Sec. 63.1620(e). The requirement for the owner or operator to operate
the facility according to a written fugitive dust control plan shall be
incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued by
the designated permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
(4) To satisfy the requirements of this paragraph to develop a
fugitive dust control plan, the owner or operator may use the affected
source's standard operating procedures (SOP) manual or other plan,
provided the alternative plan meets the requirements of this paragraph
and is made available for inspection when requested by the
Administrator.
Sec. 63.1623 Maintenance requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.6(e).
(b)(1) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, the owner or operator shall develop and implement a
written maintenance plan for each air pollution control device subject
to the provisions of this part. The owner or operator shall keep the
maintenance plan on record after it is developed to be made available
for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the
air pollution control device or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the provisions of this part.
(2) To satisfy the requirements of this paragraph to develop an air
pollution control device maintenance plan, the owner or operator may
use the affected
[[Page 41526]]
source's standard operating procedures (SOP) manual or other plan,
provided the alternative plan meets the requirements of this paragraph
and is made available for inspection when requested by the
Administrator.
(c) The procedures specified in the maintenance plan shall, at a
minimum, include a preventive maintenance schedule that is consistent
with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions and,
for baghouses, ensure that the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.1625(a) are met.
(d) The owner or operator shall perform monthly operational status
inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of
the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, dampers, and damper
switches). This inspection shall include observations of the physical
appearance of the equipment (e.g., presence of holes in ductwork or
hoods, flow constrictions caused by dents or accumulated dust in
ductwork, and fan erosion). Any deficiencies shall be noted and proper
maintenance performed.
Sec. 63.1624 Compliance demonstrations, performance testing, and test
methods.
(a) Compliance demonstration with emission limit standard. All
performance tests shall be conducted according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7.
(1) The owner or operator shall conduct both an initial performance
test as well as subsequent performance tests at each renewal of the
source's Title V operating permit for all of the air pollution control
devices subject to the standards specified in Sec. 63.1622(a)(1) to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct annual performance tests
for the air pollution control devices subject to the standards
specified in Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(i), i.e., those serving the calciners
and the ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces.
(3) Following development, and approval, if required, of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator shall conduct an emission
test for each air pollution control device to measure the outlet of the
control device to determine compliance with the applicable standard.
(i) Compliance is achieved with the emission limitation specified
in Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) if the outlet concentration is
less than or equal to the applicable emission limitation.
(ii) Compliance is achieved with the emission limitation specified
in Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(iii) for ferronickel ore processing, if the
weighted average outlet concentration from the air pollution control
devices serving the ferronickel ore processing operation is less than
or equal to 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf), using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AU98.000
Where:
C=concentration of particulate matter, mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
N=total number of exhaust streams at which emissions are quantified.
Mi=mass rate of each emission source, kg/hr (lb/hr).
Qi=volumetric flow rate of each emission source, dscm
(dscf).
k = a constant.
(5) [Reserved]
(6) If a venturi scrubber is being used to achieve compliance with
the emission limits, the owner or operator shall establish as a site-
specific operating parameter the average hourly pressure drop across
the venturi during the performance test. The pressure drop shall be
monitored and recorded at least every 5 minutes during the test.
(i) The owner or operator shall determine the operating parameter
monitoring value as the average of the values recorded during each of
the three runs constituting the test.
(ii) The owner or operator may augment the data obtained under
paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section by conducting multiple performance
tests to establish a range of compliant operating parameter values. The
lowest value of this range would be selected as the operating parameter
monitoring value. The use of historic compliance data may be used to
establish the compliant operating parameter value if the previous
values were recorded during the performance tests using the test
methods specified in this subpart and established in the manner
required in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(6)(i) of this section.
(7)(i) Compliance with the applicable emission limit shall be
determined by the average of three runs. Each run shall be conducted
under conditions that are representative of normal process operations.
(ii) The minimum sampling volume shall be 0.9 dscm (30 dscf),
unless Oregon Method 8 (high volume sampler) is used. When Oregon
Method 8 is used, the minimum sampling volume shall be 4.2 dscm (150
dscf). Sample times shall be a minimum of 15 minutes for Oregon Method
8 and 60 minutes for all other methods.
(b) Compliance demonstration with the opacity standard. (1)(i) The
owner or operator shall conduct initial opacity observations for the
air pollution control devices serving the calciners and the ferronickel
electric arc melt furnaces subject to the standards specified in
Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(iv) and the smelter building subject to the
standards specified in Sec. 63.1622(a)(2) to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable opacity limitations according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.6(h)(5), conduct of opacity or visible emissions
observations.
(ii) In conducting the opacity observations for the smelter
building, the observer shall limit his or her field of view to the area
of the smelter building roof monitor that corresponds to the placement
of the affected ferronickel electric arc furnaces.
(2)(i) When the smelter building opacity observations required by
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section are conducted, the owner or
operator shall establish either the control system fan motor amperes
and all damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate to the air
pollution control device and all damper positions, or the volumetric
flow rate through each separately ducted hood during all periods in
which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from
the ferronickel electric arc furnaces, depending on the parameter to be
monitored under the requirements established in Sec. 63.1625(c)(1) or
(c)(2).
(ii) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator for
reestablishment of these parameters whenever the owner or operator can
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the ferronickel
electric arc furnace operating conditions upon which the parameters
were previously established are no longer applicable. The values of
these parameters as determined during the most recent demonstration of
compliance shall be maintained at the appropriate level for each
applicable period.
(3) The owner or operator shall conduct weekday opacity
observations for air pollution control devices serving the calciners
and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces subject to the standards
specified in Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(iv) to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable opacity limitations according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.1625(a)(1).
(c) Compliance demonstration with the work practice standard.
Failure to have a fugitive dust control plan or failure to report
deviations from the plan and take necessary corrective action would be
a violation of the general duty to ensure that fugitive dust sources
are operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good air
[[Page 41527]]
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(d) Test methods. The following test methods in Appendix A of part
60 of this chapter shall be used to determine compliance with the
emission standards.
(1) Method 1 shall be used to select the sampling port location and
the number of traverse points.
(2) Method 2 shall be used to measure volumetric flow rate.
(3) Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis to determine the dry
molecular weight of the stack gas.
(4) Method 4 shall be used to determine moisture content of the
stack gas.
(5) Method 5 shall be used for particulate matter emissions from
control devices such as negative pressure baghouses and scrubbers with
suction pressure.
(6) Method 5D shall be used for positive pressure baghouses.
(7) Method 9 shall be used to determine compliance with opacity
limits.
(8) State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Source
Sampling Method 8, Sampling Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources (High Volume Method) may be used instead of Method 5 for
negative pressure baghouses. Use of this test method is limited to
ferronickel facilities located in the State of Oregon.
(9) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative
measurement methods approved by the Administrator following the
procedures described in Sec. 63.7(f).
Sec. 63.1625 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Baghouses. (1)(i) The owner or operator shall conduct weekday
opacity observations of the baghouses serving the existing calciners
and ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces in accordance with Method 9
for at least one 6-minute period during normal operation of the
applicable emission units.
(ii) Observations that exceed the opacity limitation would be a
violation of the opacity standard, unless the owner or operator can
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the exceedance was
due to an upset condition or malfunction.
(iii) As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
developed pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop
and implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the case
of a violation of the opacity requirement. The owner or operator shall
initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the exceedance.
(2) For the baghouses serving the emission units defined in
Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii), the owner or operator shall
monitor on a daily basis for the presence of any visible emissions.
(3) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, the
owner or operator shall conduct the following activities specified in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(viii) of this section for all
baghouses serving emissions units defined in Sec. 63.1622(a)(1).
(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.
(ii) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(iii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(iv) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(v) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(vi) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(vii) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air
leaks.
(viii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup,
and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or
equivalent means.
(4) In addition to the meeting the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, the owner or operator of a new or
reconstructed ferronickel electric arc furnace shall install and
continuously operate a bag leak detection system if the furnace primary
and/or tapping emissions are ducted to a negative pressure baghouse or
to a positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack. The bag leak
detection system must meet the following requirements:
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(iv) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated
in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.
(v) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(vi) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not
adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time, except as detailed in the maintenance plan required
under Sec. 63.1623(b). In no event shall the sensitivity be increased
by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-
day period unless such adjustment follows a complete baghouse
inspection which demonstrates the baghouse is in good operating
condition.
(vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(5) As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
developed pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop
and implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the case
of a bag leak detection system alarm for baghouses equipped with such a
system, the observation of visible emissions from the baghouse, or the
indication through the periodic baghouse system inspections that the
system is not operating properly. The owner or operator shall initiate
corrective action as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the
observation or event indicating a malfunction.
(6) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(b) Venturi scrubbers. (1) The owner or operator shall monitor the
pressure drop at the venturi at least every 5 minutes and record the
average hourly pressure drop. Measurement of an average hourly pressure
drop below the limit established during the most recent
[[Page 41528]]
compliance demonstration would be a violation of the emission
limitation standard, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate to
the Administrator's satisfaction that a decrease in the pressure drop
was due to an upset condition or malfunction.
(2) As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
developed pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop
and implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the case
of a violation of the pressure drop requirement. The owner or operator
shall initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the
exceedance.
(3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) Smelter building opacity. The owner or operator subject to
Sec. 63.1622(a)(2) shall monitor the capture system as specified by
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section, depending on the
parameters monitored during the compliance test in Sec. 63.1624(b)(2).
Alternatively, the owner or operator may use the provisions of
Sec. 63.8(f) to request approval to use an alternative monitoring
method.
(1) The owner or operator shall check and record the control system
fan motor amperes and damper positions on a once-per-shift basis;
(2) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, and maintain a
monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate
through each separately ducted hood. The monitoring device(s) may be
installed in any appropriate location in the exhaust duct such that
reproducible flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate monitoring
device(s) shall have an accuracy 10 percent over its normal
operating range and shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's
instructions. The Administrator may require the owner or operator to
demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to
Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A of part 60 of this chapter; or
(3) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, and maintain a
monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at
the inlet of the air pollution control device and shall check and
record the control system damper positions on a once-per-shift basis.
The monitoring device may be installed in any appropriate location in
the exhaust duct such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will
result. The flow rate monitoring device shall have an accuracy
10 percent over its normal operating range and shall be
calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The
Administrator may require the owner or operator to demonstrate the
accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 1 and 2 of
Appendix A of part 60 of this chapter.
(4) Operation of control system fan motor amperes less than the
value established under Sec. 63.1624(b)(2) or operation at flow rates
lower than those established under Sec. 63.1624(b)(2) would establish
the need to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the
monitoring exceedance in order to minimize excess emissions.
(5) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(6) Where the capture system is designed and operated such that all
emissions are captured and ducted to a control device, the owner or
operator shall not be subject to the requirements of this section.
Sec. 63.1626 Notification requirements.
(a) As required by Sec. 63.9(b), unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, the owner or operator shall submit the following written
notifications to the Administrator:
(1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently
becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide
notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by
Sec. 63.9(b)(1).
(2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2), the owner or operator of an
affected source that has an initial startup before the effective date
of the standard shall notify the Administrator that the source is
subject to the requirements of the standard. The notification shall be
submitted not later than 120 calendar days after the effective date of
this standard (or within 120 calendar days after the source becomes
subject to this standard) and shall contain the information specified
in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v).
(3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3), the owner or operator of a new
or reconstructed affected source, or a source that has been
reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an initial
startup after the effective date and for which an application for
approval of construction or reconstruction is not required under
Sec. 63.5(d), shall notify the Administrator in writing that the source
is subject to the standards no later than 120 days after initial
startup. The notification shall contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v), delivered or postmarked with the
notification required in Sec. 63.9(b)(5).
(4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4), the owner or operator of a new
or reconstructed major affected source that has an initial startup
after the effective date of this standard and for which an application
for approval of construction or reconstruction is required under
Sec. 63.5(d) shall provide the information specified in
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v).
(5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5), the owner or operator who,
after the effective date of this standard, intends to construct a new
affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this
standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected
source subject to this standard, shall notify the Administrator, in
writing, of the intended construction or reconstruction.
(b) Request for extension of compliance. As required by
Sec. 63.9(c), if the owner or operator of an affected source cannot
comply with this standard by the applicable compliance date for that
source, or if the owner or operator has installed BACT or technology to
meet LAER consistent with Sec. 63.6(i)(5), he/she may submit to the
Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) a request
for an extension of compliance as specified in Sec. 63.6(i)(4) through
(i)(6).
(c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance
requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d), an owner or operator of a
new source that is subject to special compliance requirements as
specified in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) shall notify the Administrator
of his/her compliance obligations not later than the notification dates
established in Sec. 63.9(b) for new sources that are not subject to the
special provisions.
(d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e),
the owner or operator of an affected source shall notify the
Administrator in writing of his or her intention to conduct a
performance test at least 15 calendar days before the performance test
is scheduled to begin to allow the Administrator to review and approve
the site-specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c), if requested
by the Administrator, and to have an observer present during the test.
(e) Notification of opacity observations. As required by
Sec. 63.9(f), the owner or operator of an affected
[[Page 41529]]
source shall notify the Administrator in writing of the anticipated
date for conducting the opacity observations specified in
Sec. 63.6(h)(5). The notification shall be submitted with the
notification of the performance test date, as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, or if visibility or other conditions prevent the
opacity observations from being conducted concurrently with the initial
performance test required under Sec. 63.7, the owner or operator shall
deliver or postmark the notification not less than 15 days before the
opacity observations are scheduled to take place.
(f) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as
required by Sec. 63.9(h). The notification shall be sent before the
close of business on the 60th day following completion of the relevant
compliance demonstration.
Sec. 63.1627 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements. The owner or operator of a
ferronickel production facility shall comply with all of the reporting
requirements under Sec. 63.10, unless otherwise specified in this
subpart.
(1) Frequency of reports. As provided by Sec. 63.10(a)(5), if the
owner or operator is required to submit periodic reports to a State on
an established timeline, the owner or operator may change the dates by
which periodic reports submitted under this part may be submitted
(without changing the frequency of reporting) to be consistent with the
State's schedule by mutual agreement between the owner or operator and
the State. This provision may be applied at any point after the
source's compliance date.
(2) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(2), the owner or operator of an affected source shall
report the results of the initial performance test as part of the
notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.1626(f).
(3) Reporting results of opacity observations. As required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(3), the owner or operator shall report the opacity
results (produced using Test Method 9 or an approved alternative to
these methods) along with the results of the performance test required
under Sec. 63.7. If visibility or other conditions prevent the opacity
observations from being conducted concurrently with the performance
test required under Sec. 63.7, the owner or operator shall report the
opacity results before the close of business on the 30th day following
the completion of the opacity observations.
(4) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. (i) As
required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i), if actions taken by an owner or
operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected
source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are
consistent with the procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall state such information in
a semiannual report. The report, to be certified by the owner or
operator or other responsible official, shall be submitted semiannually
and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each
calendar half; and
(ii) Any time an action taken by an owner or operator during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall comply with
all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(b) Specific reporting requirements. In addition to the information
required under Sec. 63.10, reports required under paragraph (a) of this
section shall include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(4) of this section. As allowed by Sec. 63.10(a)(3), if any
State requires a report that contains all of the information required
in a report listed in this section, an owner or operator may send the
Administrator a copy of the report sent to the State to satisfy the
requirements of this section for that report.
(1) Air pollution control devices. The owner or operator shall
submit reports that summarize the records maintained as part of the
practices described in the maintenance plan for air pollution control
devices required under Sec. 63.1623(b), including an explanation of the
periods when the procedures were not followed and the corrective
actions taken.
(i) Venturi scrubbers. In addition to the information required to
be submitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or operator
shall submit reports that identify the periods when the average hourly
pressure drop of venturi scrubbers used to control particulate
emissions dropped below the levels established in Sec. 63.1624(a)(5),
and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
(ii) Baghouses serving the existing ferronickel electric arc melt
furnaces and calciners. In addition to the information required to be
submitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or operator
shall submit reports that identify the periods when the weekday opacity
observations taken in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 63.1625(a)(1) exceeded the opacity limitation specified in
Sec. 63.1622(a)(1)(iv), and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken.
(2) Fugitive dust. The owner or operator shall submit reports that
explain the periods when the procedures outlined in the fugitive dust
control plan pursuant to Sec. 63.1622(b) were not followed and the
corrective actions taken.
(3) Capture system. The owner or operator shall submit reports that
summarize the monitoring parameter exceedances measured pursuant to
Sec. 63.1625(c)(3) and the corrective actions taken.
(4)(i) The owner or operator shall submit reports pursuant to
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) that are associated with excess emissions events such
as the exceedance of the scrubber pressure drop limit per paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section or the exceedance of the opacity limit per
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. These reports are to be submitted
on a quarterly basis, unless the owner or operator can satisfy the
requirements in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) to reduce the frequency to a
semiannual basis.
(ii) All other reports specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(3) of this section shall be submitted semiannually.
Sec. 63.1628 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General recordkeeping requirements. (1) The owner or operator
of a ferronickel production facility shall comply with all of the
recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 63.10.
(2) As required by Sec. 63.10(b), the owner or operator shall
maintain records for five years from the date of each record of:
(i) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of operation (i. e., process equipment and control
devices);
(ii) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the source
or air pollution control equipment;
(iii) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control
equipment;
(iv) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning
process and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation) when such actions are different from the
procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
(v) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during
periods of startup, shutdown, and
[[Page 41530]]
malfunction (including corrective actions) are consistent with the
procedures specified in such plan. This information can be recorded in
a checklist or similar form (see Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v).);
(vi) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance
with the standard and to support data that the source is required to
report, including, but not limited to, performance test measurements
(including initial and any subsequent performance tests) and
measurements as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the
initial test or subsequent tests;
(vii) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests and
opacity and visible emissions observations;
(viii) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from
recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f), any
information demonstrating whether a source is meeting the requirements
for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements;
(ix) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the
initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h), a copy of the full request
and the Administrator's approval or disapproval;
(x) All documentation supporting initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9; and
(xi) As required by Sec. 63.10((b)(3), records of any applicability
determination, including supporting analyses.
(b) Specific recordkeeping requirements. (1) In addition to the
general records required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or
operator shall maintain records for five years from the date of each
record of:
(i) Records of pressure drop across the venturi if a venturi
scrubber is used;
(ii) Records of results of weekday opacity observations;
(iii) Records of manufacturer certification that monitoring devices
are accurate to within 5 percent and of semiannual calibration;
(iv) Copy of the written maintenance plan for each air pollution
control device;
(v) Copy of the fugitive dust control plan; and
(vi) Records of each maintenance inspection and repair,
replacement, or other corrective action.
(c) All records for the most recent two years of operation must be
maintained on site. Records for the previous three years may be
maintained off site.
Sec. 63.1629 Delegation of authorities.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) No authorities are retained by the Administrator.
Sec. 63.1630--Sec. 63.1649 [Reserved]
Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, and Ferrochromium Production Rule
Sec. 63.1650 Applicability and compliance dates.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all new and existing
ferroalloy production facilities that manufacture ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, or ferrochromium and are major sources or are co-
located at major sources.
(b) For the purpose of implementing this subpart, the affected
sources at a ferroalloy production facility subject to this subpart are
the sources listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section:
(1) Open submerged arc furnaces,
(2) Semi-closed submerged arc furnaces,
(3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process,
(4) Crushing and screening operations, and
(5) Fugitive dust sources.
(c) A new affected source is an affected source for which
construction or reconstruction commences after August 4, 1998.
(d) Table 2 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of ferroalloy production facilities subject to this subpart.
(e) Compliance dates:
(1) Each owner or operator of an existing affected source shall
achieve compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than
[Insert date 2 years from publication of final rule in Federal
Register.]
(2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected
source subject to this subpart that commences construction or
reconstruction after August 4, 1998 shall achieve compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by [Insert date of publication of final
rule in Federal Register] or upon startup of operations, whichever is
later.
Sec. 63.1651 Definitions.
Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (the Act),
in subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust
of a baghouse in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection
system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on
triboelectric light scattering, transmittance or other effect to
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Capture system means the equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,
dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport particulate matter
generated by an affected ferroalloy submerged arc furnace.
Casting means the period of time from when molten ferroalloy falls
from the furnace tapping runner into the ladle until pouring into molds
is completed. This includes the following operations: Ladle filling,
pouring alloy from one ladle to another, slag separation, slag removal,
and ladle transfer by crane or truck.
Crushing and screening means the feed hoppers, jaw crushers, gyro
crushers, grinders, mills, and rotary screens used to crush, size, and
prepare for packing manganese-or chromium-containing materials,
including raw materials, intermediate products, or final products,
associated with submerged arc furnace operations.
Ferroalloy submerged arc furnace means any electric submerged arc
furnace that produces molten ferromanganese, silicomanganese, or
ferrochromium.
Fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which
manganese-or chromium-bearing particles are discharged to the
atmosphere due to wind or mechanical inducement such as vehicle
traffic. Fugitive dust sources include plant roadways, yard areas, and
outdoor material storage and transfer operations.
Furnace power input means the resistive electrical power
consumption of a ferroalloy submerged arc furnace.
Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process means the reduction of the
carbon content of ferromanganese through the use of oxygen.
Open submerged arc furnace means an electric submerged arc furnace
that is equipped with a canopy hood above the furnace to collect
primary emissions.
Plant roadway means any area at a ferroalloy production facility
that is subject to plant mobile equipment, such as fork lifts, front
end loaders, or trucks, carrying manganese- or chromium-bearing
materials. Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor
parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by plant mobile
equipment.
[[Page 41531]]
Primary emissions are composed of reaction gases from the furnace
surface. They are collected by hoods and ductwork located above the
furnace or under the cover of a semi-closed surface.
Semi-closed submerged arc furnace means an electric submerged arc
furnace equipped with a partially sealed cover over the furnace. This
cover is equipped with openings to allow penetration of the electrodes
into the furnace. Mix is introduced into the furnace around the
electrode holes forming a partial seal between the electrodes and the
cover. Furnace emissions generated under the cover are ducted to an
emission control device. Emissions that escape the cover are collected
and vented through stacks directly to the atmosphere.
Shop means the building which houses one or more ferroalloy
submerged arc furnaces.
Tapping emissions means a source of air pollutant emissions that
occur during the process of removing the molten product from the
furnace.
Tapping period means the time duration from initiation of the
process of opening the tap hole until the plugging of the tap hole is
complete.
Sec. 63.1652 Emission standards for new and existing sources.
(a)(1) On and after the date on which the performance test required
to be conducted in Sec. 63.7(a) is completed, no owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed ferroalloy submerged
arc furnace any gases which exit from an air pollution control device
containing primary and/or tapping emissions streams and contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.23 kilograms per hour per megawatt
(kg/hr/MW) (0.51 pounds per hour per megawatt (lb/hr/MW)) for the
combined primary and tapping emissions for each open submerged arc
furnace or semi-closed submerged arc furnace.
(2) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted in Sec. 63.7(a) is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any new or reconstructed MOR process or from individual
equipment associated with the crushing and screening operation any
gases which contain particulate matter in excess of 50 milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic
foot (gr/dscf)).
(3) All other new or reconstructed operations at the ferroalloy
production facility, as defined in Sec. 63.1650(b), will be regulated
under the applicable existing source requirements specified in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted in Sec. 63.7(a) is completed, no owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any existing affected source any gases which:
(1) Exit from an air pollution control device containing primary
and/or tapping emissions streams from any open submerged arc furnace
and contain particulate matter in excess of 0.51 kg/hr/MW (1.13 lb/hr/
MW) for the combined primary and tapping emissions for each affected
furnace.
(2)(i) Exit from an air pollution control device containing primary
emissions streams from a semi-closed submerged arc furnace and contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.04 kg/hr/MW (0.09 lb/hr/MW).
(ii) Exit from vent stacks containing primary emissions streams
from a semi-closed submerged arc furnace and contain particulate matter
emissions in excess of 0.67 kg/hr/MW (1.48 lb/hr/MW) for the combined
vent stacks.
(3) Exit from an air pollution control device containing emissions
streams from MOR processes or crushing and screening operations and
contain particulate matter in excess of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).
(4)(i) Exit from a shop and, due solely to operations of any
affected open submerged arc furnace, exhibit greater than 20 percent
opacity for more than one distinct six-minute block average.
(ii) Visible particulate emissions that exit from a shop and, due
solely to operation of a semi-closed submerged arc furnace, may exceed
greater than 20 percent opacity, for not more than one distinct six-
minute period in any sixty minutes, but they shall not exceed 60
percent opacity, as a distinct six-minute block average, at any time.
(iii) Blowing taps, poling and oxygen lancing of the tap hole,
burndowns associated with electrode measurements and maintenance
activities, and casting operations associated with ferroalloy submerged
arc furnaces are exempt from the opacity limit specified in paragraphs
(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this section.
(c) Each owner or operator of an affected ferroalloy production
facility shall prepare and at all times operate according to a fugitive
dust control plan in accordance with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
(1) The fugitive dust control plan shall describe the specific
control measures that are used to reduce emissions from the individual
fugitive dust sources at the facility. Examples of control measures
that may be used include, but are not limited to: Installing an
enclosure, installing and operating a local hood capture system vented
to a control device, placing stockpiles below grade, installing wind
screens or wind fences, using water sprays, applying appropriate dust
suppression agents, or any combination of these control measures as
appropriate for a given fugitive dust source.
(2) The fugitive dust control plan shall include, at a minimum, a
description of the control measures implemented for each of the
fugitive dust sources listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(v)
of this section.
(i) Roads or other areas within the plant property boundary used by
trucks or other motor vehicles (e.g., front-end loaders) transporting
bulk quantities of fugitive dust materials. Paved roads and areas of
the facility that are not used by these vehicles are not required to be
included in the plan (e.g., employee and visitor parking lots);
(ii) Operations to unload or load fugitive dust materials from or
into trucks or railcars;
(iii) Outdoor piles used to store fugitive dust materials;
(iv) Transfer points in conveying systems used to convey fugitive
dust materials. These points include, but are not limited to, those
points where the material is transferred from a conveyor belt to a
second conveyor belt or discharged from a conveyor to a hopper or bin;
and
(v) Other fugitive dust sources at a facility as designated by the
Administrator or delegated permitting authority.
(3) The owner or operator shall submit a copy of the fugitive dust
control plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the
applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in
Sec. 63.1650(e). The requirement for the owner or operator to operate
the facility according to a written fugitive dust control plan shall be
incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued by
the designated permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
(4) To satisfy the requirements of this paragraph to develop a
fugitive dust control plan, the owner or operator may use the affected
source's standard operating procedures (SOP) manual or other plan,
provided the alternative plan meets the requirements of this paragraph
and is made available for inspection when requested by the
Administrator.
[[Page 41532]]
Sec. 63.1653 Maintenance requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.6(e).
(b)(1) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, the owner or operator shall develop and implement a
written maintenance plan which includes each air pollution control
device associated with ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, metal oxygen
refining processes, and crushing and screening operations subject to
the provisions of this part. The owner or operator shall keep the
maintenance plan on record after it is developed to be made available
for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the
air pollution control device or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the provisions of this part.
(2) To satisfy the requirements of this paragraph to develop an air
pollution control device maintenance plan, the owner or operator may
use the affected source's standard operating procedures (SOP) manual or
other plan, provided the alternative plan meets the requirements of
this paragraph and is made available for inspection when requested by
the Administrator.
(c) The procedures specified in the maintenance plan shall, at a
minimum, include a preventive maintenance schedule that is consistent
with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions and,
for baghouses, ensure that the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.1655(a) are met.
(d) The owner or operator shall perform monthly operational status
inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of
the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, dampers, and damper
switches). This inspection shall include observations of the physical
appearance of the equipment (e.g., presence of holes in ductwork or
hoods, flow constrictions caused by dents or accumulated dust in
ductwork, and fan erosion). Any deficiencies shall be noted and proper
maintenance performed.
Sec. 63.1654 Compliance demonstrations, performance testing, and test
methods.
(a) Compliance demonstration with emission limit standard. All
performance tests shall be conducted according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7.
(1) The owner or operator shall conduct an initial performance test
for air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to the
standard specified in Sec. 63.1652(a)(1) and Sec. 63.1652(b)(1) through
(b)(3) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct annual performance tests
for the air pollution control devices and vent stacks associated with
the ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, with the exception of any air
pollution control devices that also serve non-furnace emission sources.
The results of these annual tests will be used to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit specified in Sec. 63.1652(a)(1) and
Sec. 63.1652(b)(1) and (b)(2), as applicable.
(3) Following development, and approval, if required, of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator shall conduct an emission
test for each air pollution control device or vent stack to measure the
outlet of the control device or vent to determine compliance with the
applicable standard. Compliance is achieved if the measured, or
calculated value as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section,
is less than or equal to the applicable emission limitation.
(i) For those sources subject to the requirements of
Sec. 63.1652(a)(3), the measurements shall be recorded in mg/dscm (gr/
dscf).
(ii) For those sources subject to the requirements of
Sec. 63.1652(a)(1) and Sec. 63.1652(b)(1) and (b)(2), the measurements
shall be recorded in kg/hr (lb/hr) and the emission rate (E) shall be
computed for the average emissions from the performance test using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AU98.001
Where:
E=emission rate of particulate matter, kg/hr/MW (lb/hr/MW).
N=total number of exhaust streams at which emissions are quantified.
Csi= concentration of particulate matter from exhaust stream
``i'', kg/hr (lb/hr).
P=average furnace power input, MW.
(4) If a venturi scrubber is being used to achieve compliance with
the emission limits, the owner or operator shall establish as a site-
specific operating parameter the average hourly pressure drop across
the venturi during the performance test. The pressure drop shall be
monitored and recorded at least every 5 minutes during the test.
(i) The owner or operator shall determine the operating parameter
monitoring value as the average of the values recorded during each of
the three runs constituting the test.
(ii) The owner or operator may augment the data obtained under
paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section by conducting multiple performance
tests to establish a range of compliant operating parameter values. The
lowest value of this range would be selected as the operating parameter
monitoring value. The use of historic compliance data may be used to
establish the compliant operating parameter value if the previous
values were recorded during the performance tests using the test
methods specified in this subpart and established in the manner
required in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(4)(i) of this section.
(5) Compliance with the applicable emission limit shall be
determined by the average of three runs. Each run shall be conducted
under conditions that are representative of normal process operations.
Emissions tests conducted on air pollution control devices serving
ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces shall be conducted such that at least
one tapping cycle is included per run. The sampling time for each test
run shall be at least as long as three times the average tapping period
of the tested furnace, but no less than 60 minutes. The sample volume
for each test run shall be at least 0.9 dscm (30 dscf).
(b) Compliance demonstration with opacity standards. (1)(i) The
owner or operator shall conduct initial opacity observations for the
shop building subject to the standards specified in Sec. 63.1652(a)(4)
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable opacity limitations
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6(h)(5), conduct of opacity or
visible emission observations.
(ii) In conducting the opacity observations for the shop building,
the observer shall limit his or her field of view to the area of the
shop building roof monitor that corresponds to the placement of the
affected ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces.
(2)(i) When the initial shop building opacity observations required
by paragraph (b)(1) of this section are conducted, the owner or
operator shall establish either the control system fan motor amperes
and all damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate to the air
pollution control device and all damper positions, or the volumetric
flow rate through each separately ducted hood during all periods in
which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emission from the
ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, depending on which parameter to be
monitored under the requirements established in Sec. 63.1655(c)(1) or
(c)(2).
(ii) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator for
reestablishment of these parameters whenever the owner or operator can
[[Page 41533]]
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the ferroalloy
submerged arc furnace operating conditions upon which the parameters
were previously established are no longer applicable. The values of
these parameters as determined during the most recent demonstration of
compliance shall be maintained at the appropriate level for each
applicable period.
(c) Compliance demonstration with the work practice standard.
Failure to have a fugitive dust control plan or failure to report
deviations from the plan and take necessary corrective action would be
a violation of the general duty to ensure that fugitive dust sources
are operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(d) Test methods. The following test methods in Appendix A of part
60 of this chapter shall be used to determine compliance with the
emission standards.
(1) Method 1 shall be used to select the sampling port location and
the number of traverse points.
(2) Method 2 shall be used to measure volumetric flow rate.
(3) Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis to determine the dry
molecular weight of the stack gas.
(4) Method 4 shall be used to determine moisture content of the
stack gas.
(5) Method 5 shall be used for particulate matter emissions from
control devices such as negative pressure baghouses and scrubbers with
suction pressure.
(6) Method 5D shall be used for positive pressure baghouses.
(7) Method 9 shall be used to determine compliance with opacity
limits.
(8) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative
measurement methods approved by the Administrator following the
procedures described in Sec. 63.7(f).
Sec. 63.1655 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Baghouses. (1) For the baghouses serving the ferroalloy
submerged arc furnaces, the metal oxygen refining process, and crushing
and screening operations, the owner or operator shall monitor on a
daily basis for the presence of any visible emissions.
(2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, the
owner or operator shall conduct the following activities specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(viii) of this section.
(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.
(ii) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(iii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(iv) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(v) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(vi) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(vii) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air
leaks.
(viii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup,
and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or
equivalent means.
(3) In addition to the meeting the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator of a new or
reconstructed ferroalloy submerged arc furnace shall install and
continuously operate a bag leak detection system if the furnace primary
and/or tapping emissions are ducted to a negative pressure baghouse or
to a positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack. The bag leak
detection system must meet the following requirements:
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level.
(iv) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated
in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.
(v) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(vi) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not
adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time, except as detailed in the maintenance plan required
under Sec. 63.1653(b). In no event shall the sensitivity be increased
by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-
day period unless such adjustment follows a complete baghouse
inspection which demonstrates the baghouse is in good operating
condition.
(vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(4) As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
developed pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop
and implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the case
of a bag leak detection system alarm for baghouses equipped with such a
system, the observation of visible emissions from the baghouse, or the
indication through the periodic baghouse system inspections that the
system is not operating properly. The owner or operator shall initiate
corrective action as soon as practicable after the occurrence of the
observation or event indicating a malfunction.
(5) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(b) Venturi scrubbers. (1) The owner or operator shall monitor the
pressure drop at the venturi at least every 5 minutes and record the
average hourly pressure drop. Measurement of an average hourly pressure
drop below the limit established during the most recent compliance
demonstration would be a violation of the emission limitation standard,
unless the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that a decrease in the pressure drop was due to an upset
condition or malfunction.
(2) As part of the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan
developed pursuant to Sec. 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall develop
and implement corrective action procedures to be followed in the case
of a violation of the pressure drop requirement. The owner or operator
shall initiate corrective
[[Page 41534]]
action as soon as practicable after the exceedance.
(3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) Shop opacity. The owner or operator subject to
Sec. 63.1652(a)(4) shall monitor the capture system as specified by
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section, depending on the
parameters monitored during the compliance test in Sec. 63.1654(b)(2).
Alternatively, the owner or operator may use the provisions of
Sec. 63.8(f) to request approval to use an alternative monitoring
method.
(1) The owner or operator shall check and record the control system
fan motor amperes and damper positions on a once-per-shift basis;
(2) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, and maintain a
monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate
through each separately ducted hood. The monitoring device(s) may be
installed in any appropriate location in the exhaust duct such that
reproducible flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate monitoring
device(s) shall have an accuracy 10 percent over its normal
operating range and shall be calibrated according to the manufacturer's
instructions. The Administrator may require the owner or operator to
demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to
Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A of part 60 of this chapter; or
(3) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, and maintain a
monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at
the inlet of the air pollution control device and shall check and
record the control system damper positions on a once-per-shift basis.
The monitoring device may be installed in any appropriate location in
the exhaust duct such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will
result. The flow rate monitoring device shall have an accuracy
10 percent over its normal operating range and shall be
calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The
Administrator may require the owner or operator to demonstrate the
accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 1 and 2 of
Appendix A of part 60 of this chapter.
(4) Operation of control system fan motor amperes at values less
than the value established under Sec. 63.1654(b)(2) or operation at
flow rates lower than those established under Sec. 63.1654(b)(2) would
establish the need to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable
after the monitoring exceedance in order to minimize excess emissions.
(5) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section would be a violation
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(6) Where the capture system is designed and operated such that all
emissions are captured and ducted to a control device, the owner or
operator shall not be subject to the requirements of this section.
Sec. 63.1656 Notification requirements.
(a) As required by Sec. 63.9(b), unless otherwise specified in this
subpart, the owner or operator shall submit the following written
notifications to the Administrator:
(1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently
becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide
notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by
Sec. 63.9(b)(1).
(2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2), the owner or operator of an
affected source that has an initial startup before the effective date
of the standard shall notify the Administrator that the source is
subject to the requirements of the standard. The notification shall be
submitted not later than 120 calendar days after the effective date of
this standard (or within 120 calendar days after the source becomes
subject to this standard) and shall contain the information specified
in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v).
(3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3), the owner or operator of a new
or reconstructed affected source, or a source that has been
reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an initial
startup after the effective date and for which an application for
approval of construction or reconstruction is not required under
Sec. 63.5(d), shall notify the Administrator in writing that the source
is subject to the standards no later than 120 days after initial
startup. The notification shall contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v), delivered or postmarked with the
notification required in Sec. 63.9(b)(5).
(4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4), the owner or operator of a new
or reconstructed major affected source that has an initial startup
after the effective date of this standard and for which an application
for approval of construction or reconstruction is required under
Sec. 63.5(d) shall provide the information specified in
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v).
(5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5), the owner or operator who,
after the effective date of this standard, intends to construct a new
affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this
standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected
source subject to this standard, shall notify the Administrator, in
writing, of the intended construction or reconstruction.
(b) Request for extension of compliance. As required by
Sec. 63.9(c), if the owner or operator of an affected source cannot
comply with this standard by the applicable compliance date for that
source, or if the owner or operator has installed BACT or technology to
meet LAER consistent with Sec. 63.6(i)(5), he/she may submit to the
Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) a request
for an extension of compliance as specified in Sec. 63.6(i)(4) through
(i)(6).
(c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance
requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d), an owner or operator of a
new source that is subject to special compliance requirements as
specified in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) shall notify the Administrator
of his/her compliance obligations not later than the notification dates
established in Sec. 63.9(b) for new sources that are not subject to the
special provisions.
(d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e),
the owner or operator of an affected source shall notify the
Administrator in writing of his or her intention to conduct a
performance test at least 30 calendar days before the performance test
is scheduled to begin to allow the Administrator to review and approve
the site-specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c), if requested
by the Administrator, and to have an observer present during the test.
(e) Notification of opacity and visible emission observations. As
required by Sec. 63.9(f), the owner or operator of an affected source
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the anticipated date for
conducting the opacity or visible emission observations specified in
Sec. 63.6(h)(5). The notification shall be submitted with the
notification of the performance test date, as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, or if visibility or other conditions prevent the
opacity or visible emission observations from being conducted
concurrently with the initial performance test required under
Sec. 63.7, the owner or operator shall deliver or postmark the
notification not less than
[[Page 41535]]
30 days before the opacity or visible emission observations are
scheduled to take place.
(f) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as
required by Sec. 63.9(h). The notification shall be sent before the
close of business on the 60th day following completion of the relevant
compliance demonstration.
Sec. 63.1657 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements. The owner or operator of a
ferroalloy production facility shall comply with all of the reporting
requirements under Sec. 63.10, unless otherwise specified in this
subpart.
(1) Frequency of reports. As provided by Sec. 63.10(a)(5), if the
owner or operator is required to submit periodic reports to a State on
an established timeline, the owner or operator may change the dates by
which periodic reports submitted under this part may be submitted
(without changing the frequency of reporting) to be consistent with the
State's schedule by mutual agreement between the owner or operator and
the State. This provision may be applied at any point after the
source's compliance date.
(2) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(2), the owner or operator of an affected source shall
report the results of the initial performance test as part of the
notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.1656(f).
(3) Reporting results of opacity observations. As required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(3), the owner or operator shall report the opacity
results (produced using Test Method 9 or an approved alternative to
these methods) along with the results of the performance test required
under Sec. 63.7. If visibility or other conditions prevent the opacity
observations from being conducted concurrently with the performance
test required under Sec. 63.7, the owner or operator shall report the
opacity results before the close of business on the 30th day following
the completion of the opacity observations.
(4) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. (i) As
required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i), if actions taken by an owner or
operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected
source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are
consistent with the procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall state such information in
a semiannual report. The report, to be certified by the owner or
operator or other responsible official, shall be submitted semiannually
and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each
calendar half; and
(ii) Any time an action taken by an owner or operator during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall comply with
all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(b) Specific reporting requirements. In addition to the information
required under Sec. 63.10, reports required under paragraph (a) of this
section shall include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(5) of this section. As allowed by Sec. 63.10(a)(3), if any
State requires a report that contains all of the information required
in a report listed in this section, an owner or operator may send the
Administrator a copy of the report sent to the State to satisfy the
requirements of this section for that report.
(1) Air pollution control devices. The owner or operator shall
submit reports that summarize the records maintained as part of the
practices described in the maintenance plan for air pollution control
devices required under Sec. 63.1653(b), including an explanation of the
periods when the procedures were not followed and the corrective
actions taken.
(2) Venturi scrubbers. In addition to the information required to
be submitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or operator
shall submit reports that identify the periods when the average hourly
pressure drop of venturi scrubbers used to control particulate
emissions dropped below the levels established in Sec. 63.1654(a)(4),
and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
(3) Fugitive dust. The owner or operator shall submit reports that
explain the periods when the procedures outlined in the fugitive dust
control plan pursuant to Sec. 63.1652(c) were not followed and the
corrective actions taken.
(4) Capture system. The owner or operator shall submit reports that
summarize the monitoring parameter exceedances measured pursuant to
Sec. 63.1655(c)(3) and the corrective actions taken.
(5)(i) The owner or operator shall submit reports pursuant to
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) that are associated with excess emissions events such
as the exceedance of the scrubber pressure drop limit per paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. These reports are to be submitted on a
quarterly basis, unless the owner or operator can satisfy the
requirements in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) to reduce the frequency to a
semiannual basis.
(ii) All other reports specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(4) of this section shall be submitted semiannually.
Sec. 63.1658 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General recordkeeping requirements:
(1) The owner or operator of a ferroalloy production facility shall
comply with all of the recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 63.10.
(2) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2), the owner or operator shall
maintain records for five years from the date of each record of:
(i) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment and control devices);
(ii) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the source
or air pollution control equipment;
(iii) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control
equipment;
(iv) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning
process and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation) when such actions are different from the
procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
(v) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (including corrective
actions) are consistent with the procedures specified in such plan.
This information can be recorded in a checklist or similar form (see
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v).);
(vi) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance
with the standard and to support data that the source is required to
report, including, but not limited to, performance test measurements
(including initial and any subsequent performance tests) and
measurements as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the
initial test or subsequent tests;
(vii) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;
(viii) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from
recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f), any
information demonstrating whether a source is meeting the requirements
for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements;
(ix) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the
initial
[[Page 41536]]
performance test under Sec. 63.7(h), a copy of the full request and the
Administrator's approval or disapproval;
(x) All documentation supporting initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9; and
(xi) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(3), records of any applicability
determination, including supporting analyses.
(b) Specific recordkeeping requirements:
(1) In addition to the general records required by paragraph (a) of
this section, the owner or operator shall maintain records for five
years from the date of each record of:
(i) Records of pressure drop across the venturi if a venturi
scrubber is used;
(ii) Records of manufacturer certification that monitoring devices
are accurate to within 5 percent and of semiannual calibration;
(iii) Copy of the written maintenance plan for each air pollution
control device;
(iv) Copy of the fugitive dust control plan; and
(v) Records of each maintenance inspection and repair, replacement,
or other corrective action.
(c) All records for the most recent two years of operation must be
maintained on site. Records for the previous three years may be
maintained off site.
Sec. 63.1659 Delegation of authorities.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) No authorities are retained by the Administrator.
Sec. 63.1660--Sec. 63.1679 [Reserved]
Table 1 of Subpart XXX.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference, subpart A general subpart XXX, Comment
provisions 63.1620--63.1679
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5..................... Yes..............
63.6(a)-(g), (i)-(j).......... Yes..............
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(6), (h)(8)- Yes..............
(h)(9).
63.7(h)(7).................... No............... Sec. 63.6(h)(7), use
of continuous
opacity monitoring
system, not
applicable.
63.7.......................... Yes..............
63.8.......................... Yes..............
63.9.......................... Yes.............. Notification of
performance test
results changed to a
30-day notification
period.a
63.10......................... Yes.............. Allow changes in
dates by which
periodic reports are
submitted by mutual
agreement between
the owner or
operator and the
State to occur any
time after the
source's compliance
date.
63.11......................... No............... Flares will not be
used to comply with
the emission limits.
63.12-63.15................... Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Comment applies to Secs. 63.1650-63.1679. For Secs. 63.1620-63.1649,
comment reads ``Notification of performance test results and of
opacity observations changed to a 15-day notification period.''
[FR Doc. 98-20511 Filed 8-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P