[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