[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27450-27465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12584]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6345-7]
RIN 2060-AF29
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for ferroalloys production:
ferromanganese and silicomanganese. This rule was proposed under the
title of ``national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for
ferroalloys production.'' The EPA changed the title of the final rule
to reflect the specific ferroalloy produced (ferromanganese and
silicomanganese) at the only existing source to be regulated. The EPA
also has deleted the proposed applicability to ferrochromium production
with this action and withdrawn the proposed rule for ferronickel
production facilities.
The EPA has identified ferromanganese and silicomanganese
facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions
of manganese. Manganese can adversely affect human health. The effects
of chronic human exposure to environmental levels of manganese through
inhalation include subtle but not insignificant effects on the central
nervous system. These effects, reported in workers exposed to
manganese, include slow visual reaction time, loss of eye-hand
coordination, and imprecise hand movements caused by small tremors. The
NESHAP requires affected sources to meet emission standards that
reflect the application of maximum achievable control technology
(MACT).
DATES: Effective Date. The final rule is effective May 20, 1999.
Judicial Review. Under Clean Air Act section 307(b), judicial
review of this nationally applicable final action is available only by
the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of publication of this
rule. Under section 307(b)(2), the regulations that are the subject of
this action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA in reliance on them.
ADDRESSES: Docket. All information considered by the EPA in developing
this rulemaking, including public comments on the proposed rule and
other information developed by the EPA in addressing those comments
since proposal, is located in Public Docket No. A-92-59 at the
following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket is located at the above address in
Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Materials related to
this rulemaking are available upon request from the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548 or 7549. The
FAX number for the Center is (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
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
chin.conrad@epamail.epa.gov'.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This action regulates entities that are industrial facilities
producing ferromanganese or silicomanganese. Regulated categories and
entities include those sources listed in the following primary Standard
Industrial Classification code: 3313, Electrometallurgical Products,
Except Steel.
This description provides a guide for readers regarding entities
regulated by this final action. It lists the types of entities that the
EPA is aware of that would be regulated. To determine whether a
facility is regulated, the owner or operator should examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1650 of the rule. At this time, the
EPA knows of only one facility (the Elkem Metals Company plant in
Marietta, Ohio) that is subject to the final rule. Direct questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity
should be directed to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section or the relevant permitting authority.
Electronic Access
This document, the regulatory text, and other background
information are available in Docket No. A-92-59, by request from the
EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES),
or through the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
Preamble Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory and regulatory authority for the final
rule?
B. What are the benefits and costs of the final rule?
C. How did the public participate in developing the rule?
II. Summary of Final Rule
III. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule
A. Should the EPA finalize the proposed ferronickel rule?
B. Does the final rule regulate ferrochromium production?
C. Is the format for the proposed furnace standards appropriate?
D. Should the EPA set separate standards for each furnace?
E. Should the EPA change its technical approach for selecting
the numerical emissions standards for submerged arc furnaces?
F. What are the final standards for existing furnaces?
G. What are the final standards for new or reconstructed
furnaces?
H. What are the final standards for new or reconstructed metal
oxygen reduction processes?
I. How is the scrubber pressure drop operating parameter value
to be determined?
J. What are the final monitoring requirements for baghouses?
K. How were performance testing issues raised in the public
comments resolved?
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Executive Order 12875
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risk Under Executive Order 13045
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory and Regulatory Authority for the Final Rule?
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires that the EPA
promulgate regulations to control HAP emissions
[[Page 27451]]
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 under section 112(h) for
categories of sources that emit HAP.
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).
B. What Are the Benefits and Costs of the Final Rule?
The final rule is expected to apply to only one facility, the Elkem
Metals Company plant in Marietta, Ohio (Elkem). The following
discussion of environmental, energy, and economic impacts is limited to
this facility. No new facilities are anticipated.
The EPA believes that the final standards will have the primary
effect of codifying existing control equipment and practices.
Therefore, no additional emission control equipment would be required
to comply with the final standards, and no significant emission
reduction or other environmental impacts are anticipated to result from
this rulemaking.
Cost and economic impacts are expected to be minimal. The only
costs associated with the final 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 facility in meeting its
permit obligations for criteria pollutants. Section IV.F. of this
preamble addresses the burden associated with recordkeeping and
reporting.
C. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Rule?
Prior to proposal, the EPA met with industry representatives and
State regulatory authorities several times to discuss the data and
information used to develop the proposed standards. In addition, these
and other potential stakeholders, including equipment vendors and
environmental groups, had opportunity to comment on the proposed
standards.
The proposed standards were published in the Federal Register on
August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41508). The preamble to the proposed standards
discussed the availability of technical support documents, which
described in detail the information gathered during the standards
development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal.
The EPA provided interested persons the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed
standards in a public hearing. However, no member of the public
requested to speak at a hearing, so none was held.
The original public comment period ended on October 5, 1998.
However, at the request of the only affected facility, the EPA extended
the comment period to November 4, 1998 (63 FR 54646). During the
comment period, the EPA received four comment letters on the proposed
standards. In the post-proposal period, the EPA talked with commenters
and other stakeholders to clarify comments and to assist in the EPA's
analysis of the comments. Records of these contacts are found in the
final rulemaking docket. All of the comments have been carefully
considered, and, where appropriate, changes have been made in the final
standards.
In a separate action, the EPA proposed supplemental requirements
(64 FR 7149) on February 12, 1999, to modify the use of bag leak
detection systems in rules proposed for the source categories of
ferroalloys production, mineral wool production, primary lead smelting,
and wool fiberglass manufacturing. The public comment period on the
supplemental requirements ended on March 15, 1999, and four letters
were received. The EPA considered these comments in preparing the final
ferroalloys regulation.
II. Summary of Final Rule
The NESHAP will apply to new and existing ferroalloy production
facilities that manufacture ferromanganese and silicomanganese and are
major sources of HAP emissions or are co-located at major sources of
HAP emissions. The following HAP emission sources at a ferroalloy
production facility will be affected by the rule:
Submerged arc furnaces
Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process
Crushing and screening operations
Fugitive dust sources.
The rule contains emission standards that limit particulate matter
emissions from existing and new or reconstructed emission sources. The
limits for the submerged arc furnaces depend on the product produced
and furnace design. The rule also sets limits for the air pollution
control devices associated with the MOR process and crushing and
screening operations. The following table summarizes the emission
standards, by process.
Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
New or reconstructed or Affected source particulate matter
existing source emission standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or reconstructed........ Submerged arc 1. 0.23 kg/hr/MW
furnace (primary (0.51 lb/hr/MW), or
and tapping).
2. 35 mg/dscm (0.015
gr/dscf).
Existing.................... Open submerged arc 1. 16.3 kg/hr (35.9
furnace (primary lb/hr) when
and tapping). producing
silicomanganese.
2. 6.4 kg/hr (14.0
lb/hr) when
producing
ferromanganese.
Existing.................... Semi-sealed 11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/
submerged arc hr).
furnace (primary,
tapping, and vent
stacks).
New, reconstructed, or MOR process......... 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/
existing. dscf).
New or reconstructed........ Individual equipment 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/
associated with the dscf).
crushing and
screening operation.
Existing.................... Individual equipment 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/
associated with the dscf).
crushing and
screening operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final standard establishes an opacity limit on the shop
buildings housing one or more of the submerged arc furnaces. The shop
building opacity limit addresses furnace process fugitive emissions
that escape capture by the furnace hood and ventilation equipment.
[[Page 27452]]
The final standards impose a duty on the owner or operator to
prepare and operate according to a fugitive dust control plan that
describes the measures that will be put in place to control fugitive
dust sources. This duty to operate will be incorporated into the
facility's operating permit issued by the designated permitting
authority under 40 CFR part 70.
Proper maintenance of emission sources and air pollution control
devices to minimize HAP emissions is an essential component of the
final standards. In addition to satisfying the maintenance requirements
imposed by the part 63 General Provisions, owners and operators must
develop and implement a written maintenance plan for each air pollution
control device. The procedures specified in the maintenance plan shall
include 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
inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of
the furnace capture systems.
The rule also contains detailed compliance provisions that
establish compliance dates, as well as provisions for performance
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
III. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule
Following is a discussion of the significant comments received on
the proposed rule and the resulting changes in the final rule. The
document, ``Technical Document for Promulgation of Standards:
Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese NESHAP Comment and Response
Summary'' is available in the docket and contains a detailed summary of
all of the comments and responses. This document is also available on
the EPA's web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg) and from the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning
of this notice.
In addition to changes resulting from the consideration of
significant comments, the EPA made several clarifying and formatting
changes to the final regulation. For example, the compliance
demonstration section was restructured to clarify requirements and
improve its readability. The requirements for fugitive dust control
measures were condensed to essential requirements. None of these
changes were substantive.
A. Should the EPA Finalize the Proposed Ferronickel Rule?
When the proposed rule was published in August 1998, the only
existing facility in the United States producing ferronickel (Glenbrook
Nickel Company) had suspended operations. Since then, the company has
said they will permanently close the facility. The EPA has decided to
exercise its authority to withdraw the proposed rule because there is
no major source currently operating or expected to begin operating that
would emit the HAP associated with ferronickel production. Should a new
major source of ferronickel production commence operation after
promulgation, the EPA will evaluate at that time how and whether to set
a MACT standard.
B. Does the Final Rule Regulate Ferrochromium Production?
The EPA included ferrochromium production at proposal because of
provisions contained in Elkem's State operating permit which provides
for the possibility of converting one or more furnaces to ferrochromium
production.
The commenters argued that using the same limits for ferrochromium
production as those established for ferromanganese or silicomanganese
is technically unjustified. Ferrochromium production operates at much
higher furnace loads and temperatures and, consequently, has a higher
emission potential than other alloys. Upon reexamination, the EPA
agrees that it should not assume that limits developed for
ferromanganese or silicomanganese production are appropriate for
ferrochromium production.
In deciding whether to withdraw ferrochromium production from the
rule, the EPA considered the likelihood that an affected source would
convert an existing furnace to produce ferrochromium. A primary
consideration was the recent closure of the only domestic producer of
ferrochromium due to poor market conditions and price competition from
imports. The EPA thinks it unlikely that an affected source would start
producing ferrochromium under these conditions. Therefore, the EPA has
withdrawn ferrochromium production from the final rule. Should an
affected source convert to ferrochromium production or a new source
commence operation after promulgation, the EPA will evaluate at that
time how and whether to set MACT standards for ferrochromium
production.
C. Is the Format for the Proposed Furnace Standards Appropriate?
One commenter disagreed with the proposed format of the furnace
standards, which is in units of ``kilograms per hour per megawatt (kg/
hr/MW) (pounds per hour per megawatt [lb/hr/MW]).'' The commenter
agreed that production is a function of power consumption, but stated
that existing data show emissions from furnaces are not solely a
function of furnace load. Instead, several other factors affect
emissions. For example, when furnace operations are ``rough,'' steps to
decrease the load may result in increased emissions. Furthermore, the
variability of furnace operations and emissions is demonstrated in the
statistical variability of the stack test data.
In considering this comment, the EPA reviewed the data supplied by
the commenter and conducted a linear regression analysis of the
emission test data for furnaces #1 and #12 to evaluate the strength of
the correlation between power input and scrubber emissions. The
calculated correlation coefficients were 0.03 and 0.08, far from the
perfect correlation indicated by a value of one. These results clearly
show that there is no significant correlation between emissions and
power input. Therefore, the EPA has changed the format of the standard
for existing furnaces to a straight mass rate basis, kilograms per hour
(kg/hr) (pounds per hour [lb/hr]).
D. Should the EPA Set Separate Standards for Each Furnace?
One commenter asked EPA to set separate standards for furnaces #1
and #12, because the products and operating conditions differ. High
carbon ferromanganese is made from a blend of coke and ore, plus some
recycled materials. Under ideal conditions, the operation is relatively
quiet with only light flaming and fuming at the top of the furnace. In
contrast, silicomanganese is produced from a variety of slags, scrap
products, metallics, low grade ores, and cokes. Silicomanganese
operates at a higher power load, has hotter and more open top
conditions, and emits considerably more fume. Based on a statistical
analysis, the commenter claimed that there is a statistically
significant difference in mean emission levels between the two
furnaces.
Based on a thorough review of the data submitted by the commenter,
the EPA agrees the data demonstrate substantially lower emissions from
furnace #12 than from furnace #1. Although both furnaces are of the
same
[[Page 27453]]
open design, furnace #1 typically produces silicomanganese, while
furnace #12 produces ferromanganese. This difference, combined with the
change in format of the standard, leads the EPA to establish separate
standards for each furnace.
E. Should the EPA Change Its Technical Approach for Selecting the
Numerical Emission Standards for Submerged Arc Furnaces?
As described below, the EPA reevaluated the data base used to
select the numerical emission standards for submerged arc furnaces.
However, the EPA maintained its overall technical approach of setting
the limits based on the performance achieved by the individual
furnaces.
Use of upper prediction limits. Commenters disagreed with EPA's
technical approach to evaluating test data for use in setting MACT.
They proposed that EPA should set emission standards that account for
the natural variability of the operations. In particular, the EPA
should use prediction limits to calculate an upper limit on the
observations to be expected during future performance tests. The
commenters evaluated the false positive rates (FPR) expected from the
proposed standards and compared the effect on the FPR to the EPA
standard and the existing Ohio permit emission limits. The FPR, or
significance level of a statistical test, is the probability of finding
an exceedance when, in fact, there has been no systematic change in the
process generating the observations. The commenter distinguished
between the per-comparison FPR (the chance of one or more exceedances
at any single monitoring location) and the facility-wide FPR (the
chance of one or more exceedances at the whole facility.) The commenter
calculated FPR well in excess of the desired rates (at least for
furnaces #1 and #18), resulting in approximately a 41 percent or 51
percent probability of an exceedance at one or more monitoring
locations during each event.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's proposed approach to setting
the MACT standards for furnace primary and tapping emissions. Instead,
the appropriate way to set these standards is to rely on the results of
performance testing, which in turn establish compliance criteria in the
form of emission limits. These compliance criteria establish an
expectation for the operation and maintenance parameters needed to
ensure that the source continues to meet the required emission limits.
Subsequent performance tests are a measure of the owner or operator's
ability to operate and maintain the affected air pollution control
device and associated emission sources such that the emission limit is
maintained. The required maintenance and monitoring of the control
device and associated parameters contribute to assurances that
standards are met between the required performance tests.
The sources cited by the commenter justifying statistical
techniques to establish FPR (or upper prediction limits) are based on
frequent monitoring of numerous events. However, the data base
supporting selection of the MACT standards, while considered relatively
extensive from a MACT standard-setting perspective, is limited to a
handful of annual events. The commenter's proposed methodology would
``penalize'' the much smaller MACT data base, because it would take a
much larger sample size to achieve the suggested proposed FPR. A
mitigating factor to the relatively small sample size of the MACT
approach is based on the fact that source testing is a relatively
infrequent, but planned, occurrence. Prior to conducting the test, the
source should take steps to ensure maximum performance of the control
device, so long as ``representative'' operating conditions are
maintained. By taking these steps, the owner or operator is expected to
exert significant control over the outcome of the test.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
standards should be set such that exceedances at any point in the
facility are avoided. The intent of setting individual standards is to
ensure that each emission source and its associated air pollution
control device are operated and maintained so that the emission
standard is met.
The above language does not prevent EPA from using statistical and
other relevant information to verify the validity or reasonableness of
standards it may set. As discussed in section III.F., the EPA
considered the possibility of excessive exceedances in establishing the
final emission limits.
Data excluded from the analysis. One commenter said EPA both
incorrectly excluded certain test data from its analyses and included
other data. As suggested by the commenter, the EPA reviewed the data
that were included in the analysis and the basis for the exclusion of
any data points. The EPA also performed a quality assurance check of
the data set. In a few cases, the EPA identified discrepancies in the
emissions data submitted by the commenter. Where indicated, these data
were corrected. The final data set used by EPA is in the comment
summary and response document referenced at the beginning of section
III.
As a first step in reanalyzing the data, the EPA considered whether
there were any statistical outliers in the data set. The EPA identified
the April 1997 test on the furnace #1 scrubber and run 1 of the
November 1992 test on furnace #12 as statistical outliers using
procedures in American Society for Testing and Materials Designation E
178-94, Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations.
Consistent with the approach recommended by the commenter, these data
were excluded from further consideration.
The EPA also excluded the November 1994 test on the furnace #18
vent stacks, because every run exceeded the State emission limit for
the entire furnace. In addition, the statistical analysis identified
these results as outliers.
F. What Are the Final Standards for Existing Furnaces?
One commenter suggested the following alternatives to EPA's
proposed emission limits for existing furnaces:
Revise emission limits based on a parametric data
analysis.
Replace limits with equipment standards or work practice
requirements.
Use existing State emission limits.
Parametric data analysis. The commenter recommended that EPA
compute the required emission standards using the 99-percent upper
prediction limits based on the available emissions test data and
suggested numerical limits. With the change in format, the specific
limits suggested by the commenter are no longer relevant. The EPA also
has decided to issue separate regulations for furnaces #1 and #12.
However, the EPA did consider comments regarding the overall approach
used to establish emission limits.
As discussed in section III.E., the EPA does not believe that using
statistical analyses to set MACT standards is appropriate. Instead, in
cases where there are ample emissions tests data on specific air
pollution control devices, as in this case, the EPA has historically
set emission limits based on the highest valid data point recorded
under representative and normal operating conditions. This approach is
consistent with the approach taken at proposal.
The performance test data consist of compliance tests for
particulate matter standards that were conducted for the State of Ohio
over a 6-year period. The final data set, adjusted for outliers and
out-of-compliance tests, includes six tests of the furnace #1 scrubber,
seven
[[Page 27454]]
tests of the furnace #1 baghouse, seven tests of the furnace #12
scrubber, six tests of the furnace #18 scrubber, and four tests of the
furnace #18 vent stacks.
The MACT for this industry (and source) is the level of performance
achieved by the existing control equipment. In order to set the
emission limit, the EPA considered the highest valid test results
obtained for each furnace. Then, the EPA adjusted these results upward
slightly (approximately 7.5 percent) to account for measurement error
and other variabilities inherent in the test procedure. Next, the EPA
compared these results to the existing State permit limits and the 90-
percent upper prediction limit, as indicators of the source's ability
to achieve the final adjusted results.
For furnaces #1 and #12, the analysis shows that the adjusted test
results reflect these furnaces' ability to meet the limits on an on-
going basis. Coincidentally, these limits also are comparable to the
existing State permit limits. Based on this analysis, the EPA decided
to set the emission limits for furnace #1 at 16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/hr)
and for furnace #18 at 11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/hr). This approach results
in numerical standards that are consistent with the available data and
minimizes the disruption of existing permit conditions.
The adjusted data for furnace #12 reflect this furnace's ability to
meet the limit on an on-going basis. In this case, however, the
existing permit limit does not coincide with the available test data.
Based on this analysis, the EPA has decided to finalize the emission
limit for furnace #12 at 6.4 kg/hr (14.0 lb/hr). The data support this
limit, which is achievable with the existing control device.
Existing Ohio permit limits. As an alternative to establishing
different emission limits, one commenter said EPA should consider
Ohio's use of a process weight rate approach to establishing emission
limits. Two commenters noted that Elkem has developed control equipment
and technology over the years to comply with the Ohio EPA allowable
emission limits. Considering the variability of furnace operations,
EPA's proposal to reduce these allowable emissions would position Elkem
to potentially fail compliance tests in the future.
The EPA considered these limits in evaluating the reasonableness of
the final standards. Where the State limits coincided with the limits
suggested by EPA's analysis of the test data, they were considered in
setting the level of the final standards. However, where the limits did
not coincide, EPA set the final standards based on analysis of the test
data alone.
Equipment or work practice standard. Two commenters argued that
since EPA already accepts the Elkem existing control devices as
representative of the MACT floor and because there are no other
existing facilities, there is no reason to specify emission limits for
existing Elkem operations. One commenter stated that EPA should
establish equipment standards or work practice standards in place of
further numerical emission limits.
Equipment or work practice standards are not appropriate in this
case, because the Act precludes the establishment of non-numerical
emission standards when the EPA has data and test methods on which to
base and enforce a numerical limit. Specifically, section 112(h) says
the Administrator can promulgate a design, equipment, work practice,
operational standards, or combination thereof, only if it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. ``Not feasible''
means that the source cannot meet either of the following criteria:
The HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed
and constructed to emit or capture the HAP or the requirement for such
a conveyance would be inconsistent with existing law.
Emissions from the source cannot be measured practicably
due to technological or economic limitations.
Given that Elkem already complies with emission standards on the
furnaces and that it is possible to test them, the EPA must issue
emission standards.
G. What Are the Final Standards for New or Reconstructed Furnaces?
Based on the following discussion, the EPA added an alternative
standard of 35 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), 0.15
grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), to the final rule based on
the expected use of baghouse technology on any new or reconstructed
open furnaces. The EPA also retained the proposed standard of 0.23 kg/
hr/MW (0.51 lb/hr/MW) based on the new source performance standards
(NSPS) limit.
One commenter said the MACT requirements for new and reconstructed
facilities should be more stringent than proposed due to the levels of
particulate matter control technology available today. The commenter
noted that baghouses have been applied in a wide range of industrial
process applications, some of which are similar to ferromanganese and
silicomanganese production, with the actual achievable particulate
matter and opacity levels well below the proposed levels.
Other commenters said adopting the NSPS limit for new or
reconstructed furnaces is not appropriate for the NESHAP. They said
because no one has built an NSPS furnace producing ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, or ferrochromium since the NSPS were promulgated,
there is no technological basis to either demonstrate or dispute the
level of the NSPS.
One commenter added that the NSPS emission limits may not be
achievable for a new or reconstructed furnace, because the limits are
over 25 years old and were based on the assumption that sealed furnaces
would be the norm in the ferromanganese smelting industry. However,
because of safety issues, the industry now believes that open furnaces
represent the technology of choice. The commenter stated that a
baghouse would be required to meet the new source standard for a new
open furnace.
The commenter also noted that the format of the NSPS, which assumes
a correlation between furnace load and emissions, is inconsistent with
the data showing a lack of correlation between the two factors.
The NSPS format, kg/hr/MW (lb/hr/MW), offers a significant
advantage for new sources, because it can be applied to a range of
furnace sizes. In contrast, the NESHAP format, kg/hr (lb/hr), would
result in a production cap on new furnaces, because this format makes
no allowance for differences in production capacity. While this is
acceptable in the case of known, existing furnaces, it is not
acceptable for new furnaces. Because the NSPS will apply to new or
reconstructed furnaces in any case, and to provide needed flexibility
in the NESHAP, the final rule will retain as an option the NSPS format
for emission standards.
In addition, recognizing that new or reconstructed open furnaces
would likely be controlled with baghouse technology and to provide
additional flexibility, the EPA added an alternate concentration
standard based on expected levels of baghouse performance. The
alternate limit, 35 mg/dscm (0.15 gr/dscf), is based on the maximum
level of performance achieved by baghouses tested in 1993 and 1994 on
open ferroalloy furnaces producing a variety of products. This level is
also consistent with baghouse performance data on the #1 furnace
tapping baghouse at Elkem. Because baghouses are characteristically
constant outlet devices, this level of performance should be achievable
with ferromanganese and silicomanganese production.
[[Page 27455]]
H. What Are the Final Standards for New or Reconstructed Metal Oxygen
Reduction Processes?
The proposed limit was based on the premise that the NSPS limit for
basic oxygen furnaces (BOF) was a reasonable surrogate for a new or
reconstructed MOR process. Upon reexamination, the EPA decided that the
technology transfer basis for the proposed limit was inappropriate
given the differences in the MOR process and its emissions potential
compared to the BOF process and its emission potential. Therefore, the
final standard will be set at 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf), which is
consistent with the allowable concentration for existing sources.
The process differences were documented by a commenter who noted
that while both processes remove carbon from a molten metal by
oxidizing it with oxygen and forming carbon monoxide gas, there are
distinct differences in the chemistry between manganese in the MOR
process and iron in the BOF process. The commenter noted that the main
differences are the higher operating temperature of the MOR, the higher
volatility of manganese, and the higher carbon content of the manganese
metal being treated. According to the commenter, these differences
result in an estimated 10 times more fume generation during the MOR
process compared to a BOF process. Therefore, baghouse emission
reduction performance for an MOR process would likely be different than
that for a BOF process.
I. How Is the Scrubber Pressure Drop Operating Parameter Value To Be
Determined?
When a scrubber is used, the proposed rule required the owner or
operator to establish an operating parameter value based on pressure
drop to ensure ongoing compliance with the required emission limit. The
commenter requested that EPA allow more flexibility in establishing the
parameter value. In particular, the commenter requested that the source
be allowed to establish the limit based on the average pressure drop
obtained during any single complying run in any complying emission
test. The EPA agrees there should be more flexibility in how the source
sets the operating parameter value during a complying emission test.
Therefore, the final rule contains a requirement that the operating
parameter monitoring value will be set based on the lowest average
pressure drop on any individual complying run in the three runs
constituting any compliant test.
J. What Are the Final Monitoring Requirements for Baghouses?
One commenter requested changes in the frequency and intent of the
requirements to ensure proper operation and maintenance of baghouses.
The EPA clarified the requirements where needed.
One commenter also questioned the need to install bag leak
detection systems on baghouses controlling new or reconstructed
furnaces given the other monitoring requirements already in place. The
EPA believes that baghouse leak detection represents state-of-the-art
compliance assurance for baghouses, and plans to implement it in all
new source MACT standards, where it is applicable, and, in most cases,
to existing source standards as well.
In a separate action, (64 FR 7149, February 12, 1999) the EPA
proposed supplemental requirements to modify the use of bag leak
detection systems in rules proposed for the source categories of
ferroalloys production, mineral wool production, primary lead smelting,
and wool fiberglass manufacturing. The overall goal of the requirements
was to add an enforceable operating limit if the alarm on the bag leak
detection system sounds for more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in each 6-month period. Adding this requirement would provide
greater assurance that the baghouse would be properly operated and
maintained, and that the emission limit would be met. The supplemental
notice also proposed that owners and operators would be required to
continuously record bag leak detection system output to ensure that
data necessary to assess compliance with the newly proposed operating
limit for bag leak detection system alarms would be available. In the
absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to
determine whether the operating limit is being met. The output records
would also provide data necessary to assess the magnitude of the output
level above the alarm set point, and would assist owners and operators
in properly operating and maintaining the baghouse and in diagnosing
baghouse upsets.
The EPA requested public comment on these requirements as part of
the supplemental notice. The comments and EPA's responses, are
described in the Technical Document for Promulgation of Standards.
There were no comments resulting in significant changes to the proposed
requirements. Therefore, with this final rule, the EPA is finalizing
the operational limits for bag leak detection systems. In addition, the
EPA has also added definitions and compliance, monitoring, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements to clarify and implement the operational
standards. These are not substantive additions and are consistent with
language in the other rules affected by the supplemental notice.
K. How Were Performance Testing Issues Raised in the Public Comments
Resolved?
Commenters raised several issues regarding testing-related terms
and requirements. The EPA has clarified these in the final rule. In
particular, the EPA clarified the definition of tapping period and
resolved an inconsistency in the sampling time requirements. The EPA
also revised the rule to require sources to include a tapping period,
or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, in a minimum of two test
runs. This change, reduced from a requirement to include a tapping
period in each of three runs, is consistent with the source's existing
permit conditions and with how previous performance data were obtained.
One commenter objected to the use of Method 5D for positive
pressure baghouses that are not equipped with outlet stacks. They
stated that this method requires cutting off the flow of air through
the baghouse, thereby creating a fire hazard. They suggested that
visual emission observations beyond the ridge vent/roof monitor will
adequately demonstrate compliance with emissions limits for this type
of baghouse.
As stated in the proposal preamble, the EPA proposed changes to
Method 5D to address safety and other practicality issues (62 FR 45369,
August 27, 1997). In particular, the amendments would revise the outlet
volumetric flow rate calculation procedure to be used in those cases
where the gas velocity at the baghouse outlet is too low to be measured
accurately. The change will allow for the calculation of outlet gas
flow rate based on the difference between the baghouse gas inlet and
outlet temperatures and a direct measurement of the gas inlet flow
rate. The EPA expects the final amendments to be published in the
Federal Register by mid-summer of this year, well before performance
testing under the rule would need to be conducted. A copy of the
proposed amendments is available on the Emission Measurement Center
(EMC) home page (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc) by choosing ``methods,''
then ``proposed,'' then ``EPA Methods (New EMMC Format).''
[[Page 27456]]
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
This final rulemaking action is subject to section 307(d) of the
Act. Accordingly, the EPA has established a docket (No. A-91-71), which
consists of an organized and complete file of all information submitted
to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA in the development of this
action. The docket includes all documents cited by the EPA in this
preamble. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow
interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that
they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process, and (2) to
serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket is available
for public inspection at EPA's Air Docket, which is listed under the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must submit to the Office of Management and Budget (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 final rule will only affect one facility, the projected
nationwide economic impacts are estimated to be far less than $100
million. Furthermore, because the final rule results 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. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. The rule will, however, cause these entities to implement the
rule by incorporating it into permits and enforcing it upon delegation.
They will collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resource
burden of implementing the rule. Comments were solicited from State
partners and considered in the rule development process. No written
comments were received on the proposed rule from any State, local, and
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of
Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own
or operate an affected source. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
E. 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 rule 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.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 final rule affects only one source and that source
is not a small business.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has
[[Page 27457]]
assigned OMB control number 2060-0391.
The information collected will be used by Agency enforcement
personnel to perform the following tasks:
Identify sources subject to the standard
Ensure that MACT is being properly applied
Ensure that emission control devices are being properly
operated and maintained on a continuous basis to reduce HAP emissions
from furnaces and process fugitive sources
Ensure that fugitive dust controls are being fully
implemented.
Owners or operators must comply with the information collection
requirements in the rule. The EPA developed this rule under the
authority of section 112(d) of the Act, which requires EPA to regulate
emissions of 188 HAP listed in section 112(b).
The total 3-year monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden
for this collection is estimated at 2,236 labor hours at a total cost
of $62,283 for the single existing affected facility. 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 conduct the following activities:
Review instructions.
Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purpose of responding to the information collection.
Adjust 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.
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. The EPA
is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the
information requirements contained in this final rule. This amendment
updates the table to list the information requirements being
promulgated today as the NESHAP for ferromanganese and silicomanganese
production.
The EPA will continue to present OMB control numbers in a
consolidated table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the
Agency's regulations, and in each CFR volume containing EPA
regulations. The table lists the section numbers with reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This
listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in
the CFR satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part
1320.
H. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risk Under Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety 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 EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
I. 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 promulgation 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
matter 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. The EPA did not receive any public comments identifying
other possible technical standards. Therefore, the EPA will use the
government-unique technical standards cited above for determining
compliance.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provided that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
[[Page 27458]]
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Ferromanganese and silicomanganese production, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 13, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding an entry in numerical
order under the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories \3\
* * * * *
63.1620-63.1679............................................ 2060-0391
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which are not independent information collection requirements.
* * * * *
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart XXX to read as follows:
Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese
Sec.
63.1620-63.1649 [Reserved].
63.1650 Applicability and compliance dates.
63.1651 Definitions.
63.1652 Emission standards.
63.1653 Opacity standards.
63.1654 Operational and work practice standards.
63.1655 Maintenance requirements.
63.1656 Performance testing, test methods, and compliance
demonstrations.
63.1657 Monitoring requirements.
63.1658 Notification requirements.
63.1659 Reporting requirements.
63.1660 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1661 Delegation of authorities.
63.1662-63.1679 [Reserved].
Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and
Silicomanganese
Secs. 63.1620-63.1649 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.1650 Applicability and compliance dates.
(a) This subpart applies to all new and existing ferromanganese and
silicomanganese production facilities that manufacture ferromanganese
or silicomanganese and are major sources or are co-located at major
sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions.
(b) The following sources at a ferromanganese and silicomanganese
production facility are subject to this subpart:
(1) Submerged arc furnaces.
(2) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process.
(3) Crushing and screening operations.
(4) Fugitive dust sources.
(c) A new affected source is one for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after August 4, 1998.
(d) The following table specifies which provisions of subpart A of
this part apply to owners and operators of ferromanganese and
silicomanganese production facilities subject to this subpart:
General Provisions Applicability to Subpart XXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference, Subpart A General Applies to Subpart XXX,
Provisions 63.1620-63.1679 Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5............................ Yes....................
63.6(a)-(g), (i)-(j)................. Yes....................
63.6(h)(1)-(h)(6), (h)(8)-(h)(9)..... Yes....................
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.
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....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Compliance dates. (1) Each owner or operator of an existing
affected source must comply with the requirements of this subpart no
later than May 21, 2001.
(2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected
source that commences construction or reconstruction after August 4,
1998, must comply with the requirements of this subpart by May 20, 1999
or upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
Sec. 63.1651 Definitions.
Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (Act), in
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously
[[Page 27459]]
monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a
baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A bag
leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument
that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance,
or other effect to continuously 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 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, truck, or other conveyance.
Crushing and screening equipment means the crushers, grinders,
mills, screens and conveying systems used to crush, size, and prepare
for packing manganese-containing materials, including raw materials,
intermediate products, and final products.
Fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which
manganese-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 submerged arc furnace, expressed as megawatts (MW).
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are
not malfunctions.
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.
Operating time means the period of time in hours that the affected
source is in operation beginning at a startup and ending at the next
shutdown.
Plant roadway means any area at a ferromanganese and
silicomanganese production facility that is subject to plant mobile
equipment, such as fork lifts, front end loaders, or trucks, carrying
manganese-bearing materials. Excluded from this definition are employee
and visitor parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by
plant mobile equipment.
Primary emissions means gases and emissions collected by hoods and
ductwork located above an open furnace or under the cover of a semi-
closed or sealed furnace.
Sealed submerged arc furnace means an electric submerged arc
furnace equipped with a total enclosure or cover from which primary
emissions are evacuated directly.
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 submerged arc
furnaces.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source for
any purpose.
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source for
any purpose.
Submerged arc furnace means any furnace wherein electrical energy
is converted to heat energy by transmission of current between
electrodes partially submerged in the furnace charge. The furnace may
be of an open, semi-sealed, or sealed design.
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 from when a tap hole is opened until
the time a tap hole is closed.
Sec. 63.1652 Emission standards.
(a) New and reconstructed submerged arc furnaces. No owner or
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any new
or reconstructed submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including primary
and tapping) containing particulate matter in excess of one of the
following:
(1) 0.23 kilograms per hour per megawatt (kg/hr/MW) (0.51 pounds
per hour per megawatt [lb/hr/MW]), or
(2) 35 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.015
grains per dry standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]).
(b) Existing open submerged arc furnaces. No owner or operator
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any existing open
submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including primary and tapping)
containing particulate matter in excess of one of the following:
(1) 16.3 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (35.9 pounds per hour [lb/hr])
when producing silicomanganese, or
(2) 6.4 kg/hr (14.0 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese.
(c) Existing semi-sealed submerged arc furnaces. No owner or
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any
existing semi-sealed submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including
primary, tapping, and vent stacks) containing particulate matter in
excess of 11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese.
(d) MOR process. No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed, or existing MOR
process exhaust gases containing particulate matter in excess of 69 mg/
dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).
(e) Crushing and screening equipment. (1) New and reconstructed
equipment. No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any new or reconstructed piece of equipment associated
with crushing and screening exhaust gases containing particulate matter
in excess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
(2) Existing equipment. No owner or operator shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere from any existing piece of equipment
associated with crushing and screening exhaust gases containing
particulate matter in excess of 69 (mg/dscm) (0.03 gr/dscf).
Sec. 63.1653 Opacity standards.
No owner or operator shall cause emissions exiting from a shop due
solely to operations of any affected submerged arc furnace, to exceed
20 percent opacity for more than one 6-minute period during any
performance test, with the following exceptions:
(a) Visible particulate emissions from a shop due solely to
operation of a semi-closed submerged arc furnace, may exceed 20 percent
opacity, measured as a 6-minute average, one time during any
performance test, so long as the emissions never exceed 60 percent
opacity, measured as a 6-minute average.
(b) Blowing taps, poling and oxygen lancing of the tap hole;
burndowns associated with electrode measurements; and maintenance
activities associated with submerged arc furnaces and casting
operations are
[[Page 27460]]
exempt from the opacity standards specified in this section.
Sec. 63.1654 Operational and work practice standards.
(a) Fugitive dust sources. (1) Each owner or operator of an
affected ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility must
prepare, and at all times operate according to, a fugitive dust control
plan that describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to
control fugitive dust emissions from the individual fugitive dust
sources at the facility.
(2) The owner or operator must 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 must be
incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued by
the designated permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
(3) The owner or operator may use existing manuals that describe
the measures in place to control fugitive dust sources required as part
of a State implementation plan or other federally enforceable
requirement for particulate matter to satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. The owner
or operator of a new or reconstructed submerged arc furnace must
install and continuously operate a bag leak detection system if the
furnace's primary and/or tapping emissions are ducted to a negative
pressure baghouse or to a positive pressure baghouse equipped with a
stack. The owner or operator must maintain and operate each baghouse
such that the following conditions are met:
(1) The alarm on the system does not sound for more than 5 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting period.
(2) A record is made of the date and time of each alarm and
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm are initiated within 1
hour of the alarm according to the plan for corrective action required
under Sec. 63.1657(a)(7).
Sec. 63.1655 Maintenance requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source must comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.6(e) of subpart A.
(b)(1) The owner or operator must develop and implement a written
maintenance plan for each air pollution control device associated with
submerged arc furnaces, metal oxygen refining processes, and crushing
and screening operations subject to the provisions of this part. The
owner or operator must keep the maintenance plan on record and
available for the Administrator's inspection 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 requirement to develop maintenance plans, 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 must 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. 63.1657(a)
are met.
(d) The owner or operator must perform monthly inspections of the
equipment that is important to the performance of the furnace capture
system. This inspection must include an examination of the physical
condition of the equipment, suitable for detecting holes in ductwork or
hoods, flow constrictions in ductwork due to dents or accumulated dust,
and operational status of flow rate controllers (pressure sensors,
dampers, damper switches, etc.). Any deficiencies must be recorded and
proper maintenance and repairs performed.
Sec. 63.1656 Performance testing, test methods, and compliance
demonstrations.
(a) Performance testing. (1) All performance tests must be
conducted according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 of subpart A.
(2) Each performance test must consist of three separate and
complete runs using the applicable test methods.
(3) Each run must be conducted under conditions that are
representative of normal process operations.
(4) Performance tests conducted on air pollution control devices
serving submerged arc furnaces must be conducted such that at least one
tapping period, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, whichever
is less, is included in at least two of the three runs. The sampling
time for each run must be at least as long as three times the average
tapping period of the tested furnace, but no less than 60 minutes.
(5) The sample volume for each run must be at least 0.9 dscm (30
dscf).
(b) Test methods. The following test methods in Appendix A of part
60 of this chapter must be used to determine compliance with the
emission standards.
(1) Method 1 to select the sampling port location and the number of
traverse points.
(2) Method 2 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack
gas.
(3) Method 3 to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack
gas.
(4) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(5) Method 5 to determine the particulate matter concentration of
the stack gas for negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure
baghouses with stacks.
(6) Method 5D to determine particulate matter concentration and
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas for positive pressure baghouses
without stacks.
(7) Method 9 to determine opacity.
(8) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative
measurement methods approved by the Administrator following the
procedures described in Sec. 63.7(f) of subpart A.
(c) Compliance demonstration with the emission standards. (1) The
owner or operator must conduct an initial performance test for air
pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec. 63.1652(a)
through (e) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission
standards.
(2) The owner or operator must conduct annual performance tests for
the air pollution control devices and vent stacks associated with the
submerged arc furnaces, with the exception of any air pollution control
devices that serve tapping emissions combined with non-furnace
emissions, such as the MOR process or equipment associated with
crushing and screening. Also excluded are air pollution control devices
that serve dedicated non-furnace emissions, such as the MOR process or
equipment associated with crushing and screening. The results of these
annual tests will be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards in Sec. 63.1652(a) through (e), as applicable.
(3) Following development, and approval, if required, of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must conduct a performance
test for each air pollution control device or vent stack to measure
particulate matter and determine compliance with the applicable
standard.
(i) An owner or operator of sources subject to the particulate
matter concentration standards in Sec. 63.1652(a)(2), (d), or (e), must
determine compliance as follows:
[[Page 27461]]
(A) Determine the particulate matter concentration using Method 5
or 5D, as applicable.
(B) Compliance is demonstrated if the average concentration for the
three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed the
standard.
(ii) An owner or operator of sources subject to the particulate
mass rate standards in Sec. 63.1652(b) or (c) must determine compliance
as follows:
(A) Determine the particulate matter concentration and volumetric
flow rate using Method 5 or 5D, as applicable.
(B) Compute the mass rate (EM) of particulate matter for
each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY99.000
Where:
EM = mass rate of particulate matter, kg/hr (lb/hr).
N = total number of exhaust streams at which emissions are quantified.
Csi = concentration of particulate matter from exhaust
stream ``i'', mg/dscm (gr/dscf).
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i'', dscm/hr (dscf/hr)
K = conversion factor, 1 x 106 mg/kg (7,000 gr/lb).
(C) Compliance is demonstrated if the average of the mass rates for
the three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed the
standard.
(iii) An owner or operator of sources subject to the particulate
matter process-weighted rate standard in Sec. 63.1652(a)(1) must
determine compliance as follows:
(A) Determine particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow
rate using Method 5 or 5D, as applicable.
(B) Compute the process-weighted mass rate (EP) of
particulate matter for each run using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY99.001
Where:
EP = process-weighted mass 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'', mg/dscm (gr/dscf)
Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i'', dscm/hr (dscf/hr)
P = Average furnace power input, MW
K = conversion factor, 1 x 106 mg/kg (7,000 gr/lb).
(C) Compliance is demonstrated if the average process-weighted mass
rate for the three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed
the standard.
(4) If a venturi scrubber is used to comply with the emission
standards, the owner or operator must establish as a site-specific
operating parameter the lowest average pressure drop on any individual
complying run in the three runs constituting any compliant test. The
pressure drop must be monitored at least every 5 minutes during the
test and hourly averages recorded.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) The owner or operator may augment the data obtained under
paragraph (a)(4) 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 performance tests using the same test
methods specified in this subpart and established as required in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(d) Compliance demonstration with opacity standards.
(1)(i) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.1653 must conduct
initial opacity observations of the shop building to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable opacity standards according to
Sec. 63.6(h)(5), which addresses the conduct of opacity or visible
emission observations.
(ii) In conducting the opacity observations of the shop building,
the observer must limit his or her field of view to the area of the
shop building roof monitor that corresponds to the placement of the
affected submerged arc furnaces.
(iii) The owner or operator must conduct the opacity observations
according to EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for a minimum
of 60 minutes.
(2)(i) When demonstrating initial compliance with the shop building
opacity standard, as required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the
owner or operator must simultaneously establish parameter values for
one of the following: the control system fan motor amperes and all
capture system damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate to the
air pollution control device and all capture system damper positions,
or volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood that
comprises the capture system.
(ii) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator to
reestablish these parameters whenever he or she can demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the submerged arc furnace operating
conditions upon which the parameters were previously established are no
longer applicable. The values of these parameters determined during the
most recent demonstration of compliance must be maintained at the
appropriate level for each applicable period.
(3) The owner or operator must demonstrate continuing compliance
with the opacity standards by following the monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.1657(c) and the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements specified in Secs. 63.1659(b)(4) and 63.1660(b).
(e) Compliance demonstration with the operational and work practice
standards.
(1) Fugitive dust sources. 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) of subpart A.
(2) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. The owner
or operator demonstrates compliance with the bag leak detection system
requirements by submitting reports as required by Sec. 63.1659(b)(5)
showing that the alarm on the system does not sound for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month period. Calculate the
percentage of total operating time the alarm on the bag leak detection
system sounds as follows:
(i) Do not include alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of
the bag leak detection system in the calculation.
(ii) Do not include alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction in the calculation if the condition is described in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the owner or operator
follows all the procedures in the plan defined for this condition.
(iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm where the owner or
operator initiates procedures to determine the cause within 1 hour of
the alarm.
(iv) Count the actual time it takes the owner or operator to
initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm for each alarm
where the owner or operator does not initiate procedures to determine
the cause within 1 hour of the alarm.
[[Page 27462]]
(v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the
total operating time multiplied by 100.
Sec. 63.1657 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Baghouses. (1) For the baghouses serving the submerged arc
furnaces, the metal oxygen refining process, and crushing and screening
operations, the owner or operator must observe on a daily basis for the
presence of any visible emissions.
(2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, the
owner or operator must conduct the following activities:
(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell, or
across the baghouse if it is not possible to monitor each cell
individually, to ensure the pressure drop is within the normal
operating range identified in the baghouse maintenance plan.
(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) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that the bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or laying on their sides. 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 structure 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 meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator of a new or
reconstructed submerged arc furnace must 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, and the owner or operator must
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when an increase in relative particulate
loadings is detected over a preset level. The alarm must be located
where it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(iv) Each bag leak detection system that works based on the
triboelectric effect must be installed, calibrated, operated, and
maintained consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015). Other bag leak detection systems must be installed,
calibrated, and maintained consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(v) The initial adjustment of the system must, 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 must 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. 63.1655(b). In no event must the sensitivity be increased by
more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day
period unless a responsible official certifies the baghouse has been
inspected and found to be 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 maintenance plan required by Sec. 63.1655(b),
the owner or operator must 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 must initiate corrective action as soon
as practicable after the occurrence of the observation or event
indicating a problem.
(5) The corrective action plan must include procedures used to
determine the cause of an alarm or other indications of problems as
well as actions to minimize emissions. These actions may include the
following:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter
emissions.
(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) of subpart A.
(b) Venturi scrubbers. (1) The owner or operator must monitor the
pressure drop across the venturi at least every 5 minutes and record
the average hourly pressure drop. Measurement of an average hourly
pressure drop less than the pressure drop operating parameter limit
established during a successful compliance demonstration would be a
violation of the applicable emission standard, unless the excursion in
the pressure drop is due to a malfunction.
(2) As part of the maintenance plan required by Sec. 63.1655(b),
the owner or operator must develop and implement corrective action
procedures to be followed in the case of a violation of the pressure
drop requirement. The owner or operator must initiate corrective action
as soon as practicable after the excursion.
(3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is 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 the opacity
standards in Sec. 63.1653 must comply with one of the monitoring
options in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section. The
selected option must be consistent with
[[Page 27463]]
that selected during the initial performance test described in
Sec. 63.1656(d)(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 must check and record the control system
fan motor amperes and capture system damper positions once per shift.
(2) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, and maintain a
monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate
through each separately ducted hood.
(3) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, and maintain a
monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at
the inlet of the air pollution control device and must check and record
the capture system damper positions once per shift.
(4) The flow rate monitoring devices must meet the following
requirements:
(i) Be installed in an appropriate location in the exhaust duct
such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result.
(ii) Have an accuracy 10 percent over its normal
operating range and be calibrated according to the manufacturer's
instructions.
(5) 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.
(6) Failure to maintain the appropriate capture system parameters
(fan motor amperes, flow rate, and/or damper positions) establishes the
need to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the
monitoring excursion in order to minimize excess emissions.
(7) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under
the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section is 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).
Sec. 63.1658 Notification requirements.
(a) As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A, unless otherwise
specified in this subpart, the owner or operator must 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 must 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 must notify the Administrator that the source is
subject to the requirements of the standard. The notification must be
submitted no later than 120 calendar days after May 20, 1999 (or within
120 calendar days after the source becomes subject to this standard)
and must 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), must notify the Administrator in writing that the source
is subject to the standards no later than 120 days after initial
startup. The notification must 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) must 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, must 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 or 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) must notify the Administrator
of his or her compliance obligations no 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 must 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) 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
must 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 must 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 must deliver or postmark the
notification not less than 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 must submit a notification of compliance status as
required by Sec. 63.9(h). The notification must be sent before the
close of business on the 60th day following completion of the relevant
compliance demonstration.
Sec. 63.1659 Reporting requirements.
(a) General reporting requirements. The owner or operator of a
ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility must comply with
all of the reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10 of subpart A, 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 time line, he or she 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 must
report the results of the initial
[[Page 27464]]
performance test as part of the notification of compliance status
required in Sec. 63.1658(f).
(3) [Reserved]
(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 must state such information in
a semiannual report. The report, to be certified by the owner or
operator or other responsible official, must 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 must 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 must 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 must
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. 63.1655(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
must 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. 63.1656(c)(4),
and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
(3) Fugitive dust. The owner or operator must submit reports that
explain the periods when the procedures outlined in the fugitive dust
control plan pursuant to Sec. 63.1654(a) were not followed and the
corrective actions taken.
(4) Capture system. The owner or operator must submit reports that
summarize the monitoring parameter excursions measured pursuant to
Sec. 63.1657(c) and the corrective actions taken.
(5) Bag leak detection system. The owner or operator must submit
reports including the following information:
(i) Records of all alarms.
(ii) Description of the actions taken following each bag leak
detection system alarm.
(iii) Calculation of the percent of time the alarm on the bag leak
detection system sounded during the reporting period.
(6) Frequency of reports. (i) The owner or operator must submit
reports pursuant to Sec. 63.10(e)(3) that are associated with excess
emissions events such as the excursion 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)(5) of this section must be submitted semiannually.
Sec. 63.1660 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General recordkeeping requirements. (1) The owner or operator
of a ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility must comply
with all of the recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 63.10.
(2) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2), the owner or operator must
maintain records for 5 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 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 must maintain records for 5 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 (unless otherwise specified in this
subpart) and of calibrations performed at the manufacturer's
recommended frequency, or at a frequency consistent with good
engineering practice, or as experience dictates.
(iii) Records of bag leak detection system output.
(iv) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the actions taken, and the date and time the alarm was
corrected.
[[Page 27465]]
(v) Copy of the written maintenance plan for each air pollution
control device.
(vi) Copy of the fugitive dust control plan.
(vii) Records of each maintenance inspection and repair,
replacement, or other corrective action.
(2) All records for the most recent 2 years of operation must be
maintained on site. Records for the previous 3 years may be maintained
off site.
Sec. 63.1661 Delegation of authorities.
In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State
under subpart E of this part, the Administrator retains no authorities.
Secs. 63.1662--63.1679 [Reserved].
[FR Doc. 99-12584 Filed 5-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
