JONES DAY 

NORTH POINT • 901 LAKESIDE AVENUE • CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114. 1190 

TELEPHONE: + 1 .216.586.3939 • FACSIMILE: + 1 .216.579.0212 

JP858259:kah/1999300 

43 8823-605002 

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL 

Conrad K. Chin 

Environmental Protection Agency 

July 2, 2012 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, OAQPS 

Mail Code D243-02 

1 09 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Chuck French 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group 

Mail Code D24 3-02 

1 09 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Re: Proposed National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production 

76 Fed. Reg. 72508 (Nov. 23, 2011) 

Dear Messrs French and Chin: 

Direct Number: (216) 586-7542 

jrego@JonesDay.com 

I am writing on behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc. ("EMI") to provide detailed follow-up on 

the matters EMI and Felman Production Inc. ("Felman") discussed with you at our meeting on 

May 1, 2012 and in subsequent telephone conversations. Specifically, this correspondence 

includes (i) an evaluation of one potential fugitive particulate source control strategy that satisfies 

the residual risk requirements of Section 112(t) of the Clean Air Act, and (ii) a proposal to address 

the current data deficiencies with respect to EPA's proposal to establish first-ever MACT 

standards for four pollutants (mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAH"), hydrochloric 

acid and formaldehyde). 

I. Evaluation of Enhanced Source Control of Process Fugitive Particulate 

Emissions at EMI 

For the reasons set forth in EMI's and Felman's comments on the proposed NESHAP, 

EPA's proposed "total building enclosure" approach to address residual risks related to manganese 

particulate emissions is neither feasible nor cost-effective as proposed by EPA. Similarly, while 

the proposed NESHAP theoretically provides an opportunity to propose an alternative to total 

building enclosure, the option does not, in reality, provide any flexibility, because EPA expressly 

designed the "fenceline" alternative to require equivalent overall emissions reductions to total 

building enclosure (i.e., a 98% reduction in total particulate emissions). Not only is such a 

ALKHOBAR • ATLANTA • BEIJING • BOSTON • BRUSSELS • CHICAGO • CLEVELAND • COLUMBUS • DALLAS • DUBAI 

FRANKFURT • HONG KONG • HOUSTON • IRVINE • JEDDAH • LONDON • LOS ANGELES • MADRID • MEXICO CITY 

MILAN MOSCOW MUNICH NEW DELHI NEW YORK PARIS PITTSBURGH RIYADH 

SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TAIPEI • TOKYO • WASHINGTON 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 2 

JONES DAY 

reduction impossible to achieve without sealing the facility, but the proposed rule would also 

impose an impossible duty on EMI to ensure that ambient manganese never exceeds 0.1 J.lg/m3 at 

EMI's property boundary over any six-month period. EPA's own school toxics monitoring data 

demonstrate that ambient concentrations in Marietta, Ohio have exceeded the proposed fenceline 

standard irrespective of emissions from the EMI facility. 

EMI believes that the best that can be reasonably achieved is 95% capture of process 

fugitive emissions at the individual source, with 98% control of such captured emissions via a 

baghouse. EMI is evaluating a number of potential fugitive source control strategies based on 

95% capture and has fully evaluated, as detailed below, one conceptual source control strategy 

against the residual risk requirements of Section 112(f) of the Act. While EMI has not developed 

detailed cost estimates for any such conceptual strategy, it is nevertheless clear that construction of 

the particulate control enhancements assessed below would cost significantly more than EPA's 

estimate of the cost of implementing total building enclosure, but below the true cost of 

implementing the proposed rule (as detailed in EMI's comments on the proposed NESHAP). If 

EPA concludes -- as EMI has -- that the 95% fugitive capture approach can satisfy the residual 

risk requirements of Section 112(f), EMI will proceed to develop such an estimate. 

A. Process Fugitive Emissions Sources Subject to Enhanced Source Control 

EMI has evaluated the following processes for enhanced capture of fugitive particulate 

emissions: tapping, casting (including slag raking/skimming), and crushing/screening. Based on 

that evaluation, EMI has developed conceptual plans to address the following operations, with the 

expected capture efficiency improvements (i.e., net of capture provided by existing systems) 

indicated in Table 1 below. More detailed descriptions of the assumed control systems are 

provided in Appendix A. 

Table 1: Proposed Fugitive Particulate Source Controls 

Capture 

Efficiency 

Source Process Description of Control lmprovemem 

Furnace Tapping Enhanced hood system extending over charge ladle (70,000 85.7 I CFM), captured emissions to existing baghouse 

Casting, including New hood for casting at midpoint of casting station and new 

slag raking/skimming retractable hood for slag raking/skimming (70,000 CFM 95 

each), captured emissions to existing baghouse 

Furnace Tapping Enhanced hood system extending over charge ladle (70,000 87.5 12 CFM), captured emissions to new 100,000 CFM baghouse 

Casting, including New hood for casting at midpoint of casting station and new 

slag raking/skimming retractable hood for slag raking/skimming, with captured 95 

emissions to a new 100,000 CFM baghouse 

MOR Tapping (pouring) Modify pour/casting station by extending hood, increasing 

hood height in rear, and sealing of intakes to duct (120,000 90 

CFM), captured emissions to existing baghouse 

Casting New hood for casting at midpoint of casting station (120,000 91.7 CFM), captured emissions to existing baghouse 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 3 

B. Corrected Emission Source Model Parameters 

JONES DAY 

EMI has identified several errors in the physical parameters associated with the area 

sources in the AERMOD air dispersion model used to estimate residual risks associated with the 

EMI facility's manganese emissions: 

1. The release height for fugitive emissions from tapping and casting at Furnaces 1 and 

12, casting at MOR, and crushing/screening should be set at the height of the facility's 

roof monitors ( 100 ft), which is generally consistent with the NATA 2005 dataset. 

2. The dimensions of the facility roof monitors through which the fugitive emissions 

described in #1 are emitted are generally understated and should be revised to lengths 

corresponding to 1/3 of the building roof monitor length in the end of the building 

where the relevant process is located, which is also generally consistent with the 

NATA 2005 dataset. 

3. The physical parameters for the Furnace 1 baghouse outlet used in the modeling 

supporting the Proposed Rule were based on data for the wet scrubber that was 

replaced by the baghouse in 2011. Those data have been updated to reflect current 

conditions. 

EMI has also identified several necessary corrections and updates to the emissions 

estimates included by EPA in the AERMOD dataset: 

1. Furnace 1 process baghouse emissions: Rather than modeling emissions from Furnace 

1 's process baghouse, which has been operational since April 2011, it appears that EPA 

based actual and allowable emissions for Furnace 1 on data from the former Furnace 1 

scrubber, which has not been operational since April 2011. Based on stack tests 

conducted in May and November 2011, baseline emissions from the Furnace 1 process 

baghouse should be 1.08 tons/year ("tpy") manganese. 

2. Furnace 1 tapping baghouse emissions: Furnace 1 includes a separate baghouse to 

capture tapping emissions at that furnace. Based on stack tests conducted in May and 

November 2011, baseline emissions from the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse should be 

modeled as 0.169 tpy manganese. Emissions from this point source should be added to 

the model. 

3. Furnace 1 tapping fugitive emissions: Uncontrolled particulate matter (PM) emissions 

of 0.29 lb/ton were assumed based on AP-42, Table 12.5-1 for "Basic Oxygen Furnace 

(BOF) Tapping, At building monitor" with a maximum process rate of 13 tons/hour. 

The manganese content of these emissions was estimated to be 41% of PM, based on 

speciation in the most recent stack test of product fugitives from the C2P crusher. 

These emissions are partially captured by an existing hood. The tapping hood's current 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 4 

JONES DAY 

65% efficiency in capturing these emissions yields a baseline manganese emission rate 

from Furnace 1 tapping of2.37 tpy. 

4. Furnace 1 casting (including slag raking/skimming) fugitive emissions: Uncontrolled 

PM emissions of0.056lb/ton were assumed based on AP-42, Table 12.5-1 for "Hot 

metal transfer, At building monitor" with a maximum process rate of 13 tons/hour. 

The manganese content of these emissions was estimated to be 41% of PM. This 

yields a baseline manganese emission rate from Furnace 1 casting of 1.31 tpy. 

5. Furnace 12 process exhaust scrubber emissions: Based upon the results ofthe most 

recent stack tests conducted on this source in August 2010, May 2011, and November 

2011, the baseline manganese emission rate from this point source should be 13.88 tpy. 

This is an increase above the emission rate used by EPA for this source. 

6. Furnace 12 tapping fugitive emissions: Uncontrolled PM emissions of0.29lb/ton were 

assumed based on AP-42, Table 12.5-1 for "BOF Tapping, At building monitor" with a 

maximum process rate of 12.5 tons/hour. The manganese content of these emissions 

was estimated to be 41% of PM. These emissions are partially captured by an existing 

hood. The existing hood's 60% efficiency in capturing these emissions yields a 

baseline manganese emission rate from Furnace 12 tapping of2.6 tpy. 

7. Furnace 12 casting (including slag raking/skimming) fugitive emissions: Uncontrolled 

PM emissions of0.056lb/ton were assumed based on AP-42, Table 12.5-1 for "Hot 

metal transfer, At building monitor" with a maximum process rate of 12.5 tons/hour. 

The manganese content of these emissions was estimated to be 41% of PM. This 

yields a baseline manganese emission rate from Furnace 12 casting of 1.26 tpy. 

8. MOR initial pouring fugitives: Removal of material from the MORis via the pouring 

of a vessel rather than by tapping an active furnace. Accordingly, uncontrolled PM 

emissions of0.056lb/ton were assumed based on AP-42, Table 12.5-1 for "Hot metal 

transfer, At building monitor" with a maximum process rate of 25.5 tons/hour. The 

manganese content of these emissions was estimated to be 41% of PM. These 

emissions are partially captured by an existing hood. The existing hood's 50% 

efficiency in capturing these emissions yields a baseline manganese emission rate from 

MOR pouring of 1.28 tpy. 

9. MOR casting fugitives: Uncontrolled PM emissions of 0.056 lb/ton were assumed 

based on AP-42, Table 12.5-1 for "Hot metal transfer, At building monitor" with a 

maximum process rate of25.5 tons/hour. The manganese content of these emissions 

was estimated to be 41% of PM. These emissions are partially captured by an existing 

hood. The existing hood's 40% efficiency in capturing these emissions yields a 

baseline manganese emission rate from MOR casting of 1.54 tpy. 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 5 

JONES DAY 

10. C2P crushing/sizing baghouses 1, 2 and 3: Baseline manganese emissions from each 

of these three stacks is 1.48 tpy based on the results of the most recent stack test, 

conducted in August 2010. 

11. C2P crushing/sizing fugitive emissions: Estimates of uncontrolled emissions from this 

operation are based on emission factors for metallic minerals processing, as presented 

in AP-42, Table 11.24-2. Emission factors for PM10 were utilized, as those most likely 

represent the size fractions having the potential to be carried up from these groundlevel mechanical processes to the release point 100 feet above. PM10 emission factors 

were applied to the various crushers, screens, belts, and transfer points, with a 

maximum process rate of 140 tons/hour for up to the permit-limited maximum of 5,840 

hours annually. Each of these crushers, screens, and transfer points is fitted with closecapture ventilation hoods ducted to the crushing and sizing baghouses. The hoods are 

considered to be 95% effective in capturing PM based upon their design, consistent 

with American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists guidelines. Based 

on a manganese content of 41% of the PM 1 o, from the most recent stack test of the C2P 

baghouse, the baseline manganese emission rate is 6.355 tpy. 

Documentation for the updated emissions estimates described above is presented in Appendix B. 

C. Revised Emissions After Additional Fugitive Emission Source Control 

Taking into account the effects of the enhanced fugitive source controls described above in 

Section I and the data corrections described above in Section II, Table 2 sets forth the baseline 

(i.e., current) manganese emissions for each fugitive source along with estimates of fugitive 

emissions after additional source control. Table 3 sets forth updated point source manganese 

emissions reflecting the impact of enhanced capture of fugitive emissions, including new point 

sources associated with the proposed fugitive controls. 

Table 2: Estimated Fugitive Manganese Emissions After Additional Source Control 

Capture 

Source Baseline Fugitive Mn Efficiency 

Source Process JD Emissions (tpy) Improvement 

Furnace 1 Tapping F901 2.37. 85.7 

Casting, including slag F007 1.31 95 raking/skimming 

Furnace 12 Tapping F908 2.60° 87.5 

Casting, including slag F008 l.26 95 raking/skimming 

MOR Tapping (pouring) F012 1.28c 90 

Casting F009 1.5411 9l.7 

• Reflects existing 65% capture of calculated uncontrolled fugitive emissions of 6.80 tpy. 

b Reflects existing 60% capture of calculated uncontrolled fugitive emissions of 6.50 tpy. 

c Reflects existing 50% capture of calculated uncontrolled fugitive emissions of2.57 tpy. 

d Reflects existing 40% capture of calculated uncontrolled fugitive emissions of2.57 tpy. 

Controlled Mn 

Emissions (tpy) 

0.339 

0.065 

0.325 

0.063 

0.128 

0.128 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 6 

JONES DAY 

Table 3: Estimated Point Source Manganese Emissions After Additional Source Control 

BaselineMn Revised Mn 

Source Emissions Emissions 

Source ID (tpy) (tpy) Explanation 

Furnace 1 Baghouse Outlet P901 1.08 1.59 Additional 70,000 CFM of air flow at 

existing exit velocity 

Furnace I Tap Baghouse Outlet P901 0.169 0.246 Air flow increases from current 

48,000 CFM to 70,000 CFM 

Furnace 12 Scrubber Outlet P908 13.88 13.88 Newly captured emissions will go to 

new baghouse 

New Furnace 12 Fugitive Post-control emissions from 

NA 0 0.352 enhanced tapping, casting and slag Baghouse Outlet raking/skimming 

MOR/Fumace 18 Baghouse P909/F 0.981 0.981 Outlet No additional controls 

C2P Crushing/Sizing Baghouse 1 P917 1.48 1.48 No additional controls 

C2P Crushing/Sizing Baghouse 2 P917 1.48 1.48 No additional controls 

C2P Crushing/Sizing Baghouse 3 P917 1.48 1.48 No additional controls 

Based on established performance criteria for the types of close-capture hooding described 

in Table 1, the additional source controls proposed by EMI should collectively reduce emissions 

from the affected sources by 95% and reduce overall process fugitive emissions of manganese by 

over 50%. 

D. Residual Risk After Enhanced Fugitive Emission Source Control 

EMI has revised the area source and point source parameters in the AERMOD model to 

reflect (i) the fugitive source controls described in Table 1, (ii) the corrected physical parameters 

described in Section II, and (iii) the baseline and controlled emissions estimates set forth in 

Section III. Consistent with Section 2.3.4 ofthe Gradient Corp.'s "Technical Review of Air 

Modeling and Risk Assessments" (Jan. 30, 2012), maximum off-site exposure concentrations and 

associated non-cancer risks (HQ) for the hypothetical Maximum Individual Risk (MIR) receptor 

were then recalculated. 

Table 4 summarizes the resulting HQ for a range of potential manganese reference 

concentrations (RfCs) under several modeled scenarios: (1) corrected meteorological data, (2) 

corrected meteorological data and adjustment of exposure concentrations to reflect a 41% 

respirable manganese fraction, and (3) corrected meteorological data, adjustment for respirable 

manganese, and use of a more reasonable MIR exposure period to reflect time indoors and time 

away from home. 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 7 

JONES DAY 

Table 4: Residual Risks After Additional Source Control 

Exposure Scenario (EPA model with various Maximum Off-Site Manganese HQ at 

Various Reference Concentration (RfC) revisions) Values 

Highest Exposure Use of Use of Calculated Adjusted for Parkersburg Respirable Time Indoors 

Off-Site 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 2 

Meteorological Fraction and Away Mangane e Jlg/m3 Jlg/mJ Jlg/m3 Jlg/m3 Jlg/mJ 

Data (PMl.s) From Home Cooc.entration 

(1Jg/m3) 

• 0.145 3 1 0.3 0.1 0.07 

• • 0.055 I 0.6 0.1 0.06 0.03 

• • • 0.033 0.6 0.3 0.06 0.03 0.02 

As summarized in Table 4, the additional fugitive emission source controls described 

above will reduce estimated residual risks to an HQ of 1 or less under a conservative range of 

manganese reference concentrations. The modeling files upon which this table is based are 

included on the CD labeled Appendix C. 

E. Ventilation and Work Practice Standards For Enhanced Fugitives Control 

Consistent with EPA's NESHAP(s) and New Source Performance Standards for other 

metallurgical industries employing electric arc furnaces and related processes, such as those for 

iron and steel foundries, and steel minimill electric arc furnaces, EMI has identified the following 

standards that would be appropriate to ensure proper operation of the fugitive emission source 

controls upon which this evaluation is based: 

1. All EAF furnace tapping operations shall be fitted with ventilation hooding whose 

design is consistent with accepted engineering standards, such as those published 

by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and with a 

design hood face capture velocity of at least 300 feet/minute. 

2. All ferroalloy slag raking and casting operations shall be fitted with ventilation 

hooding whose design is consistent with accepted engineering standards, such as 

those published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists, and with a design hood face capture velocity of at least 300 feet/minute. 

3. Visible emissions from any building housing a ferroalloy EAF, MOR, or casting 

operation may not exceed 20 percent opacity, measured as a six-minute average, 

except for one six-minute period per hour. 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 8 

JONES DAY 

II. Proposal for Supplemental Information Collection Request To Address NonRTR Pollutants From Manganese Ferroallovs Production at EMI 

In conducting its Risk and Technology Review ("RTR") of the existing NESHAP for 

Ferroalloys Production pursuant to Sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

elected also to develop and propose emissions standards for four pollutants (mercury, PAH, 

hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde) that are not currently subject to technology-based MACT 

standards. Accordingly, the four newly identified pollutants are not subject to either the Act's 

RTR process or the judicial deadlines established in Sierra Club v. Jackson, Case No. 09-cv00152 SBA (N.D. Cal.). 

Since emissions of the four new pollutants are not currently regulated under the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP, emissions data for those pollutants have not been collected by 

the companies pursuant to the existing NESHAP. Additionally, EPA obtained limited data 

pursuant to the information collection request ("ICR") issued during the RTR process. As a result, 

EPA does not yet have a dataset that accurately reflects the existing emissions of those pollutants 

across different products and expected operating conditions, which is essential to the development 

of a defensible MACT "floor." 

The adverse consequences of establishing first-ever MACT standards in the absence of 

representative data is exacerbated by EPA's decision to propose "beyond the MACT floor" 

standards for mercury and P AH. The proposed NESHAP would require a continuous 90% 

reduction in emissions of each pollutant below the levels measured in a single stack test, based on 

EPA assumptions regarding the effectiveness of a technology (activated carbon injection or 

"ACI") that has never been applied to ferroalloys production. The docket for the proposed 

NESHAP does not contain any performance data demonstrating the feasibility or costeffectiveness of achieving 90% removal efficiencies based on use of ACI on ferroalloys emissions. 

Thus, EPA's proposed standards for the four new pollutants suffer from two serious data 

deficiencies: a lack of data on the actual emissions necessary to set MACT floors, and a lack of 

ACI performance data upon which to reliably assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of 

"beyond the floor" standards. In light of the fact that these issues are legally independent of the 

RTR process that is subject to a judicial deadline, EMI proposes that EPA separate those four 

pollutants from the manganese RTR rulemaking for a period of 10 months (to July 15, 2013) 

during which time EMI would collect and report data pursuant to a new ICR with the following 

components: 

1. Stack Testing for the Four Newly Regulated Pollutants. EMI would collect two 

rounds of data for the four newly regulated HAPs, a summer round in July 2012 

and a winter round during the first quarter of2013, based on the stack testing 

protocol developed by EMI in consultation with EPA, which is attached as 

Appendix D. In addition, prior to second round of sampling, EMI will separately 

evaluate mercury emissions via Hg-CEM and, if such testing provides more 
Conrad K. Chin 

Chuck French 

July 2, 2012 

Page 9 

JONES DAY 

reliable results, EMI will substitute Hg-CEM testing for the mercury method set 

forth in the attached stack testing protocol. 

2. ACI Performance Testing in Ferroalloy Production. EMI will contract with one 

or more vendors to conduct trial use of ACI on each of its two ferroalloy electric 

arc furnaces, one of which is equipped with a wet scrubber for particulate control 

and the other of which is equipped with a baghouse. 

The trials, which would last a minimum of four days on each furnace, would 

evaluate ACI using a minimum of two activated carbon products and at a range of 

injection rates. During the trials, EMI would collect (i) real time Hg-CEM data to 

evaluate how mercury concentrations and levels of mercury oxidation in the flue 

gas relate to EMI's smelting process and operational variables, (ii) Method 30B 

carbon trap mercury measurements, both as a means to corroborate the Hg-CEM 

data, and to assess the feasibility of using carbon traps to report mercury emissions, 

and (iii) FT-IR analysis ofthe flue gas to ascertain levels ofHCl and formaldehyde. 

The trials would be completed in time to provide EPA with a complete 

performance test report no later than March 25, 2013. 

EMI looks forward to discussing the approached described herein on our July 6, 2012 

Web Ex meeting. If you have any questions in advance of that meeting, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. 

cc (w/encl.): John A. Willoughby 

Jeff McKinney 

Gregory D. Timmons, Esq. 

John S. Konrady 

Amy M. Lincoln, Esq. 

A. Rego 

ounsel for Eramet Marietta Inc.