Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 193 October 6, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 

Production; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60238 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895; FRL–9909–26– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ11 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 

Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This action supplements our 

proposed amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category published in 

the Federal Register on November 23, 

2011. In that action, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 

amendments based on the initial 

technology and residual risk reviews for 

this source category. Today’s action 

presents a revised technology review 

and a revised residual risk review for 

the Ferroalloys Production source 

category and proposes revisions to the 

standards based on those reviews. This 

action also proposes new compliance 

requirements to meet the revised 

standards. This action would result in 

significant environmental 

improvements through the reduction of 

fugitive manganese emissions and 

through more stringent emission limits 

for several processes. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before November 20, 

2014. A copy of comments on the 

information collection provisions 

should be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before November 5, 2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

October 14, 2014 the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on October 21, 2014 from 

1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 

8:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] in 

Marietta, Ohio. If the EPA holds a 

public hearing, the EPA will keep the 

record of the hearing open for 30 days 

after completion of the hearing to 

provide an opportunity for submission 

of rebuttal and supplementary 

information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include ‘‘Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0895’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0895. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0895. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0895. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If requested, we will 

hold a public hearing on October 21, 

2014, from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard 

Time] to 8:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard 

Time] in Marietta, Ohio. There will be 

a dinner break from 5:00 p.m. [Eastern 

Standard Time] until 6:00 p.m. [Eastern 

Standard Time]. Please contact Ms. 

Virginia Hunt of the Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: 919–541–0832; 

email address: hunt.virginia@epa.gov; to 

register to speak at the hearing or to 

inquire as to whether or not a hearing 

will be held. The last day to pre-register 

in advance to speak at the hearing will 

be October 20, 2014. Additionally, 

requests to speak will be taken the day 

of the hearing at the hearing registration 

desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If 

you require the service of a translator or 

special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. If you require an 

accommodation we ask that you preregister for the hearing, as we may not 

be able to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. The hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views or 

arguments concerning the proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60239 

action. The EPA will make every effort 

to accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone (919) 541–5289; fax 

number: (919) 541–3207; and email 

address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. For 

specific information regarding the risk 

modeling methodology, contact Ms. 

Darcie Smith, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–2076; fax number: (919) 541– 

2076; and email address: smith.darcie@

epa.gov. For information about the 

applicability of the National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact 

Cary Secrest, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA), 

telephone number: (202) 564–8661 and 

email address: seacrest.cary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

We use multiple acronyms and terms 

in this preamble. While this list may not 

be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

AEGL—acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD—air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

ATSDR—Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BLDS—bag leak detection system 

BTF—Beyond the Floor 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CalEPA—California EPA 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

EJ—environmental justice 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG—Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT—Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR—Federal Register 

HAP—hazardous air pollutants 

HCl—hydrochloric acid 

HEM–3—Human Exposure Model, Version 

1.1.0 

HI—Hazard Index 

HQ—Hazard Quotient 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System 

km—kilometer 

LOAEL—lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

MACT—maximum achievable control 

technology 

MACT Code—Code within the National 

Emissions Inventory used to identify 

processes included in a source category 

mg/dscm—milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/kg-day—milligrams per kilogram-day 

mg/m3—milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR—maximum individual risk 

MRL—Minimal Risk Level 

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS—National Academy of Sciences 

NATA—National Air Toxics Assessment 

NESHAP—National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAEL—no-observed-adverse-effect level 

NRC—National Research Council 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS—Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA—Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

PAH—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PB–HAP—hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PEL—probable effect level 

PM—particulate matter 

POM—polycyclic organic matter 

ppm—parts per million 

RDL—representative method detection level 

REL—reference exposure level 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC—reference concentration 

RfD—reference dose 

RTR—residual risk and technology review 

SAB—Science Advisory Board 

SBA—Small Business Administration 

SSM—startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TOSHI—target organ-specific hazard index 

TPY—tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE—Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

TTN—Technology Transfer Network 

UF—uncertainty factor 

mg/dscm—micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3—micrograms per cubic meter 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL—Upper Prediction Limit 

URE—unit risk estimate 

VCS—voluntary consensus standards 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

C. What is the history of the Ferroalloys 

Production Risk and Technology 

Review? 

D. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

III. Analytical Procedures 

A. For purposes of this supplemental 

proposal, how did we estimate the postMACT risks posed by the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this supplemental 

proposal? 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

IV. Revised Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3)? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects based on our 

revised analyses? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

V. Summary of the Revised Cost, 

Environmental and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

industrial source category that is the 

subject of this supplemental proposal. 

Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive 

but rather to provide a guide for readers 

regarding the entities that this proposed 

action is likely to affect. The proposed 

standards, once finalized, will be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60240 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1U.S. EPA. Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List—Final Report, EPA/

OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. 

directly applicable to the affected 

sources. Federal, state, local and tribal 

government agencies are not affected by 

this proposed action. As defined in the 

‘‘Initial List of Categories of Sources 

Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990’’ (see 57 FR 

31576, July 16, 1992), the ‘‘Ferroalloys 

Production’’ source category is any 

facility engaged in producing ferroalloys 

such as ferrosilicon, ferromanganese 

and ferrochrome.1 The EPA redefined 

the Ferroalloys Production source 

category when it promulgated the 1999 

Ferroalloys Production standard so that 

it now includes only major sources that 

produce products containing manganese 

(Mn). (64 FR 27450, May 20, 1999.) The 

1999 standard applies specifically to 

two ferroalloy product types: 

Ferromanganese and silicomanganese. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS code a

Ferroalloys Production .............................................................. Ferroalloys Production ............................................................. 331110 

a 2012 North American Industry Classification System 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) Web site, a forum for information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

ferropg.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version of the 

proposal and key technical documents 

at this same Web site. Information on 

the overall residual risk and technology 

review program is available at the 

following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comments that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comments that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. In the first stage, 

after the EPA has identified categories of 

sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA 

section 112(d) requires us to promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit or have the potential to emit 10 

tons per year (tpy) or more of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

the technology-based NESHAP must 

reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAPs achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must reflect the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that (1) reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (2) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emissions point; (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (5) 

are a combination of the above. CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT 

standards may take the form of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards where the EPA first 

determines either that (1) a pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutant, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (2) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA section 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floor for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but not less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, the EPA must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emission reductions, any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60241 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

The EPA is then required to review 

these technology-based standards and 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every eight years. 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this review, the EPA is not required to 

recalculate the MACT floor. Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 

Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., 

‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). Section 112(f)(1) required 

that the EPA prepare a report to 

Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted the Residual 

Risk Report to Congress, EPA–453/R– 

99–001 (Risk Report) in March 1999. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) then provides that 

if Congress does not act on any 

recommendation in the Risk Report, the 

EPA must analyze and address residual 

risk for each category or subcategory of 

sources 8 years after promulgation of 

such standards pursuant to CAA section 

112(d). 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to determine for source 

categories subject to MACT standards 

whether the emission standards provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the 

CAA expressly preserves the EPA’s use 

of the two-step process for developing 

standards to address any residual risk 

and the agency’s interpretation of 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in 

the National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 

Emissions From Maleic Anhydride 

Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 

Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 

Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 

FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The 

EPA notified Congress in the Risk 

Report that the agency intended to use 

the Benzene NESHAP approach in 

making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, 

p. ES–11). The EPA subsequently 

adopted this approach in its residual 

risk determinations and in a challenge 

to the risk review for the Synthetic 

Organic Chemical Manufacturing source 

category, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld as reasonable the EPA’s 

interpretation that subsection 112(f)(2) 

incorporates the approach established in 

the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) (‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) 

expressly incorporates the EPA’s 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act from 

the Benzene standard, complete with a 

citation to the Federal Register.’’); see 

also A Legislative History of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, vol. 1, 

p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference 

Report). 

The first step in the process of 

evaluating residual risk is the 

determination of acceptable risk. If risks 

are unacceptable, the EPA cannot 

consider cost in identifying the 

emissions standards necessary to bring 

risks to an acceptable level. The second 

step is the determination of whether 

standards must be further revised in 

order to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. The 

ample margin of safety is the level at 

which the standards must be set, unless 

an even more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

1. Step 1—Determination of 

Acceptability 

The agency in the Benzene NESHAP 

concluded that ‘‘the acceptability of risk 

under section 112 is best judged on the 

basis of a broad set of health risk 

measures and information’’ and that the 

‘‘judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor.’’ Benzene 

NESHAP at 38046. The determination of 

what represents an ‘‘acceptable’’ risk is 

based on a judgment of ‘‘what risks are 

acceptable in the world in which we 

live’’ (Risk Report at 178, quoting NRDC 

v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 

1987) (en banc) (‘‘Vinyl Chloride’’), 

recognizing that our world is not riskfree. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately one in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR at 38045, September 14, 1989. We 

discussed the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk (or maximum 

individual risk (MIR)) as being ‘‘the 

estimated risk that a person living near 

a plant would have if he or she were 

exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

acknowledged that maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a conservative risk level which 

is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 

exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using the 

MIR as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

Benzene NESHAP that ‘‘consideration of 

maximum individual risk * * * must 

take into account the strengths and 

weaknesses of this measure of risk.’’ Id. 

Consequently, the presumptive risk 

level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 

thousand) provides a benchmark for 

judging the acceptability of maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk, but does 

not constitute a rigid line for making 

that determination. Further, in the 

Benzene NESHAP, we noted that: 

[p]articular attention will also be accorded to 

the weight of evidence presented in the risk 

assessment of potential carcinogenicity or 

other health effects of a pollutant. While the 

same numerical risk may be estimated for an 

exposure to a pollutant judged to be a known 

human carcinogen, and to a pollutant 

considered a possible human carcinogen 

based on limited animal test data, the same 

weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. 

In considering the potential public health 

effects of the two pollutants, the Agency’s 

judgment on acceptability, including the 

MIR, will be influenced by the greater weight 

of evidence for the known human 

carcinogen. 

Id. at 38046. The agency also explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: 

[i]n establishing a presumption for MIR, 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the 

Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These 

include the overall incidence of cancer or 

other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime risk 

range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 km exposure radius around 

facilities, the science policy assumptions and 

estimation uncertainties associated with the 

risk measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health effects, 

effects due to co-location of facilities, and coemission of pollutants. 

Id. at 38045. In some cases, these health 

measures and factors taken together may 

provide a more realistic description of 

the magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. 

As noted earlier, in NRDC v. EPA, the 

court held that section 112(f)(2) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, 

which may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, 

aquatic life or natural resources, including adverse 

impacts on populations of endangered or threatened 

species or significant degradation of environmental 

qualities over broad areas. CAA section 112(a)(7). 

3EPA. AP–42, 12.4. Ferroalloy Production. 10/86. 

4The emission limits were revised on March 22, 

2001 (66 FR 16024) in response to a petition for 

reconsideration submitted to the EPA following 

promulgation of the final rule and a petition for 

review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. 

‘‘incorporates the EPA’s interpretation 

of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

Standard.’’ The court further held that 

Congress’ incorporation of the Benzene 

standard applies equally to carcinogens 

and non-carcinogens. 529 F.3d at 1081– 

82. Accordingly, we also consider noncancer risk metrics in our determination 

of risk acceptability and ample margin 

of safety. 

2. Step 2—Determination of Ample 

Margin of Safety 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires the 

EPA to determine, for source categories 

subject to MACT standards, whether 

those standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, 

‘‘the second step of the inquiry, 

determining an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

again includes consideration of all of 

the health factors, and whether to 

reduce the risks even further. . . . 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by section 112.’’ 54 FR at 

38046, September 14, 1989. 

According to CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A), if the MACT standards for 

HAP ‘‘classified as a known, probable, 

or possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ the EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory), as necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In doing so, the 

EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

(i.e., the MACT standards) are 

sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 

529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If 

EPA determines that the existing 

technology-based standards provide an 

‘ample margin of safety,’ then the 

Agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’) The EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect,2 but must consider cost, energy, 

safety and other relevant factors in 

doing so. 

The CAA does not specifically define 

the terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety.’’ In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 

FR at 38044–38045, September 14, 1989, 

we stated as an overall objective: 

In protecting public health with an ample 

margin of safety under section 112, EPA 

strives to provide maximum feasible 

protection against risks to health from 

hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to an 

individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million and (2) limiting 

to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 

thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million] the 

estimated risk that a person living near a 

plant would have if he or she were exposed 

to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 

70 years. 

The agency further stated that ‘‘[t]he 

EPA also considers incidence (the 

number of persons estimated to suffer 

cancer or other serious health effects as 

a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be 

an important measure of the health risk 

to the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ Id. at 

38045. 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step, 

including the incremental risk reduction 

associated with standards more 

stringent than the MACT standard or a 

more stringent standard that EPA has 

determined is necessary to ensure risk is 

acceptable. In the ample margin of 

safety analysis, the agency considers 

additional factors, including costs and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the 

agency will establish the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046, September 14, 1989. 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

Ferroalloys are alloys of iron in which 

one or more chemical elements (such as 

chromium, manganese and silicon) are 

added into molten metal. Ferroalloys are 

consumed primarily in iron and steel 

making and are used to produce steel 

and cast iron products with enhanced or 

special properties. The ferroalloys 

products that are the focus of the 

NESHAP are ferromanganese (FeMn) 

and silicomanganese (SiMn), which are 

produced by two facilities in the United 

States. One facility (Eramet) is located 

in Marietta, Ohio and produces both 

FeMn and SiMn. The other plant 

(Felman) is located in Letart, West 

Virginia and produces only SiMn. 

Ferroalloys within the scope of this 

source category are produced using 

submerged electric arc furnaces, which 

are furnaces in which the electrodes are 

submerged into the charge. The 

submerged arc process is a reduction 

smelting operation. The reactants 

consist of metallic ores (ferrous oxides, 

silicon oxides, manganese oxides, etc.) 

and a carbon-source reducing agent, 

usually in the form of coke, charcoal, 

high- and low-volatility coal, or wood 

chips. Raw materials are crushed and 

sized and then conveyed to a mix house 

for weighing and blending. Conveyors, 

buckets, skip hoists or cars transport the 

processed material to hoppers above the 

furnace. The mix is gravity-fed through 

a feed chute either continuously or 

intermittently, as needed. At high 

temperatures in the reaction zone, the 

carbon source reacts with metal oxides 

to form carbon monoxide and to reduce 

the ores to base metal.3 The molten 

material (product and slag) is tapped 

from the furnace, sometimes subject to 

post-furnace refining and poured into 

casting beds on the furnace room floor. 

Once the material hardens, it is 

transported to product crushing and 

sizing systems and packaged for 

transport to the customer. 

The NESHAP for Ferroalloys 

Production: Ferromanganese and 

Silicomanganese were promulgated on 

May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27450) and 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

XXX.4 The 1999 NESHAP applies to all 

new and existing ferroalloys production 

facilities that manufacture 

ferromanganese or silicomanganese and 

are major sources or are co-located at 

major sources of HAP emissions. 

The existing Ferroalloys Production 

NESHAP rule applies to process 

emissions from the submerged arc 

furnaces, the metal oxygen refining 

process and the product crushing 

equipment; process fugitive emissions 

from the furnace; and outdoor fugitive 

dust emissions sources such as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60243 

roadways, yard areas and outdoor 

material storage and transfer operations. 

For the electric (submerged) arc furnace 

process, the NESHAP specifies 

numerical emissions limits for 

particulate matter (as a surrogate for 

non-mercury (or particulate) metal 

HAP). The NESHAP also includes 

emissions limits for particulate matter 

(again as a surrogate for particulate 

metal HAP) for process emissions from 

the metal oxygen refining process and 

product crushing and screening 

equipment. Table 2 is a summary of the 

applicable limits in the existing Subpart 

XXX. 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS IN SUBPART XXX 

New or reconstructed or 

existing source Affected source Applicable PM emission standards 

Subpart XXX 

reference 

New or reconstructed ............... Submerged arc furnace .................................. 0.23 kilograms per hour per 

megawatt (kg/hr/MW) (0.51 

pounds per hour per megawatt (lb/hr/MW) or 35 milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter (mg/dscm) 

(0.015 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf).

40 CFR 63.1652(a)(1) and 

(a)(2) 

Existing ..................................... Open submerged arc furnace producing 

ferromanganese and operating at a furnace 

power input of 22 megawatts (MW) or less.

9.8 kg/hr (21.7 lb/hr) ............... 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(1) 

Existing ..................................... Open submerged arc furnace producing 

ferromanganese and operating at a furnace 

power input greater than 22 MW.

13.5 kg/hr (29.8 lb/hr) ............. 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(2) 

Existing ..................................... Open submerged arc furnace producing 

silicomanganese and operating at a furnace power input greater than 25 MW.

16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/hr) ............. 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(3) 

Existing ..................................... Open submerged arc furnace producing 

silicomanganese and operating at a furnace power input of 25 MW or less.

12.3 kg/hr (27.2 lb/hr) ............. 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(4) 

Existing ..................................... Semi-sealed submerged arc furnace (primary, tapping and vent stacks) producing 

ferromanganese.

11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/hr) ............. 40 CFR 63.1652(c) 

New, reconstructed, or existing Metal oxygen refining process ........................ 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) ..... 40 CFR 63.1652(d) 

New or reconstructed ............... Individual equipment associated with the 

product crushing and screening operation.

50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) ... 40 CFR 63.1652(e)(1) 

Existing ..................................... Individual equipment associated with the 

product crushing and screening operation.

69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) ..... 40 CFR 63.1652(e)(2) 

The 1999 NESHAP established a 

building opacity limit of 20 percent that 

is measured during the required furnace 

control device performance test. The 

rule provides an excursion limit of 60 

percent opacity for one 6-minute period 

during the performance test. The 

opacity observation is focused only on 

emissions exiting the shop due solely to 

operations of any affected submerged 

arc furnace. In addition, 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 exempt from the opacity 

standards specified in § 63.1653. 

For outdoor fugitive dust sources, as 

defined in § 63.1652, the 1999 NESHAP 

requires that plants prepare and operate 

according to an outdoor fugitive dust 

control plan that describes in detail the 

measures that will be put in place to 

control outdoor fugitive dust emissions 

from the individual outdoor fugitive 

dust sources at the facility. The owner 

or operator must submit a copy of the 

outdoor fugitive dust control plan to the 

designated permitting authority on or 

before the applicable compliance date. 

C. What is the history of the Ferroalloys 

Production Risk and Technology 

Review? 

Pursuant to section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA, we first evaluated the residual risk 

associated with the Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP in 2011. We also 

conducted a technology review, as 

required by section 112(d)(6) of the 

CAA. Finally, we also reviewed the 

1999 MACT rule to determine if other 

amendments were appropriate. Based 

on the results of that previous residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) and 

the MACT rule review, we proposed 

amendments to subpart XXX on 

November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72508) 

(referred to from here on as the 2011 

proposal in the remainder of this FR 

notice). The proposed amendments in 

the 2011 proposal which we are 

revisiting in today’s supplemental 

proposal include the following: 

• Revisions to particulate matter (PM) 

standards for electric arc furnaces and 

local ventilation control devices; 

• emission limits for mercury, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), and hydrochloric acid (HCl); 

• proposed requirements to control 

process fugitive emissions based on fullbuilding enclosure with negative 

pressure, or fenceline monitoring as an 

alternative; 

• a provision for emissions averaging; 

• amendments to the monitoring, 

notification, recordkeeping and testing 

requirements; and 

• proposed provisions establishing an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions. 

The comment period for the 2011 

proposal opened on November 23, 2011, 

and ended on January 31, 2012. We 

received significant comments from 

industry representatives, environmental 

organizations local community groups. 

We also met with stakeholders (from 

industry, community groups and 

environmental organizations) after 

proposal to further discuss their 

comments, concerns and related issues. 

After reviewing the comments and after 

consideration of additional data and 

information received since the 2011 

proposal, we determined it is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5Emission Measurement Summary Report. 

Furnace No. 12 Scrubber. PAHs and Mercury. 

Eramet Marietta, Inc. Marietta, OH. Prepared for: 

Eramet Marietta, Inc. Marietta, Ohio. Prepared by 

Environmental Quality Management, Inc. 1800 

Carillon Boulevard, Cincinnati, Ohio 45240. 

January 2013. 

6Emission Measurement Summary Report. 

Filterable Particulate Matter Furnaces 1 and 12. 

Eramet Marietta, Inc. Marietta, OH. Prepared for: 

Eramet Marietta, Inc. Marietta, Ohio 45750–0299 

Prepared by: Environmental Quality Management, 

Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio 45240. April 2014. 

appropriate to revise some of our 

analyses and publish a supplemental 

proposal. Therefore, in today’s Notice of 

Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking we 

present revised analyses, and based on 

those analyses we are proposing revised 

amendments for the items listed above 

to allow the public an opportunity to 

review and comment on these revised 

analyses and revised proposed 

amendments. In addition, we have 

reevaluated the proposed affirmative 

defense provisions in light of a recent 

court decision vacating an affirmative 

defense in one of the EPA’s Section 

112(d) regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 

F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating 

affirmative defense provisions in 

Section 112(d) rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). In this supplemental proposal, 

we are withdrawing our 2011 proposal 

to include an affirmative defense 

provision in this regulation. 

However, we also proposed other 

requirements in the 2011 proposal 

(listed below) for which we have made 

no revisions to the analyses, we are not 

proposing any changes and are not 

reopening for public comment. The 

other requirements that we proposed in 

the 2011 proposal, for which we are not 

re-opening for comment, are the 

following: 

• PM standards for metal oxygen 

refining processes and crushing and 

screening operations; 

• emissions limits for formaldehyde; 

• elimination of SSM exemptions; 

and 

• electronic reporting. 

We will address the comments we 

received on these other proposed 

requirements during the public 

comment period for the 2011 proposal 

at the time we take final action. 

In the 2011 proposal, we also 

included information about several 

ATSDR health consultations and a study 

(Kim et al.) that had been conducted in 

the Marietta area. We note that the Kim 

et al. study was included in the 2012 

ATSDR review of manganese. Since the 

2011 proposal, additional studies on the 

potential toxicity of manganese have 

been published. These studies add to 

the literature regarding potential health 

effects from exposure to manganese and 

will be included, along with the 

complete body of scientific evidence, in 

future reviews of manganese toxicity. 

D. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

Commenters on the 2011 proposal 

expressed concern that the data set used 

in the risk assessment did not 

adequately reflect current operations at 

the plants. In response to these 

comments, we worked with the facilities 

to address these concerns and we 

obtained a significant amount of new 

data in order to establish a more robust 

dataset than the dataset we had for the 

2011 proposal. Specifically, the plants 

provided data collected during their 

2011 and 2012 compliance tests and, in 

response to an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) from the EPA in 

December 2012, they conducted more 

tests in the spring of 2013. This 

combined testing effort provided the 

following data: 

• Additional stack test data for 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, 

manganese, mercury, nickel, HCl, 

formaldehyde, PAH, polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB) and dioxins/furans; 

• Test data collected using updated, 

state-of-the-art test methods and 

procedures; 

• Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) test 

data for all operational furnaces; 

• Test data obtained during different 

seasonal conditions (i.e., spring and 

fall); 

• Test data for both products 

(ferromanganese and silicomanganese) 

for both furnaces at Eramet (Felman 

only produces silicomanganese). 

With the new data, we no longer have 

to extrapolate HAP emissions from a 

ratio of PM to HAP emissions from just 

one or two tested furnaces. We are also 

using test data collected using state-ofthe-art test methods that provide better 

QA/QC of the test results. For mercury, 

test data were collected for the 

supplemental proposal using EPA 

Method 30B, which requires paired 

samples collected for each test run, in 

addition to a spiked sample during the 

3-run test. Test data for PAH were 

collected using CARB 429, which 

provides greater sensitivity, precision 

and identification of individual PAH 

compounds as compared to Method 

0010 which was used for previous tests. 

We also received PCB and dioxin/furan 

test data that were collected using CARB 

428, which uses high resolution 

instruments and provides a specific 

procedure for measuring PCBs in 

addition to dioxin/furans. 

The data described above, which we 

received prior to summer 2014, were 

incorporated into our risk assessment, 

technology review and other MACT 

analyses presented in this Notice. 

However, we recently received 

additional test reports and data for PAH, 

mercury and PM emissions from one of 

the furnaces at Eramet (Furnace #12). 

We also received additional data on PM 

emissions for Furnaces #1 and #12 at 

Eramet and for the tapping baghouse at 

Eramet. We have not yet completed our 

technical review of these new data and 

we were not able to incorporate these 

new data (on PAHs, PM, or Hg) into our 

RTR or MACT analyses in time for the 

publication of today’s Notice.5 6 These 

test reports (which we received on 

August 19, 2014) are available in the 

docket for today’s action. We have not 

yet determined the technical viability of 

these data or how these data would 

affect the RTR and MACT analyses. 

Nevertheless, we seek comment on 

these new data and how these data 

would impact our analyses and results 

presented in today’s Notice. Based on 

comments and information that we 

receive in response to this supplemental 

proposal, and after we complete our 

review of these data, we will consider 

these data as appropriate as we develop 

the final rule. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

that the estimated cost and operational 

impacts of the 2011 proposed process 

fugitive standards based on use of a total 

building enclosure requirement were 

significantly underestimated. In their 

comments both companies submitted 

substantial additional information and 

estimates regarding the elements, costs 

and impacts involved with constructing 

and operating a full building enclosure 

for their facilities. We also received 

comments saying that full-enclosure 

with negative pressure can lead to 

worker safety and health issues related 

to indoor air quality if the systems are 

not designed and operated appropriately 

to provide sufficient air exchanges and 

air conditioning in the work space. 

Furthermore, in their comments and in 

subsequent meetings and other 

communications, the companies also 

provided design and cost information 

for an alternative approach to 

substantially reduce fugitive emissions 

based on enhanced local capture and 

control of these emissions at each plant. 

In the summer of 2012 and fall of 2013, 

both plants submitted updated 

enhanced capture plans and cost 

estimates to implement those plans. We 

also consulted with outside ventilation 

experts and control equipment vendors 

to re-evaluate the costs of process 

fugitive capture as well as costs of other 

control measures such as activated 

carbon injection. We also gathered a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60245 

7U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. 

8This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP. 

See 54 FR 38046. 

9U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

10A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

substantial amount of opacity data from 

both facilities and collected additional 

information regarding the processes, 

control technologies and modeling 

input parameters (such as stack release 

heights and fugitive emissions release 

characteristics). We reviewed and 

evaluated these data and information 

provided by the facilities, the 

ventilation experts and vendors, and 

revised our analyses accordingly. 

III. Analytical Procedures 

A. For purposes of this supplemental 

proposal, how did we estimate the postMACT risks posed by the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category? 

The EPA conducted a risk assessment 

that provides estimates of the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from each 

source in the source category, the 

hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures 

to HAP with the potential to cause 

noncancer health effects and the hazard 

quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to 

HAP with the potential to cause 

noncancer health effects. The 

assessment also provides estimates of 

the distribution of cancer risks within 

the exposed populations, cancer 

incidence and an evaluation of the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects. The risk assessment consisted of 

eight primary steps, as discussed in 

detail in the 2011 proposal. The docket 

for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the September 2014 Supplemental 

Proposal (risk assessment document). 

The methods used to assess risks (as 

described in the eight primary steps 

below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 

and described in their peer review 

report issued in 2010; 7 they are also 

consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

As explained previously, the revised 

data set for the ferroalloys production 

source category, derived from the two 

existing ferromanganese and 

silicomanganese production facilities, 

constitutes the basis for the revised risk 

assessment. We estimated the 

magnitude of emissions using emissions 

test data collected through ICRs along 

with additional data submitted 

voluntarily by the companies. We also 

collected information regarding 

emissions release characteristics such as 

stack heights, stack gas exit velocities, 

stack temperatures and source locations. 

In addition to the quality assurance 

(QA) of the source data for the facilities 

contained in the data set, we also 

checked the coordinates of every 

emission source in the data set through 

visual observations using tools such as 

GoogleEarth and ArcView. Where 

coordinates were found to be incorrect, 

we identified and corrected them to the 

extent possible. We also performed a 

QA assessment of the emissions data 

and release characteristics to ensure the 

data were reliable and that there were 

no outliers. The emissions data and the 

methods used to estimate emissions 

from all the various emissions sources 

are described in more detail in the 

technical document: Revised 

Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category for the 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

RTR emissions dataset include estimates 

of the mass of HAP emitted during the 

specified annual time period. In some 

cases, these ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are 

lower than the emission levels required 

to comply with the MACT standards. 

The emissions level allowed to be 

emitted by the MACT standards is 

referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions level. We discussed the use of 

both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven 

Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 

19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 

proposed and final Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP residual risk rules (71 FR 

34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect the maximum 

level facilities could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. We also explained that it is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions, 

where such data are available, in both 

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance 

with the Benzene NESHAP approach. 

(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) 

For this supplemental proposal, we 

evaluated allowable stack emissions 

based on the level of control required by 

the 1999 MACT standards. We also 

evaluated the level of reported actual 

emissions and available information on 

the level of control achieved by the 

emissions controls in use. Further 

explanation is provided in the technical 

document: Revised Development of the 

RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

for the 2014 Supplemental Proposal, 

which is available in the docket. 

3. How did we conduct dispersion 

modeling, determine inhalation 

exposures and estimate individual and 

population inhalation risks? 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 

version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs 

three primary risk assessment activities: 

(1) Conducting dispersion modeling to 

estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to 

individuals residing within 50 

kilometers (km) of the modeled 

sources 8, and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.9 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year (2011) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations for more than 800 

meteorological stations, selected to 

provide coverage of the United States 

and Puerto Rico. A second library of 

United States Census Bureau census 

block 10 internal point locations and 

populations provides the basis of 

human exposure calculations (U.S. 

Census, 2010). In addition, for each 

census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11National Toxicology Program (NTP), 2011. 

Report on carcinogens. 12th ed. Research Triangle 

Park, NC: US Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS), Public Health Service. Available 

online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/

roc12.pdf. 

12 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC), 1990. IARC monographs on the evaluation 

of carcinogenic risks to humans. Chromium, nickel, 

and welding. Vol. 49. Lyons, France: International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 

Organization Vol. 49:256. 

13World Health Organization (WHO, 1991) and 

the European Union’s Scientific Committee on 

Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER, 2006). 

14 Grimsrud TK and Andersen A. Evidence of 

carcinogenicity in humans of water-soluble nickel 

salts. J Occup Med Toxicol 2010, 5:1–7. Available 

online at http://www.ossup-med.com/content/5/1/7. 

15Two UREs (other than the current IRIS values) 

have been derived for nickel compounds as a group: 

One developed by the California Department of 

Health Services (http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/

summary/nickel_tech_b.pdf) and the other by the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/

healtheffectsinfo.pdf). 

16These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) in their 2002 peer review of EPA’s National 

Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) entitled, NATA— 

Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/

ecadv02001.pdf. 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each HAP emitted by 

each source for which we have 

emissions data in the source category. 

The air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid were used as a 

surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of inhabited census blocks. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk 

estimate (URE). The URE is an upper 

bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible dose 

response values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

In the case of nickel compounds, to 

provide a conservative estimate of 

potential cancer risks, we used the IRIS 

URE value for nickel subsulfide (which 

is considered the most potent 

carcinogen among all nickel 

compounds) in the assessment for the 

2011 proposed rule for ferroalloys 

production. In the 2011 proposed rule, 

the determination of the percent of 

nickel subsulfide was considered a 

major factor for estimating the risks of 

cancer due to nickel-containing 

emissions. Nickel speciation 

information for some of the largest 

nickel-emitting sources (including oil 

combustion, coal combustion and 

others) suggested that at least 35 percent 

of total nickel emissions may be soluble 

compounds and that the cancer risk for 

the mixture of inhaled nickel 

compounds (based on nickel subsulfide 

and representative of pure insoluble 

crystalline nickel) was derived to reflect 

the assumption that 65 percent of the 

total mass of nickel may be 

carcinogenic. 

Based on consistent views of major 

scientific bodies (i.e., National 

Toxicology Program (NTP) in their 12th 

Report of the Carcinogens (ROC) 11, 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC) 12 and other international 

agencies) 13 that consider all nickel 

compounds to be carcinogenic, we 

currently consider all nickel compounds 

to have the potential of being 

carcinogenic to humans. The 12th 

Report of the Carcinogens states that the 

‘‘combined results of epidemiological 

studies, mechanistic studies, and 

carcinogenic studies in rodents support 

the concept that nickel compounds 

generate nickel ions in target cells at 

sites critical for carcinogenesis, thus 

allowing consideration and evaluation 

of these compounds as a single group.’’ 

Although the precise nickel compound 

(or compounds) responsible for 

carcinogenic effects in humans is not 

always clear, studies indicate that nickel 

sulfate and the combinations of nickel 

sulfides and oxides encountered in the 

nickel refining industries cause cancer 

in humans (these studies are 

summarized in a review by Grimsrud et 

al., 2010 14). The major scientific bodies 

mentioned above have also recognized 

that there are differences in toxicity 

and/or carcinogenic potential across the 

different nickel compounds. 

In the inhalation risk assessment for 

the 2011 proposed rule, to take a 

conservative approach, we considered 

all nickel compounds to have the same 

carcinogenic potential as nickel 

subsulfide and used the IRIS URE for 

nickel subsulfide to estimate risks due 

to all nickel emissions from the source 

category. However, given that there are 

two additional URE values 15 derived for 

exposure to mixtures of nickel 

compounds, as a group, that are 2–3 fold 

lower than the IRIS URE for nickel 

subsulfide, the EPA also considers it 

reasonable to use a value that is 50 

percent of the IRIS URE for nickel 

subsulfide for providing an estimate of 

the lower end of the plausible range of 

cancer potency values for different 

mixtures of nickel compounds. In the 

public comments provided in response 

to the proposal and available in the 

docket, one facility provided additional 

data in the form of a laboratory test 

report that indicated it would be 

unlikely that 100 percent of the nickel 

from the furnace would be in the form 

of nickel subsulfide. Given our current 

knowledge of the carcinogenic potential 

of all nickel compounds, and the 

potential differences in carcinogenic 

potential across nickel compounds, we 

consider it reasonable to use a value that 

is 50 percent of the IRIS URE for nickel 

subsulfide for providing an estimate of 

the cancer potency values for different 

mixtures of nickel compounds in the 

revised data set for the current 

supplemental proposal. 

The EPA estimated incremental 

individual lifetime cancer risks 

associated with emissions from the 

facilities in the source category as the 

sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential 16) emitted by the modeled 

sources. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of the 

sources were also estimated for the 

source category as part of this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60247 

17US EPA Integrated Risk Information System 

Review of Manganese (1993) available at http://

www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0373.htm. 

18 2011 Notice of proposed Rulemaking reference 

(76 FR 72508). 

19Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry 

Toxicological Profile for Manganese (2012) 

available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/

tp.asp?id=102&tid=23. 

20The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

21http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html. 

22http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/

toxsubstance.asp?toxid=44. 

assessment by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989) and the limitations 

of Gaussian dispersion models, 

including AERMOD. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference value, which is a value 

selected from one of several sources. 

First, the chronic reference level can be 

the EPA reference concentration (RfC) 

(http://www.epa.gov/riskassessment/

glossary.htm), defined as ‘‘an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime.’’ Alternatively, in 

cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS 

database is not available or where the 

EPA determines that using a value other 

than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic 

reference level can be a value from the 

following prioritized sources: (1) The 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level 

(MRL) (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/

index.asp), which is defined as ‘‘an 

estimate of daily human exposure to a 

hazardous substance that is likely to be 

without an appreciable risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects (other than 

cancer) over a specified duration of 

exposure’’; (2) the CalEPA Chronic 

Reference Exposure Level (REL) 

(http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_

spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf), which is 

defined as ‘‘the concentration level (that 

is expressed in units of micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) for inhalation 

exposure and in a dose expressed in 

units of milligram per kilogram-day 

(mg/kg-day) for oral exposures), at or 

below which no adverse health effects 

are anticipated for a specified exposure 

duration’’; or (3), as noted above, a 

scientifically credible dose-response 

value that has been developed in a 

manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and has undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, in place of or in concert with 

other values. 

For the ferroalloys source category, 

we applied this policy in our estimate 

of noncancer inhalation hazards and 

note the following related to manganese. 

There is an existing IRIS RfC for 

manganese (Mn) published in 1993.17

This value was used in the RTR risk 

assessment supporting the Ferroalloys 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.18

However, since the 2011 proposal, 

ATSDR has published an assessment of 

Mn toxicity (2012) which includes a 

chronic inhalation value (i.e., an ATSDR 

Minimal Risk Level or MRL).19 Both the 

1993 IRIS RfC and the 2012 ATSDR 

MRL were based on the same study 

(Roels et al., 1993). In developing their 

assessment, ATSDR used updated doseresponse modeling methodology 

(benchmark dose approach) and 

considered recent pharmacokinetic 

findings to support their MRL 

derivation. Consistent with Agency 

policy, which was supported by SAB,20

the EPA has chosen in this instance to 

rely on the ATSDR MRL for Mn in the 

current ferroalloys supplemental 

proposal. 

The EPA also evaluated screening 

estimates of acute exposures and risks 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest potential off-site exposure for 

each facility. To do this, the EPA 

estimated the risks when both the peak 

hourly emissions rate and worst-case 

dispersion conditions occur. We also 

assume that a person is located at the 

point of highest impact during that same 

time. In accordance with our mandate in 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act, we use 

the point of highest off-site exposure to 

assess the potential risk to the 

maximally exposed individual. The 

acute HQ is the estimated acute 

exposure divided by the acute doseresponse value. In each case, the EPA 

calculated acute HQ values using best 

available, short-term dose-response 

values. These acute dose-response 

values, which are described below, 

include the acute REL, acute exposure 

guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency 

response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 

1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emissions rates, 

meteorology and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http://

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Id. at page 2. Acute 

REL values are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the peer-reviewed medical 

and toxicological literature. Acute REL 

values are designed to protect the most 

sensitive individuals in the population 

through the inclusion of margins of 

safety. Because margins of safety are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties, exceeding the REL does 

not automatically indicate an adverse 

health impact. 

As we state above, in assessing the 

potential risks associated with acute 

exposures to HAP, we do not follow a 

prioritization scheme and therefore we 

consider available dose-response values 

from multiple authoritative sources. In 

the RTR program, EPA assesses acute 

risk using toxicity values derived from 

one hour exposures. Based on an indepth examination of the available acute 

value for nickel [California EPA’s acute 

(1-hour) REL], we have concluded that 

this value is not appropriate to use to 

support EPA’s risk and technology 

review rules. This conclusion takes into 

account: The effect on which the acute 

REL is based; aspects of the 

methodology used in its derivation; and 

how this assessment stands in 

comparison to the ATSDR toxicological 

assessment, which considered the 

broader nickel health effects database. 

The broad nickel noncancer health 

effects database strongly suggests that 

the respiratory tract is the primary target 

of nickel toxicity following inhalation 

exposure. The available database on 

acute noncancer respiratory effects is 

limited and was considered unsuitable 

for quantitative analysis of nickel 

toxicity by both California EPA 21 and 

ATSDR.22 The California EPA’s acute (1- 

hour) REL is based on an alternative 

endpoint, immunotoxicity in mice, 

specifically depressed antibody 

response measured in an antibody 

plaque assay. 

In addition, the current California 

acute (1-hour) REL for Ni includes the 

application of methods that are different 

from those described in EPA guidelines. 

Specifically, the (1-hour) REL applies 

uncertainty factors that depart from the 

defaults in EPA guidelines and does not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR), Toxic Substances Portal. 

Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) http://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp. 

24US EPA 2002. Review of the reference dose and 

reference concentration processes (EPA/630/P–02/

002F), December 2002, http://www.epa.gov/raf/

publications/pdfs/rfd-final.pdf 

25National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2001. 

Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 

Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, 

page 2. 

26ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

apply an inhalation dosimetric 

adjustment factor. 

Further, the ATSDR’s intermediate 

MRL (relevant to Ni exposures for a time 

frame between 14 and 364 days), was 

established at the same concentration as 

the California EPA (1- hour) REL, 

indicating that exposure to this 

concentration ‘‘is likely to be without 

appreciable risk of adverse noncancer 

effects’’ (MRL definition) 23 for up to 364 

days. 

We have high confidence in the nickel 

ATSDR intermediate MRL. Our analysis 

of the broad toxicity database for nickel 

indicates that this value is based on the 

most biologically-relevant endpoint. 

That is, the intermediate MRL is based 

on a scientifically sound study of acute 

respiratory toxicity. Furthermore, this 

value is supported by a robust 

subchronic nickel toxicity database and 

was derived following guidelines that 

are consistent with EPA guidelines.24

Finally, there are no AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

or AEGL–2/ERPG–2 values available for 

nickel. Thus, for all the above 

mentioned reasons, we will not include 

Ni in our acute analysis for this source 

category or in future assessments unless 

and until an appropriate value becomes 

available. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/

aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),25 ‘‘the NRC’s 

previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ Id. at 2. This document also 

states that AEGL values ‘‘represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general 

public and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

eight hours.’’ Id. at 2. 

The document lays out the purpose 

and objectives of AEGL by stating that 

‘‘the primary purpose of the AEGL 

program and the National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances is to develop guideline 

levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures to airborne concentrations of 

acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ 

Id. at 21. In detailing the intended 

application of AEGL values, the 

document states that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated 

that the AEGL values will be used for 

regulatory and nonregulatory purposes 

by U.S. Federal and state agencies and 

possibly the international community in 

conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning, and prevention 

programs. More specifically, the AEGL 

values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the 

development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as 

well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases 

at fixed facilities and from transport 

carriers.’’ Id. at 31. 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 

mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

Id. at 3. The document also notes that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Id. Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as parts per million or milligrams per 

cubic meter) of a substance above which 

it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ Id. 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s ERP Committee document 

entitled, ERPGS Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://sp4m.aiha.org/

insideaiha/GuidelineDevelopment/

ERPG/Documents/ERP–SOPs2006.pdf), 

which states that, ‘‘Emergency Response 

Planning Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 26 Id. 

at 1. The ERPG–1 value is defined as 

‘‘the maximum airborne concentration 

below which it is believed that nearly 

all individuals could be exposed for up 

to 1 hour without experiencing other 

than mild transient adverse health 

effects or without perceiving a clearly 

defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. 

Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined 

as ‘‘the maximum airborne 

concentration below which it is 

believed that nearly all individuals 

could be exposed for up to one hour 

without experiencing or developing 

irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms which could impair 

an individual’s ability to take protective 

action.’’ Id. at 1. 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed because the types of 

effects for these chemicals are not 

consistent with the AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

definitions; in these instances, we 

compare higher severity level AEGL–2 

or ERPG–2 values to our modeled 

exposure levels to screen for potential 

acute concerns. When AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

values are available, they are used in 

our acute risk assessments. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often the same as the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures in the absence of hourly 

emissions data, generally we first 

develop estimates of maximum hourly 

emissions rates by multiplying the 

average actual annual hourly emissions 

rates by a default factor to cover 

routinely variable emissions. We choose 

the factor to use partially based on 

process knowledge and engineering 

judgment. The factor chosen also 

reflects a Texas study of short-term 

emissions variability, which showed 

that most peak emission events in a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60249 

27See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

28The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

29U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 

EPA/600/R–09/061 and available online at http://

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

heavily-industrialized four-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emissions rate. The highest peak 

emissions event was 74 times the 

annual average hourly emissions rate, 

and the 99th percentile ratio of peak 

hourly emissions rate to the annual 

average hourly emissions rate was 9.27

Considering this analysis, to account for 

more than 99 percent of the peak hourly 

emissions, we apply a conservative 

screening multiplication factor of 10 to 

the average annual hourly emissions 

rate in our acute exposure screening 

assessments as our default approach. 

However, we use a factor other than 10 

if we have information that indicates 

that a different factor is appropriate for 

a particular source category. 

For this source category, data were 

available to determine process-specific 

factors. Some processes, for example the 

electric arc furnaces, operate 

continuously so there are no peak 

emissions. These processes received a 

factor of 1 in the acute assessment. 

Other processes, for example tapping 

and casting, have specific cycles, with 

peak emissions occurring for a part of 

that cycle (e.g., 30 minutes during a 2- 

hour period). For these processes, we 

used a factor of 4 in the acute 

assessment. Even with data available to 

develop process-specific factors, our 

acute assessment is still conservative in 

that it assumes that every process 

releases its peak emissions at the same 

hour and that this is the same hour as 

the worst-case dispersion conditions. 

This results in a highly conservative 

exposure scenario. A further discussion 

of why this factor of 4 was chosen can 

be found in the memorandum, Revised 

Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category for the 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

As part of our acute risk assessment 

process, for cases where acute HQ 

values from the screening step were less 

than or equal to 1 (even under the 

conservative assumptions of the 

screening analysis), acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In cases where 

an acute HQ from the screening step 

was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

For this source category, the data 

refinements employed consisted of 

determining that the receptor with the 

maximum concentration was off of plant 

property. These refinements are 

discussed more fully in the Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the September 2014 Supplemental 

Proposal, which is available in the 

docket for this source category. Ideally, 

we would prefer to have continuous 

measurements over time to see how the 

emissions vary by each hour over an 

entire year. Having a frequency 

distribution of hourly emissions rates 

over a year would allow us to perform 

a probabilistic analysis to estimate 

potential threshold exceedances and 

their frequency of occurrence. Such an 

evaluation could include a more 

complete statistical treatment of the key 

parameters and elements adopted in this 

screening analysis. Recognizing that this 

level of data is rarely available, we 

instead rely on the multiplier approach. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR 

risk assessment methodologies,28 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., 

RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the SAB’s acknowledgement 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 29 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. 

4. How did we conduct the 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening? 

The EPA conducted a screening 

analysis examining the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first 

determined whether any sources in the 

source category emitted any hazardous 

air pollutants known to be persistent 

and bioaccumulative in the 

environment (PB–HAP). The PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes are 

identified for the screening from the 

EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment 

Library (available at http://

www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessmentand-modeling-air-toxics-riskassessment-reference-library). 

For the Ferroalloys Production source 

category, we identified emissions of 

cadmium compounds, chlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds and 

polycyclic organic matter. Because one 

or more of these PB–HAP are emitted by 

at least one facility in the Ferroalloys 

Production source category, we 

proceeded to the second step of the 

evaluation. In this step, we determined 

whether the facility-specific emissions 

rates of each of the emitted PB–HAP 

were large enough to create the potential 

for significant non-inhalation human 

health risks under reasonable worst-case 

conditions. To facilitate this step, we 

developed emissions rate screening 

levels for several PB–HAP using a 

hypothetical upper-end screening 

exposure scenario developed for use in 

conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk 

Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, 

and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) 

model. The PB–HAP with emissions 

rate screening level values are: Lead, 

cadmium, chlorinated dibenzodioxins 

and furans, mercury compounds, and 

polycyclic organic matter (POM). We 

conducted a sensitivity analysis on the 

screening scenario to ensure that its key 

design parameters would represent the 

upper end of the range of possible 

values, such that it would represent a 

conservative but not impossible 

scenario. The facility-specific emissions 

rates of these PB–HAP were compared 

to the emission rate screening levels for 

these PB–HAP to assess the potential for 

significant human health risks via noninhalation pathways. We call this 

application of the TRIM.FaTE model the 

Tier I TRIM-screen or Tier I screen. 

For the purpose of developing 

emissions rates for our Tier I TRIMscreen, we derived emission levels for 

these PB–HAP (other than lead 

compounds) at which the maximum 

excess lifetime cancer risk would be 1- 

in-1 million (i.e., for polychlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) 

or, for HAP that cause non-cancer health 

effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and 

mercury compounds), the maximum 

hazard quotient would be 1. If the 

emissions rate of any PB–HAP included 

in the Tier I screen exceeds the Tier I 

screening emissions rate for any facility, 

we conduct a second screen, which we 

call the Tier II TRIM-screen or Tier II 

screen. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

30 In doing so, EPA notes that the legal standard 

for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is requisite 

to protect public health and provide an adequate 

margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))—differs from 

the section 112(f) standard (requiring among other 

things that the standard provide an ‘‘ample margin 

of safety’’). However, the lead NAAQS is a 

reasonable measure of determining risk 

acceptability (i.e. the first step of the Benzene 

NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the 

most susceptible group in the human population— 

children, including children living near major lead 

emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 

FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the 

primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step 

is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 

reflects an adequate margin of safety. 

31The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 

measure of determining whether there is an adverse 

environmental effect since it was established 

considering ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, 

vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, 

weather, visibility and climate, damage to and 

deterioration of property, and hazards to 

transportation, as well as effects on economic 

values and on personal comfort and well-being.’’ 

In the Tier II screen, the location of 

each facility that exceeded the Tier I 

emission rate is used to refine the 

assumptions associated with the 

environmental scenario while 

maintaining the exposure scenario 

assumptions. We then adjust the riskbased Tier I screening level for each PB– 

HAP for each facility based on an 

understanding of how exposure 

concentrations estimated for the 

screening scenario change with 

meteorology and environmental 

assumptions. PB–HAP emissions that do 

not exceed these new Tier II screening 

levels are considered to pose no 

unacceptable risks. When facilities 

exceed the Tier II screening levels, it 

does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility based on 

the results of the screen. 

If the PB–HAP emissions for a facility 

exceed the Tier II screening emissions 

rate and data are available, we may 

decide to conduct a more refined 

multipathway assessment. A refined 

assessment replaces some of the 

assumptions made in the Tier II screen, 

with site-specific data. The refined 

assessment also uses the TRIM.FaTE 

model and facility-specific emission rate 

screening levels that are created for each 

PB–HAP. For the ferroalloys production 

source category, we did conduct a 

refined multipathway assessment for 

one facility in the category. A detailed 

discussion of the approach for this 

assessment can be found in Appendix 

10 (Technical Support Document: 

Human Health Multipathway Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category) of the risk 

assessment document. 

In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead 

compounds, rather than developing a 

screening emissions rate for them, we 

compared maximum estimated chronic 

inhalation exposures with the level of 

the current National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.30

Values below the level of the primary 

(health-based) lead NAAQS were 

considered to have a low potential for 

multi-pathway risk. 

For further information on the 

multipathway analysis approach, see 

the Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

in Support of the September 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

5. How did we assess risks considering 

the revised emissions control options? 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and potential 

multipathway risks, we also estimated 

risks considering the emissions 

reductions that would be achieved by 

the control options under consideration 

in this supplemental proposal. In these 

cases, the expected emissions 

reductions were applied to the specific 

HAP and emissions points in the RTR 

emissions dataset to develop 

corresponding estimates of risk that 

would exist after implementation of the 

proposed amendments in today’s action. 

6. How did we conduct the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment? 

a. Adverse Environmental Effect 

The EPA has developed a screening 

approach to examine the potential for 

adverse environmental effects as 

required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of 

the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA 

defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ 

as ‘‘any significant and widespread 

adverse effect, which may reasonably be 

anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

other natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of 

endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of 

environmental quality over broad 

areas.’’ 

b. Environmental HAP 

The EPA focuses on seven HAP, 

which we refer to as ‘‘environmental 

HAP,’’ in its screening analysis: Five 

persistent bioaccumulative HAP (PB– 

HAP) and two acid gases. The five PB– 

HAP are cadmium, dioxins/furans, 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury) and lead compounds. 

The two acid gases are hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride 

(HF). The rationale for including these 

seven HAP in the environmental risk 

screening analysis is presented below. 

The HAP that persist and 

bioaccumulate are of particular 

environmental concern because they 

accumulate in the soil, sediment and 

water. The PB–HAP are taken up, 

through sediment, soil, water, and/or 

ingestion of other organisms, by plants 

or animals (e.g., small fish) at the 

bottom of the food chain. As larger and 

larger predators consume these 

organisms, concentrations of the PB– 

HAP in the animal tissues increase as 

does the potential for adverse effects. 

The five PB–HAP we evaluate as part of 

our screening analysis account for 99.8 

percent of all PB–HAP emissions 

nationally from stationary sources (on a 

mass basis from the 2005 NEI). 

In addition to accounting for almost 

all of the mass of PB–HAP emitted, we 

note that the TRIM.FaTE model that we 

use to evaluate multipathway risk 

allows us to estimate concentrations of 

cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, 

POM and mercury in soil, sediment and 

water. For lead compounds, we 

currently do not have the ability to 

calculate these concentrations using the 

TRIM.FaTE model. Therefore, to 

evaluate the potential for adverse 

environmental effects from lead 

compounds, we compare the estimated 

HEM-modeled exposures from the 

source category emissions of lead with 

the level of the secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for lead.31 We consider values below the 

level of the secondary lead NAAQS as 

unlikely to cause adverse environmental 

effects. 

Due to their well-documented 

potential to cause direct damage to 

terrestrial plants, we include two acid 

gases, HCl and HF, in the environmental 

screening analysis. According to the 

2005 NEI, HCl and HF account for about 

99 percent (on a mass basis) of the total 

acid gas HAP emitted by stationary 

sources in the U.S. In addition to the 

potential to cause direct damage to 

plants, high concentrations of HF in the 

air have been linked to fluorosis in 

livestock. Air concentrations of these 

HAP are already calculated as part of 

the human multipathway exposure and 

risk screening analysis using the HEM3– 

AERMOD air dispersion model, and we 

are able to use the air dispersion 

modeling results to estimate the 

potential for an adverse environmental 

effect. 

The EPA acknowledges that other 

HAP beyond the seven HAP discussed 

above may have the potential to cause 

adverse environmental effects. 

Therefore, the EPA may include other 

relevant HAP in its environmental risk 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60251 

screening in the future, as modeling 

science and resources allow. The EPA 

invites comment on the extent to which 

other HAP emitted by the source 

category may cause adverse 

environmental effects. Such information 

should include references to peerreviewed ecological effects benchmarks 

that are of sufficient quality for making 

regulatory decisions, as well as 

information on the presence of 

organisms located near facilities within 

the source category that such 

benchmarks indicate could be adversely 

affected. 

c. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for PB–HAP 

An important consideration in the 

development of the EPA’s screening 

methodology is the selection of 

ecological assessment endpoints and 

benchmarks. Ecological assessment 

endpoints are defined by the ecological 

entity (e.g., aquatic communities 

including fish and plankton) and its 

attributes (e.g., frequency of mortality). 

Ecological assessment endpoints can be 

established for organisms, populations, 

communities or assemblages, and 

ecosystems. 

For PB–HAP (other than lead 

compounds), we evaluated the 

following community-level ecological 

assessment endpoints to screen for 

organisms directly exposed to HAP in 

soils, sediment and water: 

• Local terrestrial communities (i.e., 

soil invertebrates, plants) and 

populations of small birds and 

mammals that consume soil 

invertebrates exposed to PB–HAP in the 

surface soil. 

• Local benthic (i.e., bottom sediment 

dwelling insects, amphipods, isopods 

and crayfish) communities exposed to 

PB–HAP in sediment in nearby water 

bodies. 

• Local aquatic (water-column) 

communities (including fish and 

plankton) exposed to PB–HAP in nearby 

surface waters. 

For PB–HAP (other than lead 

compounds), we also evaluated the 

following population-level ecological 

assessment endpoint to screen for 

indirect HAP exposures of top 

consumers via the bioaccumulation of 

HAP in food chains. 

• Piscivorous (i.e., fish-eating) 

wildlife consuming PB–HAPcontaminated fish from nearby water 

bodies. 

For cadmium compounds, dioxins/

furans, POM and mercury, we identified 

the available ecological benchmarks for 

each assessment endpoint. An 

ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP (e.g., 0.77 ug of 

HAP per liter of water) that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level (e.g., a no-observed-adverseeffect level (NOAEL)) through scientific 

study. For PB–HAP we identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: 

Probable effect levels (PEL): Level 

above which adverse effects are 

expected to occur frequently. 

Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

(LOAEL): The lowest exposure level 

tested at which there are biologically 

significant increases in frequency or 

severity of adverse effects. 

No-observed-adverse-effect levels 

(NOAEL): The highest exposure level 

tested at which there are no biologically 

significant increases in the frequency or 

severity of adverse effect. 

We established a hierarchy of 

preferred benchmark sources to allow 

selection of benchmarks for each 

environmental HAP at each ecological 

assessment endpoint. In general, the 

EPA sources that are used at a 

programmatic level (e.g., Office of 

Water, Superfund Program) were used, 

if available. If not, the EPA benchmarks 

used in regional programs (e.g., 

Superfund) were used. If benchmarks 

were not available at a programmatic or 

regional level, we used benchmarks 

developed by other federal agencies 

(e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)) or state 

agencies. 

Benchmarks for all effect levels are 

not available for all PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoints. In cases where 

multiple effect levels were available for 

a particular PB–HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we use all of the available 

effect levels to help us to determine 

whether ecological risks exist and, if so, 

whether the risks could be considered 

significant and widespread. 

d. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for Acid Gases 

The environmental screening analysis 

also evaluated potential damage and 

reduced productivity of plants due to 

direct exposure to acid gases in the air. 

For acid gases, we evaluated the 

following ecological assessment 

endpoint: 

• Local terrestrial plant communities 

with foliage exposed to acidic gaseous 

HAP in the air. 

The selection of ecological 

benchmarks for the effects of acid gases 

on plants followed the same approach 

as for PB–HAP (i.e., we examine all of 

the available benchmarks). For HCl, the 

EPA identified chronic benchmark 

concentrations. We note that the 

benchmark for chronic HCl exposure to 

plants is greater than the reference 

concentration for chronic inhalation 

exposure for human health. This means 

that where the EPA includes regulatory 

requirements to prevent an exceedance 

of the reference concentration for 

human health, additional analyses for 

adverse environmental effects of HCl 

would not be necessary. 

For HF, the EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations for plants 

and evaluated chronic exposures to 

plants in the screening analysis. High 

concentrations of HF in the air have also 

been linked to fluorosis in livestock. 

However, the HF concentrations at 

which fluorosis in livestock occur are 

higher than those at which plant 

damage begins. Therefore, the 

benchmarks for plants are protective of 

both plants and livestock. 

e. Screening Methodology 

For the environmental risk screening 

analysis, the EPA first determined 

whether any facilities in the ferroalloys 

production source category sources 

emitted any of the seven environmental 

HAP. For the ferroalloys production 

source category, we identified emissions 

of five of the PB HAP (cadmium, 

mercury, lead compounds, dioxins and 

polycyclic organic matter) and one acid 

gas (HCl). 

Because one or more of the seven 

environmental HAP evaluated are 

emitted by the facilities in the source 

category, we proceeded to the second 

step of the evaluation. 

f. PB–HAP Methodology 

For cadmium, mercury, POM and 

dioxins/furans, the environmental 

screening analysis consists of two tiers, 

while lead compounds are analyzed 

differently as discussed earlier. In the 

first tier, we determined whether the 

maximum facility-specific emission 

rates of each of the emitted 

environmental HAP were large enough 

to create the potential for adverse 

environmental effects under reasonable 

worst-case environmental conditions. 

These are the same environmental 

conditions used in the human 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening analysis. 

To facilitate this step, TRIM.FaTE was 

run for each PB–HAP under 

hypothetical environmental conditions 

designed to provide conservatively high 

HAP concentrations. The model was set 

to maximize runoff from terrestrial 

parcels into the modeled lake, which in 

turn, maximized the chemical 

concentrations in the water, the 

sediments and the fish. The resulting 

media concentrations were then used to 

back-calculate a screening level 

emission rate that corresponded to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

relevant exposure benchmark 

concentration value for each assessment 

endpoint. To assess emissions from a 

facility, the reported emission rate for 

each PB–HAP was compared to the 

screening level emission rate for that 

PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint. 

If emissions from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier I screening level, the 

facility ‘‘passes’’ the screen, and 

therefore, is not evaluated further under 

the screening approach. If emissions 

from a facility exceed the Tier I 

screening level, we evaluate the facility 

further in Tier II. 

In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis, the emission rate 

screening levels are adjusted to account 

for local meteorology and the actual 

location of lakes in the vicinity of 

facilities that did not pass the Tier I 

screen. The modeling domain for each 

facility in the tier II analysis consists of 

eight octants. Each octant contains 5 

modeled soil concentrations at various 

distances from the facility (5 soil 

concentrations × 8 octants = total of 40 

soil concentrations per facility) and 1 

lake with modeled concentrations for 

water, sediment and fish tissue. In the 

tier II environmental risk screening 

analysis, the 40 soil concentration 

points are averaged to obtain an average 

soil concentration for each facility for 

each PB–HAP. For the water, sediment 

and fish tissue concentrations, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. If emission 

concentrations from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier II screening levels, the 

facility passes the screen and typically 

is not evaluated further. If emissions 

from a facility exceed the Tier II 

screening level, the facility does not 

pass the screen and, therefore, may have 

the potential to cause adverse 

environmental effects. Such facilities 

are evaluated further to investigate 

factors such as the magnitude and 

characteristics of the area of exceedance. 

g. Acid Gas Methodology 

The environmental screening analysis 

evaluates the potential phytotoxicity 

and reduced productivity of plants due 

to chronic exposure to acid gases. The 

environmental risk screening 

methodology for acid gases is a singletier screen that compares the average 

off-site ambient air concentration over 

the modeling domain to ecological 

benchmarks for each of the acid gases. 

Because air concentrations are 

compared directly to the ecological 

benchmarks, emission-based screening 

levels are not calculated for acid gases 

as they are in the ecological risk 

screening methodology for PB–HAPs. 

For purposes of ecological risk 

screening, the EPA identifies a potential 

for adverse environmental effects to 

plant communities from exposure to 

acid gases when the average 

concentration of the HAP around a 

facility exceeds the LOAEL ecological 

benchmark. In such cases, we further 

investigate factors such as the 

magnitude and characteristics of the 

area of exceedance (e.g., land use of 

exceedance area, size of exceedance 

area) to determine if there is an adverse 

environmental effect. For further 

information on the environmental 

screening analysis approach, see the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

in Support of the September 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

7. How did we conduct facility-wide 

assessments? 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we typically examine the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category of interest, but 

also emissions of HAP from all other 

emissions sources at the facility for 

which we have data. However, for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category, 

we did not identify other HAP 

emissions sources located at these 

facilities. Thus, we did not perform a 

separate facility wide risk assessment. 

8. How did we consider uncertainties in 

risk assessment? 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we 

concluded that risk estimation 

uncertainty should be considered in our 

decision-making under the ample 

margin of safety framework. Uncertainty 

and the potential for bias are inherent in 

all risk assessments, including those 

performed for this proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our 

approach, which used conservative 

tools and assumptions, ensures that our 

decisions are health protective and 

environmentally protective. A brief 

discussion of the uncertainties in the 

RTR emissions dataset, dispersion 

modeling, inhalation exposure estimates 

and dose-response relationships follows 

below. A more thorough discussion of 

these uncertainties is included in the 

Revised Development of the RTR 

Emissions Dataset for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category for the 2014 

Supplemental Proposal (Emissions 

Memo) and the other uncertainties are 

described in more detail in the Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the September 2014 Supplemental 

Proposal, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions 

Dataset 

Although the development of the RTR 

emissions dataset involved quality 

assurance/quality control processes, the 

accuracy of emissions values will vary 

depending on the source of the data, the 

degree to which data are incomplete or 

missing, the degree to which 

assumptions made to complete the 

datasets are accurate, errors in emission 

estimates and other factors. The 

emission estimates considered in this 

analysis generally are annual totals for 

certain years, and they do not reflect 

short-term fluctuations during the 

course of a year or variations from year 

to year. The estimates of peak hourly 

emission rates for the acute effects 

screening assessment were based on an 

emission adjustment factor applied to 

the average annual hourly emission 

rates, which are intended to account for 

emission fluctuations due to normal 

facility operations. 

As described above and in the 

emissions technical document, we 

gathered a substantial amount of 

emissions test data for the stack 

emissions from both facilities. 

Therefore, the level of uncertainty in the 

estimates of HAP emissions from the 

stacks is relatively low. Regarding 

fugitive emissions, we lack direct 

quantitative measurements of these 

emissions, therefore, we had to rely on 

available emissions factors and other 

technical information to derive the best 

estimates of emissions for these 

emissions. To estimate these fugitive 

emissions, we relied on information and 

observations gathered through several 

site visits by the EPA technical experts, 

reviewed and evaluated all available 

emissions factors and analyzed other 

relevant information such as the 

measured ratios of HAP metals to 

particulate matter, estimated capture 

efficiencies of the various ventilation 

hoods currently used to capture and 

control some of the fugitive emissions 

and the production rates for various 

products. Based on this information, we 

have derived the best estimates of 

fugitive emissions from these sources. 

Details are described in the Emissions 

Memo, which is available in the docket 

for this action. Nevertheless, there are 

still some uncertainties regarding the 

precise quantities of fugitive HAP being 

emitted from these plants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60253 

32Short-term mobility is movement from one 

micro-environment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

33U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

We recognize there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

the EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a 

model to estimate ambient pollutant 

concentrations, the user chooses certain 

options to apply. For RTR assessments, 

we select some model options that have 

the potential to overestimate ambient air 

concentrations (e.g., not including 

plume depletion or pollutant 

transformation). We select other model 

options that have the potential to 

underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not 

including building downwash). Other 

options that we select have the potential 

to either under- or overestimate ambient 

levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor 

locations). On balance, considering the 

directional nature of the uncertainties 

commonly present in ambient 

concentrations estimated by dispersion 

models, the approach we apply in the 

RTR assessments should yield unbiased 

estimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The EPA did not include the effects 

of human mobility on exposures in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.32 The 

approach of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR 

(by definition), nor does it affect the 

estimate of cancer incidence because the 

total population number remains the 

same. It does, however, affect the shape 

of the distribution of individual risks 

across the affected population, shifting 

it toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

high risk levels (e.g., 1-in-10 thousand 

or 1-in-1 million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. We reduce 

this uncertainty by analyzing large 

census blocks near facilities using aerial 

imagery and adjusting the location of 

the block centroid to better represent the 

population in the block, as well as 

adding additional receptor locations 

where the block population is not well 

represented by a single location. 

The assessment evaluates the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of 

an individual. In reality, both the length 

of time that modeled emission sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more 

or less than 70 years) and the domestic 

growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in 

the number or size of domestic 

facilities) will influence the future risks 

posed by a given source or source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in the 

unlikely scenario where a facility 

maintains, or even increases, its 

emissions levels over a period of more 

than 70 years, residents live beyond 70 

years at the same location, and the 

residents spend most of their days at 

that location, then the cancer inhalation 

risks could potentially be 

underestimated. However, annual 

cancer incidence estimates from 

exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by the 

length of time an emissions source 

operates. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient (outdoor) levels of pollutants. 

Because most people spend the majority 

of their time indoors, actual exposures 

may not be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, indoor levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overestimate of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.33

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that the EPA conducts as 

part of the risk review under section 112 

of the CAA that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology and the presence of 

humans at the location of the maximum 

concentration. In the acute screening 

assessment that we conduct under the 

RTR program, we assume that peak 

emissions from the source category and 

worst-case meteorological conditions 

co-occur, thus resulting in maximum 

ambient concentrations. These two 

events are unlikely to occur at the same 

time, making these assumptions 

conservative. We then include the 

additional assumption that a person is 

located at this point during this same 

time period. For this source category, 

these assumptions would tend to be 

worst-case actual exposures as it is 

unlikely that a person would be located 

at the point of maximum exposure 

during the time when peak emissions 

and worst-case meteorological 

conditions occur simultaneously. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

in Support of the September 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/

help_gloss.htm). 35An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 36According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).34 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.35 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer RfC and reference 

dose (RfD) values represent chronic 

exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, 

these values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty 

factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 

1994) which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available 

data. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,36 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. The UF are applied based 

on chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify appropriate human health effect 

dose-response assessment values for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources in this 

risk assessment, some HAP emitted by 

this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, 

these pollutants cannot be included in 

the quantitative risk assessment, which 

could result in quantitative estimates 

understating HAP risk. As we state 

above in section III.A.3, based on a 

recent in-depth examination of the 

available acute value for nickel 

(California EPA’s acute (1-hour) REL), 

we have concluded that this value is not 

appropriate for our regulatory needs in 

characterizing the potential for acute 

health risks. This conclusion takes into 

account the effect on which the acute 

REL is based, aspects of the 

methodology used in its derivation, and 

how this assessment stands in 

comparison to other comprehensive 

toxicological assessments which 

considered the broader nickel health 

effects database. Also, there are no 

AEGL–1 or -2 or ERPG–1 or -2 values 

available to use in this acute risk 

assessment. Therefore, we will not 

include nickel in our acute analysis for 

this source category or in future 

assessments unless and until an 

appropriate value becomes available. 

To help to alleviate this potential 

underestimate, where we conclude 

similarity with a HAP for which a doseresponse assessment value is available, 

we use that value as a surrogate for the 

assessment of the HAP for which no 

value is available. To the extent use of 

surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we 

may identify a need to increase priority 

for new IRIS assessment of that 

substance. We additionally note that, 

generally speaking, HAP of greatest 

concern due to environmental 

exposures and hazard are those for 

which dose-response assessments have 

been performed, reducing the likelihood 

of understating risk. Further, HAP not 

included in the quantitative assessment 

are assessed qualitatively and 

considered in the risk characterization 

that informs the risk management 

decisions, including with regard to 

consideration of HAP reductions 

achieved by various control options. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60255 

37 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

encompasses both variability in the range of 

expected inputs and screening results due to 

existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well 

as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate 

the true result. 

38 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty,’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

assessment, encompasses both variability in the 

range of expected inputs and screening results due 

to existing spatial, temporal and other factors, as 

well as uncertainty in being able to accurately 

estimate the true result. 

For a group of compounds that are 

unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

reference value of an individual 

compound in that group to estimate 

risk. Similarly, for an individual 

compound in a group (e.g., ethylene 

glycol diethyl ether) that does not have 

a specified reference value, we also 

apply the most protective reference 

value from the other compounds in the 

group to estimate risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

PB–HAP emissions to determine 

whether a refined assessment of the 

impacts from multipathway exposures 

is necessary. This determination is 

based on the results of a two-tiered 

screening analysis that relies on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental pollutant concentrations 

and human exposures for four PB–HAP. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR risk assessments and inherent to 

any assessment that relies on 

environmental modeling are model 

uncertainty and input uncertainty.37

Model uncertainty concerns whether the 

selected models are appropriate for the 

assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

actual processes that might occur for 

that situation. An example of model 

uncertainty is the question of whether 

the model adequately describes the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil. This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

multipathway risk assessments 

conducted in support of RTR. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

multipathway screen, we configured the 

models to avoid underestimating 

exposure and risk. This was 

accomplished by selecting upper-end 

values from nationally-representative 

data sets for the more influential 

parameters in the environmental model, 

including selection and spatial 

configuration of the area of interest, lake 

location and size, meteorology, surface 

water and soil characteristics and 

structure of the aquatic food web. We 

also assume an ingestion exposure 

scenario and values for human exposure 

factors that represent reasonable 

maximum exposures. 

In Tier II of the multipathway 

assessment, we refine the model inputs 

to account for meteorological patterns in 

the vicinity of the facility versus using 

upper-end national values and we 

identify the actual location of lakes near 

the facility rather than the default lake 

location that we apply in Tier I. By 

refining the screening approach in Tier 

II to account for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screen. The assumptions and the 

associated uncertainties regarding the 

selected ingestion exposure scenario are 

the same for Tier I and Tier II. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

multipathway assessment, our approach 

to addressing model input uncertainty is 

generally cautious. We choose model 

inputs from the upper end of the range 

of possible values for the influential 

parameters used in the models, and we 

assume that the exposed individual 

exhibits ingestion behavior that would 

lead to a high total exposure. This 

approach reduces the likelihood of not 

identifying high risks for adverse 

impacts. 

Despite the uncertainties, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do 

screen out, we are confident that the 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts on human health is very low. 

On the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility and that 

a refined multipathway analysis for the 

site might be necessary to obtain a more 

accurate risk characterization for the 

source category. 

For further information on 

uncertainties and the Tier I and II 

screening methods, refer to the risk 

document Appendix 4, Technical 

Support Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR. 

We also completed a refined multipathway assessment for this 

supplemental proposal. The refined 

assessment contains considerably less 

uncertainty compared to the Tier I and 

Tier II screens. Nevertheless, some 

uncertainties also exist with the refined 

assessments. The refined multi-pathway 

assessment and related uncertainties are 

described in detail in the risk document 

Appendix 10, Residual Risk Assessment 

for the Ferroalloys Production Source 

Category in Support of the September 

2014 Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

f. Uncertainties in the Environmental 

Risk Screening Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

environmental HAP emissions to 

perform an environmental screening 

assessment. The environmental 

screening assessment is based on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental HAP concentrations. The 

same models, specifically the 

TRIM.FaTE multipathway model and 

the AERMOD air dispersion model, are 

used to estimate environmental HAP 

concentrations for both the human 

multipathway screening analysis and for 

the environmental screening analysis. 

Therefore, both screening assessments 

have similar modeling uncertainties. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR environmental screening 

assessments—and inherent to any 

assessment that relies on environmental 

modeling—are model uncertainty and 

input uncertainty.38

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

movement and accumulation of 

environmental HAP emissions in the 

environment. For example, does the 

model adequately describe the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

environmental risk assessments 

conducted in support of our RTR 

analyses. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

environmental screen for PB–HAP, we 

configured the models to avoid 

underestimating exposure and risk to 

reduce the likelihood that the results 

indicate the risks are lower than they 

actually are. This was accomplished by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

selecting upper-end values from 

nationally-representative data sets for 

the more influential parameters in the 

environmental model, including 

selection and spatial configuration of 

the area of interest, the location and size 

of any bodies of water, meteorology, 

surface water and soil characteristics 

and structure of the aquatic food web. 

In Tier I, we used the maximum facilityspecific emissions for the PB–HAP 

(other than lead compounds, which 

were evaluated by comparison to the 

secondary lead NAAQS) that were 

included in the environmental 

screening assessment and each of the 

media when comparing to ecological 

benchmarks. This is consistent with the 

conservative design of Tier I of the 

screen. In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis for PB–HAP, we 

refine the model inputs to account for 

meteorological patterns in the vicinity 

of the facility versus using upper-end 

national values, and we identify the 

locations of water bodies near the 

facility location. By refining the 

screening approach in Tier II to account 

for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screen. To better represent widespread 

impacts, the modeled soil 

concentrations are averaged in Tier II to 

obtain one average soil concentration 

value for each facility and for each PB– 

HAP. For PB–HAP concentrations in 

water, sediment and fish tissue, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. 

For the environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases, we employ a 

single-tiered approach. We use the 

modeled air concentrations and 

compare those with ecological 

benchmarks. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

environmental screening assessment, 

our approach to addressing model input 

uncertainty is generally cautious. We 

choose model inputs from the upper 

end of the range of possible values for 

the influential parameters used in the 

models, and we assume that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

exposure. This approach reduces the 

likelihood of not identifying potential 

risks for adverse environmental impacts. 

Uncertainty also exists in the 

ecological benchmarks for the 

environmental risk screening analysis. 

We established a hierarchy of preferred 

benchmark sources to allow selection of 

benchmarks for each environmental 

HAP at each ecological assessment 

endpoint. In general, EPA benchmarks 

used at a programmatic level (e.g., 

Office of Water, Superfund Program) 

were used if available. If not, we used 

EPA benchmarks used in regional 

programs (e.g., Superfund Program). If 

benchmarks were not available at a 

programmatic or regional level, we used 

benchmarks developed by other 

agencies (e.g., NOAA) or by state 

agencies. 

In all cases (except for lead 

compounds, which were evaluated 

through a comparison to the NAAQS), 

we searched for benchmarks at the 

following three effect levels, as 

described in section III.A.6. of this 

notice: 

1. A no-effect level (i.e., NOAEL). 

2. Threshold-effect level (i.e., LOAEL). 

3. Probable effect level (i.e., PEL). 

For some ecological assessment 

endpoint/environmental HAP 

combinations, we could identify 

benchmarks for all three effect levels, 

but for most, we could not. In one case, 

where different agencies derived 

significantly different numbers to 

represent a threshold for effect, we 

included both. In several cases, only a 

single benchmark was available. In 

cases where multiple effect levels were 

available for a particular PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoint, we used all of the 

available effect levels to help us to 

determine whether risk exists and if the 

risks could be considered significant 

and widespread. 

The EPA evaluates the following 

seven HAP in the environmental risk 

screening assessment: Cadmium, 

dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 

inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), 

lead compounds, HCl and HF, where 

applicable. These seven HAP represent 

pollutants that can cause adverse 

impacts for plants and animals either 

through direct exposure to HAP in the 

air or through exposure to HAP that is 

deposited from the air onto soils and 

surface waters. These seven HAP also 

represent those HAP for which we can 

conduct a meaningful environmental 

risk screening assessment. For other 

HAP not included in our screening 

assessment, the model has not been 

parameterized such that it can be used 

for that purpose. In some cases, 

depending on the HAP, we may not 

have appropriate multipathway models 

that allow us to predict the 

concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 

acknowledges that other HAP beyond 

the seven HAP that we are evaluating 

may have the potential to cause adverse 

environmental effects and, therefore, the 

EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in 

the future, as modeling science and 

resources allow. 

Further information on uncertainties 

and the Tier I and II screening methods 

is provided in Appendix 4 of the 

document ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR: Summary of 

Approach and Evaluation.’’ Also, see 

the Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

in Support of the September 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, available in the 

docket for this action. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this 

supplemental proposal? 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, in evaluating and developing 

standards under section 112(f)(2), we 

apply a two-step process to address 

residual risk. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

limit on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 39 of approximately 

[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 

million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 

1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA 

must determine the emissions standards 

necessary to bring risks to an acceptable 

level without considering costs. In the 

second step of the process, the EPA 

considers whether the emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as 

other relevant factors, including costs 

and economic impacts, technological 

feasibility, and other factors relevant to 

each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA 

must promulgate emission standards 

necessary to provide an ample margin of 

safety. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

considered a number of human health 

risk metrics associated with emissions 

from the categories under review, 

including the MIR, the number of 

persons in various risk ranges, cancer 

incidence, the maximum non-cancer HI 

and the maximum acute non-cancer 

hazard. See, e.g., 72 FR 25138, May 3, 

2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006. The 

EPA considered this health information 

for both actual and allowable emissions. 

See, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010; 

75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010; 76 FR 

29032, May 19, 2011. The EPA also 

discussed risk estimation uncertainties 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60257 

40EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo 

to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 

entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key 

Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk 

Assessment Methodologies. 

and considered the uncertainties in the 

determination of acceptable risk and 

ample margin of safety in these past 

actions. The EPA considered this same 

type of information in support of this 

action. 

The agency is considering these 

various measures of health information 

to inform our determinations of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

under CAA section 112(f). As explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, 

September 14, 1989. Similarly, with 

regard to the ample margin of safety 

determination, ‘‘the Agency again 

considers all of the health risk and other 

health information considered in the 

first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Benzene NESHAP approach 

provides flexibility regarding factors the 

EPA may consider in making 

determinations and how the EPA may 

weigh those factors for each source 

category. In responding to comment on 

our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA explained that: 

‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator 

permits consideration of multiple measures 

of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure 

be considered, but also incidence, the 

presence of non-cancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 

way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as the 

impact on the general public. These factors 

can then be weighed in each individual case. 

This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator 

ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 

public by employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, which 

did not exclude the use of any particular 

measure of public health risk from the EPA’s 

consideration with respect to CAA section 

112 regulations, and thereby implicitly 

permits consideration of any and all 

measures of health risk which the 

Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are 

appropriate to determining what will ‘protect 

the public health’.’’ 

See 54 FR at 38057, September 14, 1989. 

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one 

factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately one in 10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also 

consider the uncertainties associated 

with the various risk analyses, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble, in 

our determinations of acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. 

The EPA notes that it has not 

considered certain health information to 

date in making residual risk 

determinations. At this time, we do not 

attempt to quantify those HAP risks that 

may be associated with emissions from 

other facilities that do not include the 

source categories in question, mobile 

source emissions, natural source 

emissions, persistent environmental 

pollution or atmospheric transformation 

in the vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The agency understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. We recognize that such 

consideration may be particularly 

important when assessing non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., RfCs) are 

based on the assumption that thresholds 

exist for adverse health effects. For 

example, the agency recognizes that, 

although exposures attributable to 

emissions from a source category or 

facility alone may not indicate the 

potential for increased risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects in a 

population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the SAB advised the EPA 

‘‘that RTR assessments will be most 

useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in 

the broader context of aggregate and 

cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 40

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA is 

incorporating cumulative risk analyses 

into its RTR risk assessments, including 

those reflected in this proposal. The 

agency is: (1) Conducting facility-wide 

assessments, which include source 

category emission points as well as 

other emission points within the 

facilities; (2) considering sources in the 

same category whose emissions result in 

exposures to the same individuals; and 

(3) for some persistent and 

bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing 

the ingestion route of exposure. In 

addition, the RTR risk assessments have 

always considered aggregate cancer risk 

from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer hazard indices from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target 

organ system. 

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. Because of the contribution to 

total HAP risk from emission sources 

other than those that we have studied in 

depth during this RTR review, such 

estimates of total HAP risks would have 

significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than the source category or 

facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate 

or cumulative assessments would 

compound those uncertainties, making 

the assessments too unreliable. 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the MACT standards 

were promulgated. Where we identified 

such developments, in order to inform 

our decision of whether it is 

‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions 

standards, we analyzed the technical 

feasibility of applying these 

developments and the estimated costs, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

41Total phosphorus was also measured for the 

ICR using EPA Method 29; however this method 

does not distinguish between white phosphorus 

(which is a non-HAP) and red phosphorus (which 

is a HAP). Due to the uncertainty of the percentage 

of red phosphorus in the total phosphorus test 

results, it was concluded that phosphorus would 

not be incorporated in the emissions used for 

modeling. 

energy implications, non-air 

environmental impacts, as well as 

considering the emission reductions. 

We also considered the appropriateness 

of applying controls to new sources 

versus retrofitting existing sources. 

Based on our analyses of the available 

data and information, we identified 

potential developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For 

this exercise, we considered any of the 

following to be a ‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original MACT standards. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

MACT standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original MACT standards. 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards. 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original MACT 

standards). 

We reviewed a variety of data sources 

in our investigation of potential 

practices, processes or controls to 

consider. Among the sources we 

reviewed were the NESHAP for various 

industries that were promulgated since 

the MACT standards being reviewed in 

this action. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these regulatory actions 

to identify any practices, processes and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could be applied to emission 

sources in the Ferroalloys Production 

source category, as well as the costs, 

non-air impacts and energy implications 

associated with the use of these 

technologies. Additionally, we 

requested information from facilities 

regarding developments in practices, 

processes or control technology. Finally, 

we reviewed information from other 

sources, such as state and/or local 

permitting agency databases and 

industry-supported databases. 

For the 2011 proposal, our technology 

review focused on the identification and 

evaluation of developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies that 

have occurred since the 1999 NESHAP 

was promulgated. In cases where the 

technology review identified such 

developments, we conducted an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

applying these developments, along 

with the estimated impacts (costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions, 

etc.) of applying these developments. 

We then made decisions on whether it 

is necessary to propose amendments to 

the 1999 NESHAP to require any of the 

identified developments. Based on our 

analyses of the data and information 

collected by the 2010 ICR and our 

general understanding of the industry 

and other available information on 

potential controls for this industry, we 

identified several potential 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies. 

Based on our technology review for 

the 2011 proposed rule, we determined 

that there had been advances in 

emissions control measures since the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP was 

originally promulgated in 1999. Based 

on that review, we proposed lower PM 

emissions limits for the process vents 

because we determined that the existing 

add-on control devices (baghouses and 

wet venture scrubbers) were achieving 

better control than that reflected by the 

emissions limits in the 1999 MACT rule. 

Furthermore, based on that previous 

technology review, to reduce fugitive 

process emissions, in 2011 we proposed 

a requirement for sources to enclose the 

furnace building, prevent the fugitive 

emissions from being released to the 

atmosphere by maintaining the furnace 

building under negative pressure and 

collect and duct those fugitive 

emissions to a control device. We 

proposed that approach in 2011, 

because at that time, we believed it 

represented a technically-feasible costeffective advance in emissions control 

since the Ferroalloys Production 

NESHAP was originally promulgated in 

1999. Additional details regarding the 

previously-conducted technology 

review can be found in the Technology 

Review for Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category (Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895–0044), which is 

available in the docket and are 

discussed in the preamble to the 2011 

proposal (76 FR 72508). However, we 

received significant adverse public 

comments regarding the proposed 

requirement for full-enclosure with 

negative pressure. After reviewing and 

considering the comments and other 

information regarding the costs and 

feasibility of full-enclosure, we 

determined that full-enclosure with 

negative pressure may not be feasible for 

these facilities and, if feasible, would be 

much more costly than what we had 

estimated for the 2011 proposal. 

Therefore we evaluated other potential 

approaches to reduce fugitive process 

emissions based on enhanced local 

capture and control of the fugitive 

emissions and secondary capture and 

control, which are described in more 

detail below. 

We also gathered additional emissions 

data for the process vents. Therefore, we 

have updated and revised our 

technology review for the process vent 

emissions and fugitive emissions 

control options. The following 

paragraphs describe the up-dated and 

revised technology review and 

additional analyses that were performed 

for today’s supplemental proposal. 

1. Process Vent Emission Limits 

The ferroalloy production facilities 

have add-on control devices such as 

venturi scrubbers or fabric filters to 

control emissions of metal HAP from 

the furnace operations. The furnace 

operations include charging, smelting 

and tapping. Other operations that take 

place inside the furnace buildings 

include casting and ladle treatment. The 

vast majority of emissions from the 

charging and smelting processes are 

currently vented to the add-on control 

devices. However, the percent of 

emissions currently captured and 

controlled from tapping, ladle treatment 

and casting are considerably lower and 

varies across furnaces. The ferroalloy 

production facilities also use add-on 

control devices to reduce emissions 

from the metal oxygen refining (MOR) 

process, local ventilation sources (e.g., 

tapping fugitive control device) and the 

product crushing operations. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of these 

emission control technologies currently 

used to reduce emissions and meet the 

emission limits in the 1999 MACT rule, 

an ICR under section 114 of the Clean 

Air Act was sent to each of the 

ferroalloy production facilities on April 

28, 2010 and December 21, 2012 to 

gather source emissions test data and 

other information for the furnaces, the 

MOR process and the product crushing 

operations. The HAP source test data 

that were collected from the control 

device outlet for each furnace include: 

metal HAP (arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium (total and Cr+6), lead 

compounds, manganese, mercury and 

nickel) 41, HCl, formaldehyde, PAH, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60259 

42Total phosphorus was also measured using 

Method 29, but was not used in the technology 

review. 

PCB and chlorodibenzodioxins and 

chlorodibenzofurans (CDD/CDF). In 

addition, emissions were measured from 

the furnace control device outlet for two 

non-HAP air pollutants (carbon 

monoxide and particulate matter). The 

pollutants measured from the MOR and 

crushing and sizing operations in 2010 

include particulate matter (PM) and 

metal HAP (arsenic, total chromium, 

lead compounds, manganese, mercury 

and nickel).42 In addition, the facilities 

provided compliance test reports from 

2011 and 2012 and additional emissions 

data they collected voluntarily, which 

included test data for PM, metal HAP 

(arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, lead 

compounds, manganese, mercury and 

nickel) and organic HAP (PAH, PCB, 

CDD/CDF) from the furnace control 

device outlets. 

The test data collected from the ICR 

responses, the compliance reports and 

other testing indicate that the PM 

emissions from the furnace process 

vents (also known as process stacks) are 

well below the level of emissions 

allowed by the current emission 

standards in subpart XXX. In the 2011 

proposal, we proposed lower PM limits 

to reflect the better performance of these 

sources. We also proposed lower limits 

for the MOR process and the crushing 

and screening process vents in the 2011 

proposal. We did not receive any 

additional test data for the MOR process 

or the crushing and screening process 

since the 2011 proposal and have 

received no other information indicating 

that changes to the limits we proposed 

in 2011 for these sources are necessary, 

therefore we plan no changes to the 

proposed emission standards in this 

supplemental proposal for the MOR 

process and the crushing and screening 

processes. 

However, for the furnace process 

vents, we did receive additional data 

and based on that data combined with 

the data we already had, we evaluated 

whether it is appropriate to propose 

revised emissions limits for PM from the 

furnace process vents. We also reevaluated the proposed emission limits 

for the local ventilation system based on 

the new test data received. Further 

discussions of the re-evaluations and 

the proposed revised limits are 

presented in Section IV below. 

For purposes of addressing new 

ferroalloy production facilities, we 

considered the feasibility of more 

stringent emission limits. Specifically, 

we examined what emission level could 

be met using available add-on control 

devices and the emission concentrations 

that could be achieved by the use of the 

control devices. The results of this 

analysis and the proposed decisions are 

described in Section IV below. 

2. Process Fugitive Control Standards 

We re-evaluated the costs and 

operational feasibility associated with 

the option of requiring full building 

enclosure with negative pressure at all 

openings. We also consulted with 

ventilation experts working with hot 

process fugitives like those found in the 

ferroalloys industry (e.g., electric arc 

furnace steel mini-mills and secondary 

lead smelters). Furthermore, we 

received detailed information from each 

of the Ferroalloys facilities that provides 

an alternative approach to achieve 

significant reductions of process fugitive 

emissions using enhanced local capture, 

including primary and secondary hoods, 

which would effectively capture most of 

the fugitive process emissions and route 

these emissions to a PM control device 

(e.g., baghouse or wet scrubber). The 

plans provided by the facilities are 

designed to achieve a high overall level 

of control. These plans are available in 

the docket for this action (identified by 

document numbers: EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0895–0106 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0895–0073). 

We also reviewed other options to 

control process fugitive emissions. 

When we consider the evolution of the 

EPA rules on process fugitives in the 

metallurgical industry, we observe that 

the primary emphasis on quantifiable 

emission standards is based on 

controlling stack emissions with a high 

degree of efficiency. Standards related 

to emissions capture are generally 

related to parameter monitoring of flow 

rates and damper positions of capture 

equipment when the stack emission test 

is occurring. There typically has not 

been an independent evaluation of the 

effectiveness of process fugitive control 

through local ventilation in a 

quantitative, rigorous manner. 

However, there is a history of 

addressing fugitive emissions by 

requiring a building opacity limit, 

including a 20 percent limit in the 

current subpart XXX (although this limit 

also contains a 60-percent short-term 

excursion and it excludes some key 

process fugitives events such as casting). 

Subpart FFFFF of Part 63, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel 

Manufacturing Facilities, contains 

various building opacity limits ranging 

from 20 percent for existing sources to 

10 percent for new sources. Section 

60.272a in the Subpart AAa—Standards 

of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric 

Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels Constructed 

After August 17, 1983 establishes a shop 

building opacity limit of 6 percent, due 

solely to the operations of affected 

electric arc furnace (EAF)(s) or argonoxygen decarburization vessel (AOD 

vessel)(s). Building opacity limits in 

these rules serve as an emissions 

standard for the control of process 

fugitive emissions. Opacity limits can 

ensure effective capture and control of 

these fugitive emissions if they are 

established at the appropriate levels and 

have appropriate compliance 

monitoring requirements to ensure the 

fugitive emissions are minimized 

continuously over time. 

After reviewing and evaluating 

available information regarding 

approaches to reduce process fugitive 

emissions, we revised our analysis of 

options to control these fugitive 

emissions. The results of the revised 

analyses of control options for process 

fugitive emissions are summarized in 

Section IV and also presented in the 

Cost Impacts of Control Options to 

Address Fugitive HAP Emissions for the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

Supplemental Proposal document and 

the Revised Technology Review for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

for the Supplemental Proposal 

document (Revised Technology Review 

document), which are available in the 

docket. 

IV. Revised Analytical Results and 

Proposed Decisions for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

112(d)(3)? 

As described previously, CAA section 

112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate 

national technology-based emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for listed source categories, 

including this source category. In the 

2011 proposal, we proposed emissions 

limits for mercury, PAHs and HCl, 

which were previously unregulated 

HAP, pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and 

112(d)(3). After proposal, we received a 

substantial amount of additional data 

for these HAP and re-analyzed the 

proposed limits for these HAP 

considering the additional data. 

Based on those analyses we 

determined it is appropriate to propose 

revised limits for these three HAP. 

Therefore, in today’s supplemental 

notice, we are proposing revised 

emissions limits pursuant to section 

112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) for mercury, 

PAHs and HCl. In this section, we 

describe how we developed the revised 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

43 Gibbons, R. D. (1987), Statistical Prediction 

Intervals for the Evaluation of Ground-Water 

Quality. Groundwater, 25: 455–465 and Hart, 

Barbara F. and Janet Chaseling, Optimizing Landfill 

Ground Water Analytes—New South Wales, 

Australia, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 

2003, 23, 2. 

44Wan, Can; Xu, Zhao; Pinson, Pierre; Dong, 

Zhao Yang; Wong, Kit Po. Optimal Prediction 

Intervals of Wind Power Generation. 2014. IEEE 

Transactions on Power Systems, ISSN 0885–8950, 

29(3): pp. 1166–1174. 

45 Khosravi, Abbas; Mazloumi, Ehsan; Nahavandi, 

Saeid; Creighton, Doug; van Lint, J. W. C. Prediction 

Intervals to Account for Uncertainties in Travel 

Time Prediction. 2011. IEEE Transactions on 

Intelligent Transportation Systems, ISSN 1524– 

9050, 12(2):537–547. 

46Ashkan Zarnani; Petr Musilek; Jana 

Heckenbergerova. 2014. Clustering numerical 

weather forecasts to obtain statistical prediction 

intervals. Meteorological Applications, ISSN 1350– 

4827. 21(3): 605. 

47Rayer, Stefan; Smith, Stanley K; Tayman, Jeff. 

2009. Empirical Prediction Intervals for County 

Population Forecasts. Population Research and 

Policy Review, 28(6): 773–793. 

48Nicholas A Som; Nicolas P Zegre; Lisa M 

Ganio; Arne E Skaugset. 2012. Corrected prediction 

intervals for change detection in paired watershed 

studies. Hydrological Sciences Journal, ISSN 0262– 

6667, 57(1): 134–143 

proposed standards for these HAP, 

including how we calculated MACT 

floor limits, how we account for 

variability in those floor calculations 

and how we considered beyond the 

floor (BTF) options. The revised MACT 

analyses for these previously 

unregulated pollutants (i.e., mercury, 

PAH and HCl) are presented in the 

following paragraphs. For more 

information on these analyses, see the 

Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

and the Mercury Control Options and 

Impacts for the Ferroalloys Production 

Industry documents which are available 

in the docket for this action. 

1. How do we develop MACT floor 

limits? 

As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 

FR 72508), the MACT floor limit for 

existing sources is calculated based on 

the average performance of the best 

performing units in each category or 

subcategory, and also on a consideration 

of these units’ variability, and the 

MACT floor for new sources is based on 

the single best performing source, with 

a similar consideration of that source’s 

variability. The MACT floor for new 

sources cannot be less stringent than the 

emissions performance that is achieved 

in practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. To account for variability in the 

operation and emissions, the stack test 

data were used to calculate the average 

emissions and the 99 percent upper 

predictive limit (UPL) to derive the 

MACT floor limits. For more 

information regarding the general use of 

the UPL and why it is appropriate for 

calculating MACT floors, see the 

memorandum titled Use of the Upper 

Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT 

Floors (UPL Memo), which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

Furthermore, with regard to calculation 

of MACT Floor limits based on limited 

datasets, we considered additional 

factors as summarized below and 

described in more details in the 

memorandum titled: Approach for 

Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to 

Limited Datasets, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

2. What is our approach for applying the 

upper prediction limit to limited 

datasets? 

The UPL approach addresses 

variability of emissions data from the 

best performing source or sources in 

setting MACT standards. The UPL also 

accounts for uncertainty associated with 

emission values in a dataset, which can 

be influenced by components such as 

the number of samples available for 

developing MACT standards and the 

number of samples that will be collected 

to assess compliance with the emission 

limit. The UPL approach has been used 

in many environmental science 

applications.43 44 45 46 47 48 As explained 

in more detail in the UPL Memo, the 

EPA uses the UPL approach to 

reasonably estimate the emissions 

performance of the best performing 

source or sources to establish MACT 

floor standards. 

With regard to the derivation of 

MACT limits using limited datasets, in 

a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

decision in National Association of 

Clean Water Agencies v. EPA (NACWA), 

which involved challenges to EPA’s 

MACT standards for sewage sludge 

incinerators, questions were raised 

regarding the application of the UPL to 

limited datasets. We have since 

addressed these questions, as explained 

in detail in the memorandum titled: 

Approach for Applying the Upper 

Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets 

(i.e., Limited Dataset Memo), which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

We seek comments on the approach 

described in the Limited Dataset Memo 

and whether there are other approaches 

we should consider for such datasets. 

We also seek comments on the 

application of this approach for the 

derivation of MACT limits based on 

limited datasets in this supplemental 

proposal, which are described in the 

following sections of today’s notice and 

in the Limited Dataset Memo. 

3. How did we apply the approach for 

limited datasets to limited datasets in 

the ferroalloys source category? 

For the ferroalloys source category, 

we have limited datasets for the 

following pollutants and subcategories: 

PAHs for existing and new furnaces 

producing ferromanganese (FeMn); 

PAHs for new furnaces producing 

silicon manganese (SiMn); mercury for 

new furnaces producing SiMn; mercury 

for existing and new furnaces producing 

FeMn; and HCl for new furnaces 

producing FeMn or SiMn. Therefore, we 

evaluated these specific datasets to 

determine whether it is appropriate to 

make any modifications to the approach 

used to calculate MACT floors for each 

of these datasets. 

For each dataset, we performed the 

steps outlined in the Limited Dataset 

Memo, including: Ensuring that we 

selected the data distribution that best 

represents each dataset; ensuring that 

the correct equation for the distribution 

was then applied to the data; and 

comparing individual components of 

each small dataset to determine if the 

standards based on small datasets 

reasonably represent the performance of 

the units included in the dataset. The 

results of each analysis are described 

and presented below in the applicable 

sections for each of the three HAP (i.e., 

mercury, PAHs and HCl). We seek 

comments regarding the specific 

application of the limited dataset 

approach used to derive the proposed 

emissions limits for Hg, PAHs and HCl 

described in the sections below. 

4. How did we develop proposed limits 

for mercury emissions? 

a. Background on Mercury 

As described above, we obtained 

significant additional data on mercury 

emissions from the two ferroalloys 

production facilities since the 2011 

proposal. In particular, we obtained data 

from each furnace and for each product 

type (ferromanganese and 

silicomanganese). While the mercury 

test data from the 2010 ICR were 

collected using EPA Method 29 and the 

mercury test data from the 2012 ICR and 

other submitted test reports were 

collected using EPA Method 30B, the 

mercury test results from the two test 

methods were considered to be 

comparable and were used in the MACT 

Floor analysis. All of the test reports 

provided analytical results for mercury 

that were above the detection limit. 

The raw materials used to produce 

ferroalloys contain various amounts of 

mercury, which is emitted during the 

smelting process. These mercury 

emissions are derived primarily from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60261 

the manganese ore although there may 

be trace amounts in the coke or coal 

used in the smelting process. Some of 

the mercury that is in oxidized form is 

captured on the particulate matter (PM) 

and then collected in the particle 

control device (e.g., fabric filter or wet 

scrubber). In contrast, most of the 

gaseous elemental mercury is not 

captured by these particulate control 

devices and is largely emitted to the 

atmosphere. Based on the available 

emissions test data, we estimate Eramet 

(which, as noted above, produces FeMn 

and SiMn) emits about 342 pounds per 

year of mercury from their furnaces and 

that Felman, which produces only 

SiMn, emits about 35 lb/yr of mercury 

from their furnaces. Pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are 

proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 

include emission limits for mercury. 

b. Calculation of MACT Floor Limits for 

Mercury 

With regard to determining 

appropriate MACT limits for mercury, 

importantly, the new test data confirm 

that ferromanganese (FeMn) production 

has substantially higher mercury 

emissions compared to silicomanganese 

(SiMn) production and that emissions 

are considerably higher at Eramet as 

compared to Felman. This finding is 

based on an analysis of the productspecific data sets. Furthermore, we 

evaluated differences in the processes 

and input materials to try to determine 

the reasons for the significant difference 

in mercury emissions. Based on this 

evaluation, we have determined the 

input material recipes for producing the 

different products are quite different. In 

the case of FeMn production, much 

more of the Mn ore and high carbon 

coke are used to reduce the MnO2 in the 

ore to Mn to produce FeMn. We 

conclude the difference in emissions of 

mercury is due to the significant 

differences in the input materials and 

recipe for FeMn as compared to SiMn 

production. 

Because of the significant differences 

in the input material and the mercury 

emissions between FeMn and SiMn, we 

determined that subcategories should be 

created for ferromanganese and 

silicomanganese production, with 

separate MACT limits for mercury 

proposed for each ferroalloys product 

(FeMn and SiMn). 

The MACT floor dataset for mercury 

from existing and new furnaces 

producing FeMn includes 6 test runs 

from a single furnace. As described 

above, this dataset (for the calculation of 

MACT limits for mercury from furnaces 

producing FeMn) was considered 

limited and therefore we followed the 

steps described in the Limited Dataset 

Memo to determine the appropriate 

MACT floor limits for mercury for 

furnaces producing FeMn. We first 

determined that the dataset is best 

represented by a normal distribution 

and ensured that we used the correct 

equation for the distribution. Because 

the floor for both existing and new 

furnaces is based on the performance of 

a single unit, our evaluation of the data 

was limited to ensuring that the 

emission limit is a reasonable estimate 

of the performance of the unit based on 

our knowledge about the process and 

controls. Accordingly, we compared the 

calculated emission limit to the highest 

measured value and the average shortterm emissions from the unit, and found 

that the calculated emission limit is 

about 2.5 times the short-term average 

from the unit, which is within the range 

that we see when we evaluate larger 

data sets using our MACT floor 

calculation procedures. The fairly wide 

range in mercury emissions shown by 

the available data for this best 

performing unit indicate that variability 

is significant, and we determined that 

the emission limit is representative of 

the actual performance of the unit upon 

which the limit is based, considering 

variability. Therefore, we determined 

that no changes to our standard floor 

calculation procedure were warranted 

for this pollutant and subcategory, and 

we are proposing that the MACT floor 

is 170 mg/dscm for Hg from existing 

furnaces producing FeMn. We also note 

that while we calculated the same 

MACT floor value for new sources, we 

are proposing a beyond-the-floor 

standard for new sources, which is 

discussed later in this section of this 

preamble. 

The MACT floor dataset for mercury 

from new furnaces producing SiMn 

includes 3 test runs from a single 

furnace (furnace #7 at Felman) that we 

identified as the best performing unit 

based on average emissions. After 

determining that the dataset is best 

represented by a normal distribution 

and ensuring that we used the correct 

equation for the distribution, we 

evaluated the variance of this unit 

(furnace #7 at Felman). Our analysis 

showed that this unit, identified as the 

best unit based on average emissions, 

also had the lowest variance, indicating 

consistent performance. Therefore, we 

determined that the emission limit 

reasonably accounts for variability and 

that no changes to the standard floor 

calculation procedure were warranted 

for this pollutant and subcategory, and 

we are proposing that the MACT floor 

is 4.0 mg/dscm for Hg from new furnaces 

producing SiMn. 

With regard to mercury emissions 

from existing furnaces producing SiMn, 

we have 12 test runs in our dataset. This 

data set was not determined to be a 

limited data set. Using the 99 percent 

UPL method described above, we 

calculated the MACT floor limit (or 99 

percent UPL) for exhaust mercury 

concentrations from existing furnaces 

producing SiMn to be 12 mg/dscm. 

The MACT floor limits for mercury 

for existing furnaces are higher than the 

actual emissions measured during the 

ICR performance tests at each plant due 

to an allowance for variability reflected 

in the UPL. We anticipate that both of 

the existing sources would be able to 

meet these product-specific MACT 

Floor limits for existing sources without 

installing additional controls. Therefore, 

the costs and reductions for the MACT 

floor option were estimated to be zero 

because we conclude that the facilities 

would be able to meet the mercury 

limits with their current furnace 

controls. 

The next step in establishing MACT 

standards is the BTF analysis. In this 

step, we investigate other mechanisms 

for further reducing HAP emissions that 

are more stringent than the MACT floor 

level of control in order to ‘‘require the 

maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions’’ of HAP. In setting such 

standards, section 112(d)(2) requires the 

Agency to consider the cost of achieving 

the additional emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. Historically, these factors 

have included factors such as solid 

waste impacts of a control, effects of 

emissions on bodies of water, as well as 

the energy impacts. 

c. Beyond the Floor Analysis for 

Mercury for Existing Furnaces 

As described below, we considered 

BTF control options to further reduce 

emissions of mercury. The BTF mercury 

control options were developed 

assuming sub-categorization of furnace 

melting operations into ferromanganese 

production operations and 

silicomanganese production operations 

and installing activated carbon injection 

(ACI) technology with brominated 

carbon to control mercury emissions. 

The BTF mercury limits would be 

based on the estimated mercury 

emission reduction that can be achieved 

through the use of ACI and brominated 

carbon. The bromine in the activated 

carbon can oxidize elemental mercury 

(Hg0) to oxidized mercury (Hg+2). The 

oxidized mercury is then suitable for 

capture on the activated carbon sorbent 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

49Sargent & Lundy, IPM Model—Revisions to 

Cost and Performance for APC Technologies, 

Mercury Control Cost Development, Final, March 

2013. 

50Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R to 

Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MICG, Mercury 

Control Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys 

Production Industry, March 16, 2014. 

51Michael E Berndt, Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals, 

Minnesota Taconite Mercury Control Advisory 

Committee: Summary of Phase One Research 

Results (2010–2012), November 29, 2012. http://

files.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/reclamation/

berndt_2012_final.pdf. 

or further reacts with the bromine to 

produce mercuric bromide (HgBr2). Both 

the oxidized mercury and the mercuric 

bromide can be removed using a PM 

control device. It is generally accepted 

that the installation of ACI in 

conjunction with a fabric filter achieves 

at least 90 percent reduction of 

mercury.49

All three furnaces at Felman and one 

of the two furnaces at Eramet (Furnace 

#1) are equipped with a fabric filter 

system to reduce PM. The other furnace 

at Eramet (Furnace #12) controls PM 

using a wet venturi scrubber. Limited 

data are available for mercury reduction 

using ACI with a venturi scrubber 

system, as described in the mercury 

control options memorandum.50

However, we identified one study 

conducted by the Minnesota Taconite 

Mercury Control Advisory Committee 

that evaluated mercury reductions from 

particulate scrubber systems and ACI.51

In 2011, a field trial was conducted at 

Hibbing Taconite to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of brominated ACI in 

controlling mercury emissions from a 

taconite facility. The trial of the 

brominated ACI system was conducted 

in September and October 2011 and it 

was determined that 75 percent Hg 

removal could be achieved with a 

brominated ACI rate of about 3 lb/

MMacf (126 lb/hr) for the taconite iron 

ore processing sources. This 75 percent 

mercury reduction was demonstrated 

during a two-week continuous injection 

run in this study. The project also noted 

that better mercury removal results 

could be achieved with improved 

sorbent distribution. Therefore, 

although the ferroalloys production 

furnaces are different than the taconite 

production sources, we assume that the 

retrofit of ACI on the furnace at Eramet 

controlled by a wet scrubber would 

achieve 50 percent additional mercury 

reduction beyond the level of control 

that the scrubber is currently achieving. 

Because of the lower potential mercury 

reductions expected for brominated 

carbon ACI and a venturi scrubber 

(compared to the reductions that would 

be achieved with use of ACI with fabric 

filters), we determined that a reduction 

of 50 percent should be used in 

establishing the BTF mercury emissions 

limit to ensure that the limit could be 

achieved with brominated ACI on both 

furnaces at all times during FeMn 

production. Therefore, the BTF limit for 

FeMn production for existing sources 

would be 82 mg/dscm. 

We estimated the capital costs, 

annualized costs, emissions reductions 

and cost effectiveness for the BTF limits 

for FeMn and SiMn production sources. 

The details regarding how these limits 

were derived and the estimated costs 

and expected reductions of mercury 

emissions by installing ACI controls, are 

provided in the Mercury Control 

Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys 

Production Industry document which is 

available in the docket. 

Regarding the BTF control option for 

existing sources that produce 

ferromanganese, we estimated the costs 

and reductions based on the installation 

of ACI on Furnaces 1 and 12 at Eramet 

with operation only during the 

production of ferromanganese and a 

polishing baghouse on Furnace 1. Other 

costs include labor, materials and waste 

disposal. The emissions and annual cost 

for this BTF control option are based on 

the assumption that both furnaces at 

Eramet produce ferromanganese 50 

percent of the time annually and 

produce SiMn the other 50 percent of 

the year. We based this reasonable 

assumption on available information 

regarding production patterns for the 2 

products at Eramet. The estimated 

mercury reduction that would be 

achieved at Furnace 1 at Eramet (which 

is currently controlled with a baghouse) 

is assumed to be 90 percent based on 

the installation of ACI and a new 

polishing baghouse. Regarding Furnace 

12 at Eramet (which is currently 

controlled with a wet venturi scrubber), 

the mercury reductions that would be 

achieved with brominated ACI are 

assumed to be 50 percent. For the BTF 

control option for existing sources that 

produce ferromanganese, we estimate 

the capital costs would be about $30 

million, annualized costs of about $3.3 

million and would achieve about 191 

pounds per year of reductions in 

mercury emissions, which results in 

estimated cost-effectiveness of about 

$17,600 per pound. All the costs and 

reductions would be at Eramet since 

Eramet is the only facility in the U.S. 

that produces FeMn. 

As stated earlier the cost-effectiveness 

is estimated to be $17,600/lb. However, 

it is important to note that costeffectiveness is but one factor we 

consider in assessing the cost of the 

emission reduction at issue here. See 

NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055, 1060 (D.C. 

Cir. April 18, 2014) (‘‘Section 112 does 

not command EPA to use a particular 

form of cost analysis.’’). We also 

consider other factors in assessing the 

cost of the emission reduction as part of 

our beyond-the-floor analysis, 

including, but not limited to, total 

capital costs, annual costs and costs 

compared to total revenues (e.g., costs to 

revenue ratios). 

As mentioned above, we estimate the 

capital costs would be about $30 

million, annualized costs of about $3.3 

million and that all these costs would be 

for Eramet, which is the only facility in 

the United States that produces FeMn. 

Furthermore, we estimate the annual 

costs for BTF controls for mercury at 

Eramet (in addition to the costs for 

controls for fugitive HAP emissions 

required as part of the risk analysis 

explained later in this preamble) would 

be about 3 percent of revenues, which 

we believe is potentially significant 

given the facts at issue here. In addition, 

it is our understanding that for the past 

few years the plant has not made any 

profits. More details regarding the 

potential economic impacts of the BTF 

option are provided in the Economic 

Impact Analysis (EIA) for the 

Manganese Ferroalloys RTR 

Supplemental Proposal document 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

We also evaluated an approach that 

could reduce the compliance costs of 

the BTF option. We considered the 

possibility that Eramet could potentially 

decide to produce FeMn in only one 

furnace and if so, would only need to 

install ACI for 1 furnace. If so, the costs 

for Eramet to comply with the BTF 

option could be significantly lower. 

This approach would reduce production 

flexibility, which could pose significant 

production issues for the company, but 

would allow Eramet to avoid some of 

the emissions control costs under the 

BTF option. However, we realize there 

would likely be production issues and 

other issues, with this approach. 

Furthermore, we believe it would be 

inappropriate for the rule to essentially 

restrict production flexibility. Therefore 

for our cost impacts analysis of the BTF 

option we have assumed brominated 

ACI would be needed for both furnaces. 

Based on the available economic 

information, assuming market 

conditions remain approximately the 

same, we believe Eramet Marietta would 

not be able to sustain the costs of BTF 

mercury controls (in addition to the 

fugitive control costs required as part of 

the risk analysis explained later in this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60263 

52As noted in our risk analysis explained later in 

this preamble, proposal of the MACT floor standard 

for mercury (along with the controls for fugitive 

manganese emissions, which are explained later in 

this preamble) provide an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health. 

preamble, in Section IV.C.).52 This 

would likely result in substantial 

economic impacts in the short-term and 

potential closure of the facility in the 

longer-term. Since Eramet Marietta is 

the only facility in the United States 

which produces FeMn, closure of this 

facility would eliminate 100 percent of 

the United States production of FeMn, 

which is an important product for the 

steel industry. After considering all the 

factors described above, we are not 

proposing BTF limits for mercury for 

FeMn production. 

We also evaluated possible BTF 

controls for existing SiMn production 

sources, which have much lower 

mercury emissions as compared to 

FeMn production. We estimated that the 

BTF option for SiMn would achieve an 

additional 60 pounds/year reductions 

and that the cost-effectiveness would be 

about $109,000 per pound of mercury 

reduced for SiMn production, which we 

conclude is not cost-effective as a BTF 

option. Furthermore, based on our 

economic analyses, we believe that the 

Felman facility could be at potential risk 

of closure under this option, especially 

given that these costs would be in 

addition to the costs for controlling 

fugitive HAP metals emissions (such as 

Mn, As, Ni and Cd). Therefore, we are 

not proposing BTF limits for mercury 

for SiMn production. 

d. Beyond the Floor Analysis for New 

and Reconstructed Furnaces 

Regarding BTF controls for new or 

major reconstructed furnaces, we 

believe such sources would be 

constructed to include a baghouse as the 

primary PM control device (in order to 

comply with the proposed lower new 

source limits for PM) and then they 

could add ACI after the baghouse for 

mercury control along with a polishing 

baghouse and would achieve at least 90 

percent reduction. Therefore, the BTF 

limit for new FeMn production sources 

is calculated to be 17 mg/dscm. 

Regarding SiMn, the BTF limit for new 

sources producing SiMn would be 1.2 

mg/dscm. 

The estimated costs for beyond the 

floor controls for mercury for new and 

reconstructed sources are based on the 

costs of installing and operating 

brominated ACI and a polishing 

baghouse. Based on this, we estimate 

that the cost effectiveness of BTF 

controls for a new and major 

reconstructed FeMn production source 

would be about $12,000/lb. Therefore, 

we conclude that BTF controls would be 

cost-effective and feasible for any new 

or major reconstructed furnace that 

produces FeMn. Therefore we are 

proposing a limit of 17 mg/dscm for new 

or major reconstructed furnaces that 

produce FeMn. 

However, for a new SiMn production 

source, the cost effectiveness would be 

at least $51,000/lb. Therefore, we 

believe BTF controls for new SiMn 

production sources would not be costeffective. Furthermore, for SiMn 

production, as described above, the new 

source MACT floor limit is already low 

(i.e., 4.0 mg/dscm). Therefore we are 

proposing an emissions limit of 4.0 mg/ 

dscm for new or major reconstructed 

SiMn production furnaces based on the 

new source MACT Floor. 

e. Proposed Limits for Existing, New 

and Reconstructed Sources 

Based on all our analyses described 

above, we are proposing mercury limits 

based on the MACT Floor (UPL) for 

each product type (ferromanganese, 

silicomanganese) for existing furnaces; 

BTF limits for mercury for new and 

reconstructed FeMn production 

furnaces; and mercury limits for new 

and reconstructed SiMn production 

furnaces based on the MACT Floor. 

These limits are summarized in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED MERCURY CONTROL EMISSIONS LIMITS (μg/dscm) FROM THE FURNACE MELTING

PROCESSES

Proposed mercury controls 

FeMn 

production 

(existing 

sources) 

FeMn 

production 

(new and 

reconstructed 

sources) 

SiMn 

production 

(existing 

sources) 

SiMn 

production 

(new and 

reconstructed 

sources) 

MACT Floor limits for FeMn and SiMn existing sources; BTF 

limit for new and reconstructed FeMn sources; and MACT 

floor limit for new and reconstructed SiMn sources ............ 170 17 12 4.0 

5. How did we develop proposed limits 

for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

(PAHs)? 

As described above, we obtained 

additional data on PAH emissions from 

the two ferroalloys production facilities 

since the 2011 proposal. In particular, 

we obtained data from each furnace and 

for each product type (FeMn and SiMn). 

We used the resulting dataset to reevaluate the MACT floor limits and BTF 

options. For more information on this 

analysis, see Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket. 

As in the case of the mercury analysis, 

our results show that there is a 

significant difference in PAH emissions 

during FeMn production as compared to 

SiMn production. Furthermore, similar 

to mercury, we conclude that this 

difference is due to significant 

differences in the recipe and input 

materials for FeMn compared to SiMn 

production. 

Therefore, we determined that it 

would be appropriate to have two 

subcategories for PAH emissions and 

establish separate MACT limits for each 

of these two subcategories. 

The MACT floor dataset for PAHs 

from existing furnaces producing FeMn 

includes 6 test runs from 2 furnaces. As 

described above, this dataset (for the 

calculation of the MACT Floor limit for 

PAHs for FeMn production furnaces) 

was considered a limited dataset and 

therefore we followed the steps 

described in the Limited Dataset Memo 

to determine the appropriate MACT 

Floor limit for PAHs for these sources. 

This subcategory includes only two 

units, and the CAA specifies that the 

existing source MACT floor for 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources shall not be less stringent than 

‘‘the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best performing 5 

sources.’’ However, since there are only 

2 units in the subcategory and we have 

data for both units, the data from both 

units serve as the basis for the MACT 

floor. After determining that the dataset 

is best represented by a normal 

distribution and ensuring that we used 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

53Hong-Cang Zhou, Zhao-Ping Zhong, Bao-Sheng 

Jin, Ya-Ji Huang and Rui Xiao, Experimental study 

on the removal of PAHs using in-duct activated 

carbon injection, Chemosphere, November 17, 2004. 

the correct equation for the distribution, 

we considered the selection of a lower 

confidence level for determining the 

emission limit by evaluating whether 

the calculated limit reasonably 

represents the performance of the units 

upon which it is based. In this case, 

where two units make up the pool of 

best performers, the calculated emission 

limit is about twice the short-term 

average emissions from the best 

performing sources, indicating that the 

emission limit is not unreasonable 

compared to the actual performance of 

the units upon which the limit is based 

and is within the range that we see 

when we evaluate larger datasets using 

our MACT floor calculation procedures. 

Therefore, we determined that no 

changes to our standard floor 

calculation procedure are warranted for 

this pollutant and subcategory, and we 

are proposing that the MACT floor is 

1,400 mg/dscm for PAHs from existing 

furnaces producing FeMn. 

The MACT floor dataset for PAHs 

from new furnaces producing FeMn 

includes 3 test runs from a single 

furnace (furnace #12 at Eramet) that we 

identified as the best performing unit 

based on average emissions 

performance. After determining that the 

dataset is best represented by a normal 

distribution and ensuring that we used 

the correct equation for the distribution, 

we evaluated the variance of the best 

performing unit. Our analysis showed 

that this unit, which was identified as 

the best unit based on average 

emissions, also had the lowest variance. 

Therefore, we determined that the 

emission limit would reasonably 

account for variability and that no 

changes to the standard floor calculation 

procedure were warranted for this 

pollutant and subcategory, and we are 

proposing that the MACT floor is 880 

mg/dscm for PAHs from new furnaces 

producing FeMn. 

The MACT floor dataset for PAHs 

initially identified for new furnaces 

producing SiMn includes 6 test runs 

from a single furnace (furnace #2 at 

Felman) that we identified as the best 

performing unit based on average 

emissions. After determining that the 

dataset is best represented by a normal 

distribution and ensuring that we used 

the correct equation for the distribution, 

we evaluated the variance of this unit 

(furnace #2 at Felman) and concluded 

that further consideration of the 

variance was warranted. In particular, 

we noted that the variance of the dataset 

for this unit was almost twice as large 

as the variance of the dataset for the 

pool of best performing units that was 

used to calculate the existing source 

MACT floor. The high degree of 

variance in the dataset for the unit with 

the lowest average prompted us to 

question whether this unit was, in fact, 

the best performing unit and to evaluate 

the dataset for the unit with the next 

lowest average (furnace #7 at Felman). 

The dataset for furnace #7 includes 3 

test runs, the furnaces are controlled 

with the same type of add-on control 

technology, and the average emissions 

from furnace #2 are only about 22 

percent lower than the average 

emissions from furnace #7. While we 

find the average performance of these 2 

units to be similar, the unit with the 

higher average has a variance more than 

2 orders of magnitude lower than that of 

the unit with the lower average, thus 

indicating that the unit with the higher 

average has a far more consistent level 

of performance. The combination of 

components from the unit with the 

higher average (furnace #7) yields an 

emissions limit that is lower than that 

calculated from the dataset of the unit 

(furnace #2) with the lowest average 

(71.7 versus 132.8 mg/dscm). For these 

reasons, we determined that the unit 

with the lowest average (furnace #2) is 

not the best performing source for this 

pollutant and we are instead selecting 

furnace #7 as the best performing 

source. After selecting the source upon 

which the new source limit would be 

based, we next considered whether the 

selection of a different confidence level 

would be appropriate. In this case, we 

determined that a lower confidence 

level was not warranted given the small 

amount of variability in the data for the 

unit that we identified as the best 

performer. Based on the factors outlined 

above, we are proposing that the MACT 

floor is 72 mg/dscm for PAHs from new 

furnaces producing SiMn. 

With regard to PAH emissions from 

existing furnaces producing SiMn, we 

have 18 test runs in our dataset. This 

dataset was not determined to be a 

limited data set. The UPL results for this 

dataset using a 99 percent confidence 

level was determined to be 120 mg/dscm 

for SiMn production and was 

determined to be the MACT floor limit 

for PAHs for existing furnaces 

producing SiMn. 

Based on the data we received prior 

to summer 2014, we estimate that 

neither source would need to install 

additional controls to meet the MACT 

Floor emission limits described above. 

However, as mentioned in Section II.D 

of today’s notice, we received additional 

PAH data in August 2014. We have not 

yet completed our review and technical 

analyses of those new data, and have 

not yet incorporated these new data into 

our analyses. Nevertheless, we are 

seeking comments regarding the new 

PAH data and how these data could 

affect our analyses. 

The current PM controls on both 

facilities capture some of PAH 

emissions. Nevertheless, we also 

considered BTF options for control of 

PAH emissions based on the additional 

reductions that could be achieved via 

control with ACI. Based on information 

from carbon vendors, an activated 

carbon system that is designed to 

achieve up to 90 percent reduction in 

mercury emissions should also achieve 

significant reductions in PAH with no 

additional costs. However, significant 

uncertainties remain regarding the 

percent of reductions in PAHs that 

would be achieved with ACI. One 

study 53 found that ACI can achieve 74– 

91 percent reduction in PAH emissions 

depending on the concentration of 

activated carbon in the flue gas. Based 

on this information, we assume that ACI 

probably can achieve 75 percent 

reduction in PAH emissions from the 

furnace. Therefore, for our analysis of 

BTF options, we assumed an ACI 

system can achieve 75 percent reduction 

of PAH emissions from the furnace 

exhaust. Based on this assumption, 

possible BTF limits for PAHs would be 

340 mg/dscm for FeMn production 

furnaces and 28 mg/dscm for SiMn 

production furnaces. The estimated 

capital and annualized costs to achieve 

these BTF PAH limits are the same costs 

as those shown for mercury in the 

mercury control options memorandum. 

For FeMn production, the capital cost 

was calculated to be $30.2 million and 

the annual cost was calculated to be 

$3.4 million and would only apply to 

the furnaces at Eramet and the estimated 

PAH reductions would be 2.35 tons per 

year, which results in cost-effectiveness 

of $1.4 million per ton of PAH. The 

capital cost for a beyond the floor PAH 

option for SiMn and FeMn production 

was calculated to be $41.7 million with 

an annual cost of $6.9 million and the 

estimated PAH reductions would be 4.0 

tons per year, which results in costeffectiveness of $1.7 million per ton, 

which we conclude is not cost-effective 

for PAHs. Given the uncertainties 

regarding the percent of PAH reductions 

that can be achieved with ACI and since 

the cost-effectiveness is relatively high 

for this HAP, we are not proposing BTF 

limits for PAHs. Instead, we have 

determined that it is appropriate to 

propose PAH limits based on the MACT 

Floor level of control, therefore we are 

proposing a MACT limit of 1,400 mg/


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60265 

dscm for PAHs for existing FeMn 

production furnaces and 880 mg/dscm 

for PAHs for new and reconstructed 

FeMn production furnaces and we are 

proposing a MACT floor limit of 120 mg/ 

dscm for PAHs for existing SiMn 

production furnaces and 72 mg/dscm for 

PAHs for new and reconstructed SiMn 

production furnaces. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS (μG/dscm) FOR PAHS FROM THE FURNACE MELTING PROCESSES

FeMn 

production 

(existing 

sources) 

FeMn 

production 

(new and 

reconstructed 

sources) 

SiMn 

production 

(existing 

sources) 

SiMn 

production 

(new and 

reconstructed 

sources) 

Proposed Emissions Limits for PAHs .............................................................. 1400 880 120 72 

6. How did we develop limits for 

hydrochloric acid (HCl)? 

Like mercury and PAH, we obtained 

additional HCl test data since proposal. 

However, more than half the test results 

(20 of the 36 test runs) were below the 

detection limit. This situation required 

the use of additional statistical analysis, 

as described in the Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket. We determined the data set 

for HCl from furnace outlets has a nonnormal distribution. The non-normal 

distribution of the data is a result of the 

mix of analytical results reported above 

and below the detection limit and is not 

due to the type of product being 

produced (FeMn or SiMn) in the 

furnace. Therefore, for HCL we are not 

establishing subcategories based on 

product. An equation for log-normally 

distributed data was used to determine 

the UPL of the HCl dataset for both 

FeMn and SiMn production combined. 

The UPL for the log-normal dataset was 

calculated to be 1,100 mg/dscm. Because 

more than half of the dataset were 

reported below the detection limit, 

using EPA procedures, three times the 

representative method detection level 

(RDL) for HCl (180 mg/dscm), was 

compared to the calculated UPL. The 

calculated UPL was higher and, thus, 

was selected as the MACT floor limit for 

existing furnaces. At this level, we 

expect neither source would need to 

install additional controls to meet the 

MACT floor emission limits. 

The MACT floor dataset for HCl from 

new furnaces producing FeMn or SiMn 

includes 6 test runs from a single 

furnace (furnace #5 at Felman) that we 

identified as the best performing unit 

based on average emissions. As 

described above, this dataset (for the 

calculation of the new source limit for 

HCL) was considered a limited dataset 

and therefore we followed the steps 

described in the Limited Dataset Memo 

to determine the appropriate MACT 

Floor limit for HCl for new furnaces. 

After determining that the dataset is best 

represented by a non-normal 

distribution and ensuring that we used 

the correct equation for the distribution, 

we evaluated the variance of this best 

performing unit. Our analysis showed 

that this unit, identified as the best unit 

based on average emission, also had the 

lowest variance, indicating consistent 

performance. Therefore, we determined 

that the emission limit reasonably 

accounts for variability and that no 

changes to the standard floor calculation 

procedure were warranted for this 

pollutant and subcategory. We also note 

that for this standard, the calculated 

new source floor level was below the 

level that can be accurately measured 

(the level that we refer to as ‘‘3 times the 

representative detection level’’ or 

3xRDL). Therefore, we are proposing a 

new source MACT emission limit of 180 

ppm for HCl, which is the 3xRDL value 

for HCl. 

No facilities in the source category 

use add-on control devices or work 

practices to limit emissions of HCl 

beyond what is normally achieved as 

co-control of the emissions with 

particulate matter control device. Also, 

as explained above, there are a 

significant number of non-detects for 

HCl. Thus, emissions are already low. 

Nevertheless, we evaluated possible 

beyond the floor options to further 

reduce HCl to ensure our analyses were 

complete. The BTF analyses are 

described in the Revised MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category document which is 

available in the docket. We did not 

identify any appropriate BTF options for 

HCl. 

Given the low emissions of HCl and 

the results of our analyses, we are not 

proposing beyond the floor limits for 

HCl. Therefore, in this supplemental 

proposal, we are proposing emission 

limits for HCl of 1,100 mg/dscm for 

existing furnaces and 180 mg/dscm for 

new or reconstructed furnaces, which 

are at the level of the MACT floors. 

TABLE 6—PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS (μg/dscm) FOR HCL FROM THE

FURNACE MELTING PROCESSES

FeMn 

and 

SiMn 

production 

(existing 

sources) 

FeMn 

and 

SiMn 

production 

(new 

and reconstructed 

sources) 

Proposed Emissions 

Limits for HCl ............ 1100 180 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 7 of this preamble provides an 

overall summary of the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment. 

TABLE 7—FERROALLOYS PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum Individual 

Cancer Risk 

(-in-1 million) a

Estimated Population at Increased 

Risk Levels of Cancer 

Estimated Annual Cancer 

Incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

Chronic Noncancer 

TOSHI b

Maximum Screening Acute Non-cancer HQ c

Actual Emissions 

≥ 1-in-1 million: 31,000.

20 ................................ ≥ 10-in-1 million: 400 ........................ 0.002 4 HQREL = 1 (arsenic compounds, hydrofluoric 

acid, formaldehyde) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—FERROALLOYS PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS—Continued 

Maximum Individual 

Cancer Risk 

(-in-1 million) a

Estimated Population at Increased 

Risk Levels of Cancer 

Estimated Annual Cancer 

Incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

Chronic Noncancer 

TOSHI b

Maximum Screening Acute Non-cancer HQ c

≥ 100-in-1 million: 0.

Allowable Emissions d

≥ 1-in-1 million: 94,000.

100 .............................. ≥ 10-in-1 million: 2,500 ..................... 0.005 40 — 

≥ 100-in-1 million: 0.

aEstimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

b Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Ferroalloys Production source category for both actual and allowable 

emissions is the neurological system. The estimated population at increased levels of noncancer hazard is 1,500 based on actual emissions and 

11,000 based on allowable emissions. cSee Section III.A.3 of this notice for explanation of acute dose-response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions. dThe development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memorandum titled Revised Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the 2014 Supplemental Proposal, which is available in the docket. 

The inhalation risk modeling 

performed to estimate risks based on 

actual and allowable emissions relied 

primarily on emissions data from the 

ICRs and calculations described in the 

Emissions Memo. The results of the 

chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk 

assessment indicate that, based on 

estimates of current actual emissions, 

the maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk (MIR) posed by the ferroalloys 

production source category is 20-in-1 

million, with chromium compounds, 

PAHs and nickel compounds from 

tapping fugitives, furnace fugitives and 

a furnace accounting for 70 percent of 

the MIR. The total estimated cancer 

incidence from ferroalloys production 

sources based on actual emission levels 

is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year or 

one case every 500 years, with 

emissions of PAH, chromium 

compounds and cadmium compounds 

contributing 42 percent, 18 percent and 

15 percent, respectively, to this cancer 

incidence. In addition, we note that 

approximately 400 people are estimated 

to have cancer risks greater than or 

equal to 10-in-1 million, and 

approximately 31,000 people are 

estimated to have risks greater than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million as a result of 

actual emissions from this source 

category. 

When considering MACT-allowable 

emissions, the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk is estimated to be up 

to 100-in-1 million, driven by emissions 

of arsenic compounds and cadmium 

compounds from the MOR process 

baghouse outlet. The estimated cancer 

incidence is estimated to be 0.005 

excess cancer cases per year or one 

excess case in every 200 years. 

Approximately 2,500 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than or equal to 10-in-1 million and 

approximately 94,000 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than or equal to 1-in-1 million 

considering allowable emissions from 

ferroalloys facilities. 

The risk results described in this 

section and shown in Table 7 are based 

on the emissions data received prior to 

summer 2014. These results do not 

reflect the new PAH, PM or mercury 

data we received in August 2014 (as 

described in Section II.D. in this notice). 

We seek comment on the new data, 

which are available in the docket for 

today’s action, and how these additional 

data would impact the risk assessment. 

The maximum modeled chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) value for the source 

category based on actual emissions is 

estimated to be 4, with manganese 

emissions from tapping fugitives 

accounting for 93 percent of the HI. 

Approximately 1,500 people are 

estimated to have exposure to HI levels 

greater than 1 as a result of actual 

emissions from this source category. 

When considering MACT-allowable 

emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 

40, driven by allowable emissions of 

manganese from the MOR process 

baghouse outlet. Approximately 11,000 

people are estimated to have exposure 

to HI levels greater than 1 considering 

allowable emissions from these 

ferroalloys facilities. 

2. Acute Risk Results 

Our screening analysis for worst-case 

acute impacts based on actual emissions 

indicates the potential for three 

pollutants—arsenic compounds, 

formaldehyde, and hydrofluoric acid— 

to have HQ values of 1, based on their 

respective REL value. Both facilities 

have estimated HQs of 1 for these 

pollutants. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

worst-case acute exposures to HAP from 

the source category at issue and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s 

section 112(f) RTR risk assessment 

methodologies, we examine a wider 

range of available acute health metrics 

than we do for our chronic risk 

assessments. This is in 

acknowledgement that there are 

generally more data gaps and 

inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. By definition, the 

acute CalEPA REL represents a healthprotective level of exposure, with no 

risk anticipated below those levels, even 

for repeated exposures; however, the 

health risk from higher-level exposures 

is unknown. Therefore, when a CalEPA 

REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or 

ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at 

which mild effects are anticipated in the 

general public for a single exposure), we 

have used them as a second comparative 

measure. Historically, comparisons of 

the estimated maximum off-site 1-hour 

exposure levels have not been typically 

made to occupational levels for the 

purpose of characterizing public health 

risks in RTR assessments. This is 

because occupational ceiling values are 

not generally considered protective for 

the general public since they are 

designed to protect the worker 

population (presumed healthy adults) 

for short-duration (less than 15-minute) 

increases in exposure. As a result, for 

most chemicals, the 15-minute 

occupational ceiling values are set at 

levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL–1, 

making comparisons to them irrelevant 

unless the AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 levels are 

also exceeded. 

All the HAP in this analysis have 

worst-case acute HQ values of 1 or less, 

indicating that they carry no potential to 

pose acute concerns. In characterizing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60267 

54Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish 

and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. 

International Journal of Environmental Health 

Research 12:343–354. 

55U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 

Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 

2011. 

the potential for acute non-cancer 

impacts of concern, it is important to 

remember the upward bias of these 

exposure estimates (e.g., worst-case 

meteorology coinciding with a person 

located at the point of maximum 

concentration during the hour) and to 

consider the results along with the 

conservative estimates used to develop 

peak hourly emissions as described 

earlier, as well as the screening 

methodology. Refer to the document 

titled Revised Development of the RTR 

Emissions Dataset for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category for the 2014 

Supplemental Proposal (which is 

available in the docket for this action) 

for a detailed description of how the 

hourly emissions were developed for 

this source category. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

Results of the worst-case Tier I 

screening analysis indicate that PB– 

HAP emissions (based on estimates of 

actual emissions) from one or both 

facilities in this source category exceed 

the screening emission rates for 

cadmium compounds, mercury 

compounds, dioxins and PAH. For the 

compounds and facilities that did not 

screen out at Tier I, we conducted a Tier 

II screen. The Tier II screen replaces 

some of the assumptions used in Tier I 

with site-specific data, including the 

land use around the facilities, the 

location of fishable lakes and local wind 

direction and speed. The Tier II screen 

continues to rely on high-end 

assumptions about consumption of local 

fish and locally grown or raised foods 

(adult female angler at 99th percentile 

consumption for fish 54 and 90th 

percentile for consumption of locally 

grown or raised foods 55) and uses an 

assumption that the same individual 

consumes each of these foods in high 

end quantities (i.e., that an individual 

has high end ingestion rates for each 

food). The result of this analysis was the 

development of site-specific emission 

rate screening levels for each PB–HAP. 

It is important to note that, even with 

the inclusion of some site-specific 

information in the Tier II analysis, the 

multi-pathway screening analysis is still 

a very conservative, health-protective 

assessment (e.g., upper-bound 

consumption of local fish, locally grown 

and/or raised foods) and in all 

likelihood will yield results that serve 

as an upper-bound multi-pathway risk 

associated with a facility. 

While the screening analysis is not 

designed to produce a quantitative risk 

result, the factor by which the emissions 

exceed the screening level serves as a 

rough gauge of the ‘‘upper-limit’’ risks 

we would expect from a facility. Thus, 

for example, if a facility emitted a PB– 

HAP carcinogen at a level 2 times the 

screening level, we can say with a high 

degree of confidence that the actual 

maximum cancer risks will be less than 

2-in-1 million. Likewise, if a facility 

emitted a noncancer PB–HAP at a level 

2 times the screening level, the 

maximum noncancer hazard would 

represent an HQ less than 2. The high 

degree of confidence comes from the 

fact that the screens are developed using 

the very conservative (health-protective) 

assumptions that we describe above. 

Based on the Tier II screening 

analysis, no facility emits cadmium 

compounds above the Tier II screening 

levels. One facility emits mercury 

compounds above the Tier II screening 

levels and exceeds that level by a factor 

of 9. Both facilities emit chlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans (CDDF) as 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

toxicity equivalent (TEQ) above the Tier 

II screening levels and the facility with 

the highest emissions of dioxins exceeds 

its Tier II screening level by a factor of 

20. Both facilities emit POM as 

benzo(a)pyrene TEQ above the Tier II 

screening levels and the facility with the 

highest emissions exceeds its screening 

level by a factor of 20. 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) are 

PB–HAP that do not currently have 

multi-pathway screening values and so 

are not evaluated for potential noninhalation risks. These HAP however, 

are not emitted in appreciable quantities 

(estimated to be 0.00026 tpy) from the 

ferroalloys source category and we do 

not believe they contribute to multipathway risks for this source category. 

Results of the analysis for lead 

indicate that based on the baseline, 

actual emissions, the maximum annual 

off-site ambient lead concentration was 

only 50 percent of the NAAQS for lead 

and if the total annual emissions 

occurred during a 3-month period, the 

maximum 3-month rolling average 

concentrations would exceed the 

NAAQS. However, as shown later in 

this preamble, based on emissions 

estimated for the post-control scenario, 

the maximum annual off-site ambient 

lead concentration was only 3 percent of 

the NAAQS for lead. If the total annual 

emissions occurred during a 3-month 

period, the maximum 3-month rolling 

average concentrations would be about 

12 percent of the NAAQS for lead, 

indicating that there is no concern for 

multi-pathway risks due to lead 

emissions. 

4. Multipathway Refined Risk Results 

A refined multipathway analysis was 

conducted for one facility in this source 

category using the TRIM.FaTE model. 

The facility, Eramet Marietta 

Incorporated, in Marietta, Ohio, was 

selected based upon its close proximity 

to nearby lakes and farms as well as 

having the highest potential 

multipathway risks for three of the four 

PB–HAP based on the Tier II analysis. 

These three PB–HAP were cadmium, 

mercury and PAHs. (Even though 

neither facility exceeded the Tier II 

screening levels for cadmium, Eramet 

had the higher value.) Eramet also emits 

dioxins, but the other facility had a 

higher exceedance of its Tier II 

screening level. The refined analysis 

was conducted on all four PB–HAP. The 

refined analysis for this facility showed 

that the Tier II screen for each pollutant 

over-predicted the potential risk when 

compared to the refined analysis results. 

Overall, the refined analysis predicts 

a potential lifetime cancer risk of 10-in1 million to the maximum most exposed 

individual due to exposure to dioxins 

and PAHs. The non-cancer HQ is 

predicted to be below 1 for cadmium 

compounds and 1 for mercury 

compounds. 

Further details on the refined 

multipathway analysis can be found in 

Appendix 10 of the Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the September 2014 Supplemental 

Proposal, which is available in the 

docket. 

5. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in Section III.A, we 

conducted an environmental risk 

screening assessment for the ferroalloys 

source category. In the Tier I screening 

analysis for PB–HAP the individual 

modeled Tier I concentrations for one 

facility in the source category exceeded 

some sediment, fish—avian piscivorus 

and surface soil benchmarks for PAHs, 

methylmercury and mercuric chloride. 

Therefore, we conducted a Tier II 

assessment. 

In the Tier II screening analysis for 

PAHs and methylmercury none of the 

individual modeled concentrations for 

any facility in the source category 

exceeded any of the ecological 

benchmarks (either the LOAEL or 

NOAEL). For mercuric chloride, soil 

benchmarks were exceeded for some 

individual modeled points that 

collectively accounted for 5 percent of 

the modeled area. However, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

weighted average modeled 

concentration for all soil parcels was 

well below the soil benchmarks. 

For HCl, each individual 

concentration (i.e., each off-site data 

point in the modeling domain) was 

below the ecological benchmarks for all 

facilities. The average modeled HCl 

concentration around each facility (i.e., 

the average concentration of all off-site 

data points in the modeling domain) did 

not exceed any ecological benchmark. 

6. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

For both facilities in this source 

category, there are no other HAP 

emissions sources present beyond those 

included in the source category. 

Therefore, we conclude that the facilitywide risk is the same as the source 

category risk and that no separate 

facility-wide analysis is necessary. 

7. Demographic Analysis Results 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice (EJ) issues that 

might be associated with the source 

category, we performed a demographic 

analysis, which is an assessment of risks 

to individual demographic groups, of 

the population close to the facilities. In 

this analysis, we evaluated the 

distribution of HAP-related cancer risks 

and non-cancer hazards from the 

ferroalloys production source category 

across different social, demographic and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near facilities identified as having 

the highest risks. The methodology and 

the results of the demographic analyses 

are included in a technical report, Risk 

and Technology Review—Analysis of 

Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Ferroalloys Facilities, which 

is available in the docket for this action. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis are summarized in Table 8 

below. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on the 

estimated risks from actual emissions 

levels for the population living within 

50 km of the facilities. 

TABLE 8—FERROALLOY PRODUCTION DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population with cancer 

risk at or above 1-in-1 

million due to ferroalloys 

production 

Population with chronic 

hazard index above 1 

due to ferroalloys 

production 

Total Population ........................................................................... 312,861,265 31,283 1,521 

Race by Percent 

White ............................................................................................ 72 96 99 

All Other Races ........................................................................... 28 4 1 

Race by Percent 

White ............................................................................................ 72 96 99 

African American ......................................................................... 13 1 0 

Native American .......................................................................... 1 0 0 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................... 14 2 1 

Ethnicity by Percent 

Hispanic ....................................................................................... 17 1 1 

Non-Hispanic ............................................................................... 83 99 99 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................... 14 15 7 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................... 86 85 93 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ................................. 15 11 11 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................... 85 89 89 

The results of the ferroalloys 

production source category 

demographic analysis indicate that 

emissions from the source category 

expose approximately 31,000 people to 

a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 

and approximately 1,500 people to a 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 

1 (we note that many of those in the first 

risk group are the same as those in the 

second). The percentages of the at-risk 

population in each demographic group 

(except for White and non-Hispanic) are 

similar to or lower than their respective 

nationwide percentages. 

Implementation of the provisions 

included in this proposal is expected to 

significantly reduce the number of 

people estimated to have a cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million due to HAP 

emissions from these sources from 

31,000 people to about 6,600 people. 

Implementation of the provisions 

included in the proposal also is 

expected to reduce the number of 

people estimated to have a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 from 1,500 

people to no people with a TOSHI 

greater than 1. 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects based on our 

revised analyses? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in Section II.A.1 of this 

preamble, the EPA sets standards under 

CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step 

standard-setting approach, with an 

analytical first step to determine an 

‘acceptable risk’ that considers all 

health information, including risk 

estimation uncertainty and includes a 

presumptive limit on maximum 

individual lifetime risk (MIR) of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60269 

56 1-in-10 thousand is equivalent to 100-in-1 

million. The EPA currently describes cancer risks 

as ‘n-in-1 million.’ 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand[56].’’ (54 

FR 38045, September 14, 1989). 

In this proposal, the EPA estimated 

risks based on both actual and allowable 

emissions from ferroalloy facilities. In 

determining acceptability, we 

considered risks based on both actual 

and allowable emissions. 

a. Estimated Risks From Actual 

Emissions 

The baseline inhalation cancer risk to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from sources in the 

ferroalloys source category is 20-in-1 

million based on actual emissions. The 

estimated incidence of cancer due to 

inhalation exposures is 0.002 excess 

cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 

500 years. Approximately 31,000 people 

face an increased cancer risk greater 

than 1-in-1 million due to inhalation 

exposure to actual HAP emissions from 

this source category and approximately 

400 people face an increased risk greater 

than 10-in-1 million and up to 20-in-1 

million. The agency estimates that the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

from inhalation exposure is 4, with 

manganese emissions from tapping 

fugitives accounting for a large portion 

(93 percent) of the HI. 

The Tier II multipathway screening 

analysis of actual emissions indicated 

the potential for PAH emissions that are 

about 20 times the screening level for 

cancer, dioxin emissions that are about 

20 times the screening level for cancer 

and mercury emissions that are 9 times 

above the screening level for noncancer. 

As noted above, the Tier II 

multipathway screen is conservative in 

that it incorporates many healthprotective assumptions. For example, 

the EPA chooses inputs from the upper 

end of the range of possible values for 

the influential parameters used in the 

Tier II screen and assumes that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

exposure. A Tier II exceedance cannot 

be equated with a risk value or a HQ or 

HI. Rather, it represents a high-end 

estimate of what the risk or hazard may 

be. For example, an exceedance of 2 for 

a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to 

mean that we have high confidence that 

the HI would be lower than 2. Similarly, 

an exceedance of 30 for a carcinogen 

means that we have high confidence 

that the risk is lower than 30-in-1- 

million. Confidence comes from the 

conservative, or health-protective, 

assumptions that are used in the Tier II 

screen. 

The refined multipathway analysis 

that the EPA conducted for one specific 

facility showed that the Tier II screen 

for each pollutant over-predicted the 

potential risk when compared to the 

refined analysis results. That refined 

multipathway assessment showed that 

the Tier II screen resulted in estimated 

risks that are higher than the risks 

estimated by the refined analysis by 3 

times for PAH, 2 times for dioxins, and 

6 times for cadmium. The HQ for 

mercury went from 9 in Tier II to 1. 

The screening assessment of worstcase acute inhalation impacts from 

baseline actual emissions indicates that 

all pollutants have HQ values of 1 or 

less, based on their respective REL 

values. Considering the conservative, 

health-protective nature of the approach 

that is used to develop these acute 

estimates, it is highly unlikely that an 

individual would have an acute 

exposure above the REL. Specifically, 

the analysis is based on the assumption 

that worst-case emissions and 

meteorology would coincide with a 

person being at the exact location of 

maximum impact for a period of time 

long enough to have an exposure level 

above the conservative REL value. The 

fact that the facilities in this source 

category are not located in areas that 

naturally lead to people being near the 

fence line for periods of time indicates 

that the exposure scenario used in the 

screening assessment would be unlikely 

to occur. 

b. Estimated Risks From Allowable 

Emissions 

The EPA estimates that the baseline 

inhalation cancer risk to the individual 

most exposed to emissions from sources 

in the ferroalloys source category is up 

to 100-in-1 million based on allowable 

emissions, with arsenic and cadmium 

emissions driving the risks. The EPA 

estimates that the incidence of cancer 

due to inhalation exposures could be up 

to 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or 

1 case approximately every 200 years. 

About 94,000 people could face an 

increased cancer risk greater than 1-in1 million due to inhalation exposure to 

allowable HAP emissions from these 

source categories and approximately 

2,500 people could face an increased 

risk greater than 10-in-1 million and up 

to 100-in-1 million due to allowable 

emissions. 

The risk assessment estimates that the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

from inhalation exposure values is up to 

40, driven by allowable manganese 

emissions. Approximately 11,000 

people are estimated to have exposure 

to HI levels greater than 1. 

c. Acceptability Determination 

In determining whether risks are 

acceptable for this source category, the 

EPA considered all available health 

information and risk estimation 

uncertainty as described above. 

The risk results indicate that the 

allowable inhalation cancer risks to the 

individual most exposed are up to but 

no greater than approximately 100–in-1 

million, which is the presumptive limit 

of acceptability. The MIR based on 

actual emissions is 20-in-1 million, well 

below the presumptive limit. The 

maximum chronic exposure to 

manganese exceeds the human health 

dose-response value for manganese by a 

factor of approximately 4 based on 

actual emissions. For allowable 

emissions, exposures could exceed the 

health value up to a factor of 

approximately 40. The noncancer 

hazard is driven by manganese 

emissions. 

Neither the acute risk nor the risks 

from the multipathway assessment 

exceeded levels of concern, however the 

EPA does note that the refined 

multipathway exposure estimate for 

mercury was at the level of the RfD. 

The EPA proposes that the risks are 

unacceptable for the following reasons. 

First, the EPA considered the fact that 

the noncancer hazard quotient ranges 

from 4 based on actual emissions to 40 

based on allowable emissions. The EPA 

has not established under section 112 of 

the CAA a numerical range for risk 

acceptability for noncancer effects as it 

has with carcinogens, nor has it 

determined that there is a bright line 

above which acceptability is denied. 

However, the Agency has established 

that, as exposure increases above a 

reference level (as indicated by a HQ or 

TOSHI greater than 1), confidence that 

the public will not experience adverse 

health effects decreases and the 

likelihood that an effect will occur 

increases. For the ferroalloys source 

category, the potential for members of 

the public to be exposed to manganese 

at concentrations up to 40 times the 

MRL reduces the Agency’s confidence 

that the public is protected from adverse 

health effects and diminishes the 

Agency’s ability to determine that such 

exposures are acceptable. Second, the 

EPA considered the fact that the cancer 

risk estimate for actual emissions is 20- 

in-1 million and up to 100-in-1 million 

for allowable emissions. While 20-in-1 

million is well within the acceptable 

range, risks from allowable emissions 

are at the upper end of the range of 

acceptability. This fact, combined with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the fact that the noncancer hazard is up 

to 40 times the MRL and the refined 

multipathway HQ for mercury is at the 

RfD, leads the agency to conclude that 

the risk from this source category is 

unacceptable. 

2. Proposed Controls to Address 

Unacceptable Risks 

a. Stack Emissions 

In order to address the unacceptable 

risk from this source category, we 

evaluated the potential to reduce 

MACT-allowable stack emissions, 

which resulted in a cancer MIR of 100- 

in-1 million, primarily due to allowable 

stack emissions of arsenic and cadmium 

and contributed significantly to the 

chronic noncancer TOSHI of 40, 

primarily due to allowable stack 

emissions of manganese. Our analysis 

determined that we could lower the 

existing particulate matter emission 

limits by approximately 50 percent for 

furnace stack emissions, by 80 percent 

for crushing and screening stack 

emissions and by 98 percent for the 

metal oxygen refining (MOR) process, 

which would help reduce risk to an 

acceptable level. As explained above, 

the MOR is a major driver of the 

allowable risks. Therefore, by lowering 

the MOR limit by 98 percent, this 

results in a large reduction in the 

allowable risks. 

For the reasons described above, 

under the authority of CAA section 

112(f)(2), we propose particulate matter 

emission limits for the stacks at the 

following levels: 4.0 mg/dscm for new 

or reconstructed electric arc furnaces 

and 25 mg/dscm for existing electric arc 

furnaces. In the 2011 proposal, we 

proposed a limit of 3.9 mg/dscm for any 

new, reconstructed or existing MOR 

process and 13 mg/dscm for any new, 

reconstructed or existing crushing and 

screening equipment. We believe 

sources can achieve the limits we are 

proposing today with existing controls. 

These emissions limits will 

substantially reduce potential risks due 

to allowable emissions from the stacks. 

We propose that compliance for all 

existing and new sources will be 

demonstrated by periodic stack testing, 

along with installation and continuous 

operation of bag leak detection systems 

for both new and existing sources that 

have baghouses, and continuous 

monitoring of liquid flow rate and 

pressure drop for sources controlled 

with wet scrubbers. 

b. Process Fugitive Emissions Sources 

Process fugitive sources are partially 

controlled by the existing MACT rule 

via a shop building opacity standard; 

however, that standard was only 

intended to address tapping process 

fugitives generated under ‘‘normal’’ 

tapping process operating conditions. 

Casting and crushing and screening 

process fugitives in the furnace building 

were not included. Under the authority 

of section 112 of the Act, which allows 

the use of measures to enclose systems 

or processes to eliminate emissions and 

measures to collect, capture or treat 

such pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage, or fugitive 

emissions point, we evaluated options 

to achieve improved emissions capture. 

In the 2011 proposal, we proposed fullenclosure with negative pressure and 

viewed local capture as not being an 

appropriate method of risk reduction. 

However, based on comments and other 

information gathered since the 2011 

proposal and after further review and 

analyses of available information, we 

reevaluated whether the necessary risk 

reduction could be accomplished by an 

alternative approach to control fugitive 

emissions based on enhanced local 

capture of emissions. This control 

approach would include a combination 

of primary and secondary hoods that 

effectively capture process fugitive 

emissions and vents those emissions to 

PM control devices. The secondary 

capture would include hooding at the 

roof-lines whereby remaining fugitives 

are collected and vented to control 

devices. As described further under the 

technology review section of this 

preamble, this approach (based on 

enhanced local capture and control of 

process fugitives, using primary and 

secondary hoods), will effectively 

reduce process fugitive emissions. We 

conclude that this approach will 

achieve substantial reductions of 

process fugitive emissions 

(approximately 95 percent capture and 

control of fugitive emissions) and will 

also substantially reduce the estimated 

risks due to these emissions. Therefore, 

under section 112(f) of the CAA we are 

proposing this control option that is 

based on enhanced capture of fugitive 

emissions using primary hoods (that 

capture process fugitive emissions near 

the source) and secondary capture of 

fugitives (which would capture 

remaining fugitive emissions near the 

roof-line) and includes a tight opacity 

limit of 8 percent to ensure fugitives are 

effectively captured and controlled. We 

are proposing that the facilities in this 

source category must install and 

maintain a process fugitives capture 

system that is designed to capture and 

control 95 percent or more of the 

process fugitive emissions. This is the 

same exact control approach described 

in more detail under the technology 

review section of today’s notice and the 

same control approach that we are 

proposing under section 112(d)(6) of the 

Act, as described below. We estimate 

that this control approach will achieve 

about 95 percent capture of process 

fugitive emissions and will achieve 

about 77 tpy reduction in HAP metals 

emissions and will substantially reduce 

risks due to process fugitive emissions. 

We conclude that achieving these 

reductions is the level of control needed 

to address the unacceptable risks due to 

HAP emissions from the source 

category. 

c. Results of the Post-control Risk 

Assessment 

The results of the post-control chronic 

inhalation cancer risk assessment 

indicate that the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk posed by these two 

facilities, after the implementation of 

the proposed controls, could be up to 

10-in-1 million, reduced from 20-in-1 

million (i.e., pre-controls), with an 

estimated reduction in cancer incidence 

to 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, 

reduced from 0.002 excess cancer cases 

per year. In addition, the number of 

people estimated to have a cancer risk 

greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million 

would be reduced from 31,000 to 6,600. 

The results of the post-control 

assessment also indicate that the 

maximum chronic noncancer inhalation 

TOSHI value would be reduced to 1, 

from the baseline estimate of 4. The 

number of people estimated to have a 

TOSHI greater than 1 would be reduced 

from 1,500 to 0. We also estimate that 

after the implementation of controls, the 

maximum worst-case acute HQ value 

would be reduced from 1 to less than 1 

(based on REL values). 

Considering post-control emissions of 

multipathway HAP, mercury emissions 

would be reduced by approximately 3 

lbs/yr, lead would be reduced by about 

1,600 lbs/yr, POM emissions would be 

reduced by approximately 5,200 lbs/yr, 

cadmium would be reduced by about 

150 lbs/yr and dioxins and furans 

would be reduced by about 0.002 lbs/yr 

from the baseline emission rates. 

3. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we again consider all of the 

health factors evaluated in the 

acceptability determination and 

evaluate the cost and feasibility of 

available control technologies and other 

measures (including the controls, 

measures and costs reviewed under the 

technology review) that could be 

applied in this source category to 

further reduce the risks due to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60271 

emissions of HAP identified in our risk 

assessment. 

We estimate that the actions proposed 

under CAA section 112(f)(2), as 

described above to address unacceptable 

risks, will reduce the MIR associated 

with arsenic, nickel, chromium and 

PAHs from 20-in-1 million to 10-in-1 

million for actual emissions. The cancer 

incidence will be reduced from 0.002 to 

0.001 cases per year and the number of 

people estimated to have cancer risks 

greater than 1-in-1 million will be 

reduced, from 31,000 people to 6,600 

people. The chronic noncancer 

inhalation TOSHI will be reduced from 

4 to 1 and the number of people 

exposed to a TOSHI level greater than 

1 will be reduced from 1,500 people to 

0. In addition, the potential 

multipathway impacts will be reduced. 

Based on all of the above information, 

we conclude that the risks after 

implementation of the proposed 

controls are acceptable. Based on our 

research and analysis, we did not 

identify any cost-effective controls 

beyond those proposed above that 

would achieve further reduction in risk. 

While in theory the 2011 proposed 

approach of total enclosure would 

provide some additional risk reduction, 

the additional risk reduction is minimal 

and, as noted, we have substantial 

doubts that it would be feasible for these 

facilities. Therefore we conclude that 

the controls to achieve acceptable risks 

(described above) will also provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

1. Metal HAP Emissions Limits From 

Stacks 

As mentioned in the previous section, 

the available test data from the five 

furnaces located at two facilities 

indicate that all of these furnaces have 

PM emission levels that are well below 

their respective emission limits (the 

emission limits are based on size and 

product being produced in the furnace) 

in the 1999 MACT rule. These findings 

demonstrate that the add-on emission 

control technologies (venturi scrubber, 

positive pressure fabric filter, negative 

pressure fabric filter) used to control 

emissions from the furnaces are quite 

effective in reducing particulate matter 

(used as a surrogate for metal HAP) and 

that all of the facilities have emissions 

well below the current limits. 

Under section 112(d)(6) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), we are required to revise 

emission standards, taking into account 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies. The 

particulate matter (PM) emissions, used 

as a surrogate for metal HAP, that were 

reported by the industry in response to 

the 2010 ICR were far below the level 

specified in the current NESHAP, 

indicating improvements in the control 

of PM emissions since promulgation of 

the current NESHAP. We re-evaluated 

the data received in 2010, along with 

additional data received in 2012 and 

2013, to determine whether it is 

appropriate to propose revised 

emissions limits for PM from the 

furnace process vents. The re-evaluation 

of the PM limits was completed using 

available PM emissions test data from 

all the furnaces and consideration of 

variability across those data. More 

details regarding the available PM data 

and this re-evaluation are provided in 

the Revised Technology Review for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

for the Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket. Unlike PAH and 

mercury stack data, we did not see 

significant differences in variability of 

the PM data sets depending on product 

produced (e.g., ferromanganese or 

silicomanganese). Therefore, we are not 

proposing to subcategorize the PM stack 

limits based on product type. 

Based on this analysis, we determined 

that it is appropriate to propose revised 

PM limits for the furnaces and that the 

revised existing source furnace stack PM 

emissions limit should be 25 milligrams 

per dry standard cubic meter (mg/

dscm). Therefore, we are proposing a 

revised emissions limit of 25 mg/dscm 

for existing furnace stack PM emissions 

in this supplemental proposal. This 

emission limit is slightly higher than the 

existing source furnace PM emission 

limit of 24 mg/dscm that we proposed 

in the 2011 proposal. The revised 

emissions limit is based on more data 

than the previous proposed limit. No 

additional add-on controls are expected 

to be required by the facilities to meet 

the revised existing source limit of 25 

mg/dscm. However, this revised limit 

would result in significantly lower 

‘‘allowable’’ PM emissions from the 

source category compared to the level of 

emissions allowed by the 1999 MACT 

rule and would help prevent any 

emissions increases. To demonstrate 

compliance, we propose these sources 

would be required to conduct periodic 

performance testing and develop and 

operate according to a baghouse 

operating plan or continuously monitor 

venturi scrubber operating parameters. 

We also propose that furnace baghouses 

would be required to be equipped with 

bag leak detection systems (BLDS). 

The revised new source PM standard 

for furnaces was determined by 

evaluating the available data from the 

best performing furnace (which was 

determined to be furnace #2 at Felman). 

The new source MACT limit was 

determined to be 4.0 mg/dscm based on 

data from furnace #2 and was selected 

as the proposed MACT emissions limit 

for PM from new and reconstructed 

source furnace stacks. 

The PM emission limit for the local 

ventilation control device outlet was 

also re-evaluated using compliance test 

data and test data from the 2012 ICR. A 

local ventilation control device is used 

to capture tapping, casting, or ladle 

treatment emissions and direct them to 

a control device other than one 

associated with the furnace. The 2011 

proposal included a proposed PM limit 

for the local ventilation control device 

that was based on PM data from the 

furnaces. After the 2011 proposal, we 

received test data from 3 different 

emissions tests (for a total of 9 test runs) 

specifically for this local ventilation 

source. We determined these data were 

more appropriate for the development of 

a limit for this source than the furnace 

data we had used for the 2011 proposal. 

There is currently only one local 

ventilation control device outlet 

emissions source in this source 

category. 

Using the new data for the one 

existing local ventilation source, we 

calculated a revised emissions limit of 

4.0 mg/dscm and determined that this 

was an appropriate emissions limit for 

this source. Therefore we are proposing 

this emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm for 

existing, new and reconstructed local 

ventilation control device emissions 

sources. 

2. Metal HAP Emissions From Process 

Fugitives 

In the 2011 proposal, we concluded 

that a proposed requirement for sources 

to enclose the furnace building, collect 

fugitive emissions such that the furnace 

building is maintained under negative 

pressure and duct those emissions to a 

control device represented an advance 

in emissions control measures since the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP was 

originally promulgated in 1999. 

Commenters on the 2011 proposal 

disagreed with our assessment. Based 

on these comments, we reassessed the 

proposed requirement for negative 

pressure ventilation and determined 

that the installation and operation of the 

proposed system may not be feasible 

and would likely be very costly. For 

example, the recent secondary lead 

NESHAP requires use of such a system, 

but we recognize that a much smaller 

volume of air must be evacuated at 

secondary lead facilities because of their 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

smaller size compared to ferroalloy 

facilities. We agree that we had 

underestimated the costs of such 

negative pressure systems and we have 

provided updated cost analyses. 

Commenters also raised concerns 

about worker safety and comfort in 

designing and operating such systems 

based on historical examples. We 

believe that such issues can be 

overcome with proper ventilation 

design and installation of air 

conditioning systems and other steps to 

ensure these issues are not a problem. 

However, after further review and 

evaluation we conclude that it would be 

quite costly for these facilities to 

become fully enclosed with negative 

pressure and achieve the appropriate 

ventilation and conditioning of indoor 

air. 

Going back to the original goal of 

identifying advances in emissions 

control measures since the Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP was promulgated 

in 1999, we have arrived at a different 

conclusion than we described in the 

2011 proposal. We re-evaluated the 

costs and operational feasibility 

associated with the full building 

enclosure with negative pressure that 

we proposed in 2011. We consulted 

with ventilation experts who have 

worked with hot process fugitives 

similar to those found in the ferroalloys 

industry (e.g., electric arc furnace steel 

mini-mills and secondary lead 

smelters). We determined that 

substantially more air flow, air 

exchanges, ductwork, fans and control 

devices and supporting structural 

improvements would be needed 

(compared to what we had estimated in 

the 2011 proposal) to achieve negative 

pressure and also ensure adequate 

ventilation and air quality in these large 

furnace buildings. Therefore, we 

determined that the proposed negative 

pressure approach presented in the 2011 

proposal would be much more 

expensive than what we had estimated 

in 2011 and may not be feasible for 

these facilities. 

We also evaluated another option 

based on enhanced capture of the 

process fugitive emissions using a 

combination of effective local capture 

with primary hooding close to the 

emissions sources and secondary 

capture of remaining fugitives with roofline capture hoods and control devices. 

These buildings are currently designed 

such that fugitive emissions that are not 

captured by the primary hoods flow 

upward with a natural draft to the open 

roof vents and are vented to the 

atmosphere uncontrolled. Under our 

enhanced control scenario, the primary 

capture close to the emissions sources 

would be significantly improved with 

effective local hooding and ventilation 

and the remaining fugitive emissions 

(that are not captured by the primary 

hoods) would be drawn up to the roofline and captured with secondary 

hooding and vented to control devices. 

In cases where additional collection 

of fugitives from the roof monitors is 

needed to comply with building opacity 

limits, fume collection areas may be 

isolated via baffles (so the area above 

the furnace where fumes collect may be 

kept separated from ‘‘empty’’ spaces in 

large buildings) and roof monitors over 

fume collection areas can be sealed and 

directed to control devices. The fugitive 

emission capture system should achieve 

inflow at the building floor, but outflow 

toward the roof where most of the 

remaining fugitives would be captured 

by the secondary hooding. We conclude 

that a rigorous, systematic examination 

of the ventilation requirements 

throughout the building is the key to 

developing a fugitive emission capture 

system (consisting of primary hoods, 

secondary hoods, enclosures and/or 

building ventilation ducted to 

particulate matter control devices) that 

can be designed and operated to achieve 

very low levels of fugitive emissions. 

Such an evaluation considers worker 

health, safety and comfort and it is 

designed to optimize existing 

ventilation options (fan capacity and 

hood design) and add additional capture 

options to meet specified design criteria 

determined through the evaluation 

process. Thus, we conclude that an 

enhanced capture system based on these 

design principles does represent an 

advancement in technology. We 

estimate that this control scenario 

would capture about 95 percent of the 

process fugitive emissions and vent 

those emissions to PM control devices. 

This enhanced local capture option is 

described in more detail in the Revised 

Technology Review document and in 

the Cost Impacts of Control Options to 

Address Fugitive HAP Emissions for the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

Supplemental Proposal document (Cost 

Impacts document) which are available 

in the docket. 

Under this control option, the cost 

elements vary by plant and furnace and 

include the following: 

• Curtains or doors surrounding 

furnace tops to contain fugitive 

emissions; 

• Improvements to hoods collecting 

tapping emissions; 

• Upgrade fans to improve the airflow 

of fabric filters controlling fugitive 

emissions; 

• Addition of ‘‘secondary capture’’ or 

additional hoods to capture emissions 

from tapping platforms or crucibles; 

• Addition of fugitives capture for 

casting operations; 

• Improvement of existing control 

devices or addition of fabric filters; and 

• Addition of rooftop ventilation, in 

which fugitive emissions escaping local 

capture are collected in the roof canopy 

over process areas through addition of 

partitions, hoods, and then directed 

through ducts to control devices. 

We estimate the total capital costs of 

installing the required ductwork, fans 

and control devices under the enhanced 

capture option (which is described 

above and in more detail in the Cost 

Impacts document) to be $37.6 million 

and the total annualized cost to be $7.1 

million for the two plants. We estimate 

that this option would reduce metal 

HAP emissions by 75 tons per year, 

resulting in a cost per ton of metal HAP 

removed to be $94,600 per ton ($47 per 

pound). The total estimated HAP 

reduction for the enhanced capture 

option is 77 tons per year at a cost per 

ton of $91,900 ($46 per pound). We also 

estimate that this option would achieve 

PM emission reductions of 229 tons per 

year, resulting in cost per ton of PM 

removed of $30,900 per ton and achieve 

PM2.5 emission reductions of 48 tons per 

year, resulting in a cost per ton of PM2.5

removal of $147,000 per ton. We believe 

these controls for process fugitive HAP 

emissions (described above), which are 

based on enhanced capture (with 

primary and secondary hooding) are 

feasible for the Ferroalloys Production 

source category from a technical 

standpoint and are cost effective. This 

cost effectiveness is in the range of cost 

effectiveness for PM and HAP metals 

from other previous rules. However, it is 

important to note that there is no bright 

line for determining cost-effectiveness 

for HAP metals. Each rulemaking is 

different and various factors must be 

considered. Some of the other factors we 

consider when making decisions 

whether to establish standards beyond 

the floor under section 112(d)(2) or 

under section 112(d)(6) include, but are 

not limited to, the following: which of 

the HAP metals are being reduced and 

by how much; total capital costs; annual 

costs; and costs compared to total 

revenues (e.g., costs to revenue ratios). 

We also re-evaluated the option based 

on building ventilation as described in 

the 2011 proposal. This control option 

involves installation of full building 

ventilation at negative pressure for 

furnace buildings instead of installing 

fugitive controls on individual tapping 

and casting operations. This option 

would require installation of ductwork 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60273 

from the roof vents of furnace buildings, 

additional fans, structural repairs to 

buildings and a new fabric filter for each 

building. Both Eramet and Felman 

provided extensive comments and 

information regarding implementation 

of building ventilation, including cost 

estimates based on their own 

engineering analyses. We thoroughly 

reviewed the comments and information 

provided by the companies along with 

information gathered from other 

sources, and then revised our costs 

analyses accordingly for this 

supplemental proposal. 

We estimate that the full building 

enclosure option would reduce PM 

emissions from the facilities by 252 tons 

per year (and total HAP emissions by 83 

tons per year). The total estimated 

capital cost for these fugitive controls is 

$61 million. Annualized capital cost 

and operational and maintenance costs 

are estimated at $19 million per year, 

which results in an estimated cost per 

ton of metal HAP removed of $226,000 

per ton. We also estimate that this 

option would achieve PM emission 

reductions of 252 tons, resulting in cost 

per ton of PM removed of $74,200 per 

ton and achieve PM2.5 emission 

reductions of 53 tons, resulting in a cost 

per ton of PM2.5 removal of $353,000 per 

ton. The incremental cost effectiveness 

comparing the enhanced capture option 

to the building ventilation option is 

$501,000 per ton of PM removed, $2.4 

million per ton of PM2.5 removed and 

$2.2 million per ton of HAP removed. 

Based on these analyses, we conclude 

that the full-building enclosure option 

with negative pressure may not be 

feasible and would have significant 

economic impacts on the facilities 

(including potential closure for one or 

more facilities). However, we conclude 

that the enhanced local capture option 

is a feasible and cost-effective approach 

to achieve significant reductions in 

fugitive HAP emissions and will achieve 

almost as much reductions as the fullbuilding enclosure option (229 vs 252 

tons PM reductions) thus achieving 

most of the risk reductions. In light of 

the technical feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of the enhanced capture 

options, we are proposing the enhanced 

capture option under the authority of 

section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. 

In the 2011 proposal, we included a 

requirement that emissions exiting from 

a shop building may not exceed more 

than 10 percent opacity for more than 

one 6-minute period, to be 

demonstrated every 5 years as part of 

the periodic required performance tests. 

For day-to-day continuous monitoring 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed shop building requirements, 

the 2011 proposal relied on achieving 

the requirement to maintain the shop 

building at negative pressure to at least 

0.007 inches of water. This was to be 

supplemented by operation and work 

practice standards that required 

preparation of a process fugitive 

emissions ventilation plan for each shop 

building, which would include 

schematics with design parameters (e.g., 

air flow and static pressure) of the 

ventilation system. The source would 

conduct a baseline survey to verify that 

building air supply and exhaust are 

balanced and the building will be 

maintained under at least 0.007 inches 

of water. Such plan would identify 

critical maintenance activities and 

schedules, be submitted to the 

permitting authority and incorporated 

into the source’s operating permit. The 

baseline survey would be repeated every 

5 years or following significant changes 

to the ventilation system. 

With the move to the proposed 

enhanced local capture alternative, we 

believe that more frequent opacity 

monitoring based on an average of 8 

percent opacity at all times, is 

appropriate to demonstrate compliance 

with the process fugitives standards. We 

propose that if the average opacity 

reading from the shop building is 

greater than 8 percent opacity during an 

observed furnace process cycle, an 

additional two more furnace process 

cycles must be observed such that the 

average opacity during the entire 

observation period is less than 7 percent 

opacity. A furnace process cycle means 

the period in which the furnace is 

tapped to the time in which the furnace 

is tapped again and includes periods of 

charging, smelting, tapping, casting and 

ladle raking. We also propose that at no 

time during operation may any two 

consecutive 6-minute block opacity 

readings be greater than 20 percent 

opacity. We believe that the longer 

averaging time for this new opacity limit 

(furnace process cycle vs. individual 6- 

minute averages) addresses concerns 

that small variations in an otherwise 

well-controlled furnace cycle could 

result in violations of the opacity 

standard. The proposed 20 percent 

ceiling ensures that there are no acute 

events that could adversely affect public 

health. Finally, the lower limit (8 vs. 10 

percent opacity) also reflects that 

sources should achieve lower overall 

emissions over a longer averaging 

period. We propose that sources be 

required to conduct opacity 

observations at least once per week for 

each operating furnace and each MOR 

operation. Similar to the 2011 proposal, 

continuous monitoring of key 

ventilation operating system parameters 

and periodic inspections of the 

ventilation systems would ensure that 

the ventilation systems are operating as 

designed. 

Also, similar to the 2011 proposal, we 

believe that the source should 

demonstrate that the overall design of 

the ventilation system is adequate to 

achieve the proposed standards. We 

propose that the facilities in this source 

category must maintain a process 

fugitives capture system that is designed 

to collect 95 percent or more of the 

process fugitive emissions from furnace 

operations, casting MOR process, ladle 

raking and slag skimming and crushing 

and screening operations and convey 

the collected emissions to a control 

device that meets specified emission 

limits and the proposed opacity limits. 

We believe that if the source designs the 

plan according to the most recent (at the 

time of construction) ventilation design 

principles recommended by the 

American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists (ACHIH), includes 

detailed schematics of the ventilation 

system design, addresses variables that 

affect capture efficiency such as cross 

drafts and describes protocol or design 

characteristics to minimize such events 

and identifies monitoring and 

maintenance steps, the plan will be 

capable of ensuring the system is 

properly designed and continues to 

operate as designed. We would continue 

to require that this plan be submitted to 

the permitting authority, incorporated 

into the source’s operating permit and 

updated every 5 years or when there is 

a significant change in variables that 

affect process fugitive emissions 

ventilation design. This list of design 

criteria, coupled with the requirement 

for frequent opacity observations and 

operating parameter monitoring will 

result in enforceable requirements. We 

recognize that other design 

requirements and/or more frequent 

opacity observations may yield more 

compliance certainty, but incur greater 

costs and not result in measurable 

decreases in emissions. However, we 

request comment on other measures that 

could be considered to demonstrate that 

well designed (e.g., at least 95 percent 

overall capture of process fugitive 

emissions) plans are developed and 

maintained. We request that such 

comments include costs, measurement 

techniques or other information to 

evaluate their efficacy. 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we re-evaluated 

compliance requirements associated 

with the 2011 proposed amendments to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

determine whether we should make 

changes to those proposed amendments. 

Based on this re-evaluation, we are 

proposing the following changes to what 

was proposed in the 2011 proposal. 

1. Stack Emission Limits 

In response to public comments, we 

revisited the format of the stack 

emission limits. We concluded that a 

concentration-based limit is still 

appropriate, but we agree that the 

proposed CO2 concentration correction 

poses a problem under certain control 

device configurations. While such a 

concentration correction is appropriate 

for combustion sources such as boilers, 

we agree that its use in the context of 

ferroalloys production is not helpful. 

The PM stack limits proposed above do 

not include a CO2 correction. 

2. Emissions Averaging 

As described above, we have decided 

to retain a concentration format for the 

emissions limits for the stacks but we 

are not retaining the emissions 

averaging provision in this 

supplemental proposal that we had 

proposed in 2011. We believe a 

concentration format is the best format 

for this NESHAP and we have 

concluded that it is not the best format 

to use under an emissions averaging 

option. We are concerned that emissions 

from a large furnace emitting a lower 

than average concentration could still 

emit more emissions than a small 

furnace with a higher than average 

concentration. This could result in a net 

increase in emissions from the two 

furnaces compared to their emissions if 

they were not allowed to average 

emissions. For this reason, we are 

proposing not to include the emissions 

averaging provisions in the rule, which 

is a change from the 2011 proposal. 

3. Fenceline Monitoring Alternative 

In the 2011 proposal, we assumed 

there could be control measures other 

than maintaining the furnace buildings 

under negative pressure that would 

achieve equivalent emissions 

reductions. Therefore, to provide some 

flexibility to facilities regarding how to 

achieve the reductions of fugitive 

emissions, in lieu of building the full 

enclosure and evacuation system 

described in the 2011 proposal, we 

proposed that sources could 

demonstrate compliance with an 

alternative approach by conducting 

fenceline monitoring and demonstrate 

that the ambient concentrations of 

manganese at their facility boundary 

remain at levels no more than 0.1 mg/m3

on a 60-day rolling average. However, at 

this time, we believe that the proposed 

enhanced local capture option described 

in this supplemental proposal 

incorporates the features anticipated in 

a non-negative pressure building option 

and contains compliance requirements 

(based on meeting a tight opacity limit 

and other requirements) that would 

assess emissions at the point of the 

maximum output, that is, from the roof 

monitor of the ferroalloys production 

building. Furthermore, we determined 

there were various issues associated 

with fenceline monitoring at facilities 

within this source category, including 

highly variable wind patterns, 

uncertainties as to how to account for 

background concentrations and road 

dust and the large difference between 

emissions release heights (from the high 

roof vents and stacks) compared to 

heights where fenceline monitors would 

be located (near ground level). 

Therefore, we are proposing to not 

include fenceline monitoring in the 

final rule as an alternative method to 

demonstrate compliance with a specific 

ambient level as was described in the 

2011 proposal. We believe the proposed 

tight opacity limit (which would be 

measured at the emissions sources), 

along with the proposed requirements to 

install, operate and maintain effective 

fugitive capture and control systems, 

emissions limits for the stacks and 

various parametric monitoring 

requirements, are appropriate control 

requirements to ensure effective capture 

and control of emissions. However, as 

described in Section V.I. of this Notice, 

we are seeking comments regarding 

other possible options to monitor 

fugitive emissions, including fenceline 

monitoring as a tool to monitor trends 

in ambient concentrations at these 

locations and to use this information 

(along with meteorological data and 

modeling tools) to attempt to quantify 

trends in emissions that are leaving and 

entering the facility property. 

4. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

In the 2011 proposal, we proposed to 

eliminate two provisions that exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. We also 

included provisions for affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations 

of emission standards caused by 

malfunctions. Periods of startup, normal 

operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a 

source’s operations. However, by 

contrast, malfunction is defined as a 

‘‘sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 

preventable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

. . .’’ (40 CFR 63.2). As explained in the 

2011 proposal, the EPA interprets CAA 

section 112 as not requiring emissions 

that occur during periods of 

malfunction to be factored into 

development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under section 112, emissions 

standards for new sources must be no 

less stringent than the level ‘‘achieved’’ 

by the best controlled similar source 

and for existing sources generally must 

be no less stringent than the average 

emission limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the 

best performing 12 percent of sources in 

the category. There is nothing in section 

112 that directs the Agency to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 

sources when setting emission 

standards. As the DC Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in section 

112 requires the Agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. A 

malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in 

performance that occurs during routine 

operations of a source. A malfunction is 

a failure of the source to perform in a 

‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no 

statutory language compels the EPA to 

consider such events in setting section 

112 standards. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60275 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99 percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device 

was repaired. The source’s emissions 

during the malfunction would be 100 

times higher than during normal 

operations. As such, the emissions over 

a 4-day malfunction period would 

exceed the annual emissions of the 

source during normal operations. As 

this example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret section 112 to 

avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach 

to malfunctions is consistent with 

section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ 40 CFR § 63.2 (definition of 

malfunction). 

Further, to the extent the EPA files an 

enforcement action against a source for 

violation of an emission standard, the 

source can raise any and all defenses in 

that enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

As noted above, the 2011 proposal 

included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions. EPA included the 

affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal 

as it had in several prior rules in an 

effort to create a system that 

incorporates some flexibility, 

recognizing that there is a tension, 

inherent in many types of air regulation, 

to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the 

control of the source. Although the EPA 

recognized that its case-by-case 

enforcement discretion provides 

sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense in the 2011 proposal 

and in several prior rules to provide a 

more formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s 

Section 112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 

749 F.3d 1055 No. 10–1371 (D.C. Cir., 

2014) (vacating affirmative defense 

provisions in Section 112 rule 

establishing emission standards for 

Portland cement kilns). The court found 

that the EPA lacked authority to 

establish an affirmative defense for 

private civil suits and held that under 

the CAA, the authority to determine 

civil penalty amounts in such cases lies 

exclusively with the courts, not the 

EPA. Specifically, the Court found: ‘‘As 

the language of the statute makes clear, 

the courts determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC at *21 

(‘‘[U]nder this statute, deciding whether 

penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a given 

private civil suit is a job for the courts, 

not EPA.’’). In light of NRDC, the EPA 

is withdrawing its proposal to include a 

regulatory affirmative defense provision 

in this rulemaking and in this proposal 

has eliminated sections 63.1627 and 

63.1662 (the affirmative defense 

provisions in the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72508)). As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the DC Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC at *24. 

(arguments that violation were caused 

by unavoidable technology failure can 

be made to the courts in future civil 

cases when the issue arises). The same 

logic applies to EPA administrative 

enforcement actions. 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

The proposed changes to the 2011 

proposal that are set out in this 

supplementary proposal will not change 

the compliance dates proposed. We 

continue to propose that facilities must 

comply with the changes set out in this 

supplementary proposal (which are 

being proposed under CAA sections 

112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 112(d)(6) and 

112(f)(2) for all affected sources), no 

later than 2 years after the effective date 

of the final rule. We find that 2 years are 

necessary to complete the installation of 

the enhanced local capture system and 

other controls. In the period between 

the effective date of this rule and the 

compliance date, existing sources would 

continue to comply with the existing 

requirements specified in §§ 63.1650 

through 63.1661, which will protect the 

health of persons from imminent 

endangerment. 

V. Summary of the Revised Cost, 

Environmental and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We maintain, as at the 2011 proposal, 

that the two manganese ferroalloys 

production facilities currently operating 

in the United States will be affected by 

these proposed amendments. We do not 

know of any new facilities that are 

expected to be constructed in the 

foreseeable future. However, there is 

one other facility that has a permit to 

produce ferromanganese or 

silicomanganese in an electric arc 

furnace, but it is not doing so at present. 

It is possible, however, that this facility 

could resume production or another 

non-manganese ferroalloy producer 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60276 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

could decide to commence production 

of ferromanganese or silicomanganese. 

Given this uncertainty, our impact 

analysis is focused on the two existing 

sources that are currently operating. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

The EPA revised the estimated 

emissions reductions that are expected 

to result from the proposed amendments 

to the 1999 NESHAP based on the 

proposed changes in this supplemental 

proposal. A detailed documentation of 

the analysis can be found in the Cost 

Impacts document, which is available in 

the docket. 

As noted in the 2011 proposal, 

emissions of metal HAP from ferroalloys 

production sources have declined in 

recent years, primarily as the result of 

state actions and also due to the 

industry’s own initiative. The proposed 

amendments in this supplemental 

proposal would cut HAP emissions 

(primarily particulate metal HAP such 

as manganese, arsenic and nickel) by 

about 60 percent from their current 

levels. Under the revised proposed 

emissions standards for process 

fugitives emissions from the furnace 

building, we estimate that the HAP 

emissions reductions would be 77 tpy, 

including significant reductions of 

manganese. 

As noted in the 2011 proposal, based 

on the emissions data available to the 

EPA, we believe that both facilities will 

be able to comply with the proposed 

emissions limits for HCl without 

additional controls. Based on the 

analyses presented today, we also 

anticipate that both facilities will be 

able to comply with the proposed 

emission limits for mercury and PAH 

without additional controls. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the revised proposed 

amendments, ferroalloys production 

facilities are expected to incur costs for 

the design of a local ventilation system, 

resulting in a site-specific local 

ventilation plan and installation of 

custom hoods and ventilation 

equipment and additional control 

devices to manage the air flows 

generated by the enhanced capture 

systems. There would also be capital 

costs associated with installing new or 

improved continuous monitoring 

systems, including installation of BLDS 

on the furnace baghouses that are not 

currently equipped with these systems. 

The revised capital costs for each 

facility were estimated based on the 

projected number and types of upgrades 

required. The specific enhancements for 

each facility were selected for cost 

estimation based on estimates directly 

provided by the facilities based on their 

engineering analyses and discussions 

with the EPA. The Cost Impacts 

document includes a complete 

description of the revised cost estimate 

methods used for this analysis and is 

available in the docket. 

Cost elements vary by plant and 

furnace and include the following 

elements: 

• Curtains or doors surrounding 

furnace tops to contain fugitive 

emissions; 

• Improvements to hoods collecting 

tapping emissions; 

• Upgraded fans to improve the 

airflow of fabric filters controlling 

fugitive emissions; 

• Addition of ‘‘secondary capture’’ or 

additional hoods to capture emissions 

from tapping platforms or crucibles; 

• Addition of fugitives capture for 

casting operations; 

• Improvement of existing control 

devices or addition of fabric filters; and 

• Addition of rooftop ventilation, in 

which fugitive emissions escaping local 

control are collected in the roof canopy 

over process areas through addition of 

partitions and hoods, then directed 

through roof vents and ducts to control 

devices. 

For purposes of the supplemental 

proposal analysis, we assumed that 

enhanced fugitive capture and control 

systems and roofline ventilation will be 

installed for all operational furnaces at 

both facilities and for MOR operations 

at Eramet Marietta. The specific 

elements of the capture and control 

systems selected for each facility are 

based on information supplied by the 

facilities incorporating their best 

estimates of the improvements to 

fugitive emission capture and control 

they would implement to achieve the 

standards included in the supplemental 

proposal. We estimate the total capital 

costs of installing the required 

ductwork, fans and control devices 

under the enhanced capture option to be 

$37.6 million and the total annualized 

cost to be $7.1 million (2012 dollars) for 

the two plants. We estimate that this 

option would reduce metal HAP 

emissions by 75 tons, resulting in a cost 

per ton of metal HAP removed to be 

$94,700 per ton ($47 per pound). The 

total HAP reduction for the enhanced 

capture option is estimated to be 77 tons 

per year at a cost per ton of $91,900 per 

ton ($46 per pound). We also estimate 

that this option would achieve PM 

emission reductions of 229 tons per 

year, resulting in cost per ton of PM 

removed of $30,900 per ton and achieve 

PM2.5 emission reductions of 48 tons per 

year, resulting in a cost per ton of PM2.5

removal of $147,000 per ton. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

As a result of the requirements in this 

supplemental proposal, we estimate that 

the total capital cost for the Eramet 

facility will be about $25 million and 

the total annualized costs will be about 

$5.4 million (in 2012 dollars). For 

impacts to Felman Production LLC, this 

facility is estimated to incur a total 

capital cost of $12.4 million and a total 

annualized costs of just under $1.7 

million (in 2012 dollars). In total, these 

costs could lead to an increase in 

annualized cost of as much as 1.8 

percent of sales, which serves as an 

estimate for the increase in product 

prices, and a decrease in output of as 

much as 9.5 percent. For more 

information regarding economic 

impacts, please refer to the Economic 

Impact Analysis report that is included 

in the public docket for this 

supplemental proposal. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The estimated reductions in HAP 

emissions (i.e., about 77 tpy) that would 

be achieved by this proposal would 

provide significant benefits to public 

health. For example, there would be a 

significant reduction in emissions of air 

toxics (especially Mn, Ni, Cd and 

PAHs). In addition to the HAP 

reductions, we also estimate that this 

supplemental proposal would achieve 

about 48 tons of reductions in PM2.5

emissions as a co-benefit of the HAP 

reductions annually. 

This rulemaking is not an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866 

because it is not likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. Therefore, we have not 

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for this rulemaking or a benefits 

analysis. While we expect that these 

avoided emissions will result in 

improvements in air quality and reduce 

health effects associated with exposure 

to air pollution associated with these 

emissions, we have not quantified or 

monetized the benefits of reducing these 

emissions for this rulemaking. This does 

not imply that there are no benefits 

associated with these emission 

reductions. When determining if the 

benefits of an action exceed its costs, 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct the Agency to consider qualitative 

benefits that are difficult to quantity but 

nevertheless essential to consider. 

Directly emitted particles are 

precursors to secondary formation of 

fine particles (PM2.5). Controls installed 

to reduce HAP would also reduce 

ambient concentrations of PM2.5 as a cobenefit. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60277 

57U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. Available on the 

Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

58U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Office of 

Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/

ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_

Bookmarked.pdf. 

59US EPA, 2006. Integrated Risk Information 

System. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. 

60US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, 2006. Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) for 

Hazardous Substances. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

mrls/index.html. 

61CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment, 2005. Chronic Reference Exposure 

Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of December 2008. 

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels. 

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoiding 

mortality and morbidity from 

cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. 

Researchers have associated PM2.5

exposure with adverse health effects in 

numerous toxicological, clinical and 

epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 

2009) 57. When adequate data and 

resources are available and an RIA is 

required, the EPA generally quantifies 

several health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 

2012) 58. These health effects include 

premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidities such 

as heart attacks, hospital admissions 

and respiratory morbidities such as 

asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, 

hospital and emergency department 

visits, work loss days, restricted activity 

days and respiratory symptoms. The 

scientific literature also suggests that 

exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with 

adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term 

births, pulmonary function and other 

cardiovascular and respiratory effects 

(U.S. EPA, 2009), but the EPA has not 

quantified certain outcomes these 

impacts in its benefits analyses. PM2.5

also increases light extinction, which is 

an important aspect of visibility. 

The rulemaking is also anticipated to 

reduce emissions of other HAP, 

including metal HAP (arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium (both total and 

Cr+6), lead compounds, manganese and 

nickel) and PAHs. Some of these HAP 

are carcinogenic (e.g., arsenic, PAHs) 

and some have effects other than cancer 

(e.g., kidney disease from cadmium, 

respiratory and immunological effects 

from nickel). While we cannot 

quantitatively estimate the benefits 

achieved by reducing emissions of these 

HAP, we would expect benefits by 

reducing exposures to these HAP. More 

information about the health effects of 

these HAP can be found on the IRIS,59

ATSDR,60 and California EPA 61 Web 

pages. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on the revised 

risk assessment and technology review 

and proposed changes to the previously 

proposed amendments. We seek 

comments on the additional data 

received in August 2014 (as described in 

Section II.D above) and the impacts of 

those new data on the analyses and 

results presented in this notice. We seek 

comments on the sufficiency of the 

proposed controls for process fugitive 

emissions, the design of such systems 

and how best to monitor them to ensure 

the systems achieve the estimated 

efficiency. We also seek comments on 

other aspects of this supplemental 

proposal, including, but not limited to, 

the proposed opacity standards. 

The EPA is also soliciting comment 

with regard to expanding the monitoring 

requirements in this NESHAP for 

fugitive particulate matter and 

manganese emissions being released at 

the roof vents of furnace buildings using 

one or more of three different options. 

For the following three options the EPA 

is additionally seeking comment on the 

frequency of monitoring and the cost 

associated with installation, operation, 

analysis and ongoing reporting. 

Additional cost information of these 

three monitoring options is included in 

the Cost Impacts document, which is 

available in the docket. 

First, the EPA is soliciting comment 

on the potential to require the facilities 

to take periodic measurements of 

fugitive particulate matter and 

manganese emissions from the roof 

vents using portable filter based 

measurement technologies. The EPA 

solicits comment on requiring no less 

than 3 filter based monitoring systems 

with associated anemometers with the 

goal of quantifying trends in the process 

fugitive emissions that are leaving the 

furnace buildings. We also solicit 

comment on the appropriate sampling 

duration and frequency of such 

measurements (e.g., 8-hour samples 

gathered at each monitor several times 

per week or month). This monitoring 

could provide useful information 

regarding the remaining fugitive 

emissions that will be escaping the 

buildings after the facilities install and 

operate the improved capture and 

controls systems that we expect will be 

installed to comply with this proposed 

rule. This information will also help 

improve our understanding of the 

relationship between the process 

fugitive emissions and the specific 

operations within the furnace buildings. 

However, the measurements would not 

be tied to a specific emissions limit. 

Second, the EPA is soliciting 

comment on requiring fugitive fenceline 

filter based measurements of particulate 

matter and manganese emissions at the 

facilities with no less than 3 monitoring 

systems at the property boundaries to 

monitor trends in ambient 

concentrations at these locations and to 

use this information (along with 

meteorological data and modeling tools) 

to attempt to quantify trends in 

emissions that are leaving and entering 

the facility property. The EPA seeks 

comment on having the monitoring 

systems use common ambient filter 

based sampling techniques as well as 

gathering data on meteorological 

conditions simultaneously at each of the 

sampling sites. The EPA recognizes that 

this monitoring would be capturing both 

ground level and other fugitive 

emissions from the facilities as well as 

background contributions from other 

sources, and that this type of monitoring 

has limitations. Nevertheless, EPA is 

taking comment on the application and 

appropriateness of this type of 

monitoring as part of the requirements 

within this NESHAP to evaluate 

emissions leaving the facility property 

and is taking comment on where to 

position the monitoring systems to best 

evaluate the fugitive emissions. 

Third, the EPA is soliciting comment 

regarding the use of new technologies to 

provide continuous or near continuous 

long term approaches to monitoring 

emissions from industrial sources such 

the Ferroalloys production facilities 

within this source category. To this end 

we are seeking comment on the 

feasibility and practice associated with 

the use of automated Opacity 

Monitoring with ASTM D7520–13, 

using digital camera technology (DCOT) 

at fixed points to interpret visible 

emissions from roof vents associated 

with the processes at each facility, and 

how this technology could potentially 

be included as part of the requirements 

in the NESHAP for ferroalloys 

production sources. Specifically we are 

interested in comments regarding how 

many fixed camera locations would be 

needed to provide sufficient sun-angle 

viewing during daylight operating 

hours, and the frequency of the EXIF 2.1 

JPG image analysis (how often the roof 

vent plume should be evaluated). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA is moving toward advances 

in information and emissions 

monitoring technology that is setting the 

stage for detection, processing and 

communication capabilities that can 

revolutionize environmental protection. 

The EPA calls this Next Generation 

Compliance. One of the advances in 

information sharing is increased 

transparency. Using transparency as a 

way to improve performance and 

increase compliance, the EPA is seeking 

comments on whether affected sources 

should be required to post Method 9 

readings on their company Web sites 

and/or State dashboards. 

Electronic reporting is another next 

generation tool that saves time and 

money while improving results. The 

EPA is asking for comments on whether 

the EPA should require affected sources 

to submit all compliance documents 

such as notice of compliance status 

form, deviations from the process 

fugitive ventilation plan and outdoor 

fugitive dust plan, and electronic 

records of the bag leak detection system 

output. 

We are not opening comment on 

aspects of the 2011 proposal (76 FR 

72508) that have not changed and are 

not addressed in this supplemental 

proposal. Comments received on the 

2011 proposal along with comments 

received on this supplemental proposal 

will be addressed in the EPA’s Response 

to Comment document and final rule 

preamble for the Ferroalloys Production 

source category. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses and instructions 

are available for download on the RTR 

Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 

include detailed information for each 

HAP emissions release point for the 

facilities in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern and provide any 

‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations, etc.). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–*** (through one of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble). 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a single facility or multiple facilities, 

you need only submit one file for all 

facilities. The file should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility. We request that all data revision 

comments be submitted in the form of 

updated Microsoft® Excel files that are 

generated by the Microsoft® Access file. 

These files are provided on the RTR 

Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action because it 

raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this supplemental 

proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document prepared by the EPA 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2448.01. 

We are proposing changes to the 

paperwork requirements to the 

ferroalloys production source category 

that were proposed in 2011. In the 2011 

proposal, we proposed paperwork 

requirements in the form of increased 

frequency and number of pollutants 

tested for stack testing as described in 

§ 63.1625(c) and tighter parameter 

monitoring requirements to demonstrate 

continuous compliance as described in 

§ 63.1625(c)(4) and § 63.1626. We are 

not proposing changes to these 

requirements. However, in this 

supplemental proposal we are 

proposing more frequent opacity 

monitoring requirements compared to 

the 2011 proposal and are removing the 

shop building process fugitives 

monitoring requirements (to 

demonstrate negative pressure) that we 

proposed in 2011. 

In addition, in the 2011 proposal, we 

included an estimate of the burden 

associated with the affirmative defense 

in the ICR. However, as explained 

above, in this supplemental proposal we 

are withdrawing our proposal to include 

an affirmative defense and the burden 

estimate has been revised accordingly. 

We estimate two regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart XXX and 

will be subject to this action. The 

annual monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) as a 

result of the supplemental proposal 

revised amendments to subpart XXX 

(Ferroalloys Production) is estimated to 

be $643,845 per year. This includes 496 

labor hours per year at a total labor cost 

of $44,366 per year and total non-labor 

capital and operation and maintenance 

costs, of $599,479 per year. This 

estimate includes performance tests, 

notifications, reporting and 

recordkeeping associated with the new 

requirements for ferroalloys production 

operations. The total burden for the 

federal government (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standard) is estimated to be 48 hours per 

year at a total labor cost of $2,177 per 

year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895. Submit any comments 

related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. 

See ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments 

to OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60279 

Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after October 6, 2014, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by November 5, 2014. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, or any 

other statute, 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 businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) a small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. For this source category, which 

has the NAICS code 331110 (i.e., 

Electrometallurgical ferroalloy product 

manufacturing), the SBA small business 

size standard is 1,000 employees 

according to the SBA small business 

standards definitions. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s action on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Neither of the companies affected by 

this rule is considered to be a small 

entity per the definition provided in this 

section. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain a federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

state, local, or tribal governments, or the 

private sector. The action would not 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for state, local and tribal 

governments, in aggregate, or the private 

sector in any 1 year. This final action 

imposes no enforceable duties on any 

state, local, or tribal governments, or the 

private sector. Thus, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments as it 

contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments nor does it impose 

obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state governments 

and, because no new requirements are 

being promulgated, nothing in this 

action will supersede state regulations. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. The EPA 

specifically solicited comment on this 

action from tribal officials in the 2011 

proposal and none were received during 

the comment period for that proposal. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because the Agency does not 

believe the environmental health risks 

or safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. The report, Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Ferroalloys Facilities, shows that, 

prior to the implementation of the 

provisions included in the proposal and 

this supplemental proposal, on a 

nationwide basis, there are 

approximately 31,000 people exposed to 

a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million 

and approximately 1,500 people 

exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI 

greater than 1 due to emissions from the 

source category. The percentages for all 

demographic groups, including children 

18 years and younger, are similar to or 

lower than their respective nationwide 

percentages. Further, implementation of 

the provisions included in this action is 

expected to significantly reduce the 

number of at-risk people due to HAP 

emissions from these sources (from up 

to 31,000 to about 6,600), providing 

significant benefit to all the 

demographic groups in the at-risk 

population. 

This rule is expected to reduce 

environmental impacts for everyone, 

including children. This action 

establishes emissions limits at the levels 

based on MACT, as required by the 

CAA. Based on our analysis, we believe 

that this rule does not have a 

disproportionate impact on children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 13211, because it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution or use of 

energy. This action will not create any 

new requirements that affect the energy 

supply, distribution or use sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This supplemental proposal involves 

technical standards. The EPA has 

decided to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 

3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 10, 26A, 29, 30B, 316, 

CARB 429, SW–846 Method 3052, SW– 

846 Method 7471b and EPA water 

Method 1631E of 40 CFR Part 60, 

Appendix A. No applicable VCS were 

identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 

316, 1631E and CARB 429, SW–846 

Method 3052 and SW–846 Method 

7471b. 

Two VCS were identified acceptable 

alternatives to the EPA test methods for 

the purposes of this rule. The VCS 

standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10– 

1981—Part 10, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses’’ is an acceptable alternative to 

Method 3B. The VCS ASTM D7520–09, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Ambient Atmosphere’’ is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 9 under specified 

conditions. The Agency identified 18 

VCS as being potentially applicable to 

these methods cited in this rule. 

However, the EPA determined that the 

18 candidate VCS would not be 

practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. The 18 VCS and other 

information and conclusions, including 

the search and review results, are in the 

docket for this rule. 

Under §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of Subpart 

A of the General Provisions, a source 

may apply to the EPA for permission to 

use alternative test methods or 

alternative monitoring requirements in 

place of any required testing methods, 

performance specifications, or 

procedures in the proposed rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that the 

current health risks posed by emissions 

from this source category are 

unacceptable. There are up to 31,000 

people nationwide that are currently 

subject to health risks which may not be 

considered negligible (i.e., cancer risks 

greater than 1-in-1 million or chronic 

noncancer TOSHI greater than 1) due to 

emissions from this source category. 

The demographic makeup of this ‘‘atrisk’’ population is similar to the 

national distribution for all 

demographic groups. The proposed 

supplemental requirements along with 

other proposed requirements (76 FR 

72508) will reduce the number of 

people in this at-risk group, from up to 

31,000, to about 6,600 people. Based on 

this analysis, the EPA has determined 

that the proposed supplemental 

requirements will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 4, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(84); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (i)(1); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (p)(6) and 

adding paragraphs (p)(21) and (p)(22); 

and 

■ d. By adding paragraph (s). 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

(b) * * * 

(84) ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity in 

a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere,’’ IBR approved for 

§§ 63.1625(b) and 63.1657(b). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], issued 

August 31, 1981 IBR approved for 

§§ 63.309(k), 63. 772(e), 63.772(h), 

63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 

63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 

63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 

63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 

63.5160(d), 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 

63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 

63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 

63.11646(a), 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 

DDDDD of this part, table 4 to subpart 

JJJJJ of this part, Table 5 of subpart 

UUUUU of this part and table 1 to 

subpart ZZZZZ of this part. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(6) SW–846–7471B, Mercury in Solid 

Or Semisolid Waste (Manual ColdVapor Technique), Revision 2, February 

2007, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, 

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 

Third Edition, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b), table 6 to subpart DDDDD 

of this part and table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ 

of this part. 

* * * * * 

(21) SW–846–Method 3052, 

Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion Of 

Siliceous and Organically Based 

Matrices, Revision 0, December 1996, in 

EPA Publication No. SW–846, Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods, Third 

Edition, IBR approved for § 63.1625(b). 

(22) Method 1631, Revision E: 

Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge 

and Trap and Cold Vapor Atomic 

Fluorescence Spectrometry, August 

2002 located at: http://water.epa.gov/

scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/

upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_

mercury_1631.pdf, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b). 

* * * * * 

(s) The following material is available 

from the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, 

California 95814, (http://

www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/). 

(1) Method 429, Determination of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

(PAH) Emissions from Stationary 

Sources, Adopted September 1989, 

Amended July 1997, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b). 

(2) [Reserved] 

Subpart XXX—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.1620 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1620 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate a new or existing 

ferromanganese and/or silicomanganese 

production facility that is a major source 

or is co-located at a major source of 

hazardous air pollutant emissions. 

(b) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate any of the following 

equipment as part of a ferromanganese 

or silicomanganese production facility: 

(1) Open, semi-sealed, or sealed 

submerged arc furnace, 

(2) Casting operations, 

(3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) 

process, 

(4) Crushing and screening 

operations, 

(5) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. 

(c) A new affected source is any of the 

sources listed in paragraph (b) of this 

section for which construction or 

reconstruction commenced after [DATE 

OF FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies 

the provisions of subpart A of this part 

that apply to owners and operators of 

ferromanganese and silicomanganese 

production facilities subject to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you are subject to the provisions 

of this subpart, you are also subject to 

title V permitting requirements under 40 

CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60281 

(f) Emission standards in this subpart 

apply at all times. 

■ 4. Section 63.1621 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1621 What are my compliance dates? 

(a) Existing affected sources must be 

in compliance with the provisions 

specified in §§ 63.1620 through 63.1629 

no later than [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(b) Affected sources in existence prior 

to [DATE OF FINAL RULE 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] must be in compliance with 

the provisions specified in §§ 63.1650 

through 63.1661 by November 21, 2001 

and until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. As 

of [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the provisions 

of §§ 63.1650 through 63.1661 cease to 

apply to affected sources in existence 

prior to [DATE OF FINAL RULE 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The provisions of 

§§ 63.1650 through 63.1661 remain 

enforceable at a source for its activities 

prior to [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(c) If you own or operate a new 

affected source that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

[DATE OF FINAL RULE PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

comply with the requirements of this 

subpart by [DATE OF EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], or upon startup of 

operations, whichever is later. 

■ 5. Section 63.1622 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1622 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

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 

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 collection 

of components used to capture the gases 

and fumes released from one or more 

emissions points and then convey the 

captured gas stream to a control device 

or to the atmosphere. A capture system 

may include, but is not limited to, the 

following components as applicable to a 

given capture system design: duct intake 

devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, 

dampers, manifolds, plenums, fans and 

roofline ventilation systems. 

Casting means the period of time from 

when molten ferroalloy is removed from 

the tapping station until pouring into 

casting molds or beds is completed. 

This includes the following operations: 

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. 

Electric arc furnace means any 

furnace where electrical energy is 

converted to heat energy by 

transmission of current between 

electrodes partially submerged in the 

furnace charge. 

Furnace process cycle means the 

period in which the furnace is tapped to 

the time in which the furnace is tapped 

again and includes periods of charging, 

smelting, tapping, casting and ladle 

raking. For multiple furnaces operating 

within a single shop building, furnace 

process cycle means a period sufficient 

to capture a full cycle of charging, 

smelting, tapping, casting and ladle 

raking for each furnace within the shop 

building. 

Ladle treatment means a post-tapping 

process including metal and alloy 

additions where chemistry adjustments 

are made in the ladle after furnace 

smelting to achieve a specified product. 

Local ventilation means hoods and 

ductwork designed to capture process 

fugitive emissions close to the area 

where the emissions are generated (e.g., 

tap hoods). 

Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process 

means the reduction of the carbon 

content of ferromanganese through the 

use of oxygen. 

Outdoor fugitive dust source means a 

stationary source from which hazardous 

air pollutant-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. 

Plant roadway means any area at a 

ferromanganese and silicomanganese 

production facility that is subject to 

plant mobile equipment, such as 

forklifts, 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. 

Process fugitive emissions source 

means a source of hazardous air 

pollutant emissions that is associated 

with a ferromanganese or 

silicomanganese production facility and 

is not a fugitive dust source. Process 

fugitive sources include emissions that 

escape capture from the electric arc 

furnace, tapping operations, casting 

operations, ladle treatment, MOR or 

crushing and screening equipment. 

Roofline ventilation system means an 

exhaust system designed to evacuate 

process fugitive emissions that collect in 

the roofline area to a control device. 

Shop building means the building 

which houses one or more electric arc 

furnaces or other processes that generate 

process fugitive emissions. 

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. 

Tapping emissions means the gases 

and emissions associated with removal 

of product from the electric arc furnace 

under normal operating conditions, 

such as removal of metal under normal 

pressure and movement by gravity 

down the spout into the ladle and filling 

the ladle. 

Tapping period means the time from 

when a tap hole is opened until the time 

a tap hole is closed. 

■ 6. Section 63.1623 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1623 What are the emissions 

standards for new, reconstructed and 

existing facilities? 

(a) Electric arc furnaces. You must 

install, operate and maintain an 

effective capture system that collects the 

emissions from each electric arc furnace 

operation (including charging, melting 

and tapping operations and emissions 

from any vent stacks) and conveys the 

collected emissions to a control device 

for the removal of the pollutants 

specified in the emissions standards 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(5) of this section. 

(1) Particulate matter emissions. (i) 

You must not discharge exhaust gases 

from each electric arc furnace operation 

containing particulate matter in excess 

of 4.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter (mg/dscm) into the atmosphere 

from any new or reconstructed electric 

arc furnace. 

(ii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing particulate matter 

in excess of 25 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any existing electric 

arc furnace. 

(2) Mercury emissions. (i) You must 

not discharge exhaust gases from each 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

electric arc furnace operation containing 

mercury emissions in excess of 17 mg/ 

dscm into the atmosphere from any new 

or reconstructed electric arc furnace 

when producing ferromanganese. 

(ii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing mercury emissions 

in excess of 170 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any existing electric 

arc furnace when producing 

ferromanganese. 

(iii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing mercury emissions 

in excess of 4.0 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnace when 

producing silicomanganese. 

(iv) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing mercury emissions 

in excess of 12 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any existing electric 

arc furnace when producing 

silicomanganese. 

(3) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

emissions. (i) You must not discharge 

exhaust gases from each electric arc 

furnace operation containing polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 1,400 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any existing electric 

arc furnace when producing 

ferromanganese. 

(ii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 880 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnace when 

producing ferromanganese. 

(iii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 120 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any existing electric 

arc furnace when producing 

silicomanganese. 

(iv) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 72 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnace when 

producing silicomanganese. 

(4) Hydrochloric acid emissions. (i) 

You must not discharge exhaust gases 

from each electric arc furnace operation 

containing hydrochloric acid emissions 

in excess of 180 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnace. 

(ii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases from each electric arc furnace 

operation containing hydrochloric acid 

emissions in excess of 1,100 mg/dscm 

into the atmosphere from any existing 

electric arc furnace. 

(5) Formaldehyde emissions. You 

must not discharge exhaust gases from 

each electric arc furnace operation 

containing formaldehyde emissions in 

excess of 201 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any new, 

reconstructed or existing electric arc 

furnace. 

(b) Process fugitive emissions. (1) You 

must install, operate and maintain a 

capture system that is designed to 

collect 95 percent or more of the 

emissions from the process fugitive 

emissions sources and convey the 

collected emissions to a control device 

that is demonstrated to meet the 

applicable emission limit specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(2) The determination of 95-percent 

overall capture must be demonstrated as 

required by § 63.1624(a). 

(3) You must not cause the emissions 

exiting from a shop building, to exceed 

an average of 8 percent opacity. 

(i) The opacity readings from the shop 

building must be taken every 15 seconds 

during the observed furnace process 

cycle and the 15 second readings 

averaged to determine if the 8 percent 

opacity requirement has been met. 

(ii) If the average opacity reading from 

the shop building is greater than 8 

percent opacity during an observed 

furnace process cycle, an additional two 

more furnace process cycles must be 

observed within 7 days and the average 

opacity during the entire observation 

periods must be less than 8 percent 

opacity. 

(iii) At no time during operation may 

the average of any two consecutive 6- 

minute blocks be greater than 20 percent 

opacity. 

(c) Local ventilation emissions. If you 

operate local ventilation to capture 

tapping, casting, or ladle treatment 

emissions and direct them to a control 

device other than one associated with 

the electric arc furnace, you must not 

discharge into the atmosphere any 

captured emissions containing 

particulate matter in excess of 4.0 mg/ 

dscm. 

(d) MOR process. You must not 

discharge into the atmosphere from any 

new, reconstructed or existing MOR 

process exhaust gases containing 

particulate matter in excess of 3.9 mg/ 

dscm. 

(e) Crushing and screening 

equipment. You must not discharge into 

the atmosphere from any new, 

reconstructed, or existing piece of 

equipment associated with crushing and 

screening exhaust gases containing 

particulate matter in excess of 13 mg/

dscm. 

(f) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator that may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records and inspection of 

the source. 

■ 7. Section 63.1624 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1624 What are the operational and 

work practice standards for new, 

reconstructed and existing facilities? 

(a) Process fugitive emissions sources. 

(1) You must prepare and at all times 

operate according to, a process fugitive 

emissions ventilation plan that 

documents the design and operations to 

achieve at least 95 percent overall 

capture of process fugitive emissions. 

The plan will be deemed to achieve this 

level of capture if it consists of the 

following elements: 

(i) Documentation of engineered 

hoods and secondary fugitive capture 

systems designed according to the most 

recent, at the time of construction, 

ventilation design principles 

recommended by the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH). The process 

fugitive emissions capture systems must 

be designed to achieve sufficient air 

changes to evacuate the collection area 

frequently enough to ensure process 

fugitive emissions are effectively 

collected by the ventilation system and 

ducted to the control device(s). Include 

a schematic for each building indicating 

duct sizes and locations, hood sizes and 

locations, control device types, size and 

locations and exhaust locations. The 

design plan must address variables that 

affect capture efficiency such as 

operations that create cross-drafts and 

describe protocol or design 

characteristics to minimize such events. 

The design plan must identify the key 

operating parameters and measurement 

locations to ensure proper operation of 

the system and establish monitoring 

parameter values that reflect effective 

capture. 

(ii) List of critical maintenance 

actions and the schedule to conduct 

them. 

(2) You must submit a copy of the 

process fugitive emissions ventilation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60283 

plan to the designated permitting 

authority on or before the applicable 

compliance date for the affected source 

as specified in § 63.1621 in electronic 

format and whenever an update is made 

to the plan. The requirement for you to 

operate the facility according to the 

written process fugitives ventilation 

plan and specifications 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) You must update the information 

required in paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 

this section every 5 years or whenever 

there is a significant change in variables 

that affect process fugitives ventilation 

design such as the addition of a new 

process. 

(b) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. (1) 

You must prepare and at all times 

operate according to, an outdoor fugitive 

dust control plan that describes in detail 

the measures that will be put in place 

to control outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions from the individual fugitive 

dust sources at the facility. 

(2) You must submit a copy of the 

outdoor fugitive dust control plan to the 

designated permitting authority on or 

before the applicable compliance date 

for the affected source as specified in 

§ 63.1621. The requirement for you to 

operate the facility according to a 

written outdoor 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) You are permitted to use existing 

manuals that describe the measures in 

place to control outdoor 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 (b)(1) of this section. 

■ 8. Section 63.1625 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1625 What are the performance test 

and compliance requirements for new, 

reconstructed and existing facilities? 

(a) Performance testing. (1) All 

performance tests must be conducted 

according to the requirements in § 63.7 

of subpart A. 

(2) Each performance test in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 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 

electric 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) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section under such conditions 

as the Administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, you must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(b) Test methods. The following test 

methods in appendices of part 60 or 63 

of this chapter or as specified elsewhere 

must be used to determine compliance 

with the emission standards. 

(1) Method 1 of Appendix A–1 of 40 

CFR part 60 to select the sampling port 

location and the number of traverse 

points. 

(2) Method 2 of Appendix A–1 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine the volumetric 

flow rate of the stack gas. 

(3)(i) Method 3A or 3B of Appendix 

A–2 of 40 CFR part 60 (with integrated 

bag sampling) to determine the outlet 

stack and inlet oxygen and CO2 content. 

(ii) You must measure CO2

concentrations at both the inlet and 

outlet of the positive pressure fabric 

filter in conjunction with the pollutant 

sampling in order to determine 

isokinetic sampling rates. 

(iii) As an alternative to EPA 

Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC–19– 

10–1981–Part 10, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses’’ may be used 

(incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 

63.14). 

(4) Method 4 of Appendix A–3 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine the moisture 

content of the stack gas. 

(5)(i) Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine the particulate 

matter concentration of the stack gas for 

negative pressure baghouses and 

positive pressure baghouses with stacks. 

(ii) Method 5D of Appendix A–3 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine particulate 

matter concentration and volumetric 

flow rate of the stack gas for positive 

pressure baghouses without stacks. 

(iii) The sample volume for each run 

must be a minimum of 4.0 cubic meters 

(141.2 cubic feet). For Method 5 testing 

only, you may choose to collect less 

than 4.0 cubic meters per run provided 

that the filterable mass collected (e.g., 

net filter mass plus mass of nozzle, 

probe and filter holder rinses) is equal 

to or greater than 10 mg. If the total 

mass collected for two of three of the 

runs is less than 10 mg, you must 

conduct at least one additional test run 

that produces at least 10 mg of filterable 

mass collected (i.e., at a greater sample 

volume). Report the results of all test 

runs. 

(6) Method 30B of Appendix A–8 of 

40 CFR part 60 to measure mercury. 

Apply the minimum sample volume 

determination procedures as per the 

method. 

(7)(i) Method 26A of Appendix A–8 of 

40 CFR part 60 to determine outlet stack 

or inlet hydrochloric acid concentration. 

(ii) Collect a minimum volume of 2 

cubic meters. 

(8)(i) Method 316 of Appendix A of 40 

CFR part 63 to determine outlet stack or 

inlet formaldehyde. 

(ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 

cubic meter. 

(9) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine opacity. 

ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere’’ may be used (incorporated 

by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the 

following conditions: 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–09, you or the DCOT 

vendor must present the plumes in front 

of various backgrounds of color and 

contrast representing conditions 

anticipated during field use such as blue 

sky, trees and mixed backgrounds 

(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). 

(ii) You must also have standard 

operating procedures in place including 

daily or other frequency quality checks 

to ensure the equipment is within 

manufacturing specifications as 

outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM 

D7520–09. 

(iii) You must follow the 

recordkeeping procedures outlined in 

§ 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, 

compliance report, data sheets and all 

raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity 

and certification determination. 

(iv) You or the DCOT vendor must 

have a minimum of four (4) 

independent technology users apply the 

software to determine the visible 

opacity of the 300 certification plumes. 

For each set of 25 plumes, the user may 

not exceed 20 percent opacity of any 

one reading and the average error must 

not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. 

(v) Use of this approved alternative 

does not provide or imply a certification 

or validation of any vendor’s hardware 

or software. The onus to maintain and 

verify the certification and/or training of 

the DCOT camera, software and operator 

in accordance with ASTM D7520–09 

and these requirements is on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

facility, DCOT operator and DCOT 

vendor. 

(10) Methods to determine the 

mercury content of manganese ore 

including a total metals digestion 

technique, SW–846 Method 3052 and a 

mercury specific analysis method, SW– 

846 Method 7471b (Cold Vapor AA) or 

Water Method 1631E (Cold Vapor 

Atomic Fluorescence). 

(11) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) Method 429, Determination of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

(PAH) Emissions from Stationary 

Sources to determine total PAH 

emissions. The method is available from 

California Resources Board, 1102 Q 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814, 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/

M_429.pdf). 

(12) The owner or operator may use 

alternative measurement methods 

approved by the Administrator 

following the procedures described in 

§ 63.7(f) of subpart A. 

(c) Compliance demonstration with 

the emission standards. 

(1) Initial Performance Test. You must 

conduct an initial performance test for 

air pollution control devices or vent 

stacks subject to § 63.1623(a), (b)(1) and 

(c) through (e) to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

(2) Periodic Performance Test. (i) You 

must conduct annual particulate matter 

tests for wet scrubber air pollution 

control devices subject to § 63.1623(a)(1) 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission standards. 

(ii) You must conduct particulate 

matter tests every five years for fabric 

filter air pollution control devices 

subject to § 63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

(iii) You must conduct annual 

mercury performance tests for wet 

scrubber and fabric filter air pollution 

control devices or vent stacks subject to 

§ 63.1623 (a)(2) to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

(iv) You must conduct ongoing 

performance tests every five years for air 

pollution control devices or vent stacks 

subject to § 63.1623(a)(3) through (a)(5), 

(b)(1) and (c) through (e) to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

(3) Compliance is demonstrated for all 

sources performing emissions tests if the 

average concentration for the three runs 

comprising the performance test does 

not exceed the standard. 

(4) Operating Limits. You must 

establish parameter operating limits 

according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 

(c)(4)(iv) of this section. Unless 

otherwise specified, compliance with 

each established operating limit shall be 

demonstrated for each 24-hour 

operating day. 

(i) For a wet particulate matter 

scrubber, you must establish the 

minimum liquid flow rate and pressure 

drop as your operating limits during the 

three-run performance test. If you use a 

wet particulate matter scrubber and you 

conduct separate performance tests for 

particulate matter, you must establish 

one set of minimum liquid flow rate and 

pressure drop operating limits. If you 

conduct multiple performance tests, you 

must set the minimum liquid flow rate 

and pressure drop operating limits at 

the highest minimum hourly average 

values established during the 

performance tests. 

(ii) For a wet acid gas scrubber, you 

must establish the minimum liquid flow 

rate and pH, as your operating limits 

during the three-run performance test. If 

you use a wet acid gas scrubber and you 

conduct separate performance tests for 

hydrochloric acid, you must establish 

one set of minimum liquid flow rate and 

pH operating limits. If you conduct 

multiple performance tests, you must 

set the minimum liquid flow rate and 

pH operating limits at the highest 

minimum hourly average values 

established during the performance 

tests. 

(iii) For emission sources with fabric 

filters that choose to demonstrate 

continuous compliance through bag leak 

detection systems you must install a bag 

leak detection system according to the 

requirements in § 63.1626(d) and you 

must set your operating limit such that 

the sum duration of bag leak detection 

system alarms does not exceed 5 percent 

of the process operating time during a 

6-month period. 

(iv) If you choose to demonstrate 

continuous compliance through a 

particulate matter CEMS, you must 

determine an operating limit 

(particulate matter concentration in mg/ 

dscm) during performance testing for 

initial particulate matter compliance. 

The operating limit will be the average 

of the PM filterable results of the three 

Method 5 or Method 5D of Appendix A– 

3 of 40 CFR part 60 performance test 

runs. To determine continuous 

compliance, the hourly average PM 

concentrations will be averaged on a 

rolling 30 operating day basis. Each 30 

operating day average would have to 

meet the PM operating limit. 

(d) Compliance demonstration with 

shop building opacity standards. (1)(i) If 

you are subject to § 63.1623(b), you 

must conduct opacity observations of 

the shop building to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable opacity 

standards according to § 63.6(h)(5), 

which addresses the conduct of opacity 

or visible emission observations. 

(ii) You must conduct the opacity 

observations according to EPA Method 

9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4, for 

a period that includes at least one 

complete furnace process cycle for each 

furnace. 

(iii) You must conduct the opacity 

observations at least once per week for 

each operating furnace. 

(2) You must determine shop building 

opacity operating parameters based on 

either monitoring data collected during 

the compliance demonstration or 

established in an engineering 

assessment. 

(i) If you choose to establish 

parameters based on the initial 

compliance demonstration, you must 

simultaneously monitor parameter 

values for one of the following: the 

capture 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. Subsequently you must monitor 

these parameters according to 

§ 63.1626(h) and ensure they remain 

within 10 percent of the value recorded 

during the compliant opacity readings. 

(ii) If you choose to establish 

parameters based on an engineering 

assessment, then a design analysis shall 

include, for example, specifications, 

drawings, schematics and ventilation 

system diagrams prepared by the owner 

or operator or capture or control system 

manufacturer or vendor that describes 

the shop building opacity system 

ventilation design based on acceptable 

engineering texts. The design analysis 

shall address vent stream characteristics 

and ventilation system design operating 

parameters such as fan amps, damper 

position, flow rate and/or other 

specified parameters. 

(iii) You may petition the 

Administrator to reestablish these 

parameter ranges whenever you can 

demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that the electric arc furnace 

operating conditions upon which the 

parameter ranges were previously 

established are no longer applicable. 

The values of these parameter ranges 

determined during the most recent 

demonstration of compliance must be 

maintained at the appropriate level for 

each applicable period. 

(3) You will demonstrate continuing 

compliance with the opacity standards 

by following the monitoring 

requirements specified in § 63.1626(g) 

and the reporting and recordkeeping 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60285 

requirements specified in 

§ 63.1628(b)(5). 

(e) Compliance demonstration with 

the operational and work practice 

standards—(1) Process fugitive 

emissions sources. You will 

demonstrate compliance by developing 

and maintaining a process fugitives 

ventilation plan, by reporting any 

deviations from the plan and by taking 

necessary corrective actions to correct 

deviations or deficiencies. 

(2) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. You 

will demonstrate compliance by 

developing and maintaining an outdoor 

fugitive dust control plan, by reporting 

any deviations from the plan and by 

taking necessary corrective actions to 

correct deviations or deficiencies. 

(3) Baghouses equipped with bag leak 

detection systems. You will demonstrate 

compliance with the bag leak detection 

system requirements by developing 

analysis and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for bag leak 

detection systems in § 60.57c(h). 

■ 9. Section 63.1626 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1626 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet? 

(a) Baghouse Monitoring. You must 

prepare and at all times operate 

according to, a standard operating 

procedures manual that describes in 

detail procedures for inspection, 

maintenance and bag leak detection and 

corrective action plans for all baghouses 

(fabric filters or cartridge filters) that are 

used to control process vents, process 

fugitive, or outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions from any source subject to the 

emissions standards in § 63.1623. 

(b) You must submit the standard 

operating procedures manual for 

baghouses required by paragraph (a) of 

this section to the Administrator or 

delegated authority for review and 

approval. 

(c) Unless the baghouse is equipped 

with a bag leak detection system, the 

procedures that you specify in the 

standard operating procedures manual 

for inspections and routine maintenance 

must, at a minimum, include the 

requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(1) You must observe the baghouse 

outlet on a daily basis for the presence 

of any visible emissions. 

(2) In addition to the daily visible 

emissions observation, you must 

conduct the following activities: 

(i) Weekly confirmation that dust is 

being removed from hoppers through 

visual inspection, or equivalent means 

of ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(ii) Daily check of compressed air 

supply for pulse-jet baghouses. 

(iii) An appropriate methodology for 

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation. 

(iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning 

mechanisms for proper functioning 

through visual inspection or equivalent 

means. 

(v) 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 lying on 

their sides. Such checks are not required 

for shaker-type baghouses using selftensioning (spring loaded) devices. 

(vi) Quarterly confirmation of the 

physical integrity of the baghouse 

structure through visual inspection of 

the baghouse interior for air leaks. 

(vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for 

wear, material buildup and corrosion 

through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(d) Bag leak detection system. (1) For 

each baghouse used to control emissions 

from an electric arc furnace, you must 

install, operate and maintain a bag leak 

detection system according to 

paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this 

section, unless a system meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (q) of this 

section, for a CEMS and continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system, is 

installed for monitoring the 

concentration of particulate matter. You 

may choose to install, operate and 

maintain a bag leak detection system for 

any other baghouse in operation at the 

facility according to paragraphs (d)(2) 

through (d)(4) of this section. 

(2) The procedures you specified in 

the standard operating procedures 

manual for baghouse maintenance must 

include, at a minimum, a preventative 

maintenance schedule that is consistent 

with the baghouse manufacturer’s 

instructions for routine and long-term 

maintenance. 

(3) Each bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) 

through (d)(3)(viii) of this section. 

(i) The bag leak detection system must 

be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 1.0 milligram per dry 

standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains 

per actual cubic foot) or less. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

PM loadings. 

(iii) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate loadings is detected 

over a preset level. 

(iv) You must install and operate the 

bag leak detection system in a manner 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance’’ EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (incorporated 

by reference) and the manufacturer’s 

written specifications and 

recommendations for installation, 

operation and adjustment of the system. 

(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, you 

must not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time, except as detailed in 

the approved standard operating 

procedures manual required under 

paragraph (a) of this section. You cannot 

increase the sensitivity by more than 

100 percent or decrease the sensitivity 

by more than 50 percent over a 365-day 

period unless such adjustment follows a 

complete baghouse inspection that 

demonstrates that the baghouse is in 

good operating condition. 

(vii) You must install the bag leak 

detector downstream of the baghouse. 

(viii) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(4) You must include in the standard 

operating procedures manual required 

by paragraph (a) of this section a 

corrective action plan that specifies the 

procedures to be followed in the case of 

a bag leak detection system alarm. The 

corrective action plan must include, at 

a minimum, the procedures that you 

will use to determine and record the 

time and cause of the alarm as well as 

the corrective actions taken to minimize 

emissions as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(i) The procedures used to determine 

the cause of the alarm must be initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm. 

(ii) The cause of the alarm must be 

alleviated by taking the necessary 

corrective action(s) that may include, 

but not be limited to, those listed in 

paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) through 

(d)(4)(i)(F) of this section. 

(A) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or 

any other malfunction that may cause 

an increase in emissions. 

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device. 

(D) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(e) If you use a wet particulate matter 

scrubber, you must collect the pressure 

drop and liquid flow rate monitoring 

system data according to § 63.1628, 

reduce the data to 24-hour block 

averages and maintain the 24-hour 

average pressure drop and liquid flowrate at or above the operating limits 

established during the performance test 

according to § 63.1625(c)(4)(i). 

(f) If you use curtains or partitions to 

prevent process fugitive emissions from 

escaping the area around the process 

fugitive emission source or other parts 

of the building, you must perform 

quarterly inspections of the physical 

condition of these curtains or partitions 

to determine if there are any tears or 

openings. 

(g) Shop building opacity. In order to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the opacity standards in § 63.1623, 

you must comply with the requirements 

§ 63.1625(d)(1) and one of the 

monitoring options in paragraphs (g)(1) 

or (g)(2) of this section. The selected 

option must be consistent with that 

selected during the initial performance 

test described in § 63.1625(d)(2). 

Alternatively, you may use the 

provisions of § 63.8(f) to request 

approval to use an alternative 

monitoring method. 

(1) If you choose to establish 

operating parameters during the 

compliance test as specified in 

§ 63.1625(d)(2)(i), you must meet one of 

the following requirements. 

(i) Check and record the control 

system fan motor amperes and capture 

system damper positions once per shift. 

(ii) Install, calibrate and maintain a 

monitoring device that continuously 

records the volumetric flow rate through 

each separately ducted hood. 

(iii) Install, calibrate and maintain a 

monitoring device that continuously 

records the volumetric flow rate at the 

inlet of the air pollution control device 

and check and record the capture 

system damper positions once per shift. 

(2) If you choose to establish 

operating parameters during the 

compliance test as specified in 

§ 63.1625(d)(2)(ii), you must monitor the 

selected parameter(s) on a frequency 

specified in the assessment and 

according to a method specified in the 

engineering assessment 

(3) All 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. 

(4) The Administrator may require 

you to demonstrate the accuracy of the 

monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 

1 and 2 of Appendix A–1 of part 60 of 

this chapter. 

(5) Failure to maintain the appropriate 

capture system parameters (e.g., 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. 

(h) Furnace Capture System. You 

must perform quarterly (once every 

three months) inspections of the furnace 

fugitive capture system equipment to 

ensure that the hood locations have not 

been changed or obstructed because of 

contact with cranes or ladles, quarterly 

inspections of the physical condition of 

hoods and ductwork to the control 

device to determine if there are any 

openings or leaks in the ductwork, 

quarterly inspections of the hoods and 

ductwork to determine if there are any 

flow constrictions in ductwork due to 

dents or accumulated dust and quarterly 

examinations of the operational status of 

flow rate controllers (pressure sensors, 

dampers, damper switches, etc.) to 

ensure they are operating correctly. Any 

deficiencies must be recorded and 

proper maintenance and repairs 

performed. 

(i) Requirements for sources using 

CMS. If you demonstrate compliance 

with any applicable emissions limit 

through use of a continuous monitoring 

system (CMS), where a CMS includes a 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) as well as a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS), 

you must develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan and submit this sitespecific monitoring plan, if requested, at 

least 60 days before your initial 

performance evaluation (where 

applicable) of your CMS. Your sitespecific monitoring plan must address 

the monitoring system design, data 

collection and the quality assurance and 

quality control elements outlined in this 

section and in § 63.8(d). You must 

install, operate and maintain each CMS 

according to the procedures in your 

approved site-specific monitoring plan. 

Using the process described in 

§ 63.8(f)(4), you may request approval of 

monitoring system quality assurance 

and quality control procedures 

alternative to those specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(6) of this 

section in your site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(1) The performance criteria and 

design specifications for the monitoring 

system equipment, including the sample 

interface, detector signal analyzer and 

data acquisition and calculations; 

(2) Sampling interface location such 

that the monitoring system will provide 

representative measurements; 

(3) Equipment performance checks, 

system accuracy audits, or other audit 

procedures; 

(4) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1) and (c)(3); 

(5) Conditions that define a 

continuous monitoring system that is 

out of control consistent with 

§ 63.8(c)(7)(i) and for responding to out 

of control periods consistent with 

§ 63.8(c)(7)(ii) and (c)(8) or Appendix A 

to this subpart, as applicable; and 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

provisions in § 63.10(c), (e)(1) and 

(e)(2)(i) and Appendix A to this subpart, 

as applicable. 

(j) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a CPMS, you must 

install, operate and maintain each 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(7) of this 

section. 

(1) The continuous parameter 

monitoring system must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. You 

must have a minimum of four 

successive cycles of operation to have a 

valid hour of data. 

(2) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, system 

accuracy audits and required zero and 

span adjustments), you must operate the 

CMS at all times the affected source is 

operating. A monitoring system 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You are required to complete 

monitoring system repairs in response 

to monitoring system malfunctions and 

to return the monitoring system to 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

(3) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, or required 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60287 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. 

You must use all the data collected 

during all other required data collection 

periods in assessing the operation of the 

control device and associated control 

system. 

(4) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions 

and required quality monitoring system 

quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

system accuracy audits and required 

zero and span adjustments), failure to 

collect required data is a deviation of 

the monitoring requirements. 

(5) You must conduct other CPMS 

equipment performance checks, system 

accuracy audits, or other audit 

procedures specified in your sitespecific monitoring plan at least once 

every 12 months. 

(6) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CPMS in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(7) You must record the results of 

each inspection, calibration and 

validation check. 

(k) CPMS for measuring gaseous flow. 

(1) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of 

the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per 

minute, whichever is greater, 

(2) Check all mechanical connections 

for leakage at least every month and 

(3) Perform a visual inspection at least 

every 3 months of all components of the 

flow CPMS for physical and operational 

integrity and all electrical connections 

for oxidation and galvanic corrosion if 

your flow CPMS is not equipped with 

a redundant flow sensor. 

(l) CPMS for measuring liquid flow. 

(1) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of 

the flow rate and 

(2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream 

and downstream disturbances. 

(m) CPMS for measuring pressure. (1) 

Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration and internal and 

external corrosion and 

(2) Use a gauge with a minimum 

tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or 

a transducer with a minimum tolerance 

of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(3) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(n) CPMS for measuring pH. (1) 

Ensure the sample is properly mixed 

and representative of the fluid to be 

measured. 

(2) Check the pH meter’s calibration 

on at least two points every eight hours 

of process operation. 

(o) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you 

are using a CEMS to measure particulate 

matter emissions to meet requirements 

of this subpart, you must install, certify, 

operate and maintain the particulate 

matter CEMS as specified in paragraphs 

(q)(1) through (q)(4) of this section. 

(1) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of the PM CEMS according to 

the applicable requirements of § 60.13 

and Performance Specification 11 at 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix B of this 

chapter. 

(2) During each PM correlation testing 

run of the CEMS required by 

Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix B of this chapter, PM 

and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) collect 

data concurrently (or within a 30-to 60- 

minute period) by both the CEMS and 

by conducting performance tests using 

Method 5 or 5D at 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–3 or Method 17 at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix A–6 of this chapter. 

(3) Perform quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration 

drift tests in accordance with Procedure 

2 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F of this 

chapter. Relative Response Audits must 

be performed annually and Response 

Correlation Audits must be performed 

every three years. 

(4) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS relative 

accuracy test audit or performance test 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with this subpart, you must submit the 

relative accuracy test audit data and the 

results of the performance test in the as 

specified in § 63.1628(e). 

■ 10. Section 63.1627 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1627 What notification requirements 

must I meet? 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

notification requirements of § 63.9 of 

subpart A, General Provisions. 

Electronic notifications are encouraged 

when possible. 

(b)(1) You must submit the process 

fugitives ventilation plan required 

under § 63.1624(a), the outdoor fugitive 

dust control plan required under 

§ 63.1624(b), the site-specific 

monitoring plan for CMS required under 

§ 63.1626(i) and the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a) to the 

Administrator or delegated authority 

along with a notification that you are 

seeking review and approval of these 

plans and procedures. You must submit 

this notification no later than [DATE 1 

YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. For sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after [DATE OF 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

you must submit this notification no 

later than 180 days before startup of the 

constructed or reconstructed 

ferromanganese or silicomanganese 

production facility. For an affected 

source that has received a construction 

permit from the Administrator or 

delegated authority on or before [DATE 

OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE], you must submit this 

notification no later than [DATE 1 

YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(2) The plans and procedures 

documents submitted as required under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be 

submitted to the Administrator in 

electronic format for review and 

approval of the initial submittal and 

whenever an update is made to the 

procedure. 

■ 11. Section 63.1628 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1628 What recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements must I meet? 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in § 63.10 of the 

General Provisions that are referenced 

in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) Records must be maintained in a 

form suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). However, electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting is 

encouraged and required for some 

records and reports. 

(2) Records must be kept on site for 

at least two years after the date of 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) You must maintain, for a period of 

five years, records of the information 

listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(13) of this section. 

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak 

detection system output. 

(2) 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 corrective actions 

taken and the date and time the cause 

of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and 

maintenance activities required under 

§ 63.1626(a) as part of the practices 

described in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(c). 

(4) Electronic records of the pressure 

drop and water flow rate values for wet 

scrubbers used to control particulate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

matter emissions as required in 

§ 63.1626(e), identification of periods 

when the 1-hour average pressure drop 

and water flow rate values below the 

established minimum established and 

an explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(5) Electronic records of the shop 

building capture system monitoring 

required under § 63.1626(g)(1) and 

(g)(2), as applicable, or identification of 

periods when the capture system 

parameters were not maintained and an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(6) Records of the results of quarterly 

inspections of the furnace capture 

system required under § 63.1626(h). 

(7) Electronic records of the 

continuous flow monitors or pressure 

monitors required under § 63.1626(j) 

and (k) and an identification of periods 

when the flow rate or pressure was not 

maintained as required in § 63.1626(e). 

(8) Electronic records of the output of 

any CEMS installed to monitor 

particulate matter emissions meeting the 

requirements of § 63.1626(i) 

(9) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each startup and/or 

shutdown. 

(10) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. 

(11) Records that explain the periods 

when the procedures outlined in the 

process fugitives ventilation plan 

required under § 63.1624(a), the 

fugitives dust control plan required 

under § 63.1624(b), the site-specific 

monitoring plan for CMS required under 

§ 63.1626(i) and the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a). 

(c) You must comply with all of the 

reporting requirements specified in 

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions that 

are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) You must submit reports no less 

frequently than specified under 

§ 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions. 

(2) Once a source reports a violation 

of the standard or excess emissions, you 

must follow the reporting format 

required under § 63.10(e)(3) until a 

request to reduce reporting frequency is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(d) In addition to the information 

required under the applicable sections 

of § 63.10, you must include in the 

reports required under paragraph (c) of 

this section the information specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(7) of this 

section. 

(1) Reports that explain the periods 

when the procedures outlined in the 

process fugitives ventilation plan 

required under § 63.1624(a), the 

fugitives dust control plan required 

under § 63.1624(b), the site-specific 

monitoring plan for CMS required under 

§ 63.1626(i) and the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a). 

(2) Reports that identify the periods 

when the average hourly pressure drop 

or flow rate of venturi scrubbers used to 

control particulate emissions dropped 

below the levels established in 

§ 63.1626(e) and an explanation of the 

corrective actions taken. 

(3) Bag leak detection system. Reports 

including the following information: 

(i) Records of all alarms. 

(ii) Description of the actions taken 

following each bag leak detection 

system alarm. 

(4) Reports of the shop building 

capture system monitoring required 

under § 63.1626(g)(1) and (g)(2), as 

applicable, identification of periods 

when the capture system parameters 

were not maintained and an explanation 

of the corrective actions taken. 

(5) Reports of the results of quarterly 

inspections of the furnace capture 

system required under § 63.1626(h). 

(6) Reports of the CPMS required 

under § 63.1626, an identification of 

periods when the monitored parameters 

were not maintained as required in 

§ 63.1626 and corrective actions taken. 

(7) If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, the report must 

include the number, duration and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the 

reporting period and caused or may 

have caused any applicable emissions 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1623(f), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(e) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS relative 

accuracy test audit or performance test 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with this subpart, you must submit the 

relative accuracy test audit data and the 

results of the performance test in the 

method specified by paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(2) of this section. The results 

of the performance test must contain the 

information listed in paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section. 

(1)(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2), you must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i)(A) or (e)(1)(i)(B) of this section. 

(A) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/

epa_home.asp), unless the 

Administrator approves another 

approach. Performance test data must be 

submitted in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT. 

Owners or operators, who claim that 

some of the information being submitted 

for performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI), must submit 

a complete file generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disk, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(B) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not supported by the EPA’s ERT as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, the 

owner or operator shall submit the 

results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

(ii) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you 

must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation according to the 

method specified by either paragraph 

(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. 

(A) For data collection of relative 

accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants 

that are supported by the EPA’s ERT as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, you 

must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation to the CEDRI 

that is accessed through the EPA’s CDX, 

unless the Administrator approves 

another approach. Performance 

evaluation data must be submitted in a 

file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. If you claim that some 

of the performance evaluation 

information being transmitted is CBI, 

you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disk or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media (including, but not limited to, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60289 

flash drives) by registered letter to the 

EPA. The compact disk shall be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ 

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404–02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

The same ERT file with the CBI omitted 

must be submitted to the EPA via CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(B) For any performance evaluations 

with RATA pollutants that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on 

the EPA’s ERT Web site, you shall 

submit the results of the performance 

evaluation to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

(2) The results of a performance test 

shall include the purpose of the test; a 

brief process description; a complete 

unit description, including a description 

of feed streams and control devices; 

sampling site description; pollutants 

measured; description of sampling and 

analysis procedures and any 

modifications to standard procedures; 

quality assurance procedures; record of 

operating conditions, including 

operating parameters for which limits 

are being set, during the test; record of 

preparation of standards; record of 

calibrations; raw data sheets for field 

sampling; raw data sheets for field and 

laboratory analyses; chain-of-custody 

documentation; explanation of 

laboratory data qualifiers; example 

calculations of all applicable stack gas 

parameters, emission rates, percent 

reduction rates and analytical results, as 

applicable; and any other information 

required by the test method, a relevant 

standard, or the Administrator. 

■ 12. Section 63.1629 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1629 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as the 

applicable state, local, or tribal agency. 

If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to a state, local, or 

tribal agency, then that agency, in 

addition to the U.S. EPA, has the 

authority to implement and enforce this 

subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 

be transferred to the state, local, or tribal 

agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to 

requirements in §§ 63.1620 and 63.1621 

and 63.1623 and 63.1624. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 

(f), as defined in § 63.90 and as required 

in this subpart. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in 

§ 63.90 and as required in this subpart. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90 and as 

required in this subpart. 

■ 13. Section 63.1650 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(1); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1650 Applicability and Compliance 

Dates. 

* * * * * 

(d) Table 1 to this subpart specifies 

the provisions of subpart A of this part 

that apply to owners and operators of 

ferroalloy production facilities subject 

to this subpart. 

(e) * * * 

(1) [Reserved] 

(2) Each owner or operator of a new 

or reconstructed affected source that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after August 4, 1998 and 

before October 6, 2014, must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

May 20, 1999 or upon startup of 

operations, whichever is later. 

14. Section 63.1652 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1652 Emission standards. 

* * * * * 

(f) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator that may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records and inspection of 

the source. 

■ 15. Section 63.1656 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(6); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(7); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(1); and 

■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1656 Performance testing, test 

methods and compliance demonstrations. 

(a) * * * 

(6) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section under such conditions 

as the Administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, you must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(b) * * * 

(7) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine opacity. 

ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere’’ may be used (incorporated 

by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the 

following conditions: 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–09, the owner or operator 

or the DCOT vendor must present the 

plumes in front of various backgrounds 

of color and contrast representing 

conditions anticipated during field use 

such as blue sky, trees and mixed 

backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse 

tree stand). 

(ii) The owner or operator must also 

have standard operating procedures in 

place including daily or other frequency 

quality checks to ensure the equipment 

is within manufacturing specifications 

as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM 

D7520–09. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

follow the recordkeeping procedures 

outlined in § 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT 

certification, compliance report, data 

sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity and certification 

determination. 

(iv) The owner or operator or the 

DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 

four (4) independent technology users 

apply the software to determine the 

visible opacity of the 300 certification 

plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the 

user may not exceed 15 percent opacity 

of any one reading and the average error 

must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. 

(v) Use of this approved alternative 

does not provide or imply a certification 

or validation of any vendor’s hardware 

or software. The onus to maintain and 

verify the certification and/or training of 

the DCOT camera, software and operator 

in accordance with ASTM D7520–09 

and these requirements is on the 

facility, DCOT operator and DCOT 

vendor. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
60290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(e) * * * 

(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 § 63.1652(f). 

(2) * * * 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 63.1657 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(6); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1657 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(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 § 63.1652(f). 

(b) * * * 

(3) Failure to monitor or failure to 

take corrective action under the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section would be a violation of the 

general duty to operate in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices that minimizes 

emissions per § 63.1652(f). 

(c) * * * 

(7) Failure to monitor or failure to 

take corrective action under the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section would be a violation of the 

general duty to operate in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices that minimizes 

emissions per § 63.1652(f). 

■ 17. Section 63.1659 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1659 Reporting Requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Reporting malfunctions. If a 

malfunction occurred during the 

reporting period, the report must 

include the number, duration and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1652(f), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 63.1660 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 

(a)(2)(ii); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(2)(iv) and (a)(2)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1660 Recordkeeping Requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment; 

(ii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1652(f), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation; 

* * * * * 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Add Table 1 to the end of subpart 

XXX to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART XXX OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART XXX 

Reference Applies to 

subpart XXX Comment 

63.1 ........................................................... Yes 

63.2 ........................................................... Yes 

63.3 ........................................................... Yes 

63.4 ........................................................... Yes 

63.5 ........................................................... Yes 

63.6(a), (b), (c) ......................................... Yes 

63.6(d) ...................................................... No ..................... Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(1)(i) ............................................... No ..................... See 63.1623(g) and 63.1652(f) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............................................. No 

63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............................................. Yes 

63.6(e)(2) .................................................. No ..................... Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) .................................................. No 

63.6(f)(1) ................................................... No 

6.6(f)(2)–(f)(3) ........................................... Yes 

63.6(g) ...................................................... Yes 

63.6(h)(1) .................................................. No 

63.6(h)(2)–(h)(9) ....................................... Yes 

63.6(i) ........................................................ Yes 

63.6(j) ........................................................ Yes 

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ............................................. Yes 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ............................................... No ..................... See 63.1625(a)(5) and 63.1656(a)(6) 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ..................................... Yes 

63.7(f), (g), (h) .......................................... Yes 

63.8(a)–(b) ................................................ Yes 

63.8(c)(1)(i) ............................................... No ..................... See 63.1623(g) and 63.1652(f) for general duty requirement. 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............................................. Yes 

63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............................................. No 

63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ....................................... Yes 

63.8(d)(3) .................................................. Yes, except for 

last sentence.

SSM plans are not required. 

63.8(e)–(g) ................................................ Yes 

63.9(a),(b),(c),(e),(g),(h)(1)through (3), 

(h)(5) and (6), (i) and (j).

Yes 

63.9(f) ....................................................... Yes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 60291 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART XXX OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART XXX—Continued 

Reference Applies to 

subpart XXX Comment 

63.9(h)(4) .................................................. No Reserved 

63.10 (a) ................................................... Yes 

63.10 (b)(1) ............................................... Yes 

63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................................. No 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................................ No See 63.1628 and 63.1660 for recordkeeping of (1) occurrence and duration and 

(2) actions taken during malfunction. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........................................... Yes 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ............................ No 

63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ......................... Yes 

63.10)(b)(3) ............................................... Yes 

63.10(c)(1)–(9) .......................................... Yes 

63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...................................... No See 63.1628 and 63.1660 for malfunction recordkeeping requirements. 

63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) .................................. Yes 

63.10(c)(15) .............................................. No 

63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......................................... Yes 

63.10(d)(5) ................................................ No ..................... See 63.1628(d)(8) and 63.1659(a)(4) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

63.10(e)–((f) .............................................. Yes 

63.11 ......................................................... No ..................... Flares will not be used to comply with the emission limits 

63.12 to 63.15 .......................................... Yes 

[FR Doc. 2014–23266 Filed 10–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2