MEMORANDUM 

DATE: March 3, 2014

TO: Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

FROM: Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the February 26, 2014 Meeting with the Ferroalloys Production 

Industry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the teleconference was to discuss the opacity data provided by the facilities and 

the estimated impact of enhanced particulate capture on routine and non-routine emissions 

during ferroalloys production. This meeting summary will be available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895). The proposed rule for ferroalloys 

production was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011 (76 FR 72508). 

II. ATTENDEES

The following is a list of participants in the meeting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Chuck French

Phil Mulrine

Colin Boswell

Steffan Johnson

Eramet Marietta 

Jeff McKinney, Eramet Marietta

John Rego, Jones Day

Felman Production

John Konrady, Felman Production

Shawn McCutchen, Felman Production

Laura McAfee, Beveridge and Diamond

Policy Navigation Group

Troy Hillier

EC/R Incorporated

Bradley Nelson 
III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the opacity data provided by the facilities and the 

estimated impact of enhanced particulate capture on routine and non-routine emissions from 

ferroalloy production. The following is a brief summary of the major points that were discussed 

during the meeting.

NESHAP Opacity Standard

 Prior to the meeting, John Rego sent an email to EPA which provided input on potential 

opacity stands based on enhanced particulate capture of ferroalloy operations, and a list 

of parametric and operational monitoring parameters that could be used to show 

compliance with the enhanced particulate control. A copy of the email and the list of 

potential monitoring parameters are provided in Attachment A.

 The industry noted that to comply with a low opacity limit during non-routine conditions 

(e.g., furnace blow, blowing tap, oxygen lancing, and/or electrode burning) that the 

building may need to be redesigned and additional controls put into place beyond the 

types of controls that are currently being considered.

 The industry stated that opacity data provided to EPA was used to develop the suggested 

opacity limits provided in the email. The controlled opacity limits from the various 

events were based on engineering judgment and experience from the facilities. The 

industry noted that these non-routine events produce a large volume of particulate 

emissions which may not be captured by the enhanced controls currently being 

considered and may exit to an area of no controls.

 The industry noted that the particulate stack testing has to be performed during normal 

operations and that the opacity testing should also be required to be performed during 

normal operation. 

 An industry representative stated that some of the capture systems are automated and that 

certain parameters such as fan amperes or damper position may change during normal 

operations and should be taken into account in the final rule. They suggested a 

requirement that shows that the automated system is operating.

Other Topics Discussed

 The industry stated that they have a meeting with Janet McCabe to discuss the proposed 

NESHAP.

 A representative from Felman stated that they were hoping to receive a ruling on the 10-

year special rate electricity request from the West Virginia’s Public Service Commission 

in mid-March.
ATTACHMENT A

Email from John Rego, Jones Day to Chuck French, EPA, Opacity Standards for Operations with 

Enhanced Particulate Capture
From: John Rego [mailto:jrego@JonesDay.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:55 AM

To: French, Chuck

Cc: thillier@policynavigation.com; lmcafee@bdlaw.com; Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com; Shawn R. 

McCutchan; carricoleman@yahoo.com

Subject: Opacity Standards for Operations With Enhanced Particulate Capture 

Chuck:

As a follow-up to prior discussions and submissions regarding the estimated impact of enhanced 

particulate capture on routine and non-routine emissions during ferroalloys production, Eramet Marietta 

Inc. has reviewed the issues discussed on February 12, 2014 and has asked me to provide the following 

input, which we would like to discuss on today's conference call.

Opacity Limits

Based upon the available data and the nature of the additional fugitive particulate controls under 

consideration, EMI believes that the following should be the minimum opacity standards considered by 

EPA:

 For "tap to tap" Method 9 testing conducted during typical operations, an average opacity not 

exceeding 10% over the length of the test and not exceeding an average of 20% over any sixminute period.



 For tests that include one or more normal, but non-routine, conditions (i.e., furnace blow, blowing 

tap, oxygen lancing and/or electrode burndown), an average opacity not exceeding 15% over the 

length of the test and not exceeding an average of 30% over any six-minute period.

(Note that EMI classifies furnace blows as Class A, Class B or Class C, depending upon their 

severity. Class C furnace blows, which are catastrophic events that could include the full or partial 

disabling of emissions abatements systems, would exceed even the "non-routine" standard and should, 

therefore, either be considered malfunctions or addressed by a separate emissions standard.)

These standards will result in demonstrably reduced visual emissions compared to the existing NESHAP, 

which exempts not just the non-routine conditions described above, but also routine conditions like 

casting, where allowable visual emissions are capable reaching and exceeding 70%. Reducing the 

maximum six-minute average to 20%-30% represents a significant reduction compared to the current 

NESHAP.

In addition, EMI believes that it's critical to remember that residual risk standards almost always present 

more technical uncertainty than MACT standards, because the latter are (by definition) based upon 

existing, quantitatively-demonstrated emissions controls in the subject industry, while residual risk 

standards are not technology-based and therefore may, as in the case of ferroalloys, be based entirely on 

engineering judgments regarding hypothetical control systems. Moreover, MACT standards are based 

not simply on levels of control that "can" be achieved, but instead are based on levels of control that can 

be achieved at a very high statistical confidence level. This is not a challenge to the validity of standards 

that arise from a residual risk assessment, only a request that EPA acknowledge the greater uncertainty 

inherent in the current process when selecting opacity standards for the revised NESHAP. Experience 

teaches that real world results almost never match engineering predictions, particularly in the early stages 

of implementation.

Moreover, the NESHAP process provides a mechanism for adjusting opacity standards in the future to 

ensure that they are appropriately stringent. Once implemented, the actual performance of the enhanced 

particulate controls envisioned in the residual risk rule will provide actual data for a subsequent RTRbased assessment. Thus, if real world results exceed the initial standards, the RTR process will reduce 
those standards to codify what the presently hypothetical controls actually achieve.

Parametric Monitoring Requirements

You requested on February 12, 2014 that the companies' identify appropriate parametric monitoring 

criteria to supplement periodic Method 9 visual emission testing. Attached is a set of criteria that EMI 

believes would effectively confirm the proper ongoing functioning of the enhance particulate controls 

under consideration. Please note that given the operational differences among EMI's operating furnaces 

and the MOR unit, some of the parameters would not be applicable to a particular source. For example, 

requirements for a tapping baghouse would apply to Furnace 1, but not to Furnace 12 or the MOR 

because the latter two units do not have such a baghouse.

Monitoring Frequency

EMI's current Title V operating permit includes both mass emission and opacity standards, and ensures 

compliance via ongoing parmetric monitoring and recordkeeping, with annual stack tests and formal 

Method 9 visual emissions observations during periods of normal operating conditions. Moreover, the 

permit requires EMI to maintain compliance at all times and to respond affirmatively to any evidence of 

non-compliance, including self-reporting of violations. EMI is not aware of any determination by Ohio 

EPA or U.S. EPA that the current approach has been deficient for compliance and enforcement 

purposes. 

The suggestion on February 14 that weekly Method 9 observations of each source (a 5200% increase 

over the current permit requirements) is under consideration is not justified for compliance purposes and 

would be a unreasonably expensive expansion of EMI's monitoring requirements, particularly in light of 

the parallel parametric requirements that would be in place. EMI has three separate sources that would 

be subject to such a requirement and a "tap to tap" process time of about two hours. Thus, the Method 9 

requirements alone would consume a full man-day of each week, staff time that EMI does not currently 

have available among its certified smoke readers. The cost of procuring such assistance would cost EMI 

in excess of $48,000 per year in additional monitoring costs. 

Since the particulate provisions of the proposed NESHAP will include the same types of standards 

imposed under the current NESHAP and will address the same manufacturing operations and pollutants, 

albeit with an expanded use of the particulate capture and control approaches currently used, there is no 

technical or legal basis for fundamental changes to the existing monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements. An initial expansion of the formal Method 9 opacity testing frequency to quarterly in the 

first year, to provide a basis for refining the parametric monitoring requirements (if necessary), is the 

most that should even be considered.

EMI looks forward to discussing these issues with you further later today.

John A. Rego

Partner, Environmental, Health & Safety

JONES DAY® - One Firm WorldwideSM

901 Lakeside Avenue

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190

Office +1.216.586.7542

Fax +1.216.579.1212

jrego@jonesday.com

==========

This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected 

by attorney-client or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system 

without copying it and notify sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.

==========
Parametric Monitoring/Operational Requirements (as applicable)

Operational

1. Maintenance of the pressure drop across the venturi scrubber or differential pressure 

across the baghouse, as applicable. 

2. Operation of the tapping baghouse while furnace is tapping.

3. Maintenance of the pressure drop across the tapping baghouse while in operation.

4. Development and implementation of a written maintenance plan for each air pollution 

control device. The plan shall be kept on record and available for the Administrator’s 

inspection for the life of the air pollution control device or until such emissions unit is no 

longer subject to the provisions of Subpart XXX. The procedures specified in the 

maintenance plan must include a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent 

with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.

5. Maintenance of the capture system fan motor amperes, flow rate, and/or damper positions 

within the ranges and/or positions, as appropriate, that were recorded during the initial 

performance test that demonstrated compliance.

Monitoring/Recordkeeping

1. Performance of daily checks, when the emissions unit is in operation and when the 

weather conditions allow, for any visible particulate emissions for the stacks and for any 

visible fugitive particulate emissions from the egress points (i.e., building windows, 

doors, roof monitors, etc.) serving the emissions unit. The presence or absence of any 

visible emissions shall be noted in an operations log, provided that a formal Method 9 

observation by a certified smoke reader is not required.

2. Daily monitoring of the pressure drop across each baghouse cell, or across the baghouse 

if it is not possible to monitor each cell individually, to ensure the pressure drop is within 

the normal operating range identified in the maintenance plan.

3. Weekly confirmation that the baghouse dust is being removed from the baghouse hoppers 

through visual inspection.

4. Daily check of the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.

5. Appropriate monitoring of cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation.

6. Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through visual 

inspection or equivalent means.

7. Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type baghouses to ensure 

that the bags are not kinked or laying on their sides.

8. Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the baghouses structure through visual 

inspection of the baghouse interior for air leaks.

9. Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through visual 

inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
10. Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of the furnace 

capture system to include an examination of the physical condition of the equipment, 

suitable for detecting holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions in ductwork due to 

dents or accumulated dust, and operational status of flow rate controllers.

11. Check and record the control system fan motor amperes and capture system damper 

positions once per shift.