Vol. 80 Tuesday, 

No. 125 June 30, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 

Production; Final Rule 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37366 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895; FRL–9928–66– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ11 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 

Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category regulated 

under national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). 

These final amendments include 

revisions to particulate matter (PM) 

standards for electric arc furnaces, metal 

oxygen refining processes, and crushing 

and screening operations, and expand 

and revise the requirements to control 

process fugitive emissions from furnace 

operations, tapping, casting, and other 

processes. We are also finalizing opacity 

limits, as proposed in 2014. However, 

regarding opacity monitoring, in lieu of 

Method 9, we are requiring monitoring 

with the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT). Furthermore, we are 

finalizing emissions standards for four 

previously unregulated hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP): Formaldehyde, 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury (Hg) 

and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAH). Other requirements related to 

testing, monitoring, notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting are 

included. This rule is health protective 

due to the revised emissions limits for 

the stacks and the requirement of 

enhanced fugitive emissions controls 

that will achieve significant reductions 

of process fugitive emissions, especially 

manganese. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

June 30, 2015. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of June 30, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207; and 

email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact 

Darcie Smith, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2076; fax number: 

(919) 541–0840; and email address: 

smith.darcie@epa.gov. For information 

about the applicability of the NESHAP 

to a particular entity, contact Cary 

Secrest, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8661; and email 

address: secrest.cary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviation 

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: 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BLDS bag leak detection system 

BTF Beyond-the-Floor 

CAA Clean Air Act 

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 

FeMn Ferromanganese 

FR Federal Register 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HI Hazard Index 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

km kilometer 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

MOR metal oxygen refining 

MRL Minimal Risk Level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

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 

PM particulate matter 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SiMn Silicomanganese 

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 

mg/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL Upper Prediction Limit 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

Background Information 

On November 23, 2011, and October 

6, 2014, the EPA proposed revisions to 

the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

based on our RTR. In this action, we are 

finalizing decisions and revisions for 

the NESHAP. We summarize some of 

the more significant comments we 

timely received regarding the proposed 

rule and provide our responses in this 

preamble. A summary of all other public 

comments on the proposal and the 

EPA’s responses to those comments are 

available in document titled: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutant Emissions: Ferroalloys 

Production Summary of Public 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37367 

Comments and the EPA’s Responses on 

Proposed Rule (76 FR 72508, November 

23, 2011) and Supplemental Proposal 

(79 FR 60238, October 6, 2014), Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895, 

which is available in the docket. A 

‘‘track changes’’ version of the 

regulatory language that incorporates 

the changes in this action is also 

available in the docket. 

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. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the Ferroalloys Production 

source category and how does the 

NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 

the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

in our November 23, 2011, proposal and 

our October 6, 2014, supplemental 

proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) 

for the Ferroalloys Production source 

category? 

D. What are requirements during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction? 

E. What other changes have been made to 

the NESHAP? 

F. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category 

C. CAA Section 112(d)(2) & (3) Revisions 

for the Ferroalloys Production Source 

Category 

D. What changes did we make to the 

Ferroalloys Production opacity 

monitoring requirement? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

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? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

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 and 1 CFR part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source category NAICSa

Code 

Ferroalloys Production .............. 331112 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart XXX (National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP): Ferroalloys Production). If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of any aspect of this 

NESHAP, please contact the appropriate 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble. 

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 final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet through the 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 final action at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ferroa/ 

ferropg.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories 

and detailed emissions and other data 

we used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

August 31, 2015. Under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) further provides that ‘‘[o]nly 

an objection to a rule or procedure 

which was raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public 

comment (including any public hearing) 

may be raised during judicial review.’’ 

This section also provides a mechanism 

for the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f 

the person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the Administrator that it 

was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration 

should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

EPA WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37368 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this 

approach of implementing CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A); 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.’’). 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, we must 

identify categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 

section 112(b) and then promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit, or have the potential to emit, any 

single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year 

(tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

these standards are commonly referred 

to as maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards and must 

reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts). In developing 

MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) 

directs the EPA to consider the 

application of measures, processes, 

methods, systems, or techniques, 

including, but not limited to those that 

reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP 

emissions through process changes, 

substitution of materials, or other 

modifications; enclose systems or 

processes to eliminate emissions; 

collect, capture, or treat HAP when 

released from a process, stack, storage, 

or fugitive emissions point; are design, 

equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards; or any 

combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements, and which 

may not be based on cost 

considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best-controlled similar source. For 

existing sources the MACT standards 

can be less stringent than the floors for 

new sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 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, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor, under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see 79 FR 60238. 

B. What is the Ferroalloys Production 

source category and how does the 

NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 

the source category? 

The EPA promulgated the Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP on May 20, 1999 

(64 FR 27450). The standards are 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

XXX. The ferroalloys production 

industry consists of facilities that 

produce ferromanganese (FeMn) or 

silicomanganese (SiMn). The source 

category covered by this MACT 

standard currently includes two 

facilities. 

The rule applies to ferroalloys 

production operations that are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions or are 

co-located at a major source of HAP 

emissions. The HAP emission sources at 

facilities subject to the Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP are open, semisealed, or sealed submerged arc 

furnaces, tapping operations, casting 

operations, metal oxygen refining 

(MOR) process, crushing and screening 

operations, other processes, such as 

ladle treatment and slag raking, and 

outdoor fugitive dust sources. The 1999 

NESHAP regulated these emissions 

sources through emission limits for PM, 

opacity limits, and work practices. 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

in our November 23, 2011, proposal and 

our October 6, 2014, supplemental 

proposal? 

On November 23, 2011, the EPA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 72508) for the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart XXX that took into 

consideration the RTR analyses. In the 

2011 proposed rule, we proposed: 

• Revisions to the numeric emission 

limits for PM from furnace stacks to 

reflect the current performance of 

control devices in place at ferroalloys 

production facilities to control furnace 

emissions (primary and tapping), 

crushing and screening operations, and 

the MOR operation at one plant; 

• Addition of Hg, HCl, PAH, and 

formaldehyde furnace stack emission 

standards that reflected the MACT 

determination for control of these 

pollutants; 

• Requirements to capture process 

fugitive emissions using full building 

enclosure with negative pressure 

building ventilation and duct the 

captured emissions to a control device; 

and 

• Revisions to the opacity standards 

to reflect effective capture and control of 

process fugitive emissions. 

On October 6, 2014, the EPA 

published a supplemental proposed rule 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 60238). 

For the supplemental proposal, we 

proposed: 

• Revisions to the proposed PM 

furnace stack emission standards based 

on additional test data submitted by the 

facilities; 

• Revisions to the proposed Hg, HCl, 

and PAH furnace stack emission 

standards based on additional test data 

submitted by the facilities; 

• Requirements to capture process 

fugitive emissions using effective, 

enhanced local capture, and duct the 

captured emissions to control devices; 

• Revisions to the opacity standards 

to reflect effective, enhanced capture, 

and control of process fugitive 

emissions; 

• To demonstrate compliance with 

the opacity limits, we proposed 

facilities would need to take opacity 

readings for an entire furnace cycle once 

per week per furnace using Method 9 or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37369 

as an option they could take the 

readings using DCOT; and 

• Several minor clarifications and 

corrections. 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

and amends the existing Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP based on those 

determinations. Among the changes 

finalized in this action are: The 

promulgation of MACT-based limits for 

previously unregulated HAP; 

requirements to effectively capture and 

control process fugitive emissions; the 

removal of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) exemptions; and the 

addition of DCOT monitoring. This 

action also reflects several changes to 

the November 2011 and October 2014 

proposals in consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

periods as described in section IV of this 

preamble. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

This section provides a summary of 

the final amendments to the Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP being promulgated 

pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 

1. Stack Emissions 

We are promulgating PM emission 

limits for stacks at the following levels: 

4.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter (mg/dscm) for new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnaces; 25 

mg/dscm for existing electric arc 

furnaces; and 4.0 mg/dscm for any new, 

reconstructed, or existing local 

ventilation control device. These 

emission limits are the same as the 

limits proposed in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

In addition, we are promulgating a 

PM limit of 3.9 mg/dscm for any new, 

reconstructed, or existing MOR process 

and a PM limit of 13 mg/dscm for any 

new, reconstructed, or existing crushing 

and screening equipment, which are 

consistent with what we proposed in 

our November 23, 2011, proposal. 

2. Process Fugitive Emissions Sources 

We are promulgating a requirement 

that facilities in this source category 

must achieve effective enhanced capture 

of process fugitive emissions using a 

system of primary hoods (that capture 

process fugitive emissions near the 

source) and/or secondary capture of 

fugitives (which would capture 

remaining fugitive emissions near the 

roof-line). Facilities must install, 

operate, and maintain a process 

fugitives capture system that is designed 

to capture 95 percent or more of the 

process fugitive emissions. We are also 

promulgating an opacity limit of 8- 

percent to ensure process fugitive 

emissions are effectively captured. This 

is what we proposed in the October 6, 

2014, supplemental proposal. However, 

we have revised the rule based on 

public comment, to provide more 

flexibility on how facilities achieve 95- 

percent capture of process fugitive 

emissions. We also strengthened the 

monitoring provisions to ensure that the 

required reductions are achieved. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

We determined that there are 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that warrant 

revisions to the MACT standards for this 

source category for both stack PM 

emissions and process fugitive 

emissions. Therefore, under the 

authority of CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

are promulgating the same PM stack 

emission limits and enhanced fugitive 

control requirements that we are 

promulgating under CAA section 112(f), 

as described in section A above. 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) 

for the Ferroalloys Production source 

category? 

We are promulgating emission limits 

for formaldehyde, HCl, Hg, and PAH, 

which were previously unregulated 

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

and 112(d)(3). 

We are promulgating a formaldehyde 

emission limit of 201 micrograms per 

dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) for 

any new, reconstructed, or existing 

electric arc furnace. This is the same 

limit that we proposed on November 23, 

2011. 

We are promulgating an HCl emission 

limit of 180 mg/dscm for new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnaces and 

1,100 mg/dscm for existing electric arc 

furnaces. This is the same limit that we 

proposed on October 6, 2014. 

For electric arc furnaces producing 

FeMn, we are promulgating Hg emission 

limits of 13 mg/dscm for new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnaces and 

130 mg/dscm for existing electric arc 

furnaces. For electric arc furnaces 

producing SiMn, we are promulgating 

Hg emission limits of 4 mg/dscm for new 

or reconstructed electric arc furnaces 

and 12 mg/dscm for existing electric arc 

furnaces. The Hg limit for new SiMn 

furnaces is the same as in the October 

6, 2014, supplemental proposal. The 

final Hg limits for new and existing 

FeMn and existing SiMn furnaces are 

generally consistent with the 

supplemental proposal; however, there 

were changes to these three limits due 

to the inclusion of new emission data 

we received shortly before or during the 

supplemental proposal comment period. 

For electric arc furnaces producing 

FeMn, we are promulgating a PAH 

emission limit of 12,000 mg/dscm for 

new or reconstructed and existing 

electric arc furnaces. The FeMn furnace 

PAH emission limits are significantly 

higher than what we proposed in the 

October 6, 2014, supplemental proposal 

due to the inclusion of new PAH 

emission data we received a few weeks 

before signature of the supplemental 

proposal and during the supplemental 

proposal comment period. We 

explained in the supplemental proposal 

preamble that we received data shortly 

before that notice and provided the data 

for comment (i.e., the data were 

available in the docket). The data 

received during the comment period 

were consistent with the data 

mentioned in the supplemental 

proposal. For electric arc furnaces 

producing SiMn, we are promulgating a 

PAH emission limit of 72 mg/dscm for 

new or reconstructed electric arc 

furnaces and 130 mg/dscm for existing 

electric arc furnaces. The SiMn furnace 

new PAH emission limit is the same as 

the limit in the October 6, 2014, 

supplemental proposal. There was a 

slight revision to the existing SiMn 

furnace PAH limit due to the inclusion 

of new emission data we received 

during the supplemental proposal 

comment period. 

D. What are the requirements during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction? 

We are finalizing, as proposed in the 

supplemental proposal, changes to the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP to 

eliminate the SSM exemption. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 

F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA is 

establishing standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. Table 1 to subpart 

XXX of part 63 (General Provisions 

applicability table) is being revised to 

change several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. We also are eliminating or 

revising certain recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA 

also made changes to the rule to remove 

or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, 

or redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We determined 

that facilities in this source category can 

meet the applicable emission standards 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37370 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

in the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

at all times, including periods of startup 

and shutdown; therefore, the EPA 

determined that no separate standards 

are needed to address emissions during 

these periods. 

E. What other changes have been made 

to the NESHAP? 

This rule also finalizes revisions to 

several other Ferroalloys Production 

NESHAP requirements as proposed, or 

in some cases with some modification 

as described in this section. 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and data accessibility, we 

are finalizing, as proposed, a 

requirement that owners and operators 

of ferroalloys production facilities 

submit electronic copies of certain 

required performance test reports 

through an electronic performance test 

report tool called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement 

to submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA does not 

require any additional performance 

testing and applies only to those 

performance tests conducted using test 

methods that are supported by the ERT. 

We are finalizing the opacity 

standards, as proposed in the 

supplemental proposal. However, 

regarding compliance demonstration, 

we are requiring that facilities measure 

opacity using DCOT. In the 

supplemental proposal, we proposed 

facilities would need to monitor opacity 

with Method 9 or DCOT. However, after 

considering public comments, we 

decided to require DCOT rather than 

have it as optional. Regarding 

monitoring frequency, we proposed 

facilities would need to do opacity 

readings weekly per furnace building 

with no opportunity to reduce 

frequency overtime. After considering 

public comments, we have decided to 

require weekly readings initially, as 

proposed, but allow a facility an 

opportunity to decrease frequency of 

opacity readings to monthly per furnace 

building after 26 weeks of successful, 

compliant opacity readings. 

In addition, due to the large variation 

in PAH emissions from furnace stacks 

during FeMn production, we are 

requiring quarterly compliance tests for 

PAHs (i.e., four PAH compliance tests 

per year) for furnaces while producing 

FeMn, with an opportunity for facilities 

to request decreased frequency of such 

compliance testing from their permit 

authority after the first year and after 

four or more successful PAH 

compliance tests have been completed 

and submitted electronically. 

We are also finalizing other minor 

changes to the NESHAP in response to 

comments received during the public 

comment period for the proposal and 

supplemental proposal, as described in 

this preamble. 

F. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The revisions to the MACT standards 

being promulgated in this action are 

effective on June 30, 2015. The 

compliance date for existing ferroalloys 

production sources for all the 

requirements promulgated in this final 

rule is June 30, 2017. Facilities must 

comply with the changes set out in this 

final rule (which are being promulgated 

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. CAA 

section 112(f)(4) generally provides that 

a standard promulgated pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f)(2) applies 90 days 

after the effective date, but further 

provides for a compliance period of up 

to 2 years when the Administrator 

determines that such time is necessary 

for the installation of controls and that 

steps will be taken during that period to 

assure protection to health from 

imminent endangerment. We conclude 

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 will need to continue to 

comply with the requirements specified 

in 40 CFR 63.1650 through 40 CFR 

63.1660. New sources must comply with 

the all of the standards immediately 

upon the effective date of the standard, 

June 30, 2015, or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

As we proposed, the EPA is taking a 

step to increase the ease and efficiency 

of data submittal and data accessibility. 

Specifically, the EPA is finalizing the 

requirement for owners and operators of 

ferroalloys production facilities to 

submit electronic copies of certain 

required performance test reports. 

Data will be collected by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

This EPA-provided software is an 

electronic performance test report tool 

called the ERT. The ERT will generate 

an electronic report package which will 

be submitted to the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by reducing recordkeeping 

costs as the performance test reports 

that are submitted to the EPA using 

CEDRI are no longer required to be kept 

in hard copy. 

State, local, and tribal agencies will 

benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of performance test data 

that will become available through 

WebFIRE. The public will also benefit. 

Having these data publicly available 

enhances transparency and 

accountability. For a more thorough 

discussion of electronic reporting of 

performance tests using direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble of the proposal. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

tribal agencies, and the EPA significant 

time, money, and effort while improving 

the quality of emission inventories and 

air quality regulations and enhancing 

the public’s access to this important 

information. 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Ferroalloys Production source 

category? 

For each issue, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions 

and amendments, and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document, which is available in the 

docket. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37371 

A. Residual Risk Review for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results of this review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the October 6, 2014, 

supplemental proposal for the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP (79 FR 

60238). The results of the risk 

assessment for the 2014 supplemental 

proposal are presented briefly below in 

Table 2 and in more detail in the 

residual risk document, Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source 

Category in Support of the September 

2014 Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Based on actual emissions estimates 

for the Ferroalloys Production source 

category supplemental proposal, the 

maximum individual risk (MIR) for 

cancer was estimated to be up to 20-in1 million driven by emissions of 

chromium compounds, PAHs, and 

nickel compounds. The maximum 

chronic non-cancer target organ-specific 

hazard index (TOSHI) value was 

estimated to be up to 4 driven by 

fugitive emissions of manganese. The 

maximum off-site acute hazard quotient 

(HQ) value was estimated to be 1 for 

arsenic compounds, hydrogen fluoride 

(HF), and formaldehyde. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from this source category, based on 

actual emission levels, was 0.002 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one case in 

every 500 years. 

Based on MACT-allowable emissions 

estimated for the Ferroalloys Production 

source category supplemental proposal, 

the MIR was estimated to be up to 100- 

in-1 million driven by emissions of 

arsenic and cadmium compounds from 

the MOR process baghouse outlet. The 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value was estimated to be up to 40 

driven by emissions of manganese from 

the MOR process. The total estimated 

national cancer incidence from this 

source category, based on MACTallowable emission levels, was 0.005 

excess cancer cases per year, or one case 

in every 200 years. 

We also found there were emissions 

of four persistent and bioaccumulative 

HAP (PB–HAP) with an available RTR 

multipathway screening value, and the 

reported emissions of these four HAP 

(cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, 

Hg compounds, and PAH) were greater 

than the Tier 1 multipathway screening 

values for these compounds for both 

facilities at the time of the supplemental 

proposal. We conducted a Tier 2 

multipathway screen for both facilities, 

and conducted a refined multipathway 

assessment for one facility in the source 

category. Results of the refined 

multipathway assessment predict a 

potential lifetime cancer risk of 10-in-1 

million to the maximum exposed 

individual due to exposure to dioxins 

and PAHs. The non-cancer HQ was 

predicted to be below 1 for cadmium 

compounds and 1 for Hg compounds. 

However, as explained in the Revised 

Development of the Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) Emissions 

Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category for the 2014 

Supplemental Proposal document, it is 

important to note that about 75 percent 

of the emissions test results for dioxins 

were below the detection limit. To be 

conservative, in our calculations of 

emissions estimates, we assumed all the 

test results that were recorded as below 

detection were one half the detection 

limit. Therefore, there are considerable 

uncertainties in estimated emissions for 

dioxins. Nevertheless, since we 

assumed emissions were at the level of 

one half the detection limit in all these 

cases where emissions were not even 

detected, we believe our emissions 

estimates are conservative (i.e., more 

likely to be overestimates rather than 

underestimates of the true emissions). 

Emissions of the four PB–HAP and 

two environmental HAP (HCl and HF) 

were reported by ferroalloys facilities. 

Tier 1 results for PB–HAP indicate that 

concentrations of cadmium compounds 

and dioxins are below the ecological 

benchmarks. Mercury compounds and 

PAHs concentrations were greater than 

the benchmark so a Tier 2 screen was 

conducted. For PAH and 

methylmercury, none of the individual 

modeled concentrations for any facility 

exceeded any of the ecological 

benchmarks. For mercuric chloride, the 

weighted average modeled 

concentrations for all soil parcels were 

well below the soil benchmarks. For 

HCl and HF, the average modeled 

concentrations around each facility did 

not exceed any ecological benchmarks. 

For the supplemental proposal, we 

weighed all health risk factors in our 

risk acceptability determination and we 

proposed that the residual risks from the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

are unacceptable. 

TABLE 2—FERROALLOYS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE OCTOBER 2014 SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL

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 

non-cancer TOSHI b

Maximum screening acute 

Actual non-cancer HQ d

emissions 

level 

MACTallowable 

emissions 

level c

Actual 

emissions 

level 

MACTallowable 

emissions 

level 

20 ................. 100 >= 1-in-1 million: 31,000 ......

>= 10-in-1 million: 400 .........

>= 100-in-1 million: 0 ...........

0.002 4 40 HQREL = 1 (arsenic compounds, formaldehyde, 

hydrofluoric acid). 

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. cThe 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. dSee section III.A.3 of the supplemental proposal or the risk assessment document supporting the supplemental proposal for explanation of 

acute dose-response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions. 

As described above, to address the 

unacceptable risks in the supplemental 

proposal, we proposed tighter PM 

emission limits for the stacks, which 

significantly reduce risks due to 

allowable emissions. To reduce risks 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37372 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

due to process fugitive emissions, we 

proposed facilities must achieve 

effective enhanced capture of process 

fugitive emissions using a system of 

primary hoods (that capture process 

fugitive emissions near the source) and/ 

or secondary capture of fugitives (which 

would capture remaining fugitive 

emissions near the roof-line). As 

described in the supplemental proposal, 

we estimated that these controls would 

reduce the MIR cancer risk estimate to 

10-in-1 million and that the chronic 

noncancer hazard index (HI) would be 

reduced to an HI of 1. Acute screening 

and multipathway results were also 

reduced. In the supplemental proposal, 

we concluded that these risks, after the 

implementation of proposed controls, 

were acceptable. 

We then considered whether the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and whether more 

stringent standards are necessary to 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors. In considering whether the 

standards should be tightened to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, we considered the 

same risk factors that we considered for 

our acceptability determination and also 

considered the costs, technological 

feasibility, and other relevant factors 

related to emissions control options that 

might reduce risks associated with 

emissions from the source category. 

Based on our ample margin of safety 

analysis for the supplemental proposal, 

we did not identify any additional costeffective controls to further reduce risks 

beyond the requirements we proposed 

to achieve acceptable risks. Therefore, 

we proposed that additional HAP 

emissions controls are not necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety. 

Based on the results of our screening 

analysis for risks to the environment, we 

also proposed that more stringent 

standards are not necessary to prevent 

an adverse environmental effect. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Ferroalloys Production source 

category? 

Information received by the EPA 

shortly before and during the 

supplemental proposal comment period 

included additional PAH and Hg test 

data that were not included in the 

supplemental proposal risk assessment 

due to timing and the need to review the 

data. We described the data in the 

supplemental proposal and asked for 

comment on the use of these data. After 

completion of the data review, these 

data were included in the risk 

assessment for the final rule. Therefore, 

PAH and Hg emissions estimates were 

revised for the final rule assessment. 

Some revisions were also made for other 

HAP emissions. These changes are 

discussed further in section IV of this 

preamble. 

With the exception of the revised 

emissions described above, the risk 

assessment supporting the final rule was 

conducted in the same manner, using 

the same models and methods, as that 

conducted for the supplemental 

proposal. The documentation for the 

final rule risk assessment can be found 

in the document titled Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source 

Category in Support of the 2015 Risk 

and Technology Review Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results. 

Table 3 provides an overall summary of 

the results of the inhalation risk 

assessment supporting the final rule. 

TABLE 3—FERROALLOYS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE 2015 FINAL RULE

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 

non-cancer TOSHI b

Maximum screening acute 

Actual non-cancer HQ d

emissions 

level 

MACTallowable 

emissions 

level c

Actual 

emissions 

level 

MACTallowable 

emissions 

level 

20 ................. 100 >= 1-in-1 million: 41,000 ......

>= 10-in-1 million: 90 ...........

>= 100-in-1 million: 0 ...........

0.003 4 40 HQREL = 1 (hydrofluoric 

acid, arsenic compounds). 

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 1,300 based on actual emissions and 

11,000 based on allowable emissions. cThe 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. dSee section III.A.3 of the supplemental proposal or the risk assessment document supporting the supplemental proposal for explanation of 

acute dose-response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions. 

The inhalation risk modeling 

performed to estimate risks based on 

actual and allowable emissions for the 

final rule relied primarily on updated 

emissions estimates based on data 

received through two Information 

Collection Requests (ICRs), additional 

data submitted by the companies 

voluntarily, and revised calculations as 

described further in the Revised 

Development of the Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) Emissions 

Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category for the 2015 Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

The results of the chronic baseline 

inhalation cancer risk assessment 

indicate that, based on updated 

estimates of actual emissions, the cancer 

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 

furnace stacks accounting for more than 

70 percent of the MIR. The total 

estimated cancer incidence from 

ferroalloys production sources based on 

updated actual emission levels is 0.003 

excess cancer cases per year, or one case 

every 333 years, with emissions of PAH, 

chromium compounds, and cadmium 

compounds contributing 49 percent, 15 

percent, and 12 percent, respectively, to 

this cancer incidence. In addition, we 

note that approximately 90 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than or equal to 10-in-1 million, and 

approximately 41,000 people are 

estimated to have risks greater than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million because of actual 

emissions from this source category. 

These results, based on updated actual 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37373 

emissions, are very similar to those 

presented in the supplemental proposal. 

When considering the updated 

MACT-allowable emissions, the 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk is estimated to be up to 100-in-1 

million, driven by emissions of arsenic 

and cadmium compounds from the 

MOR process baghouse outlet. The 

estimated cancer incidence is estimated 

to be 0.006 excess cancer cases per year 

or one excess case in every 167 years. 

Approximately 3,300 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than or equal to 10-in-1 million and 

approximately 120,000 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than or equal to 1-in-1 million 

considering updated allowable 

emissions from ferroalloys facilities. 

These results, based on updated MACTallowable emissions, are very similar to 

those presented in the supplemental 

proposal. 

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

category based on updated actual 

emissions is estimated to be 4, with 

manganese emissions from tapping 

fugitives accounting for more than 50 

percent of the HI. Approximately 1,300 

people are estimated to have exposure 

to HI levels greater than 1 as a result of 

updated actual emissions from this 

source category. When considering 

updated MACT-allowable emissions, 

the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI is estimated to be 40, driven by 

manganese emissions from the MOR 

process baghouse outlet. Approximately 

12,000 people are estimated to have 

potential exposure to TOSHI levels 

greater than 1 considering updated 

allowable emissions from these 

ferroalloys facilities. These results, for 

both updated actual and MACTallowable emissions, are very similar to 

those presented in the supplemental 

proposal. 

b. Acute Risk Results. Based on the 

updated emissions described above, our 

screening analysis for worst-case acute 

impacts based on actual emissions 

indicates the potential for hydrofluoric 

acid and arsenic compounds to have HQ 

results of 1, based on their respective 

REL values. Both facilities have 

estimated acute HQs of 1 for these 

pollutants. Acute HQs for other 

pollutants (e.g., hydrochloric acid) are 

less than one. These acute results, based 

on updated emissions, are very similar 

to those presented in the supplemental 

proposal. 

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 

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. More discussion of our 

acute screening methods can be found 

in the supplemental proposal or in the 

risk assessment document, Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the 2015 Final Rule, which are 

available in the docket. 

c. Multipathway Risk Screening 

Results. Results of the worst-case Tier I 

screening analysis indicate that PB– 

HAP emissions (based on updated 

estimates of actual emissions) from one 

or both facilities in this source category 

exceed the screening emission rates for 

cadmium compounds, Hg compounds, 

dioxins, and PAHs. For the compounds 

and facilities that did not screen out at 

Tier I, we conducted a Tier II screen. 

Based on the Tier II screening 

analysis, no facility emits cadmium 

compounds above the Tier II screening 

levels. One facility emits Hg compounds 

above the Tier II screening levels and 

exceeds that level by a factor of 8. 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 

10. 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 50. These 

multipathway screening results, based 

on updated emissions, are very similar 

to those presented in the supplemental 

proposal. More information about our 

multipathway screening approach can 

be found in the supplemental proposal 

or in the risk assessment document, 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

in Support of the 2015 Final Rule, 

which are available in the docket. 

d. Multipathway Refined Risk Results. 

A refined multipathway analysis was 

conducted for one of the two facilities 

in this source category using the 

TRIM.FaTE model and the updated 

emissions as described above. 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. In addition, it was selected for 

a refined multipathway assessment in 

the supplemental proposal. These three 

PB–HAP were cadmium, Hg, 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 

using updated emissions as described 

above. 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 20-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 Hg compounds. 

These results, based on updated 

emissions, are very similar to those 

presented in the supplemental proposal. 

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 2015 Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket. 

e. Environmental Risk Screening 

Results. As described in section III.A of 

the supplemental proposal preamble 

(79 FR 60238), we conducted an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category. In the Tier 

I screening analysis for PB–HAP (other 

than lead, which was evaluated 

differently as noted in section III.A of 

the supplemental proposal preamble, 79 

FR 60238), 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 lowest-observedadverse-effect level or the no-observedadverse-effect level). For mercuric 

chloride, soil benchmarks were 

exceeded for some individual modeled 

points that collectively accounted for 11 

percent of the modeled area. However, 

the weighted average modeled 

concentration for all soil parcels was 

well below the soil benchmarks. For 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37374 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

lead, we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the secondary lead 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 

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. 

For HF, some individual modeled 

points exceeded the ecological 

benchmark but accounted for less than 

0.02 percent of the modeled area. The 

average modeled HF concentration 

around each facility (i.e., the average 

concentration of all off-site data points 

in the modeling domain) did not exceed 

any ecological benchmarks. These 

results, based on updated emissions, are 

very similar to those presented in the 

supplemental proposal. 

f. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results. As in the supplemental 

proposal, 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. 

g. Demographic Analysis Results. To 

examine the potential for any 

environmental justice (EJ) issues that 

might be associated with the source 

category, we updated the demographic 

analysis that was conducted for the 

supplemental proposal, using the risk 

results based on the updated emissions. 

A demographic analysis is an 

assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups of the population 

close to the facilities. In this analysis, 

we evaluated the distribution of HAPrelated cancer risks and noncancer 

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 SocioEconomic 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 4 

below. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on the 

estimated risks from actual emissions 

levels for the population living within 

50 kilometers (km) of the facilities. 

TABLE 4—FERROALLOYS PRODUCTION DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 2015 FINAL RULE

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 40,748 1,348 

Race by Percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 72 97 99 

All Other Races ......................................................................................................... 28 3 1 

Race by Percent 

White .......................................................................................................................... 72 97 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 6 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................. 86 85 94 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ............................................................... 15 11 10 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................. 85 89 90 

Age by Percent 

Ages 0 to 17 .............................................................................................................. 24 21 22 

Ages 18 to 64 ............................................................................................................ 63 61 59 

Ages 65 and up ......................................................................................................... 13 18 19

The results of the Ferroalloys 

Production source category 

demographic analysis indicate that 

emissions from the source category 

expose approximately 41,000 people to 

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

and approximately 1,300 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37375 

2U.S. EPA. Mn and BTEX Reference Value Arrays 

(Final Reports). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-12/047F, 

2013. 

3 1-in-10 thousand is equivalent to 100-in-1 

million. The EPA currently describes cancer risks 

as ‘n-in-1 million.’ 

(except for ages 65 and up) are similar 

to or lower than their respective 

nationwide percentages. These results 

are very similar to those presented in 

the supplemental proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review, and what are our 

responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the risk assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category. 

The following is a summary of some of 

the more significant comments and our 

responses to those comments. Other 

comments received and our responses to 

those comments can be found in the 

document titled National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Ferroalloys Production 

Summary of Public Comments and the 

EPA’s Responses on Proposed Rule (76 

FR 72508, November 23, 2011) and 

Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, 

October 6, 2014), which is available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895). 

Comment: Several comments were 

received on the reference value used in 

the risk assessment to evaluate chronic 

noncancer effects due to exposure to 

manganese. In the 2011 proposal, we 

used the Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) reference concentration 

(RfC), and we received negative 

comments regarding that value not 

being the ‘‘best available science.’’ We 

evaluated the available values and, in 

accordance with our prioritized doseresponse values and Scientific Advisory 

Board (SAB) comments, we used the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimum risk 

level (MRL) for manganese in the risk 

assessment for the 2014 supplemental 

proposal. We received mixed comments 

in response to the supplemental 

proposal. Some comments were 

negative regarding our use of the 

ATSDR MRL, while others were 

generally supportive of our use of the 

MRL compared to the IRIS value, yet 

still thought the MRL was not the 

appropriate reference value to use in the 

assessment. 

Regarding use of the IRIS RfC for 

manganese in the 2011 proposal risk 

assessment, commenters stated that the 

manganese RfC was outdated, did not 

constitute the best available science 

(including use of benchmark dose 

statistical analyses or physiologicallybased pharmacokinetic models), and 

substantial research has been conducted 

since the 1993 IRIS RfC was last 

updated. The commenters refer to their 

own calculations and studies and 

developed their own reference value for 

manganese and state that the EPA 

should use that value. Regarding use of 

the ATSDR MRL for manganese in the 

2014 supplemental proposal risk 

assessment, the same commenters stated 

that the manganese MRL was an 

improvement over the IRIS RfC, but was 

still not the best available science 

because, in their review, ATSDR did not 

apply physiologically-based 

pharmacokinetic models. The 

commenters again refer to their own 

calculations and studies developing a 

reference value for manganese and state 

that EPA should use that value. Another 

commenter disagrees with the use of the 

ATSDR MRL because the EPA has not 

provided sufficient rationale for using a 

less-protective value. Instead, this 

commenter recommended that we 

continue to use the IRIS RfC value. 

Response: We agree that there were 

newer information and assessments 

available at the time of the 2011 

proposal and also for the 2014 

supplemental proposal, some of which 

may use the currently preferred 

approach for developing dose-response 

values (i.e., the benchmark dose 

approach). However, we only use 

reference values which meet certain 

criteria in regards to how they are 

derived (using EPA guidelines or 

similar), derived by credible sources 

with health-protective goals similar to 

those of the EPA, using peer-review 

procedures also similar to the level 

applied to the EPA values, and with an 

open public comment process. We have 

a tiered priority list for sources of 

chronic dose-response information, 

which meet these criteria (as described 

in the supplemental proposal, 79 FR 

60238). The tiered prioritized list has 

been through a SAB review and was 

favorably received. 

In the risk assessment for the 2011 

proposal, we used the IRIS RfC for 

chronic exposure to manganese and 

received numerous comments regarding 

use of that value. In response to those 

comments, we considered the existing 

peer-reviewed health effect reference 

values for chronic inhalation exposure 

to manganese from other federal, state, 

and international agencies and 

organizations. We developed a reference 

value array document 2 providing 

additional details for the available 

values. We noted that the ATSDR MRL 

value available for the 2011 proposal 

was a draft value. The ATSDR MRL was 

subsequently finalized in 2012. 

In our consideration of available 

reference values, we did not include 

some values specifically noted in public 

comments. The level of peer review for 

non-governmental scientific 

publications is qualitatively different 

than the governmental processes used to 

derive the values described in our tiered 

prioritized list, and some of the values 

in the manganese reference value array 

document. The information provided by 

these additional references from the 

commenter(s) may prove useful in an 

IRIS reassessment for manganese, and 

we agree that the physiologically-based 

models, along with all other relevant 

available peer-reviewed literature, will 

be considered in any IRIS reassessment 

of manganese. Yet, a direct application 

of any of these values instead of an 

established value in our tiered list of 

prioritized dose-response values would 

be inconsistent with the EPA policy as 

implemented in the RTR Program, and 

with recommendations from the SAB. 

After considering the values in our 

tiered list of prioritized dose-response 

values, and consistent with Agency 

policy supported by SAB, we decided to 

rely on the 2012 ATSDR MRL value for 

the 2014 supplemental proposal. 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 selection of 

uncertainty values in the MRL 

derivation. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review? 

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 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand.’’ 3 (54 

FR 38045, September 14, 1989). 

a. Acceptability Determination. As in 

the supplemental proposal, the EPA 

concludes that the risks are 

unacceptable for the following reasons. 

First, the EPA considered the fact that 

the noncancer hazard HQ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37376 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

Production 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 diminished 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 

the fact that the noncancer hazard is up 

to 40 times the MRL and the refined 

multipathway HQ for Hg is at the RfD, 

leads the Agency to conclude that the 

risk from this source category is 

unacceptable. 

b. What is EPA requiring in the final 

rule to address the unacceptable risks? 

As mentioned above, to address the 

unacceptable risks, we are promulgating 

tighter PM emission limits for the 

stacks, which significantly reduces risks 

due to allowable emissions. 

Furthermore, to reduce risks due to 

process fugitive emissions, we are 

promulgating a requirement that 

facilities must achieve effective 

enhanced capture of process fugitive 

emissions using a system of primary 

hoods (that capture process fugitive 

emissions near the source) and/or 

secondary capture of fugitives (which 

would capture remaining fugitive 

emissions near the roof-line). Facilities 

must install, operate, and maintain a 

process fugitives capture system that is 

designed to capture and control 95 

percent or more of the process fugitive 

emissions. We are also promulgating an 

opacity limit of 8 percent to ensure 

process fugitive emissions are 

effectively captured and controlled. 

Facilities will need to meet an average 

opacity of 8 percent for the entire 

furnace cycle (about 90–120 minutes) 

with a maximum opacity of no more 

than 20-percent opacity for any 12- 

minute period. Moreover, facilities will 

need to monitor various control 

parameters (such as fan speed, 

amperage, pressure drops, and/or 

damper positioning) to ensure the 

process fugitive capture systems and 

controls are working properly. 

c. Remaining Risks After 

Implementation of the Requirements to 

Address Unacceptable Risks. To 

determine the remaining risks after 

implementation of the lower stack PM 

emissions limits and requirements to 

effectively control process fugitives 

(described above), we conducted a post 

control risk assessment, which is 

described in detail in the document 

titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Source Category in Support 

of the 2015 Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Based on this post control risk 

assessment, we conclude that after the 

requirements described above to address 

unacceptable risks are implemented, the 

risks to public health will be 

substantially reduced. 

For example, the results of the postcontrol chronic inhalation cancer risk 

assessment indicate that the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk posed by 

these two facilities, after the 

implementation of the promulgated 

controls, will be no higher than 10-in1 million, with an estimated reduction 

in cancer incidence to 0.002 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 

26,000. The results of the post-control 

risk assessment also indicate that the 

maximum chronic noncancer inhalation 

TOSHI value would be reduced to 1. 

The number of people estimated to have 

a TOSHI greater than 1 would be 

reduced to 0. We also estimate that after 

the implementation of controls, the 

maximum worst-case acute HQ value 

would be less than 1 (based on REL 

values). 

Considering post-control emissions of 

multipathway HAP, Hg emissions 

would be reduced by approximately 3 

pounds per year (lbs/yr), lead would be 

reduced by about 1,600 lbs/yr, 

polycyclic organic matter (POM) 

emissions would be reduced by 

approximately 3,600 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. 

d. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis. 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we again considered all of the 

health factors evaluated in the 

acceptability determination and 

evaluated 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 

emissions of HAP identified in our risk 

assessment. 

As described above, we estimate that 

the actions finalized under CAA section 

112(f)(2) to address unacceptable risks 

will reduce the MIR to 10-in-1 million. 

The cancer incidence will be reduced to 

0.002 cases per year and the number of 

people estimated to have cancer risks 

greater than 1-in-1 million will be 

reduced to 26,000 people. The chronic 

noncancer inhalation TOSHI will be 

reduced to 1 and the number of people 

exposed to a TOSHI level greater than 

1 will be reduced to 0. In addition, the 

potential multipathway impacts will be 

reduced. 

Based on all of the above information, 

we conclude that the risks will be 

acceptable after implementation of the 

lower stack limits for PM and the 

control requirements to reduce process 

fugitive emissions, as we concluded in 

the supplemental proposal. Based on 

our research and analysis, we did not 

identify any cost-effective controls 

beyond those described above that 

would achieve further reduction in risk. 

While in theory, the 2011 proposed 

approach of total enclosure with 

negative pressure would provide some 

additional risk reduction, the additional 

risk reduction is minimal and, similar to 

our assessment and conclusions 

described in the supplemental proposal, 

we continue to believe the total 

enclosure approach would not be 

economically feasible and may not be 

technically feasible for these facilities. 

No other technology advances were 

identified during the comment period. 

Therefore, we are not promulgating any 

additional requirements under the 

ample margin of safety analysis beyond 

the requirements being finalized to 

address unacceptable risks (as described 

above). We conclude that the controls to 

achieve acceptable risks will also 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

B. Technology Review for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review, which 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for the 

emission sources in the Ferroalloys 

Production source category. For the 

2011 proposal (76 FR 72508), we 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37377 

identified developments in practices, 

processes or control technologies for PM 

emissions from stacks (as a surrogate for 

metal HAP) and for process fugitive 

metal HAP emissions. Based on the 

comments received from the public and 

information received through a 2012 

ICR, we revised both the technology 

review and risk assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category, 

which were described in detail in the 

2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 

60238). 

a. PM Emission Limits From Stacks. 

For PM stack emissions limits, we 

determined for the 2011 proposal that 

the test data received from the two 

facilities indicate that all five furnaces 

that are in operation have PM emission 

levels that are well below their 

respective emission limits in the 1999 

MACT rule, which were based on size 

and product being produced. The test 

data received from the facilities also 

indicate that the PM emission levels for 

MOR and crushing and sizing are well 

below their respective emission limits 

in the 1999 MACT rule. These findings 

demonstrate that add-on particulate 

control technologies (Venturi scrubber, 

positive pressure fabric filter, negative 

pressure fabric filter) used to control 

emissions from the sources are effective 

in reducing PM (used as a surrogate for 

metal HAP). Based on these findings, in 

2011 we proposed a PM limit of 24 mg/ 

dscm corrected to 2 percent carbon 

dioxide (CO2) for existing furnaces. 

We received additional test data after 

the 2011 proposal and re-evaluated the 

PM limit using available PM emissions 

test data and consideration of variability 

across these data. Based on this 

analysis, we determined that it was 

appropriate to propose a revised PM 

limit of 25 mg/dscm for existing 

furnaces. No additional add-on control 

is expected to be required by the 

facilities to meet this revised existing 

source limit. To demonstrate 

compliance, we proposed 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 proposed that furnace 

baghouses would be required to be 

equipped with bag leak detection 

systems (BLDS). 

For the 2011 proposal, the proposed 

new source PM standard was 

determined by evaluating the available 

data from the best performing furnace 

(which was determined to be furnace #2 

at Felman). The proposed new source 

limit was determined to be 9.3 mg/

dscm. We received additional test data 

after the 2011 proposal and re-evaluated 

the new source limit using the available 

test data. The revised new source PM 

standard for furnaces for the 2014 

supplemental proposal was determined 

by evaluating the available data from the 

best performing furnace (which was 

again 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 

proposed as the MACT emissions limit 

for PM from new and reconstructed 

source furnace stacks in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

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 system 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 three different 

emissions tests (for a total of nine 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 proposed an 

emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm for 

existing, new, and reconstructed local 

ventilation control device emissions 

sources in the supplemental proposal. 

For crushing and screening 

operations, we proposed an emission 

limit of 13 mg/dscm for new and 

existing crushing and sizing operations 

in the 2011 proposal. We did not receive 

any additional data for this emission 

source and, therefore, made no revisions 

to this proposed limit in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

The MOR operation is a unique 

process that is operated by only one 

facility (Eramet). We calculated a 

proposed emission limit of 3.9 mg/dscm 

in the 2011 proposal that would apply 

to both new and existing MOR operation 

sources. We did not receive any 

additional data for this emission source 

and, therefore, made no revisions to this 

proposed limit in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

b. Emission Standards for Process 

Fugitives. For process fugitive metal 

HAP emissions, we identified two 

potential developments in practices and 

control techniques. One option would 

require facilities to install and operate 

enhanced capture of process fugitive 

emissions using a combination of 

primary hoods and ductwork in close 

proximity to the emission sources, such 

as tapping or casting and/or secondary 

hoods located near the roofline. Another 

option would be to require full 

enclosure of the furnace building(s) 

with negative pressure and evacuate the 

process fugitive emissions to a control 

device(s). In the 2011 proposal, we 

proposed that the full furnace building 

enclosure option represented an 

advance in emission control measures 

since the Ferroalloys Production 

NESHAP was originally promulgated in 

1999. 

For day-to-day continuous monitoring 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed full building enclosure 

requirements, the 2011 proposal relied 

mainly on requiring monitoring 

differential pressure to ensure facilities 

maintained a negative pressure of at 

least 0.007 inches of water and that 

emissions within the facilities would 

need to be vented to PM control devices. 

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. In the 2011 

proposal, we also proposed 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. 

We received significant comments in 

response to the 2011 proposal. 

Commenters claimed that we had 

significantly underestimated the costs 

for full building enclosure and that it 

would not be feasible for these facilities. 

After reviewing and considering the 

comments along with other information, 

we decided to re-evaluate the proposed 

requirement for negative pressure 

ventilation and consider other options. 

Based on our re-evaluation, for the 

2014 supplemental proposal, we 

concluded that the full-building 

enclosure option may not be feasible 

and would have significant economic 

impacts on the facilities. However, we 

concluded that an option based on 

enhanced local capture and control of 

process fugitive emissions using a 

combination of primary and secondary 

hoods is a feasible and cost-effective 

approach to achieve significant 

reductions in process fugitive HAP 

emissions. Therefore, in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, we proposed 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

that facilities would need to install and 

operate a local capture system using a 

combination of primary and/or 

secondary hoods that is designed to 

achieve at least 95-percent capture and 

control of process fugitive emissions. 

With the move to the proposed 

enhanced local capture alternative in 

the 2014 supplemental proposal, we no 

longer had a day-to-day continuous 

requirement of monitoring negative 

pressure. Instead, in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, continuous 

compliance demonstration would be 

based mainly on meeting an opacity 

limit, monitoring ventilation parameters 

(such as fan speed, amperage, and/or 

damper positioning), and documenting 

the design of the system to achieve 95- 

percent capture. Since opacity 

monitoring would be a primary method 

to demonstrate continuous compliance, 

we proposed that facilities would need 

to meet an average opacity of 8 percent 

for an entire furnace cycle (about 90– 

120 minutes) with a maximum opacity 

of no more than 20 percent opacity for 

any 12-minute period. Furthermore, we 

proposed facilities would need to 

monitor opacity for a full furnace cycle 

(about 90–120 minutes) at least once per 

week per furnace building. We also 

proposed 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. 

Regarding the design requirements, in 

the supplemental proposal, we 

proposed that the facilities in this 

source category must install, operate, 

and 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 

proposed 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. We proposed that 

this list of design criteria, coupled with 

the requirement for frequent opacity 

observations and operating parameter 

monitoring, would ensure process 

fugitive emissions are effectively 

controlled and would result in 

enforceable requirements. 

More information concerning our 

proposed technology review can be 

found in the memoranda titled, Revised 

Technology Review for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category, and Cost 

Impacts of Control Options Considered 

for the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions, 

which are available in the docket, and 

in the preamble to the 2014 

supplemental proposed rule, 79 FR at 

60271 to 60273. 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the Ferroalloys Production 

source category? 

For the October 6, 2014, supplemental 

proposal, we solicited comment 

regarding the use of new technologies to 

provide continuous or near continuous 

long term approaches to monitoring 

emissions from industrial sources for 

the Ferroalloy Production source 

category. After considering comments 

received and after evaluating the 

technologies further, we are replacing 

the weekly Method 9 opacity 

requirement with a weekly requirement 

to measure opacity using ASTM D7520– 

13 and DCOT to demonstrate 

compliance with the process fugitives 

standards. The final rule amendments 

require facilities to use the DCOT to 

measure opacity at least once per week 

for each of the furnace and MOR 

buildings to demonstrate compliance 

with the opacity limits. However, as 

mentioned above, facilities will have the 

opportunity to reduce the frequency of 

opacity readings to monthly after 26 

consecutive weeks of compliant weekly 

readings. The facilities would still be 

required to meet an average opacity 

standard of 8-percent opacity for the 

furnace cycle (90–120 minutes) and at 

no time during operation may any two 

consecutive 6-minute block opacity 

readings be greater than 20-percent 

opacity. The cost of implementing the 

DCOT system is estimated to be 

approximately $200,000 per year for the 

source category with weekly readings. 

However, these costs decrease to about 

$90,000 per year for the source category 

if they do monthly readings per furnace 

building. All other requirements we 

proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

in the supplemental proposal have not 

changed. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the technology review for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category. 

The following is a summary of the more 

significant comments and our responses 

to those comments. Other comments 

received and our responses to those 

comments can be found in the 

document titled National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Ferroalloys Production 

Summary of Public Comments and the 

EPA’s Responses on Proposed Rule (76 

FR 72508, November 23, 2011) and 

Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, 

October 6, 2014), which is available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895). 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the EPA’s decision to re-evaluate the 

feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the 

controls that the Agency proposed in its 

2011 proposal. However, the commenter 

objects to the EPA’s conclusion that an 

alternative system involving both 

primary and secondary capture is 

available and represents an 

‘‘advancement in technology’’ pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). The 

commenter states that this type of 

system does not currently exist in 

practice at any ferroalloy operation. 

They explain that, in theory, such a 

system appears likely to provide some 

degree of additional reductions. 

However, the commenter notes some of 

the specific potential control methods 

mentioned by the EPA have already 

been proven not to work. As an 

example, the commenter states that 

curtains have previously been installed 

in an attempt to contain additional 

furnace emissions, but the curtains 

burned up due to the extreme heat in 

only a few weeks. The commenter, 

therefore, objects both to the 

characterization of these additional 

controls as a currently available 

‘‘advancement in technology,’’ and to 

the EPA’s conclusion that the cost of 

almost $100,000 per ton of HAP 

reductions for these additional controls 

is cost effective. 

Response: In their supplemental 

comments on the 2011 proposed rule, 

industry representatives provided 

suggested alternative designs to address 

fugitive emissions from the furnace 

buildings. The designs suggested by the 

industry representatives included 

improving the existing primary hooding 

and capture systems close to the 

emissions sources and/or adding 

secondary capture to ensure effective 

capture and control of process fugitive 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37379 

emissions. The use of a primary hooding 

and exhaust system in conjunction with 

general secondary hooding and exhaust 

system was estimated to provide a total 

capture of 95 percent of process fugitive 

emissions, including emissions from the 

tapping, casting, crushing/screening, 

and skimming/slag raking processes. 

We reviewed these designs and 

discussed the designs with ventilation 

experts. The ventilation experts agreed 

that the suggested primary system along 

with secondary capture could achieve 

95 percent reduction of process fugitive 

emissions from the buildings. They 

noted that many of the designs and 

improvements were based on the 

elements of good ventilation systems 

that are used in other industries to 

capture and control fugitive emissions. 

Because these designs have been only 

partially deployed in this industry, they 

constitute a relevant development in 

technology beyond what is required by 

the current rule. We view the successful 

deployment of these technologies in 

other industries and the expert 

judgement of industrial ventilation 

experts as establishing that the 

technologies are technically available 

for transfer to the Ferroalloy Production 

source category. 

As part of our technology review, we 

evaluated the costs and effectiveness of 

a regulatory option that is based on the 

general emission control scenario 

suggested by the industry 

representatives which would include a 

system of primary and/or secondary 

hooding designed to capture 95 percent 

of process fugitive emissions. The 

process fugitive emissions would be 

captured by the primary and/or 

secondary hoods and routed to PM 

control devices. This option for the 

control of process fugitive emissions 

under CAA section 112(d)(6) is exactly 

the same option that we are 

promulgating under CAA section 

112(f)(2) to capture and control fugitives 

(described in section IV.A of this 

preamble). We estimate that the total 

capital cost including monitoring would 

be about $40.3 million, the total 

annualized costs would be about $7.7 

million per year, and that it would 

achieve 77 tpy reduction of HAP, mostly 

manganese and other HAP metals (e.g., 

cadmium compounds, chromium 

compounds, nickel compounds) and 

also achieve about 229 tpy reduction of 

PM. Based on our evaluation, we 

conclude that installing and operating 

such a system is a feasible and costeffective approach to achieve significant 

reductions in process fugitive HAP 

emissions and will achieve almost as 

much reductions as the full building 

enclosure option (229 vs. 252 tons PM 

reductions). In light of the technical 

feasibility and cost effectiveness of this 

enhanced fugitive capture option (that 

includes a combination of primary 

capture and/or secondary capture 

designed to capture and control 95 

percent of process fugitive), we are 

promulgating this option under the 

authority of section 112(d)(6) of the 

CAA. The control requirements and 

compliance requirements under this 

CAA section 112(d)(6) option are the 

exact same requirements we are 

promulgating under CAA section 

112(f)(2) to address unacceptable risks 

for process fugitive emissions (described 

in section IV.A of this preamble). As 

described in that section, facilities must 

install, operate, and maintain a process 

fugitives capture system that is designed 

to capture 95 percent or more of the 

process fugitive emissions. Facilities 

will also need to meet an average 

opacity of 8 percent for each furnace 

cycle (about 90–120 minutes) with a 

maximum opacity of no more than 20 

percent opacity for any two consecutive 

6-minute block opacity readings (12- 

minute period). To demonstrate 

compliance, facilities will need to 

initially monitor opacity for a full 

furnace cycle (about 90–120 minutes) at 

least once per week per furnace building 

using the DCOT. Moreover, facilities 

will need to monitor various control 

parameters (such as fan speed, 

amperage, pressure drops, and/or 

damper positioning) to ensure the 

fugitive capture system and controls are 

working properly. 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the only notable development that 

occurred in ferroalloys emission 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies since the 1999 NESHAP 

took effect is the installation of 

scrubbers and baghouses. Since 

scrubbers and baghouses have 

demonstrably different performance in 

controlling particulate emissions, the 

commenter claims that developments 

since 1999 warrant separate particulate 

emission limits based on the type of 

control device involved. The commenter 

states that the EPA did not acknowledge 

this development and proposed a single 

stack particulate limit for all furnaces. 

The commenter provided proposed PM 

limits of 27 mg/dscm for wet particulate 

scrubbers and 6.2 mg/dscm for 

baghouses, and notes that these limits 

would actually reduce the total 

allowable particulate emissions from 

their facility in comparison to the EPA’s 

proposed single limit of 25 mg/dscm. 

Response: Section 112 of the CAA 

grants the EPA discretion to establish 

‘‘categories and subcategories’’ of 

sources to be regulated under CAA 

section 112, and further allows the EPA 

to ‘‘distinguish among classes, types and 

sizes of sources within a category or 

subcategory’’ when establishing MACT 

standards. However, we believe it is not 

appropriate to establish subcategories 

based on type of control technology 

used by these emission sources. 

In the case of the PM emissions from 

the ferroalloy furnaces, we believe if it 

was appropriate, we could subcategorize 

based on the size of the furnace or the 

product being produced in that furnace. 

However, we determined that there was 

no statistical difference in PM emissions 

based on the size of the individual 

furnaces or by the product being 

produced in those furnaces. Therefore, 

we decided it was not appropriate to 

subcategorize for PM emissions and 

instead established a single PM limit for 

all of the furnaces, regardless of size or 

product being produced. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

that the EPA’s proposed requirements to 

reduce process fugitive emissions under 

CAA section 112(d)(6) are not based on 

control practices in use in the 

ferroalloys industry, but rather simply 

reflect a decision by the EPA that the 

sources at Eramet and Felman should be 

subject to additional requirements. By 

putting the enhanced fugitive control 

requirements under CAA section 

112(d)(6), the commenter believes that 

the EPA dispenses with any attempt to 

justify the requirements as cost 

effective, as would be required to 

impose for ‘‘beyond the MACT floor’’ 

standards under CAA section 112(d)(2), 

and the EPA dispenses with any attempt 

to present a risk-based justification for 

the requirements, as would be required 

under CAA section 112(f)(2). 

Response: As an initial matter, we 

note the process fugitive control 

requirements are justified as risk-based 

requirements under CAA section 

112(f)(2). See section IV.A of this 

preamble. Therefore, the premise of this 

comment is factually incorrect. That 

said, the requirements of this rule also 

are justified under CAA section 

112(d)(6). Under CAA section 112(d)(6), 

we are required to review emission 

standards no less frequently than every 

8 years and revise them ‘‘as necessary 

(taking into account developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies).’’ The ferroalloys industry 

already includes some of the controls 

envisioned under this control scenario. 

For example, all 5 furnaces in the source 

category in the U.S. already have some 

type of primary hooding to capture 

some process fugitive emissions from 

tapping and/or casting operations. In 

fact, one of the five furnaces in the U.S. 

already achieves good capture of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

tapping emissions with their current 

configuration. Furthermore, effective 

primary and secondary capture systems 

are currently used in other metals 

industries (e.g., steel production, 

secondary lead production) to 

effectively capture and control process 

fugitives. 

Moreover, as described above, 

representatives from the ferroalloys 

companies have provided suggestions as 

to how such a system could be 

designed, installed and operated to 

achieve 95-percent capture of fugitives. 

Therefore, we conclude such a system is 

technically feasible. Furthermore, as we 

described above, we conclude these 

controls would be cost effective 

($91,000 per ton of HAP metal reduced). 

Therefore, we conclude it is appropriate 

to promulgate this control option under 

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

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the technology review? 

a. PM Emissions Limits from Stacks. 

The available test data from the five 

furnaces located at the two facilities 

indicate that all of these furnaces have 

PM emission levels that are well below 

their respective emission limits 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 

effective in reducing particulate matter 

(used as a surrogate for metal HAP). 

The 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 promulgate revised 

emissions limits for PM from the 

furnace process vents. 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 

Hg stack data, we did not see significant 

differences in emissions based on 

product produced (e.g., FeMn or SiMn). 

Therefore, we are not promulgating 

separate PM stack limits based on 

product type. 

Based on this analysis, we determined 

it is appropriate to finalize the revised 

existing source furnace stack PM 

emissions limit of 25 mg/dscm, which is 

the same limit we proposed in the 

supplemental proposal. 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 will 

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, 

these sources will be required to 

conduct periodic performance testing 

and develop and operate according to a 

baghouse operating plan or 

continuously monitor Venturi scrubber 

operating parameters. Also furnace 

baghouses will be required to be 

equipped with BLDS. 

The final PM standard for new and 

reconstructed furnaces is 4.0 mg/dscm 

and was determined by evaluating the 

available data from the best performing 

furnace (which was determined to be 

furnace #2 at Felman). 

As described above, the PM emission 

limit for the local ventilation control 

device outlet was re-evaluated for the 

supplemental proposal using 

compliance test data and test data from 

the 2012 ICR. We did not receive any 

additional data since the supplemental 

proposal for this source. Using all the 

available data for the one existing local 

ventilation source, we calculated an 

emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm, which 

is the exact same limit we proposed in 

the supplemental proposal. We 

conclude that this is still an appropriate 

emissions limit for this source. 

Therefore, we are promulgating this 

emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm for 

existing, new, and reconstructed local 

ventilation control device emissions 

sources. In addition, we are 

promulgating a PM limit of 3.9 mg/dscm 

for any new, reconstructed, or existing 

MOR process, and a PM limit of 13 mg/ 

dscm for any new, reconstructed, or 

existing crushing and screening 

equipment, which are consistent with 

what we proposed in our November 23, 

2011, proposal. 

Furthermore, as mentioned in section 

III of this preamble, we are 

promulgating a PM limit of 3.9 mg/dscm 

for any new, reconstructed, or existing 

MOR process, and a PM limit of 13 mg/ 

dscm for any new, reconstructed, or 

existing crushing and screening 

equipment. 

2. Standards for Process Fugitive Metal 

HAP Emissions 

In the 2011 proposal, we proposed a 

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 control 

devices. As described above, 

commenters on the 2011 proposal 

disagreed with our assessment. 

Commenters also raised concerns 

about worker safety and comfort in 

designing and operating full enclosure 

systems. 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. 

We re-evaluated the costs and 

operational feasibility associated with 

the full building enclosure with 

negative pressure. 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 minimills 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, as explained in the 

supplemental proposal, 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. 

As mentioned above, for the 

supplemental proposal, 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/or secondary capture of remaining 

fugitives with roof-line 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 roof-line and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37381 

captured with secondary hooding and 

vented to control devices. 

In cases where additional collection 

of fugitives from the roof areas is needed 

to comply with the rule, 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 openings over fume collection areas 

can be sealed and fumes 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 concluded 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 PM 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). Thus, we 

concluded that an enhanced capture 

system based on these design principles 

does represent an advancement in 

technology. We estimate that this type 

of control system could capture 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 for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

and in the Cost Impacts of Control 

Options to Address Fugitive HAP 

Emissions for the Ferroalloys Production 

NESHAP Supplemental Proposal 

documents, 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 of Control Options to Address 

Fugitive HAP Emissions for the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

Supplemental Proposal document) to be 

$40.3 million and the total annualized 

cost to be $7.7 million for the two 

plants. The total estimated HAP 

reduction for the enhanced capture 

option is 77 tpy at a cost per ton of 

$103,000 ($52 per pound). We also 

estimate that this option would achieve 

PM emission reductions of 229 tpy, 

resulting in cost per ton of PM removed 

of $34,600 per ton and achieve 

particulate matter 2.5 microns and less 

(PM2.5) emission reductions of 48 tons 

per year, resulting in a cost per ton of 

PM2.5 removal of $165,000 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. These cost effectivenesses are 

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 acceptable 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 (BTF) under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) or under CAA 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). 

As described in the supplemental 

proposal, we also re-evaluated the 

option based on full building enclosure 

with negative pressure. 

Based on those analyses, we 

concluded in the supplemental proposal 

and conclude again in this action 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). Therefore, we are not 

promulgating an option based on full 

building enclosure with negative 

pressure. 

However, consistent with the 

supplemental proposal, 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) and, thus, 

achieving most of the emission 

reductions at significantly lower costs. 

In light of the technical feasibility and 

cost effectiveness of the enhanced 

capture option, we are promulgating the 

enhanced capture option under the 

authority of section 112(d)(6) of the 

CAA. 

Regarding monitoring requirements, 

as described above, in the 2011 

proposal, we proposed that facilities 

would need to conduct day-to-day 

continuous monitoring of differential 

pressure to comply with the proposed 

full building enclosure with negative 

pressure requirements. 

With the move to the enhanced local 

capture alternative option, there is no 

longer any requirement to monitor 

negative pressure. Under this option, 

the main ongoing compliance 

requirements will be based on opacity 

readings and parametric monitoring. 

Therefore, since opacity is a main 

method of monitoring compliance for 

process fugitive emissions controls, we 

believe that frequent opacity monitoring 

is necessary, as reflected in the 

supplemental proposal. Furthermore, as 

we explained in the supplemental 

proposal, we believe an average opacity 

limit of 8 percent is appropriate to 

ensure effective capture and control of 

process fugitive emissions over the 

entire furnace cycles and that a 

maximum opacity of 20 percent for any 

2 consecutive 6-minute periods is 

appropriate to prevent spikes in fugitive 

emissions. Therefore, we are 

promulgating an average opacity limit of 

8 percent and a maximum opacity limit 

of 20 percent for any 2 consecutive 6- 

minute periods. 

Regarding opacity monitoring, we are 

promulgating a requirement that 

facilities conduct opacity observations 

at least once per week for a full furnace 

cycle for each operating furnace and 

each MOR operation using the DCOT 

instead of Method 9. We believe the 

DCOT is appropriate for the final rule 

because it provides more objective and 

better substantiated opacity readings. 

However, as described above, we are 

allowing an opportunity for facilities to 

decrease frequency of opacity 

monitoring to monthly after 26 

compliant weekly readings. 

Similar to the supplemental proposal, 

we are also finalizing the requirement 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

As mentioned above, we are also 

promulgating the requirement 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 source should 

demonstrate that the overall design of 

the ventilation system is adequate to 

achieve the final standards. Therefore, 

we are promulgating the requirement 

that facilities in this source category 

must install, operate, and 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 opacity limits. 

We are also requiring continuous 

monitoring of key ventilation operating 

system parameters and periodic 

inspections of the ventilation systems to 

ensure that the ventilation systems are 

operating as designed. 

We believe that if the facilities design 

the capture and control systems 

according to the most recent (at the time 

of construction) ventilation design 

principles recommended by the 

American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 

including detailed schematics of the 

ventilation system design, addressing 

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. 

Therefore, we are promulgating the 

requirement that facilities develop such 

a plan and submit this plan to the 

permitting authority. The plan must also 

be 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 design plan, coupled with the 

requirement for frequent opacity 

observations and operating parameter 

monitoring, will ensure fugitive 

emissions are effectively controlled and 

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. 

We believe the additional PM data we 

received justifies the revised PM stack 

emission limits we are promulgating 

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

of the CAA. We also believe the 

enhanced capture and control is a 

development in technology that is 

feasible and cost effective, so we are 

promulgating the enhanced local 

capture and control option under the 

authority of section 112(d)(6) of the 

CAA. Furthermore, we believe it is 

appropriate to promulgate the DCOT to 

ensure adequate furnace capture and 

control. 

C. CAA Section 112(d)(2) & (3) 

Revisions for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category? 

In the November 23, 2011, proposal, 

we proposed a formaldehyde emission 

limit of 201 mg/dscm for any new, 

reconstructed, or existing electric arc 

furnace. 

In the October 6, 2014, supplemental 

proposal, we proposed the following: 

• HCL emission limit of 180 mg/dscm 

for new or reconstructed electric arc 

furnaces and 1,100 mg/dscm for existing 

electric arc furnaces; 

• Hg emission limit of 17 mg/dscm for 

new or reconstructed electric arc 

furnaces producing FeMn, and 170 mg/ 

dscm for existing electric arc furnaces 

producing FeMn; 

• Hg emission limit of 4 mg/dscm for 

new or reconstructed electric arc 

furnaces producing SiMn and 12 mg/ 

dscm for existing electric arc furnaces 

producing SiMn; 

• PAH emission limit of 880 mu;g/ 

dscm for new or reconstructed electric 

arc furnaces producing FeMn and 1,400 

mg/dscm for existing electric arc 

furnaces producing FeMn; and 

• PAH emission limit of 72 mg/dscm 

for new or reconstructed electric arc 

furnaces producing SiMn and 120 mg/ 

dscm for existing electric arc furnaces 

producing SiMn. 

2. How did the CAA section 112(d)(2) & 

(3) revisions change for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category? 

In mid-August 2014, a few weeks 

prior to the signature of the 

supplemental proposal, we received a 

test report with Hg and PAH data, 

which we were unable to incorporate 

into the proposed limits in the 

supplemental proposal, in part because 

of the timing and in part because we 

had not completed our review and 

technical analysis of the data. We noted 

receipt of the data and invited comment 

on it in the supplemental proposal, and 

made the data available for review. We 

committed to considering these data in 

the final rule based on public comment 

and our technical analysis. In addition 

to the pre-supplemental proposal data, 

another Hg and PAH test report was 

received during the comment period. 

The new test data for FeMn production 

received in August 2014 and during the 

comment period had much higher PAH 

concentrations than the data that were 

previously provided. The new PAH test 

data for SiMn production were only 

slightly higher than previous data 

received from the facilities. The new Hg 

data for both FeMn and SiMn 

production were comparable to the test 

data that we used to develop the 

proposed limits for the supplemental 

proposal. 

For this action, we re-evaluated the 

PAH and Hg emission limits to include 

the new test data. The 99-percent upper 

prediction limit (UPL) calculation using 

all the available reliable data for PAH 

emissions results in an emissions limit 

of 12,000 mg/dscm for existing furnaces 

producing FeMn and 130 mg/dscm for 

existing furnaces producing SiMn. 

With regard to new source limits, as 

mentioned previously, there are only 

two furnaces in the source category that 

produce FeMn, and both furnaces are 

located at Eramet. The units are similar 

in design and process the same types of 

raw materials, and we, therefore, expect 

little or no difference in the 

performance of these units. The 

available emissions data, which show 

that the two units mean emissions are 

only 2-percent different, support this 

hypothesis. We conclude, based on the 

similarities in the units and the 

available data, that these two furnaces 

achieve the same degree of control of 

PAH emissions with their current 

control devices. Accordingly, we 

consider these two units to be equal 

performers with regard to PAH 

emissions and therefore, we used all the 

data from both units to calculate the 

new source emissions limit. Using the 

99-percent UPL calculation, we derive 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37383 

an emissions limit of 11,500 mg/dscm for 

new furnaces producing FeMn. 

For SiMn, there were no changes to 

the best performing source and the PAH 

limit of 72 mg/dscm proposed in the 

supplemental proposal is the same limit 

selected for the final rule for new 

furnaces producing SiMn. 

The 99-percent UPL for PAHs for 

FeMn production is about 8 times 

higher than the proposed PAH limit for 

FeMn in the supplemental proposal, 

whereas the 99-percent UPL for PAHs 

for SiMn production is comparable to 

the proposed limit in the supplemental 

proposal. The new data show there is 

substantial variability in PAH emissions 

from the furnaces, especially during 

FeMn production. 

As mentioned in section III.E of this 

preamble, due to the large variation in 

PAH emissions from furnace stacks 

during FeMn production, we are 

requiring quarterly compliance tests for 

PAHs (i.e., four PAH compliance tests 

per year) for furnaces while producing 

FeMn, with an opportunity for facilities 

to apply for decreased frequency of such 

compliance testing from their permit 

authority after the first year and after 

four or more successful PAH 

compliance tests have been completed 

and submitted to the permit authority. 

We expect that any application 

submitted by an affected source to 

request reduced frequent compliance 

testing for PAHs should include 

information regarding the four or more 

compliant test results and what factors 

or conditions are contributing to the 

quantity and variation of PAH 

emissions. For example, the application 

could include, among other things, 

information about the amounts and 

types of input materials, types of 

electrodes used, electrode consumption 

rates, furnace temperature and other 

furnace, process or product information 

that may be affecting the PAH 

emissions. 

The re-evaluation of the Hg test data, 

which includes the new test data, 

produced a 99-percent UPL of 130 mg/ 

dscm for existing furnaces producing 

FeMn and 12 mg/dscm for existing 

furnaces producing SiMn. For new 

sources, the new test data did not affect 

the 99-percent UPL of 4 mg/dscm for 

new furnaces producing SiMn. 

With regard to the new source limit in 

the supplemental proposal for Hg for 

furnaces producing FeMn, the proposed 

new source limit was based on BTF 

controls using activated carbon injection 

(ACI), and assuming 90-percent 

reduction. We continue to conclude that 

it is appropriate to require BTF controls 

for new FeMn sources consistent with 

the supplemental proposal (assuming 

90-percent reduction). Therefore, we 

calculate that the new source limit for 

the final rule for Hg for furnaces 

producing FeMn will be 13 m g/dscm 

(i.e., 130 m g/dscm minus 90-percent 

control). These UPL values are generally 

consistent with, but a bit lower than, the 

proposed limits in the supplemental 

proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) 

proposed revisions, and what are our 

responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the CAA section 112(d)(2) & 

(3) proposed revisions for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category. 

The following is a summary of these 

comments and our responses. Other 

comments received and our responses 

can be found in the document titled 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Ferroalloys Production Summary of 

Public Comments and the EPA’s 

Responses on Proposed Rule (76 FR 

72508, November 23, 2011) and 

Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, 

October 6, 2014), which is available in 

the docket for this action (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895). 

Comment: Commenters claimed the 

EPA was establishing MACT floors for 

the newly regulated HAP based on 

limited data. The commenters noted 

that for many of these pollutants, there 

is limited understanding of the 

mechanism of their generation in the 

process and the variability in the level 

of their occurrence. As a result, it is 

essential that EPA use all reasonably 

available data in establishing these 

standards. 

The commenters noted the EPA 

excluded PAH data for both SiMn and 

FeMn production, that showed higher 

levels of emissions. They believe the 

exclusion of these data led to 

calculation of a proposed MACT floor 

for PAH that is below the level that can 

be demonstrably achieved by the best 

performing sources. 

The commenters argued that the EPA 

should reconsider its decision not to 

include these data in calculation of the 

MACT floor. One commenter noted that 

additional testing to better characterize 

variability, particularly for PAH, was 

being performed prior to the comment 

period for the supplemental proposal 

and encouraged the EPA to consider 

these additional data in calculating the 

MACT floor levels for the final standard. 

Response: We have received multiple 

test reports from the industry during the 

development of the supplemental 

proposal and during the comment 

period for the supplemental proposal. 

Each test report received was reviewed 

to determine if the test met the quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 

requirements for this RTR. Only test 

data that met these requirements were 

used to estimate emissions used for 

determining residual risk from the 

emissions sources and for determining 

the MACT floor limits. Most data we 

received passed the QA/QC process and 

were judged to be valid data and were 

used in our risk analyses and MACT 

floor calculations, including data 

received shortly before publication of 

the supplemental proposal and data 

received during the comment period. 

The final rule MACT floor limits 

include the updated data. However, a 

few tests we received previously did not 

meet the QA/QC requirements and, 

therefore, were not used in these 

analyses. For further explanation of the 

data evaluation, see the Revised 

Development of the Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) Emissions 

Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category for the 2015 Final Rule 

document, which is available in the 

docket. 

Even though some of the test data 

received did not meet the QA/QC 

requirements for this RTR, we believe 

we still have a robust set of test data for 

most of the HAP and the majority of the 

MACT floor analyses are based on 

multiple tests from each of the facilities. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

the EPA has not demonstrated that ACI 

on new furnaces will provide any 

benefits. The commenter notes that the 

EPA estimated that Eramet emits only 

an estimated 274 pounds of Hg per year, 

and Hg emissions do not contribute to 

multipathway exposures exceeding an 

HQ of 1. Thus, reducing Hg emissions 

would not address any existing risks. 

If no added cost was involved, 

lowering Hg emissions might be a 

worthwhile objective. But, the fact is 

that cost is a relevant concern under 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and, as discussed 

below, achieving the proposed new 

source standards would be prohibitively 

expensive. 

The commenter states that the EPA 

justifies its conclusion that ACI is 

affordable for new sources based on the 

assumption that any new source will be 

built with a baghouse. As a threshold 

matter, the EPA’s assertion that ACI is 

cost effective when applied to baghousecontrolled sources is contradicted by its 

own supporting memorandum. 

According to Table 6–3 of the 

Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/ 

R, Inc. to Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/ 

SPPD/MICG on Mercury Control 

Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys 

Production Industry (Aug. 29, 2014), 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37384 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

adding ACI is 5 times more expensive 

to add to a baghouse than to a scrubber, 

and operational costs are 3 times higher. 

The table, thus, indicates that the cost 

per pound of Hg removed would be 

higher, not lower, for EMI’s baghousecontrolled source, and EPA’s estimated 

marginal cost is $22,195 per pound, 

almost twice the cost presented by the 

EPA in the preamble to the 2014 

proposal. Since this is based on an 

unrealistic removal rate, the unit cost 

would actually be at least $44,000 per 

pound of Hg removed. 

Second, the commenter states that the 

sole economic justification for ACI is 

the EPA’s substantially understated unit 

cost of $17,600 for each pound of Hg 

removed. The EPA’s cost-per-pound 

metric is completely untethered to any 

cost-benefit analysis. To say how much 

it will cost to remove a pound of Hg 

provides no practical basis for assessing 

the relative value of removing that 

pound of Hg or the relative ability of a 

ferroalloys producer to absorb that cost. 

The docket contains no demonstration, 

much less substantial evidence, that the 

lower cost would nevertheless be 

affordable by EMI. 

Finally, the commenter notes that the 

facility is captive to the pricing 

structure imposed by low-cost foreign 

ferroalloy producers who will not be 

subject to the requirements of this rule. 

Accordingly, foreign producers prevent 

the facility from passing on costs such 

as this to customers via higher prices. 

Before that facility can construct a new 

furnace, it would have to determine that 

the new furnace would produce a 

positive return large enough to cover the 

cost of constructing and operating that 

additional furnace, while charging the 

same price charged by producers not 

incurring the added costs of ACI. The 

EPA provides no explanation for why it 

believes this would be possible and our 

analysis strongly suggests that it would 

not be possible. 

The commenter states that the net 

result is that the proposed new source 

standard effectively prevents EMI from 

increasing FeMn production in the 

future via a new furnace and ensures 

that when the existing furnaces require 

replacement, they will not be replaced 

with furnaces capable of producing 

FeMn. The EPA’s proposed new source 

standard is inconsistent with EPA’s 

recognition in the 2014 proposal that 

EMI is the sole U.S. source of FeMn for 

domestic steel production, and its 

judgment that ACI should not be 

immediately required, in part, because 

such a requirement would likely force 

EMI out of business. The proposed Hg 

‘‘beyond-the-MACT-floor standard’’ 

produces the same result that the EPA 

agrees should be avoided, only at a later 

date. 

Response: Activated carbon injection 

in conjunction with fabric filter 

technology has been successfully used 

to reduce emissions of Hg from a 

number of different industries. In 

addition, the use of brominated carbon 

has been used to oxidize the Hg 

allowing even greater control 

effectiveness for Hg. 

The determination of the Hg limits for 

new or major reconstructed furnaces is 

based on the assurance that 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 Hg control along with 

a polishing baghouse and would achieve 

at least 90-percent reduction of Hg. 

In the supplemental proposal, the 

estimated costs for beyond the floor 

controls for mercury for new and 

reconstructed sources were based on the 

costs of installing and operating 

brominated ACI and a polishing 

baghouse. Based on this, in the 

supplemental proposal, we estimated 

that the cost effectiveness of BTF 

controls for a new and major 

reconstructed FeMn production source 

would be about $12,000/lb. This cost 

effectiveness estimate is well within the 

range of cost effectiveness levels we 

have decided were reasonable in other 

rules. Furthermore, no other significant 

economic factors were identified that 

would indicate that these limits would 

be inappropriate or infeasible for new 

sources. Therefore, in the supplemental 

proposal, we concluded that BTF 

controls would be cost-effective and 

feasible for any new or major 

reconstructed furnace that produces 

FeMn. 

We received new Hg test data prior to 

and during the comment period for the 

supplemental proposal. Using these new 

test data along with the previous data 

we re-evaluated the cost of installing 

ACI to reduce Hg. Similar to the 

supplemental proposal, we estimated 

costs for BTF controls for Hg for new 

and reconstructed sources based on the 

costs of installing and operating 

brominated ACI and a polishing 

baghouse. Based on this re-evaluation, 

we estimate that the cost effectiveness of 

installing ACI for a new and major 

reconstructed FeMn production source 

would be about $13,600/lb for a furnace 

producing FeMn 50 percent of the year, 

and $7,100/lb for a furnace producing 

FeMn 100 percent of the year. 

These cost effectiveness estimates are 

similar to the estimate we presented in 

the supplemental proposal for the 

beyond the floor option for new FeMn 

furnaces and continue to be within the 

range of cost effectivenesses we have 

determined are reasonable for mercury 

control in other rulemakings. 

Furthermore, no other significant 

economic factors were identified that 

would indicate these limits would be 

inappropriate or infeasible for new or 

major reconstructed furnaces that 

produce FeMn. Therefore, we believe 

the BTF control option for Hg emissions 

is economically and technically feasible 

for new and major reconstructed FeMn 

furnaces and that these cost 

effectivenesses are acceptable for any 

new or major reconstructed furnace that 

produces FeMn. Additional discussion 

of the EPA’s BTF analyses for mercury 

are available in the Final Rule Mercury 

Control Options and Impacts for the 

Ferroalloys Production Industry 

document and in the Mercury Control 

Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys 

Production Industry document (dated 

August 2014) that EPA published in 

support of the 2014 supplemental 

proposal. These documents are available 

in the docket for this action. 

An assessment of the cost 

effectiveness of emission reductions, 

along with other economic factors, is an 

appropriate method for assessing cost 

impacts in standard setting when CAA 

section 112 allows cost to be a factor in 

EPA’s decision-making. Nothing in CAA 

section 112 compels EPA to use costbenefit analysis in standard-setting 

decisions. Moreover, to the extent the 

commenter bases its position that the 

new source BTF standard for mercury 

lacks benefits because it does not 

address ‘‘any existing risk,’’ the court of 

appeals has held that risk is not a 

consideration when setting MACT 

standards, as in Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 

F.3d 976, 981 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The 

emission standards in this rule 

discharge EPA’s CAA section 112(d)(2) 

duties with respect to Hg emissions 

from new and existing electric arc 

furnaces in this source category. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3) revisions? 

We evaluated and rejected BTF 

options for the CAA section 112(d)(2) 

and (3) revisions in the supplemental 

proposal and proposed MACT floor 

emissions limits for formaldehyde, HCl, 

Hg, and PAH for existing sources. We 

also evaluated and rejected BTF options 

for new sources for formaldehyde, HCl, 

and PAHs. For Hg, we also evaluated 

BTF options for new furnaces. We 

rejected BTF for new SiMn furnaces. 

However, we proposed BTF limits for 

Hg for FeMn furnaces. See the Revised 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37385 

MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category document 

and the Final Rule Mercury Control 

Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys 

Production Industry document, which 

are available in the docket. 

We are promulgating MACT floorbased limits for the four HAP described 

above for existing sources under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3) as described 

above, which is the same approach as in 

the supplemental proposal. Regarding 

new sources, we are promulgating 

MACT floor limits for new sources for 

formaldehyde, HCl, and PAHs, and for 

Hg for new SiMn furnaces. However, we 

are promulgating a BTF limit for Hg for 

FeMn furnaces. 

The limits for HCl and formaldehyde 

are exactly the same as proposed. The 

Hg limits for FeMn and SiMn 

production and PAH limits for SiMn 

production changed slightly due to the 

inclusion of additional data. The only 

significant change was for the PAH limit 

for FeMn production, which is about 8 

times higher than what we proposed. In 

our supplemental proposal, we 

provided notice of receipt of the highest 

test data (i.e., the data received in 

August 2014) which when combined 

with the other data resulted in a higher 

PAH limit. While these data had not 

been completely QA/QCed before the 

supplemental proposal, both the method 

for calculating a limit and most of the 

data on which the final limit was 

calculated were available and addressed 

in the supplemental proposal. 

Furthermore, commenters agreed that 

the final limit should be based on all 

available valid data. As we stated 

previously, any changes to the Hg and 

PAH emissions limits were a result of 

using all of the available valid data 

which resulted in a change to the MACT 

floor calculations. Additional data 

received during the comment period 

confirmed a higher PAH limit was 

justified. 

D. What changes did we make to the 

Ferroalloys Production opacity 

monitoring requirement? 

1. What changes did we propose for the 

ferroalloys production opacity 

monitoring requirement? 

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, 

the EPA solicited comment regarding 

the use of new technologies to provide 

continuous or near continuous long 

term approaches to monitoring 

emissions from industrial sources such 

as the ferroalloys production facilities 

within this source category. 

Specifically, we were seeking comment 

on the feasibility and practice associated 

with the use of automated opacity 

monitoring with ASTM D7520–13, 

using 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. 

2. How did the opacity monitoring 

requirements change for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category? 

Based on the information we received 

during the comment period for the 

supplemental proposal and after further 

evaluation of the technology, we believe 

that the use of DCOT can provide 

opacity readings comparable to Method 

9 and reduce the burden of requiring a 

person to conduct opacity readings over 

the furnace cycle. Furthermore, the 

DCOT provides objective and wellsubstantiated readings of opacity. The 

DCOT camera provides an image that 

the facility could access immediately, 

with QA/QC done within 45 minutes to 

validate the image and initial readings. 

In comparison, it would take a field 

observer roughly 30 minutes to return 

from the field and average their 

manually assembled data such that they 

can report the average that they 

recorded over the previous 90 minutes 

of observations. We view the initial 

visible recording as sufficient evidence 

to provide the facility enough reason to 

initiate, investigate, and correct 

concerns that may create elevated visual 

emissions observations, and the 45- 

minute turnaround time on actual 

opacity values to be quick enough to 

provide a facility the confirmation they 

would need to be assured that they have 

taken appropriate action. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the opacity monitoring requirement, 

and what are our responses? 

Comment: In their supplemental 

proposal comments, one commenter 

objects to the significantly increased 

frequency of opacity observations from 

once every 5 years to weekly. They note 

that the Agency states that the frequency 

is ‘‘appropriate’’ to demonstrate 

compliance with the process fugitive 

standard with the enhanced frequency 

presumably substituting for the 

continuous negative pressure 

monitoring obligations from the 2011 

proposal. 

The commenter believes that this 

explanation overlooks the stringent 

continuous monitoring that the 

proposed rule already requires to ensure 

that the process fugitives control system 

meets the 95-percent capture 

requirement. First, the facility must 

develop a plan to demonstrate 95- 

percent capture, and that plan must be 

approved by the permitting authority. 

Next, the facility must perform an initial 

compliance demonstration. The facility 

must then identify specific parameters, 

either through the engineering 

assessment or the initial compliance 

demonstration, that are indicative of 

compliance with the opacity standard. 

Finally, on an ongoing basis, the facility 

must routinely monitor those 

parameters. 

The commenter notes that an initial 

compliance demonstration and ongoing 

monitoring is a standard regulatory 

approach required in any number of 

MACT standards. However, none of 

these other standards require weekly 

testing to confirm that the parameters 

and limits are still being met and many 

other standards require re-testing only 

every 5 years, or at most annually. They 

believe that nothing in the current 

proposal demonstrates why it is 

necessary or appropriate to deviate from 

this standard approach here. 

Two commenters believe that the 

proposed weekly opacity testing will 

impose significant ongoing costs on the 

facilities for no additional 

environmental benefit. They believe that 

the ongoing parametric monitoring is 

sufficient to ensure compliance on an 

ongoing basis. 

These commenters believe that the 

weekly opacity reading requirement is 

overly burdensome, especially for 

Eramet because they have three shop 

buildings. They estimate 3–5 hours per 

building opacity reading for a total of 9– 

15 hours a week for reading opacity. 

Response: We re-evaluated the 

opacity monitoring requirements in the 

supplemental proposal and determined 

that the DCOT and ASTM D7520–13 

provided a development that ensures 

compliance with the fugitive emissions 

standards, as well as reduces the labor 

burden on the facilities. After initial 

setup, the DCOT can measure the 

opacity during the furnace process cycle 

without any labor needed. In addition, 

facilities would not have the cost of 

annual certification as is the case with 

Method 9. We estimate that the overall 

costs of DCOT and ASTM D7520–13 

will be approximately the same as what 

the overall costs would be if facilities 

used method 9. In addition, due to the 

baseline unacceptable risk finding being 

based largely on process fugitive 

manganese emissions, we believe the 

frequent opacity readings using the 

objective and substantiated results of 

DCOT are warranted to ensure fugitive 

emissions are effectively captured and 

controlled. However, after considering 

comments, we decided to allow 

facilities an opportunity to reduce the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

frequency of opacity readings to once 

per month per furnace building (instead 

of weekly) if the facility achieves 26 

consecutive compliant weekly readings 

for that furnace building. This reduction 

in frequency will reduce the cost burden 

for the facilities. However, if any of the 

subsequent monthly readings exceed the 

opacity limit for that furnace building, 

the facility must return to weekly 

readings until they achieve another 26 

compliant weekly readings, at which 

time the facility can return to monthly 

readings. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the EPA’s determination that opacity 

observations should be measured over a 

furnace process cycle. However, because 

all furnaces at the Felman facility are 

located in the same building, the 

commenter suggests treating the 

building as a single opacity source, and 

that opacity observations be conducted 

over a time period that captures a full 

furnace process cycle from each furnace 

within that building. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter and have revised the opacity 

requirements to include opacity 

determinations from buildings with 

multiple furnaces. The requirement will 

treat the building with multiple 

furnaces as a single opacity source and 

the opacity readings will be conducted 

over a time period that will include 

tapping from each of the furnaces in 

operation. 

Comment: In comments on the 

supplemental proposal, two 

commenters state that the EPA should 

require the use of the best available 

testing method, digital opacity 

monitoring. The commenters describe 

the benefits of the DCOT compared to 

Method 9 and provide supporting 

documentation. In particular, one 

commenter supports the DCOT because 

it is EPA certified as a valid test method 

for opacity and approved for its use, the 

use of a camera creates a good electronic 

record of the observations, conditions, 

location, etc., and a number of regulated 

entities are using this method to assess 

opacity. The commenter adds that using 

cameras can save resources, citing a 

Department of Defense project to reduce 

Method 9 certification costs. The 

commenter adds that the EPA should 

also require opacity determinations to 

be documented on an electronic form 

and provided on the Internet in real 

time for public review. 

One commenter adds that the EPA 

should not allow Method 9 to be used, 

unless there is a power outage requiring 

the facility to use Method 9 to assure 

opacity standard compliance. They also 

add that instead of Method 9, the EPA 

should require a source to use either 

continuous opacity monitor or DCOT. 

Response: We evaluated the use of 

DCOT and the ASTM D7520–13 method 

and determined that this technology 

provides the same compliance 

assurance as Method 9 measurements 

with approximately the same overall 

burden on the facilities and the DCOT 

provides reliable, unbiased opacity 

readings. Therefore, we are requiring 

opacity determinations to be made using 

DCOT and ASTM D7520–13. With 

regard to the comment suggesting that 

the DCOT results be documented in an 

electronic format and provided on the 

internet in real time, the DCOT results 

will be recorded in an electronic format. 

Furthermore, use of the DCOT will 

improve transparency of opacity 

monitoring results. However, we do not 

have a system established to provide 

these results on the internet in real time. 

Furthermore, the ERT is not yet 

configured to be able to accept the 

DCOT compliance images. Nevertheless, 

the rule requires the affected sources to 

maintain electronic records of the DCOT 

results and submit periodic compliance 

monitoring reports to the Administrator 

or permit authority. We believe that the 

public will be able to obtain copies of 

the compliance results within a 

reasonable amount of time by contacting 

the EPA and/or the permit authority 

through the appropriate channels. 

Comment: One commenter requests a 

clarification to the proposed regulatory 

language: That EPA add the phrase 

‘‘over a furnace process cycle’’ at the 

end of 40 CFR 63.1623(b)(3). As written 

in the supplemental proposal, the 

language requires that opacity emissions 

not exceed 8 percent, but no averaging 

time is specified. The proposed 

subsections, § 63.1623(b)(3)(i) though 

(iii) stated that the compliance 

demonstration for this obligation must 

be determined over the course of an 

entire furnace process cycle, but they do 

not clearly state that the limit itself is 8 

percent over the entire furnace process 

cycle, and not, for example, an 

instantaneous limit, or 8 percent over a 

6-minute period. To avoid 

misunderstanding, this averaging period 

should be stated clearly as part of the 

standard itself. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter and have included language 

that clarifies the opacity requirement in 

the final rule. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decision for the opacity monitoring 

requirement? 

We are finalizing requirements to 

measure opacity from the furnace 

buildings using ASTM D7520–13 and 

digital camera technology because we 

conclude this is the best method to 

ensure reliable and unbiased readings 

for opacity. We are also finalizing the 

requirement that facilities need to meet 

an average opacity standard of no more 

than 8-percent opacity for each furnace 

cycle. Furthermore, we are finalizing the 

requirement that at no time during 

operation may any two consecutive 6- 

minute block opacity readings (12- 

minute period) be greater than 20- 

percent opacity. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

Eramet Marietta Incorporated, in 

Marietta, Ohio and Felman Production 

LLC, in Letart West Virginia, are the 2 

manganese ferroalloys production 

facilities currently operating in the 

United States that will be affected by 

these 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 FeMn or SiMn 

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 could decide to 

commence production of FeMn or 

SiMn. Given this uncertainty, our 

impact analysis is focused on the two 

existing sources that are currently 

operating. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

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 final 

amendments in this rule would cut HAP 

emissions (primarily particulate metal 

HAP such as manganese, arsenic, and 

nickel) by about 60 percent from their 

current levels. Under the final 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. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the revised final amendments, 

each ferroalloys production facility is 

expected to incur costs for the design, 

installation and operation of an 

enhanced local capture system. Each 

facility also is expected to incur costs 

associated with the installation of 

additional control devices to manage the 

air flows generated by the enhanced 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37387 

4U.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. 

5U.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. 

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 and 

installation and operation of DCOT 

systems to monitor opacity. 

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 of 

Control Options to Address Fugitive 

HAP Emissions for the Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP Supplemental 

Proposal 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 analysis for the 

final rule, we assumed that enhanced 

capture 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 final rule. We 

estimate the total capital costs of 

installing the required ductwork, fans, 

control devices, and monitoring to 

comply with the enhanced capture 

system requirements to be $40.3 million 

and the total annualized cost to be $7.7 

million (2012 dollars) for the two plants. 

We estimate that enhanced capture and 

control systems required by this rule 

will reduce metal HAP emissions by 75 

tons, resulting in a cost per ton of metal 

HAP removed to be $106,000 per ton 

($53 per pound). The total HAP 

reduction for the enhanced capture and 

control systems is estimated to be 77 tpy 

at a cost per ton of $103,000 per ton 

($52 per pound). We also estimate that 

these systems will achieve PM emission 

reductions of 229 tpy, resulting in cost 

per ton of PM removed of $34,600 per 

ton and achieve PM2.5 emission 

reductions of 48 tpy, resulting in a cost 

per ton of PM2.5 removal of $165,000 per 

ton. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

As a result of the requirements in this 

final rule, we estimate that the total 

capital cost for the Eramet facility will 

be about $25.4 million and the total 

annualized costs will be about $5.6 

million (in 2012 dollars). For impacts to 

Felman Production LLC, this facility is 

estimated to incur a total capital cost of 

$14.9 million and a total annualized 

costs of just under $2.1 million (in 2012 

dollars). In total, these costs could lead 

to an increase in annualized cost of 

about 1.9 percent of sales, which serves 

as an estimate for the increase in 

product prices, and a decrease in output 

of as much as 10.1 percent. For more 

information regarding economic 

impacts, please refer to the Economic 

Impact Analysis report and the 

summary of public comments and EPA’s 

responses document which are included 

in the public docket for this final rule. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The estimated reductions in HAP 

emissions (i.e., about 77 tpy) that will be 

achieved by this action will provide 

significant benefits to public health. For 

example, there will be a significant 

reduction in emissions of HAP metals 

(especially manganese, arsenic, nickel, 

chromium, cadmium, and lead). The 

rule will also achieve some reductions 

of Hg and PAHs. In addition to the HAP 

reductions, we also estimate that this 

final rule will reduce 48 tons 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 HAP 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. In fact, 

our demographic analysis indicates that 

thousands of people live within 50 

kilometers of these two facilities and 

these people will experience benefits 

because of the reduced exposure to air 

toxics due to this rulemaking. 

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 quantify but 

essential to consider. Controls installed 

to reduce HAP would also reduce 

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

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoided 

premature 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).4 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 (U.S. EPA, 2012).5

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 of these 

impacts in its benefits analyses. PM2.5

also increases light extinction, which is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6U.S. EPA, 2006. Integrated Risk Information 

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

7U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, 2006. Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) for 

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

mrls/index.html. 

8CA 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. 

an important aspect of reduced 

visibility. 

The rulemaking is also anticipated to 

reduce emissions of other HAP, 

including metal HAP (arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium (both total and 

hexavalent), lead compounds, 

manganese, and nickel) and PAHs. 

Some of these HAP are carcinogenic 

(e.g., arsenic, PAHs) and some are toxic 

and 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, qualitative benefits are expected 

as a result of reducing exposures to 

these HAP. More information about the 

health effects of these HAP can be found 

on the IRIS,6 ATSDR,7 and California 

EPA 8 Web pages. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

As explained in section IV.A of this 

preamble, we assessed the impacts to 

various demographic groups. The 

methodology and the results of the 

analyses are described in the Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Ferroalloys Facilities, which is 

available in the docket. 

Based on that assessment, we 

conclude that this final rule will reduce 

the number of people exposed to 

elevated risks, from approximately 

41,000, to about 26,000 people exposed 

to a potential cancer risk greater than or 

equal to 1-in-1 million and from 1,300 

to zero people exposed to a potential 

chronic noncancer hazard level of 1. 

Based on this analysis, the EPA has 

determined that these final rule 

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. See Section VI.J of this 

preamble for more information. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

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, which is 

available in the docket, shows that, 

prior to the implementation of the 

provisions included in this final rule, on 

a nationwide basis, there are 

approximately 41,000 people exposed to 

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

and approximately 1,300 people 

exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI 

greater than 1 due to emissions from the 

source category. The percentages for all 

demographic groups (with the exception 

of those ages 65 and older, which is 

only slightly higher than the national 

average), 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 

approximately 41,000 to about 26,000 

for cancer risks and from 1,300 to zero 

for chronic noncancer hazards), 

providing significant benefit to all 

demographic groups. 

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 present a 

disproportionate risk to children 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The ICR document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2488.01. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The information requirements in this 

rulemaking are based on the 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emission 

standards. These notifications, reports, 

and records are essential in determining 

compliance, and are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: New 

and existing ferroalloys production 

facilities that produce FeMn and SiMn 

and are either major sources of HAP 

emissions or are co-located at major 

sources of HAP. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

Estimated number of respondents: 2. 

Frequency of response: Semiannual. 

Total estimated burden: 707 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $0.85 million 

(per year), includes $0.78 million 

annualized capital or operation & 

maintenance costs. 

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. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are businesses that can be 

classified as small firms using the Small 

Business Administration size standards 

for their respective industries. The 

agency has determined that neither of 

the companies affected by this rule is 

considered to be a small entity. Details 

of this analysis are presented in the 

memorandum, Economic Impact 

Analysis for Risk and Technology 

Review: Ferroalloys Production Source 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37389 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments, 

or on the private sector. 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys 

production facilities that are owned or 

operated by tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

in Support of the 2015 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule 

document, which is available in the 

docket for this action, and are discussed 

in section V.G of this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51 

This final rule involves technical 

standards. EPA decided to use ASME 

PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses,’’ for its manual methods of 

measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide 

content of the exhaust gas. These parts 

of ASME PTC 19.10–1981 are acceptable 

alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This 

standard is available from the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, 

NY 10016–5990. 

The EPA has also decided to use 

ASTM D7520–13, Standard Test Method 

for Determining the Opacity in a Plume 

in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, for 

measuring opacity from the shop 

buildings. This standard is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 

and is available from the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post 

Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, 

PA 19428–2959. See http://

www.astm.org/. 

In addition, the EPA has decided to 

use California Air Resources Board 

Method 429, Determination of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

(PAH) Emissions from Stationary 

Sources for measuring PAH emissions 

from the furnace control device. This 

method is an acceptable alternative to 

EPA Method 0010 and is available from 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), Engineering and Certification 

Branch, 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815, 

Sacramento, CA 95812–2815. See 

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

429.pdf. 

The EPA has also decided to use EPA 

Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 10, 26A, 

29, 30B, 316 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. No applicable VCS were 

identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 

316. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

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 this 

final rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA has determined that the 

current health risks posed by emissions 

from this source category are 

unacceptable. There are up to 41,000 

people living in close proximity to the 

two facilities 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 

population is similar to the national 

distribution for all demographic groups, 

with the exception of those ages 65 and 

older, which is slightly higher than the 

national average. This final rule will 

reduce the number of people in this 

group, from approximately 41,000, to 

about 26,000 people exposed to a cancer 

risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 

million and from 1,300 to zero people 

for a chronic noncancer hazard index of 

1. The EPA believes the human health 

or environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations. The results of this 

evaluation are contained in section IV.A 

of this preamble. A copy of this 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analysis 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. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 28, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, 

part 63 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (f)(1); 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

■ b. By redesignating paragraphs (g)(87) 

through (94) as paragraphs (g)(88) 

through (95), respectively; 

■ c. By adding new paragraph (g)(87); 

■ d. By revising paragraph (j) 

introductory text; 

■ e. By redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) 

through (3) as paragraphs (j)(2) through 

(4), respectively; and 

■ f. By adding new paragraph (j)(1). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(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), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and 

(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), table 4 to subpart UUUU, 

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), 

and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 

DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 

and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 

to subpart ZZZZZ. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(87) ASTM D7520–13, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity in 

a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere,’’ Approved December 1, 

2013, IBR approved for §§ 63.1625(b). 

* * * * * 

(j) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815, 

Sacramento, CA 95812–2815, Telephone 

(916) 327–0900, http://www.arb.ca.gov/. 

(1) Method 429, Determination of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

(PAH) Emissions from Stationary 

Sources, Adopted September 12, 1989, 

Amended July 28, 1997, IBR approved 

for § 63.1625(b). 

* * * * * 

Subpart XXX—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Ferroalloys Production: 

Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese 

■ 3. Sections 63.1620 through 63.1629 

are added to read as follows: 

Sec. 

63.1620 Am I subject to this subpart? 

63.1621 What are my compliance dates? 

63.1622 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

63.1623 What are the emissions standards 

for new, reconstructed and existing 

facilities? 

63.1624 What are the operational and work 

practice standards for new, 

reconstructed, and existing facilities? 

63.1625 What are the performance test and 

compliance requirements for new, 

reconstructed, and existing facilities? 

63.1626 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet? 

63.1627 What notification requirements 

must I meet? 

63.1628 What recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements must I meet? 

63.1629 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

§ 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 

and/or silicomanganese production 

facility: 

(1) Electric 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 

equipment listed in paragraph (b) of this 

section for which construction or 

reconstruction commenced after June 

30, 2015. 

(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 part 70 or 71, as applicable. 

(f) Emission standards in this subpart 

apply at all times. 

§ 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 June 30, 2017. 

(b) Affected sources in existence prior 

to June 30, 2015 must be in compliance 

with the provisions specified in 

§§ 63.1650 through 63.1661 by 

November 21, 2001 and until June 30, 

2017. As of June 30, 2017, the 

provisions of §§ 63.1650 through 

63.1661 cease to apply to affected 

sources in existence prior to June 30, 

2015. The provisions of §§ 63.1650 

through 63.1661 remain enforceable at a 

source for its activities prior to June 30, 

2017. 

(c) If you own or operate a new 

affected source that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

November 23, 2011, you must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

June 30, 2015, or upon startup of 

operations, whichever is later. 

§ 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 the 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. The furnace may be of 

an open, semi-sealed, or sealed design. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37391 

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, 

ductwork, and fans 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 

operation areas. 

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 or a stack 

emissions 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. 

§ 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 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 (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 

electric arc furnace operation containing 

mercury emissions in excess of 13 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter (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 130 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 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 12,000 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 polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 12,000 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 polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 72 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 polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in 

excess of 130 mg/dscm into the 

atmosphere from any existing 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 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) or (c) of this section. 

(2) The determination of the overall 

capture must be demonstrated as 

required by § 63.1624(a). 

(3) Unless you meet the criteria of 

paragragh (b)(3)(iii) of this section, you 

must not cause the emissions exiting 

from a shop building to exceed an 

average of 8 percent opacity over a 

furnace or MOR process cycle. 

(i) This 8 percent opacity requirement 

is determined by averaging the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

individual opacity readings observed 

during the furnace or MOR process 

cycle. 

(ii) An individual opacity reading 

shall be determined as the average of 24 

consecutive images recorded at 15- 

second intervals with the opacity values 

from each individual digital image 

rounded to the nearest 5 percent. 

(iii) If the average opacity from the 

shop building is greater than 8 percent 

opacity during an observed furnace or 

MOR process cycle, the opacity of two 

more additional furnace or MOR process 

cycles must be observed within 7 days 

and the average of the individual 

opacity readings during the three 

observation periods must be less than 8 

percent opacity. 

(iv) At no time during operation may 

the average of any two consecutive 

individual opacity readings 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. 

§ 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 equipment and 

operations designed to effectively 

capture process fugitive emissions. The 

plan will be deemed to achieve effective 

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). The 

required ventilation systems should also 

use properly positioned hooding to take 

advantage of the inherent air flows of 

the source and capture systems that 

minimize air flows while also 

intercepting natural air flows or creating 

air flows to contain the fugitive 

emissions. 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 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 

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 or 71 of this chapter, as 

applicable. 

(3) You must update the information 

required in paragraphs (a)(1) and (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 or 71 of this 

chapter, as applicable. 

(3) You may 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. 

§ 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. 

(2) Each performance test in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section 

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 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37393 

(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 may be used 

(incorporated by reference, see § 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 (i.e., 

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 

this part to determine outlet stack or 

inlet formaldehyde. 

(ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 

cubic meter. 

(9) ASTM D7520–13 to determine 

opacity (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14) with the following conditions: 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–13, 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 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 D7520–13. 

(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 for any 

one reading and the average error must 

not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. 

(v) Use of this method 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 D7520–13 

and these requirements is on the 

facility, DCOT operator and DCOT 

vendor. 

(10) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) Method 429 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(11) The owner or operator may use 

alternative measurement methods 

approved by the Administrator 

following the procedures described in 

§ 63.7(f). 

(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 5 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 PAH 

performance tests for wet scrubber and 

fabric filter air pollution control devices 

or vent stacks subject to § 63.1623(a)(3) 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission standards. 

(A) For furnaces producing 

silicomanganese, you must conduct a 

PAH performance test every 5 years for 

each furnace that produces 

silicomanganese subject to 

§ 63.1623(a)(3). 

(B) For furnaces producing 

ferromanganese, you must conduct a 

PAH performance test every 3 months or 

2,190 cumulative hours of 

ferromanganese production for each 

furnace subject to § 63.1623(a)(3). 

(C) If a furnace producing 

ferromanganese demonstrates 

compliance with four consecutive PAH 

tests, the owner/operator may petition 

the permitting authority to request 

reduced frequency of testing to 

demonstrate compliance with the PAH 

emission standards. However, this PAH 

compliance testing cannot be reduced to 

less than once per year. 

(v) You must conduct ongoing 

performance tests every 5 years for air 

pollution control devices or vent stacks 

subject to § 63.1623(a)(4), (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 

(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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 will 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 conducting opacity or 

visible emission observations. 

(ii) You must conduct the opacity 

observations according to ASTM 

D7520–13 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14), for a period that includes 

at least one complete furnace process 

cycle for each furnace. 

(iii) For a shop building that contains 

more than one furnace, you must 

conduct the opacity observations 

according to ASTM D7520–13, for a 

period that includes one tapping period 

from each furnace located in the shop 

building. 

(iv) You must conduct the opacity 

observations according to ASTM 

D7520–13, for a one hour period that 

includes at least one pouring for each 

MOR located in the shop building. 

(v) You must conduct the opacity 

observations at least once per week for 

each shop building containing one or 

more furnaces or MOR. 

(vi) You may reduce the frequency of 

observations to once per month for each 

shop building that demonstrates 

compliance with the weekly 8-percent 

opacity limit for 26 consecutive 

complete observations that span a 

period of at least 26 weeks. Any 

monthly observation in excess of 8- 

percent opacity will return that shop 

building opacity observation to a weekly 

compliance schedule. You may reduce 

the frequency of observations again to 

once per month for each shop building 

that demonstrates compliance with the 

weekly 8-percent opacity limit after 

another 26 consecutive complete 

observations that span a period of at 

least 26 weeks. 

(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(g) 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 

or MOR 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 

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 an 

analysis and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for bag leak 

detection systems in § 60.57c(h) of this 

chapter. 

§ 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 or 

CEMS, the procedures that you specify 

in the standard operating procedures 

manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance must, at a minimum, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37395 

include the requirements of paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (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 (4) of this 

section, unless a system meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (o) 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 (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 (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, see § 63.14) 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 (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)(ii)(A) through (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. 

(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 (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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

paragraph 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 (i)(1) through (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 (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 Table 1 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 Table 1 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 (7) of this 

section. 

(1) The CPMS 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 

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 liquid 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37397 

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 

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

(1) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of the PM CEMS according to 

the applicable requirements of § 60.13 of 

this chapter and Performance 

Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. 

(2) During each PM correlation testing 

run of the CEMS required by 

Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, 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. 

(3) Perform quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration 

drift tests in accordance with Procedure 

2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. 

Relative Response Audits must be 

performed annually and Response 

Correlation Audits must be performed 

every 3 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 as 

specified in § 63.1628(e). 

§ 63.1627 What notification requirements 

must I meet? 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

notification requirements of § 63.9. 

Electronic notifications are encouraged 

when possible. 

(b)(1) You must submit the process 

fugitive 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. 

You must submit this notification no 

later than June 30, 2016. For sources 

that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after June 30, 2015, 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 June 30, 

2015, you must submit this notification 

no later than June 30, 2016. 

(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 and whenever an 

update is made to the procedure. 

§ 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 2 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 

5 years, records of the information listed 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) 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(c) as part of the practices 

described in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a). 

(4) Electronic records of the pressure 

drop and water flow rate values for wet 

scrubbers used to control particulate 

matter emissions as required in 

§ 63.1626(e), identification of periods 

when the 1-hour average pressure drop 

and water flow rate values are below the 

established minimum operating limits 

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 (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(i) 

and (j) 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 (7) of this 

section. 

(1) Reports that identify and 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

standard operating procedures manual 

for baghouses required under 

§ 63.1626(a) were not followed. 

(2) Reports that identify the periods 

when the average hourly pressure drop 

or flow rate of wet 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 (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 the 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) 

and (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) required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(e)(1)(i)(A) or (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 EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you 

may submit performance test data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, 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: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph 

(e)(1)(i)(A). 

(B) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must 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 following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

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

(A) For performance evaluations of 

continuous monitoring systems 

measuring 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 EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be 

accessed through the EPA’s CDX.) 

Performance evaluation data must be 

submitted in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT. 

Alternatively, you may submit 

performance evaluation data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, once the XML schema is 

available. 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 or an 

alternative electronic file consistent 

with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disk, flash drive or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic storage 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

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

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT file or alternate 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

(B) For any performance evaluations 

of continuous monitoring systems 

measuring RATA pollutants that are not 

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 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. 

§ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37399 

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 (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. 

■ 4. Section 63.1650 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(1); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(2). 

The revisions 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) * * * 

(2) Each owner or operator of a new 

or reconstructed affected source that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after August 4, 1998 and 

before November 23, 2011, must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

May 20, 1999 or upon startup of 

operations, whichever is later. 

■ 5. 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. 

■ 6. Section 63.1656 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(6); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(7) and 

(e)(1); and 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii). 

The addition and revisions 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 D7520–13, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere’’ may be used (incorporated 

by reference, see § 63.14) with the 

following conditions: 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–13, 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 

D7520–13. 

(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 D7520–13 

and these requirements is on the 

facility, DCOT operator and DCOT 

vendor. 

* * * * * 

(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). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1657 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(3), and 

(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). 

■ 8. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.1660 is amended by: 

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

(ii); and 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(2)(iv) and (v). 

The revisions 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; 

* * * * * 

■ 10. 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 .......................................

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................................................................. Yes .....................................

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

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

§ 63.6(h)(2)–(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)–(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 .....................................

§ 63.9(h)(4) ........................................................................ No ....................................... Section 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)–(v) .......................................................... No .......................................

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(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)–(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 .....................................


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37401 

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

Reference Applies to subpart XXX Comment 

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

§§ 63.12–63.15 ................................................................. Yes .....................................

[FR Doc. 2015–15038 Filed 6–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES