1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 9

, 201 3

SUBJECT: Ferroalloys 201 3 Test Report Review

FROM: Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

TO: Conrad Chin , EPA/ OAQPS/SPPD/ MMG

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this memorandum is to present a summary and review of the reported results of
emission testing at the Eramet Marietta (Eramet) and Felman Production (Felman) ferroalloys production facilities, conducted in March 201 3 . The emission testing w as performed in response to a December 2012 Information Collection Request (ICR) for additional pollutant test data from the furnace and tapping operations. Testing at Eramet was conducted on March 4

- 7 , 201 3 and the test
report was submitted to EPA on Apr il 22 , 201 3 . Testing at Felman was conducted on March 13

- 20

, 201 3 and the test report was submitted to EPA on June 20 , 201 3

. Emission data reported and
reviewed in this memo are for the following pollutants of interest emitted in exhaust gases from control devices (i.e., process emissions) : particulate matter (PM), hydrochloric acid (HCl), manganese (Mn), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), p olychlorinated biphenyl s (PCBs)

, p olychlorinated dibenzo dioxins (PCDDs),

p olychlorinated dibenzo furans (PCDFs)

, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) . V isible emissions (VE) observations were made during stack testing but are not reviewed in this memo. These emission data are being evaluated as part of the “risk and technology review ” (RTR ) for the Ferroalloy Production source category.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Under the "technology review" provision of CAA section 112 (d)(6) , EPA is required to review maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards previously issued for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and to revise them "as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes and control tech nologies)" no less frequently than every 8 years. Under the "residual risk" provision of the CAA section 112 (f) , EPA must evaluate the MACT standards within 8 years after promulgation and promulgate standards if required to provide an ample margin of
safet y to protect public health or prevent an adverse environmental effect. EPA is currentlyDRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

conducting and RTR to address these review requirements for the Ferroalloys Production source
category

.

3.0 FERROALLOY FACILITY SUMMARY

The following section provides a brief overview of the submitted test reports by the ferroalloy production facilities. Eramet submitted a test report 1 on April 22, 2013 for stack testing conducted
in March 201 3 . Felman submitted two test reports 2 on June 24, 2013 for March 201 3 testing
conducted on Furnaces 2 and 5

.

Eramet Marietta

The Eramet facility is located in Marietta, Ohio and produces ferromanganese (FeMn) and silicomanganese (SiMn) using two fur naces , identified as Furnace 1 and Furnace 12

. Furnace 1 is a submerged arc furnace rated at 30 megawatts (MW)

. Primary process emissions from the furnace (e.g., melting) are controlled by a negative pressure fabric filter, installed in 2011 to replace a wet scrubber system. A separate fabric filter system is used to control process fugitive (captured secondary) emissions from tapping of this furnace. Furnace 12 furnace is a submerged arc furnace rated at 22 MW and is equipped with two wet scrubbers to control primary and secondary emissions
from the furnace and tapping. The scrubbers operate simultaneously and exhaust through a single stack. The facility has a third furnace, EAF 18, which is permitted, but is considered to be inoperable until extensive repair can be made to the furnace. Other HAP emission sources include: a MOR process controlled by a positive

- pressure baghouse which also controls emissions captured from casting of the product from MOR

, and a crushing and sizing system (C2P) that is controlled by three negative pressure baghouse s . There are also fugitive emissions that are emitted from each
of these emissions sources (i.e., those that escape capture) , in addition to the fugitive emissions
from the uncontrolled casting operations for Furnace 1 and Furnace 12

. During the March 2012 testing, Furnace 1 was producing Fe Mn and Furnace 12 was producing Si Mn.

Felman Production Inc.

The Felman facility is located in New Haven, West Virginia and produces SiMn using three furnaces identified as Furnace 2, Furnace 5, and Furnace 7. Furnaces 2, 5, and 7 are open submerged arc furnaces rated at 32, 20, and 20 MW respectively. Each of these furnaces is equipped with a positive

- pressure baghouse to limit primary and secondary process emissions of
PM and metal HAP from the melting and tapping from their respective furnace , as well as controlling emissions from casting operations associated with each furnace

. The facility has a

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Information Collection Request Emission Summary Report: EAF No. 12 Scrubber, EAF No. 1 Main Baghouse, EAF No. 1 Tap Hole Baghouse, Eramet Marietta Inc., Marietta, Ohio, April 2013.

2 Emission Test Report Felman Product ion Inc., Furnace #2 Baghouse (ID# 001

- 01); and Emission Test Report Felman Production Inc., Furnace #5 Baghouse (ID# 001

- 02), March 2013.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

crushing and sizing system controlled using a negative pressure baghouse. There are also fugitive
emissions that are emitted from each of these emissions sources. Felman produced SiMn in the t wo furnaces during the March 2013 testing.

4 .0 FERROALLOY TEST DATA SUMMARY

The following section provides a summary of each of the reported PM and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) concentrations and emissions from 201 3 test reports submitted by Eramet Marietta, Inc. and
Felman . The summary also includes a discussion of the quality of the field sampling, and analytical
results.

Particulate Matter

The test report from Eramet provided PM results from Furnaces 1 and 12, and the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse. The Eramet PM tests we re conducted using a combined EPA Method 5 and EPA Method 29 sampling train

. Felman provided PM results from Furnaces 2 and 5 using EPA
Method 5D. A summary of the results for Eramet and Felman are provided in Table 1

. For comparison to the PM emission rates shown in the test reports, EC/R independently calculat ed the PM emission rate using the stack gas parameters and the an alytical data from the test reports. These PM emission rates calculated by EC/R are shown in the tables as “Calculated PM Emissions (lb/hr).”

G enerally, PM emission rates were calculated as follows: 

# ( )

An example of the specific PM emission calculati on by EC/R for Run 1 at the Eramet Furnace 1 Main Baghouse is shown below:

( 11. 3 mg + 0.4 mg)/( 207.079 dscf)*( 206,660 dscf/min)*(g/1000 mg)* (lb/453.59 g)* (60 min/hr) =
1.54 lb/hr

Where;

11 .3 mg = Reported f

ilter particulate weight gain;
0.4 mg = Reported a cetone probe rinse weight gain;
207.079 dscf = Reported v olume of dry gas sampled corrected to standard conditions;DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

202 ,660 dscf/min = Reported v olumetric flow rate

– dry basis at standard conditions; g/1000 mg = Unit conversion of particulate milligrams t o grams; lb/453.59 g = Unit conversion of particulate grams to pounds;
60 min/hr = Unit c onversion of minutes to hours.

As shown in the Table 1, the calculated PM emissions rates for Eramet were comparable to the reported PM emission rates in the test rep ort. However, there are some differences in the reported and calculated PM emissions for Felman. Based on a review of the reported results, it appears that the reported emission rates in the test report were calculated from the truncated PM concentration value rather than the full calculation value. As an example, the Run 1 PM concentration for Furnace 2 is reported as 0.0004 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). The PM emission rate calculates to be 1.54 pounds per hour (lb/hr) using this conce ntration and the reported volumetric flow rate. However, when the significant digits are expanded to three, the PM concentration becomes 0.000376 gr/dscf, and the PM emission rate calculates to be 1.448 lb/hr.

Metal H azardous A ir P

ollutants

Eramet reported emissions for manganese (Mn), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), and nickel (Ni) in their test report for the Furnace 1 baghouse outlet, the Furnace 12 scrubber outlet, and the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse. The Mn, As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni results were measured using EPA Method 29 and the Hg test results were measured using EPA Method 30B. Felman reported Furnaces 2 and 5 emissions of Mn, As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni using EPA Method 29 and Hg using EPA Method 30B.

The re ported results of the Mn, As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni stack tests and the values calculated by EC/R using the stack gas parameters and the analytical results are provided in Tables 2 through 7 respectively. The Hg reported test results and the calculated value s using the stack gas parameters and the analytical results are provided in Tables 8 and 9. In addition, Tables 8 and 9 provide the quality assurance (QA) results of the EPA Method 30B testing, which include comparison of the paired samples and percent re covery of the spiked samples. The QA procedures for EPA Method
30B are designed to provide data of high and known quality for Hg emissions testing and for relative accuracy test audits ( RATA ) testing of Hg monitoring systems, including continuous
emission s monitoring systems ( CEMS ) and sorbent trap monitors. These QA procedures include the collection of paired sampling sorbent traps to determine measurement precision and verify acceptability of the measured emissions data. In addition, a field recovery te st which assesses recovery of an elemental Hg spike to determine measurement bias is also used to verify data acceptability.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Table 1. Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production PM Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported PM

Concentration (gr/dscf) Reported PM

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated PM

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.00087 1.54 1.545

2 0.00063 1.09 1.093

3 0.00119 1.91 1.909
Average 0.00090 1.52 1.515

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 0.00148 0.63 0.6 2 6

2 0.00122 0.51 0.5 06

3 0.00123 0.49 0. 494
Average 0.00131 0.54 0. 542

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 0.00936 11.43 11.433

2 0.00987 12.24 12.243

3 0.01060 12.51 12.507
Average 0.00994 12.06 12.061

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.000 4 1.54 1.448

2 0.000 3 1.15 1.210

3 0.000 3 1.16 1.334
Average 0.000 3 1.28 1.330

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.0003 0.64 0. 564

2 0.000 3 0.85 0. 817

3 0.000 4 0. 86 0.8 03
Average 0.000 3 0. 78 0. 728

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 2 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Manganese ( Mn ) Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported M n

Concentration ( μg /dsc m ) Reported M n

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated M n

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 582 0.450 0.451

2 427 0.323 0.323

3 680 0.510 0.510
Average 563 0.428 0.428

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 584 0.108 0.108

2 589 0.107 0.107

3 602 0.107 0.107
Average 592 0.107 0.107

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 2870 1.53 1.532

2 2380 1.29 1.288

3 2470 1.32 1.319
Average 2570 1.38 1.380

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 568.11 0.9567 0.95 4

2 168.33 0.2812 0. 279

3 211.26 0.3557 0.35 3
Average 315.90 0.5312 0.5 29

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 105.47 0.0979 0.09 66

2 94.10 0.0877 0.08 63

3 69.98 0.0656 0.06 42
Average 89.85 0.0837 0.08 24

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 3 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Arsenic (As) Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported As

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported As

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated As

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.205 0.000158 0.0000792 3

2 0.259 0.000196 0.0000979 3

3 0.259 0.000194 0.0000971 3

Average 0.241 0.000183 0.0000914

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 0.260 0.0000482 0.0000241 3

2 0.270 0.0000490 0.0000245 3

3 0.270 0.0000478 0.0000239 3

Average 0.267 0.0000483 0.0000241

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 0.834 0.000445 0.000433 3

2 0.649 0.000352 0.000341 3

3 0.721 0.000384 0.000374 3

Average 0.734 0.000394 0.000383

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.34 0.0006 0.000 284 3

2 0.34 0.0006 0. 000288 3

3 0.33 0.0006 0. 000278 3

Average 0.34 0.0006 0.000283

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.35 0.0003 0.0 00161 3

2 0.34 0.0003 0.0 00160 3

3 0.35 0.0003 0.0 00164 3

Average 0.35 0.0003 0.0 00162

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

. 3 One or more of the a nalytical fractions were reported below the detection limit for this test run

. The emission rate was calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection limit

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 4 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Cadmium (Cd) Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported Cd

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported Cd

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated Cd

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.737 0.000 570 0.000 567 3

2 0.587 0.000 444 0.000 440 3

3 0.774 0.000 581 0.000 577 3

Average 0.699 0.000 532 0.000 528

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 0.0708 0.0000131 0.0000 121 3

2 0.0715 0.0000130 0.0000 120 3

3 0.0567 0.0000100 0.0000 090 3

Average 0.0664 0.0000120 0.0000 110

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 10.1 0.00537 0.00 537 3

2 13.8 0.00748 0.00 748 3

3 12.3 0.00653 0.00 653 3

Average 12.0 0.00646 0.00 646

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0. 08 3 0.000 1 3 0.000 0710 3

2 0. 09 3 0.000 1 3 0.000 0720 3

3 0. 08 3 0.000 1 3 0.000 0695 3

Average 0. 08 0.000 1 0.000 0708

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0. 09 3 0.000 1 3 0.000 0403 3

2 0. 09 3 0.000 1 3 0.000 0401 3

3 0. 09 3 0.000 1 3 0.000 0410 3

Average 0. 09 0.000 1 0.000 0405

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

. 3 One or more of the analytical fraction s were reported below the detection limit for this test run

. The emission rate was calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection limit

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 5 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Chromium (Cr) Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported Cr

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported Cr

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated Cr

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.288 0.000 223 0.000 223

2 0.187 0.000 142 0.000 142

3 0.352 0.000 177 0.000 015
Average 0.472 0.000 181 0.000 127

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 1.50 0.000 278 0.000 278

2 1.28 0.000 232 0.000 232

3 0. 735 0.000 130 0.000 130
Average 1.17 0.000 213 0.000 213

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 0.748 0.000399 0.00 0366

2 0.656 0.000356 0.00 0356

3 0.687 0.000366 0.00 0366
Average 0.697 0.000374 0.00 03 63

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0. 66 0.0011 0.000 596

2 1.97 0.0033 0.00 276

3 1.07 0.0018 0.00 131
Average 1.23 0.0021 0.00 156

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 1.29 0.0012 0.000 903

2 6.59 0.0061 0.00 585

3 0.63 0.0006 0.000 295
Average 2.83 0.0026 0.00 235

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 6 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Lead (Pb) Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported Pb

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported Pb

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated Pb

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 4.39 0.00340 0.00 340

2 3.80 0.00288 0.00 288

3 5.57 0.00418 0.00 418
Average 4.59 0.00348 0.00 348

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 20.7 0.00383 0.00 383

2 21.2 0.00384 0.00 384

3 21.1 0.00373 0.00 373
Average 21.0 0.00380 0.00 380

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 46.8 0.0250 0.00 250

2 57.2 0.0310 0.00 310

3 57.5 0.0307 0.00 307
Average 53.8 0.0289 0.000363

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 8.43 0.0142 0.0 140

2 4.31 0.0072 0.00 696

3 4.67 0.0079 0.00 763
Average 5.80 0.0098 0.00 951

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 4.50 0.0042 0.00 404

2 6.23 0.0058 0.00 567

3 2.45 0.0023 0.00 216
Average 4.39 0.0041 0.00 396

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 7 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Nickel ( Ni ) Test Results

Emission Source Run

Number Reported Ni

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported Ni

Emissions(lb/hr) 1 Calculated Ni

Emissions(lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet 1 1.56 0.00121 0.00120

2 0.952 0.000720 0.000720

3 0.360 0.000270 0.000241
Average 0.957 0.000733 0.000721

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 1 2.20 0.000408 0.000408

2 1.59 0.000288 0.000288

3 0.905 0.000160 0.000160
Average 1.57 0.000286 0.000286

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet 1 0.0901 0.0000481 0.0000481

2 0.334 0.000181 0.000181

3 0.0775 0.0000413 0.0000351
Average 0.167 0.0000902 0.0000881

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.79 0.0013 0.000854

2 1.91 0.0032 0.00271

3 1.50 0.0025 0.00206
Average 1.40 0.0024 0.00187

Furnace 5 Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.99 0.0009 0.000647

2 2.53 0.0024 0.00208

3 0.75 0.0007 0.000428
Average 1.42 0.0013 0.00105

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.12 Table 8

. Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta Mercury (Hg) Test Results

Emission Source Spiked/

Unspiked Run

Number Reported Hg

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported Hg

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Hg

Emissions (lb/hr) 2 Sample Spike

Recovery (%) Paired Sample

Agreement (%)

Furnace 1 Baghouse
Outlet Unspiked 1 29.91 0.0234 0.0 232

--- --- 2 43.52 0.0333 0.0 329

--- --- 3 44.37 0.0361 0.0 356

--- --- Average 39.263 0.0309 0.0 305

--- ---

Spiked 1 27.30 0.0213 0. 0 211 89.70 4.6

2 34.47 0.0264 0.0 261 72.84 11.6

3 44.30 0.0360 0.0 355 99.77 0.1 Average 35.359 0.0279 0.0276

--- ---

Furnace 1 Baghouse Tapping Outlet Unspiked 1 0.03 0.00000551 0.00000551

--- --- 2 0.01 0.00000269 0.00000268

--- --- 3 0.02 0.00000332 0.00000331

--- --- Average 0.021 0.00000384 0.00000384

--- ---

Spiked 1 0.003 0.000000491 0.000000246 98.10 91.5

2 0.331 0.0000601 0.0000600 101.00 91.4

3 0.004 0.000000627 0.000000313 98.14 82.8 Average 0.112 0.0000204 0.0000202

Furnace 12 Scrubber
Outlet Unspiked 1 2.24 0.00126 0.00119

--- --- 2 2.98 0.00170 0.00162

--- --- 3 2.85 0.00156 0.00147

--- --- Average 2.688 0.00151 0.00143

--- ---

Spiked 1 2.23 0.00126 0.00119 99.98 0.2

2 1.43 0.000814 0.000776 94.80 35.1

3 0.51 0.000280 0.000264 92.54 69.5 Average 1.390 0.000785 0.000743

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 9

. Summary of 201 3 Felman Production Mercury (Hg) Test Results

Emission Source Sample Set Run
Number Reported Hg

Concentration (μg/dscm) Reported Hg

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Hg

Emissions (lb/hr) 2 Sample Spike

Recovery (%) Paired Sample

Agreement (%)

Furnace 2 Baghouse
Outlet 1 1 0.40 0.000594 0.000594

--- --- 2 0.45 0.000664 0.000665

--- --- 3 0.55 0.000808 0.000808

--- --- Average 0.467 0.000689 0.000689

--- ---

2 1 0.36 0.000529 0.000529

--- 5.7

2 0.49 0.000721 0.000721 112.7 4.0

3 0.51 0.000743 0.000743

--- 4.2 Average 0.453 0.000664 0.000664

--- ---

Furnace 5Baghouse
Outlet 1 1 0.0208 0.0000151 0.0000151

--- --- 2 0.0273 0.0000197 0.0000197

--- --- 3 0.0355 0.0000256 0.0000256

--- --- Average 0.0279 0.0000201 0.0000201

--- ---

2 1 0.0176 0.0000128 0.0000128

--- 8.3

2 0.0228 0.0000165 0.0000165

--- 8.9

3 0.0198 0.0000143 0.0000143 103.0 28.4 Average 0.0201 0.0000145 0.0000145

--- --- 1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.14

A comparison of the reported Mn concentration and emissions rate and the Mn emission rate calculated by EC/R using the stack gas parameters and the analytical data is provided in Table 2.
The Eramet Mn emi ssion results were identical to the Mn emissions calculated by EC/R, but there was a slight difference between the reported Mn emissions from Felman and the calculated Mn emission rate by EC/R. This is because the Felman test results were not corrected fo r the field blank analytical results, whereas the EC/R emission calculations corrected the analytical
results for the field blank , which reported a total of 8.25 micrograms ( μg ) of Mn . The reported concentrations and emission rates provided in the Eramet test report included the field blank
correction of the Mn test runs. A summary of the results is provided in Table 2.

The As emission results in Table 3 show some differences in the reported results for both Eramet and Felman and the emission rates calculated by EC/R. The difference in calculated emission values is due to the treatment of analytical non

- detects for As. In cases where the analytical results were r eported as non

- detect, Eramet and Felman used the detection limit to
calculate the concentration and emission rate. The As emissions calculated by EC/R used 1⁄2 of the detection limit for analytical results reported below the detection limit. The use of 1⁄2 of the detection limit for calculating emission rates from analytical data results reported below the detection limit is based on EPA’s revised procedures 3 for developing emission factors.

The Cd emission results calculated by EC/R were comparable to the reported emissions by Eramet. The slight differences in values are due to the back half (sample contents after the filter) analytical results being reported below the detection limit. Eramet used the detection limit to calculate the total analytical res ults, whereas EC/R used 1⁄2 of the detection limit to calculate the analytical result. There was a difference in the calculated emission rates for Cd between the reported results from Felman and the EC/R calculated emission rate. This difference is the res ult of the analytical results being reported below the detection limit for Cd. The Felman test report used the detection limit to calculate the Cd concentration and emission rate, whereas EC/R used
1⁄2 the detection limit in their emission calculation. A s ummary of the test data is provided in
Table 4.

A comparison of the Eramet reported Cr emission results and the emissions results calculated by EC/R were nearly identical with the exception of a few runs. The differences in values are due
to the back hal f (sample contents after the filter) analytical results being reported below the detection limit. Eramet used the detection limit to calculate the total analytical results, whereas EC/R used 1⁄2 of the detection limit to calculate the total analytical resul t. There w ere difference s in the calculated emission rates for C r between the reported results from Felman and the EC/R
calculated emission rate. Th e difference is because the analytical results from Felman were not
corrected for the field blank of 1.80 μg , and the EC/R calculated results included this correction

. A summary of the test results is provided in Table 4.

3 Recommended Procedures for Development of Emissions Factors and Use of the WebFIRE Emissions Factor Database, Revis ed Draft Report, December 17, 2010

. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/procedures_draft122010.pdfDRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

The Pb results reported in the test reports were comparable to the Pb emissions calculated by EC/R for Eramet. There was a slight differen ce in the Felman and EC/R Pb emissions because the Felman test report concentrations and emissions were not field blank corrected, whereas the
EC/R calculated emissions include the field blank correction. The field blank for the Felman test was reported a s 0.84 μg

. The results from the test reports and the calculated EC/R emissions are provided in Table 6.

As shown in Table 7, the emission results for Ni calculated by EC/R were comparable to the reported emissions by Eramet. The slight differences in th e emissions are a result of back half (sample contents after the filter) analytical results being reported below the detection limit. To calculate the total analytical result, Eramet used the detection limit, whereas EC/R used 1⁄2 of the
detection limit to calculate the total analytical result. The emission rates reported in the Felman test report were higher than the EC/R calculated emission rate s

. The reason for this is because the test report did not correct for a field blank Ni result of 1.69 μg . The EC/R calculated results
include this field blank correction for Ni in the emission results

.

The Hg concentrations were measured using EPA Method 30B for both of the facilities. The analytical results for all of the Hg runs from all of the test sites were measured above the detection limit. The Hg result for the run blank at Eramet was measured to be 2.37 nanograms (ng). The Hg result for the field blank and trip blank for the Felman tests averaged 1.60 ng and

1.21 ng respectively. The facilities each included spiked sorbent trap runs with the Hg test runs to meet the QA requirements of the met hod, but these spiked sorbent traps were collected using
different procedures. The spiked sorbent traps are used to assess the recovery of elemental Hg spike to determine measurement bias

, and are also used to verify data acceptability . Eramet
collected a spiked and unspiked sorbent trap for each test run, whereas Felman collected one spiked sorbent trap per 3

- run test. Table s 8 and 9 list the sample spike recovery percentages for each of the sorbent traps, and the paired sample agreement for each of the sorbent trap pairs.
The re were some differences in the paired sample agreement for the sorbent trapped pairs at Eramet. Only 2 of the 3 runs collected at Furnace 1, and 1 of 3 runs collected at Furnace 12 meet
the less than or equal to 10% criteria for paired sample agreement for concentrations greater than 1 microgram per dry standard cubic meter ( μg /dscm). The Furnace 1 tapping baghouse paired sample agreements were all greater than 20% criteria for samples less than or equal to 1

μg /dscm, but the abs olute differences of the paired sample agreements were less than 0.2

μg /dscm . Therefore all of the runs were used to calculate the average Hg emission rate. The paired sample agreements for Felman were less than 10% for all of the runs except for Run 3 o n Furnace 5. This run was omitted from the calculation of the average. A summary of the Hg emissions and the QA/QC results for Eramet and Felman are provided in Table 8 and 9 respectively.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions were measured at both Eramet and Felman using California Air Resources Board Method 429 (CARB 429). The results are presented in Tables 10 and 11

.

The reported emission results for the Eramet tests were significantly differen t for the Furnace 1 baghouse outlet in comparison to the EC/R calculated results. A review of the test report calculations found an error in the reported catch for naphthalene. The analytical laboratory report reported the Run 1 naphthalene result to be 143,000 nanograms (ng) for the Furnace 1 baghouse outlet. The run summary in the test report listed the Run 1 naphthalene result to be 1,431,690 ng. This appears to be a typographical error in the test report, which caused the reported emission rate to b e much higher than the emissions calculated by EC/R. The other test results for the Eramet emission sources and PAHs were all comparable to the calculated emissions by EC/R. The sample to blank train PAH mass ratio for these analyses were less than
five and no further corrections to the sample data were needed.

The Felman PAH results reported in the test report matched the laboratory analysis report provided in the test report appendix. The reported emission results for Felman were comparable
to the cal culated emissions by EC/R, with the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. These compounds reported non

- detects in the analytical report and the detection limit was used in the test report to calculate the emission rate. The e missions by EC/R were calculated using 1⁄2 the detection limit for these compounds. There were some detected values for the train and trip blank in the Felman samples, however the sample to blank train PAH
mass ratio wa s less than five and no further correc tions to the sample data were needed.

Hydrochloric Acid

The hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions were measured using EPA Method 26 at Eramet and EPA method 26A at Felman. At Eramet, HCl data were collected at the outlet of the Furnace 1 baghouse, the outle t of the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse, and the outlet of the Furnace 12 scrubber. Felman measured HCl using EPA Method 26A at the baghouse outlets of Furnace 2 and Furnace 5. The test results for the Eramet and Felman HCl emissions are provided in Table

12 . The analytical results for all of the runs for the Eramet tests were measured as non

- detect. In the test report, the detection limit was used to determine the total HCl in the sample and to calculate the reported HCl emission rate. By contrast, EC/R c alculated the HCl emission rates in Table 12 using 1⁄2 of detection limit based on guidelines in EPA’s revised procedures for developing emission factors.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 10 . Summary of 201 3 Eramet Marietta PAH Test Results

Emission Source Reported Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Reported Average

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 1 Baghouse Outlet Naphthalene 375000 0.27337 0.06833
2

- Methylnaphthalene 12900 0.00963 0.00963 Acenaphthylene 64600 0.04850 0.04836 Acenaphthene 7600 0.00569 0.00569
Fluorene 6770 0.00505 0.00512
Phenanthrene 184000 0.13603 0.13835
Anthracene 26800 0.01997 0.02014
Fluoranthene 169000 0.12522 0.12758 Pyrene 131000 0.09722 0.09876 Benzo(a)Anthracene 20900 0.01563 0.01583 Chrysene 60300 0.04453 0.04584 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 20300 0.01497 0.01536 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 5260 0.00390 0.00401 Benzo(e)Pyrene 28600 0.02088 0.02143 Benzo(a)Pyrene 2900 0.00215 0.00221 Perylene 288 0.00021 0.00022 Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 396 0.00029 0.00030 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 96.8 0.00007 0.00007 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 585 0.00043 0.00046
Total PAH 1117296 0.8237 4 0.62768
Furnace 12 Scrubber Outlet Naphthalene 24000 0.01362 0.01418
2

- Methylnaphthalene 6890 0.00392 0.00393 Acenaphthylene 11100 0.00635 0.00634 Acenaphthene 2690 0.00153 0.00153
Fluorene 4820 0.00276 0.00277
Phenanthrene 21100 0.01199 0.01202
Anthracene 4630 0.00262 0.00264
Fluoranthene 8370 0.00476 0.00480 Pyrene 7430 0.00423 0.00426 Benzo(a)Anthracene 537 0.00031 0.00031 Chrysene 1000 0.00057 0.00059 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 556 0.00032 0.00033 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 404 0.00023 0.00023 Benzo(e)Pyrene 499 0.00028 0.00030 Benzo(a)Pyrene 90.2 0.00005 0.00006 Perylene 8.99 0.00001 0.00001 Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 122 0.00007 0.00007 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 39.8 0.00002 0.00002 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 174 0.00010 0.00012
Total PAH 94460.99 0.05376 0.05450DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Table 10 . Summary of 2012 Eramet Marietta PAH Test Results (Continued)

Emission Source Reported Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Reported Average

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet Naphthalene 14700 0.002866 0.003057
2

- Methylnaphthalene 9490 0.001847 0.001852 Acenaphthylene 7690 0.001493 0.001495 Acenaphthene 3720 0.000723 0.000726
Fluorene 4170 0.000811 0.000835
Phenanthrene 14500 0.002822 0.002834
Anthracene 2860 0.000556 0.000558
Fluoranthene 2800 0.000547 0.000552 Pyrene 2160 0.000421 0.000426 Benzo(a)Anthracene 233 0.000045 0.000046 Chrysene 393 0.000077 0.000078 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 192 0.000037 0.000038 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 97.2 0.000019 0.000019 Benzo(e)Pyrene 254 0.000049 0.000050 Benzo(a)Pyrene 70.6 0.000014 0.000014 Perylene 11.1 0.000002 0.000002 Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 45.5 0.000009 0.000009 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 16.6 0.000003 0.000003 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 97.7 0.000019 0.000021
Total PAH 63500.7 0.012 36 0.0126 15

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 11 . Summary of 2012 Felman Production PAH Test Results

Emission Source Reported Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Reported Average Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Emissions (lb/hr) 2
Furnace 2 Baghouse Outlet Naphthalene 16573.54 0.0245 0.0245
2

- Methylnaphthalene 13040.11 0.0193 0.0193 Acenaphthylene 1409.98 0.0021 0.0021 Acenaphthene 894.38 0.0013 0.0013 Fluorene 1242.31 0.0018 0.0018 Phenanthrene 8410.61 0.0124 0.0124 Anthracene 530.93 0.0008 0.0008 Fluoranthene 13845.23 0.0205 0.0205 Pyrene 7736.04 0.0114 0.0114 Benzo(a)Anthracene 631.89 0.0009 0.0009 Chrysene 5073.21 0.0075 0.0075 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 655.52 0.0010 0.0010 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 240.02 0.000355 0.000355 Benzo(e)Pyrene 393.10 0.0006 0.0006 Benzo(a)Pyrene 16.37 0.0000242 0.0000142 3 Perylene 14.30 0.0000212 0.0000106 3 Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 20.92 0.0000309 0.0000309 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 3.30 0.00000487 0.00000439 3 Benzo(g,h,i) Perylene 25.20 0.0000372 0.0000373 Total PAH 70756.96 0.10457 0.10458 Furnace 5 Baghouse Outlet Naphthalene 15620.68 0.0113 0.0113
2

- Methylnaphthalene 8091.02 0.0059 0.0059 Acenaphthylene 2611.89 0.0019 0.0019 Acenaphthene 1350.54 0.0010 0.0010 Fluorene 1531.52 0.0011 0.0011 Phenanthrene 23353.83 0.0169 0.0169 Anthracene 913.80 0.0007 0.0007 Fluoranthene 15788.90 0.0114 0.0114 Pyrene 8713.78 0.0063 0.0063 Benzo(a)Anthracene 250.20 0.0002 0.0003 Chrysene 1915.60 0.0014 0.0014 Benzo(b) Fluoranthene 250.20 0.0002 0.0002 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 84.86 0.0000615 0.0000614 Benzo(e)Pyrene 281.69 0.0002 0.0002 Benzo(a)Pyrene 7.86 0.00000569 0.00000284 3 Perylene 5.37 0.00000389 0.00000194 3 Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 11.14 0.00000807 0.00000806 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 1.97 0.00000143 0.00000117 3 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 14.06 0.0000102 0.0000102 Total PAH 80798.91 0.05859 0.05856

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

. 3 The analytical results were reported below the detection limit for this test run. The emission rate was calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection limit.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 12 . Summary of 2012 Eramet Marietta and Felman Production

Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Test Results

Emission Source Run
Number Reported HCl

Concentration ( mg/dscm ) Reported HCl

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated

HCl Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Eramet Marietta

Furnace 1 Baghouse Outlet 1 0.375 0.27 0.1 35 3

2 0.381 0.29 0.1 45 3

3 0.379 0.28 0.150 3

Average 0.378 0.28 0.1 40

Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse
Outlet 1 0.385 0.07 0.0 33 3

2 0.388 0.07 0.0 34 3

3 0.391 0.07 0.0 36 3

Average 0.388 0.07 0.0 34

Furnace 12 Scrubber Outlet 1 0.315 0.17 0. 087 3

2 0.304 0.17 0. 086 3

3 0.349 0.19 0. 098 3

Average 0.321 0.18 0. 090

Felman Production

Furnace 2 Baghouse Outlet 1 1.05622 1.753 1.752

2 0.86445 1.449 1.449

3 0.65858 1.095 1.095
Average 0.85975 1.432 1.432

Furnace 5 Baghouse Outlet 1 0.08566 0.0713 0.0713

2 0.07678 0.0643 0.0321 3

3 0.07710 0.0675 0.0338 3

Average 0.0 7985 0.0677 0.0457

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

. 3 The analytical results were reported below the detection limit. The emission rate was calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection limit.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

All of the Felman analytical results for Furnace 2 and 1 of the 3 runs for Furnace 5 were
measured above the detection limit. For the runs m easured above the detection limit, the reported and calculated emission rates were comparable. For the runs measured below the detection limit, the test report calculated the HCl concentration using the detection limit, whereas
the EC/R calculated HCl emi ssion rates were calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection limit. None of the run samples shown in Table 12 were blank corrected.

P olychlorinated B iphenyl

s

The emissions of PCB were measured at both Eramet and Felman using California Air Resources
Board Method 428 (CARB 428). At Eramet

, three run s w ere measured at each of the sample locations; the outlet of the Furnace 1 baghouse, outlet of the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse, and
outlet of the Furnace 12 scrubber. The PCB testing at Felman consisted of thre e runs captured at
the baghouse outlet of Furnace 2 and 5. The reported PCB concentration and emission rates for

Eramet and Felman are provided in Table s 13 and 14 respectively , along with emission rates calculated by EC/R for comparison.

The analytical results for Eramet reported PCB detected values for PCB

- 77 and PCB

- 118 for the Furnace 12 scrubber outlet and the Furnace 1 baghouse outlet. The Furnace 1 tapping baghouse outlet reported PCB detected values for PCB

- 77, PCB

- 15, and PCB

- 118. Al l other PCB compounds were reported as non

- detect. For the PCB compounds that were reported as non

detect, the test report used the detection limit to calculate the concentration and emission rate.
The EC/R calculated emissions used 1⁄2 the detection limit to calculate the emissions rate. Therefore, the Eramet emissions are lower than the emissions reported by Eramet.

The run samples for the Felman tests were all measured above the detection limit with the exception of PCB

- 169 and PCB

- 189 . For th ese PCB compounds , the test report values reported
for concentration and emission rate are based on the detection limit for the analysis. The
emission rates shown by EC/R for these PCB compounds were calculated using 1⁄2 of the
detection limit based on guidelines i n EPA’s revised procedures for developing emission factors

. The PCB emission rates calculated by EC/R for the other run samples were comparable to the reported emission rates in the test report. It should be noted that some of the PCB concentrations
and emission rates listed in Tables 4b, 4c, and 4d are based on the percent recovery of the PCB compound and not the actual analytical result.

Polychlorinated Dibenzo Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzo Furans

The emissions of PCDD and PCDF were measured a t both Eramet and Felman using California Air Resources Board Method 428 (CARB 428). At Eramet, three runs were measured at each of the sample locations; the outlet of the Furnace 1 baghouse, outlet of the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse, and outlet of the Fur nace 12 scrubber. The PCDD and PCDF testing at Felman consisted of three runs captured at the baghouse outlet of Furnace 2 and 5. The reported PCDDDRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

and PCDF concentration and emission rates for Eramet and Felman are provided in Tables 15 and 16 respectiv ely, along with emission rates calculated by EC/R for comparison.

The emissions reported by Eramet were based on mostly non

- detect analytical results for PCDD/PCDF. No detected values for any of the PCDD/PCDF compounds were reported for the

Furnace 12 sc rubber outlet in the analytical report. Only 1 run reported a single detected PCDD/PCDF value for the Furnace 1 baghouse outlet, and only 4 PCDD/PCDF compounds were detected for 2 of the runs for the Furnace 1 tapping baghouse. For those analytical resul ts that were reported below the detection limit, t he Eramet test report values reported the concentration and emission rate using the detection limit of the analysis. The EC/R emission rates were calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection limit based on guidelin es in EPA’s revised procedures for developing emission factors. Therefore, the emission rates calculated by EC/R are roughly 1⁄2 of the emissions reported by Eramet.

The emissions reported by Felman in their test reports were considerably different than th e emissions calculated by EC/R from the stack parameters and the analytical report. A review of the submitted test reports found that the company that produced the test report listed the PCDD/PCDF compounds in nanograms (10 - 9 grams), however the analytica l reports lists the results of the analysis of PCDD/PCDF compounds in picograms (10 - 12 grams). Therefore, the comparison of the reported emissions and the EC/R calculated emissions is off by a factor of 1000. There are also differences in the way that n on

- detect results were used for the
PCDD/PCDF emission calculations. T he test report values reported for concentration and emission rate are based on the detection limit of the analysis. The EC/R emission rates were calculated using 1⁄2 of the detection li mit based on guidelines in EPA’s revised procedures for developing emission factors. In addition, in cases where the analytical report listed the PCDD/PCDF concentration as estimated maximum concentration (EMPC), the test report used
the detection limit r ather than the EMPC value. Therefore, there are many discrepancies between the reported emission rates the EC/R calculated emission rates.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 13 . Summary of 2013 Eramet Production PCB Test Results

Emission Source Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Average

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated

Emissions (lb/hr) 2
Furnace 1 Baghouse Outlet

PCB

- 77 [33'44'

- TeraCB] 1.50E

- 02 1.14E

- 08 1.14E

- 08

PCB

- 81 [344'5

- TeraCB] 2.95E

- 03 2.31E

- 09 1.16E

- 09 3

PCB

- 105 [233'44'

- PentaCB] 1.59E

- 02 1.23E

- 08 1.08E

- 08 3

PCB

- 114 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 6.50E

- 03 5.09E

- 09 2.55E

- 09 3

PCB

- 118 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 3.30E

- 02 2.54E

- 08 2.54E

- 08

PCB

- 123 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 7.87E

- 03 6.17E

- 09 3.08E

- 09 3

PCB

- 126 [33'44'5

- PentaCB] 1.20E

- 01 9.22E

- 08 4.61E

- 08 3

PCB

- 156 & 157 [HexaCB] 5.30E

- 03 4.12E

- 09 2.06E

- 09 3

PCB

- 167 [23'44'55'

- HexaCB] 4.09E

- 03 3.17E

- 09 2.89E

- 09 3

PCB

- 169 [33'44'55'

- HexaCB] 2.55E

- 03 2.01E

- 09 9.99E

- 10 3

PCB

- 189 [233'44'55'

- HeptaCB] 2.29E

- 03 1.81E

- 09 9.04E

- 10 3

Total PCB 2.15E

- 01 1.66E

- 07 1.07E

- 07 Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet

PCB

- 77 [33'44'

- TeraCB] 2.79E

- 02 4.94E

- 09 4.49E

- 09

PCB

- 81 [344'5

- TeraCB] 1.36E

- 02 2.40E

- 09 1.20E

- 09 3

PCB

- 105 [233'44'

- PentaCB] 4.78E

- 02 8.47E

- 09 8.03E

- 09 3

PCB

- 114 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 7.22E

- 03 1.30E

- 09 8.77E

- 10 3

PCB

- 118 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 1.02E

- 01 1.81E

- 08 1.81E

- 08

PCB

- 123 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 1.91E

- 02 3.40E

- 09 1.69E

- 09 3

PCB

- 126 [33'44'5

- PentaCB] 8.78E

- 02 1.58E

- 08 7.89E

- 09 3

PCB

- 156 & 157 [HexaCB] 1.18E

- 02 2.09E

- 09 1.59E

- 09 3

PCB

- 167 [23'44'55'

- HexaCB] 1.31E

- 02 2.31E

- 09 2.23E

- 09 3

PCB

- 169 [33'44'55'

- HexaCB] 2.69E

- 03 4.85E

- 10 2.41E

- 10 3

PCB

- 189 [233'44'55'

- HeptaCB] 1.83E

- 03 3.31E

- 10 1.64E

- 10 3

Total PCB 3.35E

- 01 5.96E

- 08 4.70E

- 08DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Table 13 . Summary of 2013 Eramet Production PCB Test Results (Continued)

Emission Source Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Average

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated

Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 12 Scrubber Outlet

PCB

- 77 [33'44'

- TeraCB] 1.02E

- 02 5.49E

- 09 5.49E

- 09

PCB

- 81 [344'5

- TeraCB] 3.81E

- 03 2.07E

- 09 1.04E

- 09 3

PCB

- 105 [233'44'

- PentaCB] 1.78E

- 02 9.68E

- 09 9.68E

- 09

PCB

- 114 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 8.09E

- 03 4.41E

- 09 2.21E

- 09 3

PCB

- 118 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 3.12E

- 02 1.69E

- 08 1.81E

- 08

PCB

- 123 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 9.46E

- 03 5.16E

- 09 2.58E

- 09 3

PCB

- 126 [33'44'5

- PentaCB] 1.05E

- 01 5.77E

- 08 2.88E

- 08 3

PCB

- 156 & 157 [HexaCB] 6.28E

- 03 3.44E

- 09 1.72E

- 09 3

PCB

- 167 [23'44'55'

- HexaCB] 4.23E

- 03 2.29E

- 09 1.60E

- 09 3

PCB

- 169 [33'44'55'

- HexaCB] 3.04E

- 03 1.65E

- 09 8.30E

- 10 3

PCB

- 189 [233'44'55'

- HeptaCB] 1.27E

- 03 7.05E

- 10 3.48E

- 10 3

Total PCB 2.00E

- 01 1.0 9 E

- 07 7.12E

- 08

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values calculated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report.

3 One or more of the analytical results were reported below the detection limit. For those runs that were reported below the detection limit, 1⁄2 of the detection limit was used to calculate the emissions rate

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13 Table 14 . Summary of 2012 Felman Production PCB Test Results

Emission Source Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Average

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated

Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 2 Baghouse Outlet

PCB

- 77 [33'44'

- TeraCB] 0.96 1.60E

- 06 1.60E

- 06

PCB

- 81 [344'5

- TeraCB] 0.06 9.41E

- 08 9.41E

- 08

PCB

- 105 [233'44'

- PentaCB] 0.95 1.58E

- 06 1.58E

- 06

PCB

- 114 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 0.08 1.29E

- 07 1.29E

- 07

PCB

- 118 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 2.59 4.30E

- 06 4.30E

- 06

PCB

- 123 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 0.05 8.01E

- 08 8.01E

- 08

PCB

- 126 [33'44'5

- PentaCB] 0.02 3.08E

- 08 3.08E

- 08

PCB

- 156 & 157 [HexaCB] 0.10 1.67E

- 07 1.67E

- 07

PCB

- 167 [23'44'55'

- HexaCB] 0.04 6.81E

- 08 6.81E

- 08

PCB

- 169 [33'44'55'

- HexaCB] 0.01 2.07E

- 08 1.03E

- 08 3

PCB

- 189 [233'44'55'

- HeptaCB] 0.01 1.40E

- 08 7.02E

- 09 3

Total PCB 4.87 8.08E

- 06 8.06E

- 06 Furnace 5 Baghouse Outlet

PCB

- 77 [33'44'

- TeraCB] 2.62 2.19E

- 06 2.19E

- 06

PCB

- 81 [344'5

- TeraCB] 0.16 1.31E

- 07 1.31E

- 07

PCB

- 105 [233'44'

- PentaCB] 2.58 2.16E

- 06 2.16E

- 06

PCB

- 114 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 0.21 1.76E

- 07 1.76E

- 07

PCB

- 118 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 7.14 5.96E

- 06 5.96E

- 06

PCB

- 123 [23'44'5

- PentaCB] 0.13 1.05E

- 07 1.05E

- 07

PCB

- 126 [33'44'5

- PentaCB] 0.06 4.66E

- 08 4.65E

- 08

PCB

- 156 & 157 [HexaCB] 0.24 2.04E

- 07 2.04E

- 07

PCB

- 167 [23'44'55'

- HexaCB] 0.10 8.35E

- 08 8.35E

- 08

PCB

- 169 [33'44'55'

- HexaCB] 0.01 1.23E

- 08 6.13E

- 09 3

PCB

- 189 [233'44'55'

- HeptaCB] 0.01 9.22E

- 09 4.61E

- 09 3

Total PCB 13.26 1.11E

- 05 1.11E

- 05

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

. 3 One or more of the analytical results were reported below the detection limit. For those runs that were reported below the detection limit, 1⁄2 of the detection limit was used to calculate the emissions rate

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Table 15 . Summary of 2013 Eramet Production P CDD/ P CDF Test Results

Emission Source Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Average Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 1 Baghouse Outlet 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDD 1.29E

- 03 1.01E

- 09 5.06E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta P CDD 1.03E

- 03 8.16E

- 10 4.0 6 E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 8.46E

- 04 6.61E

- 10 3.3 4 E

- 10 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 8.15E

- 04 6.39E

- 10 3.22 E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDD 8.36E

- 04 6.61E

- 10 3. 30 E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDD 1.14E

- 03 9.04E

- 10 4.48E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDD 3.17E

- 03 2.49E

- 09 1.25E

- 09 3
2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDF 1.58E

- 03 1.23E

- 09 6.20E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta PCDF 7.43E

- 04 5.95E

- 10 2.92E

- 10 3
2,3,4,7,8

- Penta P CDF 6.78E

- 04 5.29E

- 10 2.67E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 6.87E

- 04 5.51E

- 10 3.48E

- 10 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 6.19E

- 04 4.85E

- 10 2.46E

- 10 3
2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 6.70E

- 04 5.29E

- 10 2.67E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDF 8.14E

- 04 6.39E

- 10 3.24E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDF 6.86E

- 04 5.51E

- 10 2.71E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- Hepta P CDF 1.01E

- 03 7.94E

- 10 3.98E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDF 2.58E

- 03 2.03E

- 09 1.02E

- 09 3

Total P CDD/ P CDF 1.92E

- 02 1.5 1 E

- 08 7.64 E

- 09 Furnace 1 Tapping Baghouse Outlet 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDD 1.57E

- 03 2.87E

- 10 1.41E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta P CDD 2.15E

- 03 3.97E

- 10 1.93E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.46E

- 03 2.65E

- 10 1.31E

- 10 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.42E

- 03 2.65E

- 10 1.27E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDD 1.43E

- 03 2.65E

- 10 1.29E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDD 2.68E

- 03 4.85E

- 10 2.40E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDD 1.32E

- 02 2.34E

- 09 1.99E

- 09 3
2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDF 2.27E

- 03 4.19E

- 10 2.06E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta PCDF 1.73E

- 03 3.09E

- 10 1.55E

- 10 3
2,3,4,7,8

- Penta P CDF 1.96E

- 03 3.53E

- 10 2.45E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 1.38E

- 03 2.43E

- 10 1.54E

- 10 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 1.33E

- 03 2.43E

- 10 1.19E

- 10 3
2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 1.52E

- 03 2.65E

- 10 1.79E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDF 1.57E

- 03 2.87E

- 10 1.41E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDF 2.66E

- 03 4.85E

- 10 3.50E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- Hepta P CDF 1.46E

- 03 2.65E

- 10 1.31E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDF 3.91E

- 03 7.05E

- 10 3.51E

- 10 3

Total P CDD/ P CDF 4.37E

- 02 7.8 8 E

- 09 4.98E

- 09DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Table 15 . Summary of 2013 Eramet Production P CDD/ P CDF Test Results (Continued)

Emission Source Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Average Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 12 Scrubber Outlet 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDD 1.49E

- 03 8.16E

- 10 4.08E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta P CDD 1.62E

- 03 8.82E

- 10 4.45E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.35E

- 03 7.50E

- 10 3.71E

- 10 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.32E

- 03 7.28E

- 10 3.63E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDD 1.34E

- 03 7.28E

- 10 3.67E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDD 1.98E

- 03 1.10E

- 09 5.47E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDD 5.71E

- 03 3.15E

- 09 1.57E

- 09 3
2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDF 1.67E

- 03 9.04E

- 10 4.56E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta PCDF 1.49E

- 03 8.16E

- 10 4.07E

- 10 3
2,3,4,7,8

- Penta P CDF 1.41E

- 03 7.72E

- 10 3.85E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 1.25E

- 03 6.83E

- 10 3.45E

- 10 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 1.21E

- 03 6.61E

- 10 3.33E

- 10 3
2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 1.32E

- 03 7.28E

- 10 3.63E

- 10 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDF 1.63E

- 03 9.04E

- 10 4.49E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDF 1.23E

- 03 6.83E

- 10 3.37E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- Hepta P CDF 1.58E

- 03 8.60E

- 10 4.35E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDF 3.68E

- 03 2.03E

- 09 1.02E

- 09 3

Total P CDD/ P CDF 3.13E

- 02 1.72E

- 08 8.60E

- 09

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values calculated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report.

3 One or more of the analytical results were reported below the detection limit. For those runs that were reported below the detection limit, 1⁄2 of the detecti on limit was used to calculate the emissions rate

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

Table 16 . Summary of 2012 Felman Production P CDD/ P CDF Test Results

Emission Source Reported Average Concentration (ng/dscm) Reported Average

Emissions (lb/hr) 1 Calculated Emissions (lb/hr) 2

Furnace 2 Baghouse Outlet 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDD 1.27 2.10E

- 06 1.05E

- 09 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta P CDD 1.28 2.12E

- 06 1.06E

- 09 3
1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.42 2.35E

- 06 1.18E

- 09 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.37 2.27E

- 06 1.14E

- 09 3 1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDD 1.38 2.29E

- 06 1.15E

- 09 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDD 2.58 4.26E

- 06 3.62E

- 09 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDD 5.78 9.57E

- 06 9.57E

- 09 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDF 36.68 6.07E

- 05 3.03E

- 08 3
1,2,3,7,8

- Penta PCDF 4.20 6.95E

- 06 6.95E

- 09 2,3,4,7,8

- Penta P CDF 4.79 7.93E

- 06 7.92E

- 09 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 6.20 1.03E

- 05 9.06E

- 09 3
1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 2.68 4.44E

- 06 3.65E

- 09 3
2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 2.33 3.86E

- 06 3.09E

- 09 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDF 1.53 2.54E

- 06 1.27E

- 09 3 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDF 4.44 7.34E

- 06 7.34E

- 09 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- Hepta P CDF 1.34 2.21E

- 06 1.11E

- 09 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDF 3.06 5.06E

- 06 4.54E

- 09 3

Total P CDD/ P CDF 82.33 1.36E

- 04 9.40E

- 08 Furnace 5 Baghouse Outlet 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDD 3.23 2.69E

- 06 3. 04 E

- 09 1,2,3,7,8

- Penta P CDD 2.32 1.94E

- 06 1.94 E

- 09 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.43 1.19E

- 06 8.40 E

- 10 3 1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDD 1.54 1.29E

- 06 9.48 E

- 09 3
1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDD 1.61 1.34E

- 06 1. 32 E

- 09 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDD 2.85 2.39E

- 06 2.69 E

- 09 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDD 7.04 5.90E

- 06 8.24 E

- 09 2,3,7,8

- Tetra P CDF 122.25 1.02E

- 04 6.30 E

- 08 3 1,2,3,7,8

- Penta PCDF 13.37 1.11E

- 05 1. 11 E

- 08 2,3,4,7,8

- Penta P CDF 11.36 9.46E

- 06 9.46 E

- 0 9 1,2,3,4,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 7.80 6.49E

- 06 6.49 E

- 09 1,2,3,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 3.92 3.26E

- 06 3. 26 E

- 09 2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hexa P CDF 2.19 1.83E

- 06 1. 6 4E

- 09 3 1,2,3,7,8,9

- Hexa P CDF 1.55 1.29E

- 06 6.46 E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- Hepta P CDF 3.32 2.77E

- 06 2

. 7 7E

- 09 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- Hepta P CDF 1.57 1.31E

- 06 6.56 E

- 10 3
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9

- Octa P CDF 7.22 5.99E

- 06 5.99 E

- 09
Total P CDD/ P CDF 194.57 1.62E

- 04 1. 2 4E

- 07

1 Emission values reported in submitted test report.

2 Emission values c alcu l ated by EC/R from stack gas parameters and analytical data in test report

. 3 One or more of the analytical results were reported below the detection limit. For those runs that were reported below the detection limit, 1⁄2 of the detection limit was used to calculate the emissions rate

.DRAFT FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 8

- 9

- 13

5 .0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The test data described in this summary provides additional pollutant emissions that can be used
for determining modeling emission s and the MACT Floor. The PM, metals, PAH, PCB,
PCDD/PCDF and HCl test data provide additional emission results that can be used to enhance the current emissions data sets used for modeling and developing the MACT Floor. As noted in this summary, t here a re also some issu es with reported results of the PCDD/PCDF testing
conducted at Felman

. It is recommended that the EC/R calculated emissions be used for modeling and development of the MACT Floor.