41508 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, state, or tribal governments or

private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 904

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: July 28, 1998.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 98–20716 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Region 2 Docket No. NY28–2–180a, FRL–

6134–6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities; New

York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve

the State Plan submitted by New York

to fulfill the requirements of sections

111(d)/129 of the Clean Air Act for

Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC).

The State Plan addresses the

implementation and enforcement of the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to

existing large MWCs with capacity to

combust more than 250 tons per day of

municipal solid waste. The State Plan

imposes emission limits and control

requirements for the existing MWC’s in

New York which will reduce the

designated pollutants. In the final rules

section of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving New York’s MWC State Plan

as a direct final rule without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial action and

anticipates no relevant adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no relevant adverse comments

are received in response to that direct

final rule no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule. If EPA receives relevant

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Ronald J. Borsellino,

Chief, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

Copies of the State submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,

Albany, New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine DeRosa or Kirk J. Wieber, Air

Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10278, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: July 24, 1998.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 98–20772 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL–64–2–5807; FRL–6132–5]

RIN 2060–AF29

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Ferroalloys Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rules; notice of public

hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for ferroalloys

production, which is comprised of

ferronickel production facilities and

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, and

ferrochromium production facilities.

The EPA has identified these facilities

as major sources of hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions such as

nickel and manganese. Nickel

compounds such as nickel carbonyl and

nickel subsulfate are some of the most

toxic compounds of nickel. They can

affect the lungs and the kidneys.

Symptoms such as headaches, vomiting,

chest pains, dry coughing, and visual

disturbances have been reported from

short-term exposure in humans.

Additionally, human and animal studies

reveal an increased risk of lung and

nasal cancers from exposure to nickel

refinery dusts and nickel subsulfate.

Chronic exposure to nickel in humans

also results in respiratory effects such as

asthma due to primary irritation or an

allergic response, and an increased risk

of chronic respiratory tract infections.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41509

Manganese can also adversely affect

human health. Chronic exposure to high

levels of manganese by inhalation in

humans primarily affects the central

nervous system. This health effect is

known as ‘‘manganism’’ and typically

begins with feelings of weakness and

lethargy and progresses to other

symptoms such as speech disturbances,

a mask-like face, tremors, and

psychological disturbances. The

NESHAP provides protection to the

public by requiring HAP emission

sources at these facilities to meet

emission standards that reflect the

application of maximum achievable

control technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept

comments regarding this proposed

NESHAP on or before October 5, 1998.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by August 25, 1998, a public

hearing will be held at 10 a.m. on

September 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number

A–92–59, Room M–1500, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA requests a separate copy also

be sent to the contact person listed

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). Comments and data may also

be submitted electronically by following

the instructions listed in Supplementary

Information. Any confidential business

information (CBI) should be submitted

following the procedures in section

VII.I. of this preamble.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested presenting oral testimony or

inquiring as to whether a hearing is to

be held should call the contact person

listed below.

Docket. Docket No. A–92–59,

containing information relevant to

today’s proposed rulemaking, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8: a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except for

Federal holidays) at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC–6102), 401 M

Street SW., Washington DC 20460,

telephone: (202) 260–7548. The docket

is located at the above address in Room

M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor).

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Conrad Chin, Metals Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone (919) 541–1512;

facsimile (919) 541–5600, electronic

mail address

‘‘chin.conrad@epamail.epa.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those industrial facilities that

produce ferronickel, ferromanganese,

silicomanganese, or ferrochromium.

Regulated categories and entities

include those sources listed in the

primary Standard Industrial

Classification code for these sources

(3313, Electrometallurgical Products,

except Steel).

This description is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by final action on this

proposal. This description lists the

types of entities that the EPA is now

aware of that could potentially be

regulated by final action on this

proposal. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by final action on

this proposal, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

sections IV.A. and V.A. of this preamble

and in §§ 63.1620 and 63.1650 of the

proposed rule. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

This document, the proposed

regulatory texts, and other background

information are available in Docket No.

A–92–59 or by request from the EPA’s

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (see ADDRESSES) or

access through the EPA web site at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. For

further information, contact the TTN

HELP line at (919) 541–5384.

Electronic comments on the proposed

NESHAP may be submitted by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Submit

comments as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on diskette in

WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 or ACSII file

format. Identify all comments and data

in electronic form by the docket number

(A–92–59). No confidential business

information should be submitted

through electronic mail. You may file

comments on the proposed rule online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Outline

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area

Sources

II. Background

A. Description of the Source Category

B. Emissions

III. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

C. Determining the MACT Floor

IV. Summary of Proposed Ferronickel Rule

A. Sources to be Regulated

B. Emission Limits and Maintenance

Requirements

C. Compliance Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

V. Summary of Proposed Ferromanganese,

Silicomanganese, and Ferrochromium

Rule

A. Sources to be Regulated

B. Emission Limits and Maintenance

Requirements

C. Compliance Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. Selection of Source Category and

Pollutants

B. Selection of Affected Sources

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards for Existing and

New Sources

D. Selection of Format

E. Selection of Emission Limits

F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

G. Selection of Test Methods

H. Selection of Notification, Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements

I. Solicitation of Comments

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

G. Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risk Under Executive Order 13045

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

IX. Statutory Authority

I. Initial List of Categories of Major and

Area Sources

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (the

Act) requires that the EPA promulgate

regulations requiring the control of HAP

emissions from major and area sources.

The control of HAP is achieved through

promulgation of emission standards

under section 112(d) and (f) and

operational and work practice standards
41510 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

under section 112(h) for categories of

sources that emit HAP.

An initial list of categories of major

and area sources selected for regulation

in accordance with section 112(c) of the

Act was published in the Federal

Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

The ‘‘Ferroalloys Production’’ source

category is listed under the ‘‘Ferrous

Metals Processing’’ industry group.

Based on information gathered since

that time, the EPA determined that only

two ferroalloys facilities in the United

States are, in fact, major sources with

the potential to emit HAP at levels

greater than 9.1 megagrams per year

(Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any

one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any

combination of HAP.

II. Background

A. Description of the Source Category

The EPA believes that this source

category is comprised of two major

sources. Both sources produce ferroalloy

products that contain metallic HAP as a

major constituent of the final product.

However, because of the significant

differences in processes at the two

facilities, the EPA has determined that

each facility comprises a separate

subcategory.

The first facility, Glenbrook Nickel

Company (Glenbrook Nickel) is located

in Riddle, Oregon and is the only

domestic producer of ferronickel.

However, this facility has recently

ceased its operations, and it may

permanently shut down in the next

year. The EPA will consider the

operational status of this facility prior to

promulgating a final rule affecting

ferronickel production. If the facility has

permanently shut down, and there are

no other domestic sources with the

potential to produce ferronickel, the

EPA may withdraw the proposed

requirements related to ferronickel

production rather than finalizing the

proposed rule.

The second facility, which is owned

by the Elkem Metals Company (Elkem

Marietta), is located in Marietta, Ohio

and is the only domestic producer of

ferromanganese and silicomanganese. In

addition, this facility has the potential

to produce ferrochromium, but it is not

doing so at present. Based on an

extensive survey of emissions data

provided by other ferroalloy producers,

an evaluation of available test data, and

an EPA-sponsored emissions test, the

EPA has determined that none of the

remaining ferroalloy producers have the

potential to emit major quantities of

metallic or organic HAP.

Subpart XXX, National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Ferroalloys Production consists of

two groups of requirements. The first

group of requirements, which are found

in §§ 63.1620 through 63.1649,

describes the Ferronickel Production

standard, which will hereafter be

referred to as the Ferronickel rule in this

preamble. The second group of

requirements, which are found in

§§ 63.1650 through 63.1679, describes

the Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese,

and Ferrochromium Production

standard, which will hereafter be

referred to as the Ferromanganese rule

in this preamble.

B. Emissions

As part of its Title V permit

application, Glenbrook Nickel reported

a potential to emit, considering controls

of 37 Mg/yr (41 tpy) of combined HAP

emissions. As part of its Title V permit

application, Elkem Marietta reported an

actual emissions rate of manganese

compounds of 148 Mg/yr (163 tpy).

III. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

Section 112 directs the EPA to

develop a list of all categories of major

and such area sources as appropriate

that emit one or more of the 188 HAP

listed in or pursuant to section 112(b)

(section 112(c)). Section 112 of the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990

replaces the previous system of

pollutant-by-pollutant health-based

regulation that proved ineffective at

controlling the high volumes and

concentrations of HAP in air emissions.

Instead, the current version of section

112 directs the EPA to impose

technology-based controls on sources

emitting HAP, and provides that these

technology-based standards may later be

reduced further to address residual risk

that may remain even after imposition

of technology-based controls. A major

source is any source that emits or has

the potential to emit 9.1 Mg (10 tons) of

any one HAP or 22.7 Mg (25 tons) of any

combination of HAP annually. The EPA

published an initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576), and may amend the list at any

time.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The EPA will develop NESHAP to

control HAP emissions from both new

and existing sources according to the

statutory directions set out in section

112, as amended. The statute requires

the standard to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction of HAP emission

that is achievable taking into

consideration the cost of achieving the

emission reduction, any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts, and

energy requirements.

Emission reductions may be

accomplished through application of

measures, process, methods, systems, or

techniques, including, but not limited

to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or

eliminating emissions of, such

pollutants through process changes,

substitution of materials, or other

modifications, (2) enclosing systems or

processes to eliminate emissions, (3)

collecting, capturing, or treating such

pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive

emissions point, (4) design, equipment,

work practice, or operation standards

(including requirements for operator

training or certification) as provided in

section 112(h), or (5) a combination of

the above (section 112(d)(2)).

To develop a NESHAP, the EPA

collects information about the industry,

including information on emission

source characteristics, control

technologies, data from HAP emissions

tests at well-controlled facilities, and

information on the costs and other

energy and environmental impacts of

emission control techniques. The EPA

uses this information to analyze

possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP are normally

structured in terms of numerical

emission limits, alternative approaches

are sometimes necessary. In some cases,

for example, physically measuring

emissions from a source may be

impossible, or at least impractical,

because of technological and economic

limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes

the Administrator to promulgate a

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard, or a combination

thereof, in those cases where it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an

emissions standard.

If sources in the source category are

major sources, a MACT standard is

required for those major sources. The

regulation of area sources in a source

category is discretionary. If EPA finds a

threat of adverse effects on human

health or the environment, then the

source category can be added to the list

of area sources to be regulated.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

After the EPA identifies the specific

source categories or subcategories of

major sources to regulate under section

112, it must set MACT standards for

each category or subcategory. Section

112 limits the EPA’s discretion by

establishing a minimum baseline or

‘‘floor’’ for standards. For new sources,

the standards for a source category or

subcategory cannot be less stringent
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41511

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, as determined

by the Administrator (section 112(d)(3)).

The standards for existing sources can

be less stringent than standards for new

sources, but they cannot be less

stringent than the average emission

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing

sources (excluding certain sources) for

categories or subcategories with 30 or

more sources, or the best-performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources (section

112(d)(3)).

After the floor has been determined

for new or existing sources in a source

category or subcategory, the

Administrator must set a MACT

standard for each category or

subcategory that is no less stringent than

the floor. Such standard must then be

met by all sources within the category

or subcategory.

Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the

EPA shall establish standards that

require the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of HAP ‘‘that the

Administrator, taking into consideration

the cost of achieving such emission

reduction, and any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts and

energy requirements, determines is

achievable * * *.’’

In establishing standards, the

Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources

within a category or subcategory

(section 112(d)(1)). For example, the

Administrator could establish two

classes of sources within a category or

subcategory based on size and establish

a different emissions standard for each

class, provided both standards are at

least as stringent as the MACT floor for

that class of sources.

The next step in establishing MACT

standards is the investigation of

regulatory alternatives. For MACT

standards, only alternatives at least as

stringent as the floor may be selected.

Information about the industry is

analyzed to develop model plant

populations for projecting national

impacts, including HAP emission

reduction levels, costs, energy, and

secondary impacts. Several regulatory

alternative levels are then evaluated to

select the regulatory alternative that best

reflects the appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more

stringent than the MACT floor, but the

control level selected, if it is more

stringent than the floor, must be

technically and economically

achievable. In selecting a regulatory

alternative that represents MACT, the

EPA considers the achievable emission

reductions of HAP (and possibly other

pollutants that are co-controlled), cost,

and economic impacts, energy impacts,

and other environmental impacts. The

objective is to achieve the maximum

degree of emissions reduction without

unreasonable economic or other impacts

(section 112(d)(2)). The regulatory

alternatives selected for new and

existing sources may be different

because of different MACT floors, and

separate regulatory decisions may be

made for new and existing sources.

The selected regulatory alternative is

translated into a proposed regulation.

The regulation implementing the MACT

decision typically includes sections on

applicability, standards, test methods

and compliance demonstrations,

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping. The preamble to the

proposed regulation provides an

explanation of the rationale for the

decision. The public is invited to

comment on the proposed regulation

during the public comment period.

Based on an evaluation of these

comments, the EPA reaches a final

decision and promulgates the standard.

IV. Summary of Proposed Ferronickel

Rule

A. Sources To Be Regulated

The proposed NESHAP would apply

to new and existing ferronickel

production facilities that are major

sources or are co-located at major

sources. The HAP emission sources at a

ferronickel production facility that

would be affected by this rule are: (1)

Ferronickel ore processing (which

includes the ore dryer, raw material

crushing and screening, ore storage bins,

and hot ore transfer), (2) calcining and

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces, (3)

ferronickel refining furnaces, and (4)

fugitive dust sources.

B. Emission Limits and Maintenance

Requirements

Emission limits are being proposed

for the air pollution control devices

serving the following emission units:

calcining and ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces, ferronickel ore

processing, and ferronickel refining

furnaces. The proposed standard would

require that the emissions of particulate

matter (PM)(as a surrogate for metallic

HAP) from each air pollution control

device serving new and existing

calciners and ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces shall not exceed 34

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

(mg/dscm) (0.015 grains per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). The

weighted average emissions of PM from

the air pollution control devices serving

ferronickel ore processing shall not

exceed 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).

Finally, the emissions of PM from each

air pollution control device serving the

ferronickel refining furnaces shall not

exceed 2.3 mg/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf).

The proposed standard would also

establish a 20 percent opacity limit on

air pollution control devices serving the

existing calciners and ferronickel

electric arc melt furnaces and on the

smelter building, which houses one or

more of the ferronickel electric arc

furnaces. The smelter building opacity

limit would focus on those furnace

emissions escaping capture by the

furnace hood.

The proposed standard also imposes a

duty on the owner or operator to

prepare and at all times operate

according to a fugitive dust control plan

that describes the measures that will be

put in place to control fugitive dust

sources. Fugitive dust HAP emissions

can be generated when dust containing

metallic HAP is released into the

outdoor air. The entrainment of dust

containing metallic HAP into the

outdoor air may be caused by natural

events (e.g., wind erosion of feed storage

piles) or by operations conducted by

facility personnel. Potential fugitive

dust emission sources at ferronickel

facilities include: (1) Dust entrained

when transporting on unpaved roads at

the site, HAP-containing materials in

dump trucks, front-end loaders, and

other vehicles; (2) dust generated when

unloading or loading HAP-containing

materials from or into trucks or railcars;

(3) wind erosion of outdoor storage

piles, and (4) transferring HAPcontaining materials to or from

conveyor systems.

This written plan would be prepared

by the owner or operator and would

describe the specific control measures

that are used to limit fugitive dust

emissions from the individual sources at

the ferronickel facility. The duty of the

owner or operator to operate according

to the fugitive dust control plan would

be incorporated into the operating

permit for the ferronickel facility that is

issued by the designated permitting

authority under 40 CFR part 70 (the

actual fugitive dust control plan for a

facility would not be part of the permit

itself). Examples of control measures

that could be included in the written

fugitive dust control plan include, but

are not limited to, covering conveyor

systems and using local ventilation

hoods vented to a control device at the

conveyor transfer points; placing

metallic HAP-containing stockpiles

below grade or installing wind screens

or wind fences around the stockpiles;

and spraying water or applying
41512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

appropriate dust suppression agents on

roadways or outdoor storage piles.

Proper maintenance of emission

sources and air pollution control

devices to minimize HAP emissions is

an essential component of the proposed

standard. In addition to satisfying the

maintenance requirements imposed by

§ 63.6(e) of the part 63 General

Provisions (the General Provisions),

owners and operators would be required

to develop and implement a written

maintenance plan for each air pollution

control device subject to this subpart.

The procedures specified in the

maintenance plan shall include, at a

minimum, a preventive maintenance

schedule that is consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions.

Finally, the owner or operator must

also perform monthly operational status

inspections of the equipment that is

important to the performance of the

capture system (i.e., pressure sensors,

dampers, and damper switches).

C. Compliance Provisions

Compliance with the standards would

need to be achieved within 2 years of

promulgation for existing sources, and

upon startup for new or reconstructed

sources.

The owner or operator would be

required to conduct an initial

compliance test as well as subsequent

performance tests at each renewal of the

source’s Title V operating permit for all

of the air pollution control devices

subject to the emission limitations to

demonstrate compliance with them.

Thereafter, the owner or operator would

conduct annual performance tests for

the air pollution control devices serving

the calciners and ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces.

Compliance with the emission limit

for the calciners and ferronickel electric

arc melt furnaces and for the ferronickel

refining furnaces is achieved if the

outlet concentration value is less than or

equal to the applicable emission

limitation. Compliance with the

emission limit for the ferronickel ore

processing operation is achieved if the

weighted average outlet concentration is

less than or equal to the emission

limitation based on the combined mass

emission rates of all streams divided by

the total air flow rates of the combined

streams.

In addition to satisfying specified test

conditions, if the emission source is

controlled with a venturi scrubber, the

owner or operator shall also establish as

a site-specific operating parameter the

average pressure drop across the

scrubber during the performance test.

The owner or operator may choose to

augment the data obtained from the

initial compliance test by either

conducting multiple performance tests

to establish a range of compliant

operating values or by using historic

compliance data obtained in a manner

consistent with the test methods and

other compliance requirements of the

subpart to establish the range. In either

case, the lowest value of the range

would be selected as the operating

parameter monitoring value. This value

will serve as a direct measure of

compliance with the PM concentration

limit.

To demonstrate compliance with the

opacity standard, the owner or operator

would be required to conduct initial

opacity observations for the air

pollution control devices serving the

existing calciners and ferronickel

electric arc melt furnaces and for the

smelter buildings subject to the

standards. Compliance would be

demonstrated by observations that are

less than the limit specified in the

proposed standard. The owner or

operator would then conduct weekday

opacity observations for the air

pollution control devices serving the

existing calciners and ferronickel

electric arc melt furnaces to demonstrate

ongoing compliance with the opacity

standard.

Ongoing compliance with the smelter

building standard is established through

the use of parameter monitoring. During

the period when the initial smelter

building opacity observations are

conducted, the owner or operator would

establish the capture system operating

parameters selected by the owner or

operator for ongoing monitoring. The

operating parameters to be established

are either the control system fan motor

amperes and damper positions, the total

volumetric flow rate to the air pollution

control device and all damper positions,

or the volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood. In order to

demonstrate ongoing compliance with

the smelter building opacity standard,

the owner or operator would monitor

the selected capture system parameters.

Compliance with the work practice

standard would be demonstrated by

having a fugitive dust control plan. In

addition, the owner or operator would

be required to report any deviations in

operation from the manual and any

failure to take necessary corrective

action. Failure to achieve compliance

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 that minimize

emissions per § 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the

General Provisions.

Sampling locations for all compliance

tests would be determined by EPA

Reference Method 1. Stack gas velocity

and volumetric flow rate would be

determined by EPA Reference Method 2.

Gas analysis would be conducted

according to EPA Reference Methods 3

and 4. Determination of PM emissions

would require use of EPA Method 5

(negative pressure baghouses and

scrubbers) or Method 5D (positive

pressure baghouses). The State of

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality Source Sampling Method 8,

Sampling Particulate Emissions from

Stationary Sources (High Volume

Method), may be used instead of

Method 5 for negative pressure

baghouses. The use of Oregon Method 8

would be limited to ferronickel sources

located in the State of Oregon. The EPA

Reference Method 9 will be used to

determine compliance with the opacity

limits.

D. Monitoring Requirements

The proposed standard would

establish monitoring requirements for

the air pollution control devices serving

the affected units subject to the

emission limitation standard. The

requirements would vary depending on

the type of air pollution control device

and the affected units. For the

baghouses serving the existing calciners

and ferronickel electric arc melt

furnaces, the owner or operator shall

conduct weekday opacity observations

in accordance with Method 9 for at least

one 6-minute period during normal

operation of the baghouse. Observations

that exceed the opacity limitation would

be a violation of the opacity standard,

unless the owner or operator can

demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that the exceedance was due

to an upset condition or malfunction.

For those remaining units or for any

new or reconstructed ferronickel electric

arc furnaces served by baghouses, the

owner or operator would be required to

monitor for the presence of visible

emissions on a daily basis. If any visible

emissions are observed, the owner or

operator would be required to take

corrective action as soon as practicable

after the occurrence of the visible

emissions observation. Failure to

conduct observations or to take

correction action would be a violation of

the general duty to operate in a manner

consistent with good air pollution

control practices that minimize

emissions per § 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the

General Provisions.

In addition to the weekday opacity

observations or the visible emissions

observations, compliance assurance

would also be achieved for all affected
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41513

baghouses by monitoring specified

baghouse parameters. The parameters

include daily monitoring of pressure

drop, weekly confirmation that dust is

being removed from hoppers, daily

check of compressed air supply for

pulse-jet baghouses, monitoring

cleaning cycles, monthly checks of bag

cleaning mechanisms for proper

functioning, quarterly confirmation of

the physical integrity of the baghouse,

and semiannual inspection of the fans.

Negative pressure baghouses or positive

pressure baghouses equipped with a

stack would also be required to be

equipped with a bag leak detection

system capable of detecting PM

emissions at concentrations of 10

milligrams per actual cubic meter

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) and

satisfying other design criteria specified

in § 63.1625(a)(4).

For those sources controlled with a

venturi scrubber, the owner or operator

would be required to monitor and

record the pressure drop at the venturi

at least every 5 minutes and to maintain

the average hourly pressure drop at or

above the average pressure drop

measured during the compliance

demonstration. A pressure drop

measurement lower than this limit

would be considered a violation of the

standard, unless the owner or operator

can demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that a decrease in the

pressure drop was due to an upset

condition or malfunction.

As part of the start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction plan developed pursuant to

§ 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall

develop and implement corrective

action procedures to be followed in the

following instances: (1) A bag leak

detection system alarm, (2) the

observation of visible emissions from

the baghouse, or (3) an indication

through the periodic baghouse system

inspections that the system is not

operating properly. The owner or

operator shall initiate corrective action

as soon as practicable after the

occurrence of the observation or event

indicating a malfunction. Failure to

monitor or failure to take corrective

action under the requirements 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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

An important element of the proposed

NESHAP is to ensure that the capture

system, which means the equipment

(including hoods, ducts, fans, dampers)

used to capture or transport PM

generated by an affected ferronickel

electric arc furnace, is properly operated

and maintained. Unless the owner or

operator uses the provisions of § 63.8(f)

of the General Provisions to request

approval to use an alternative

monitoring method, the owner or

operator has three options to select from

in performing this monitoring. First, the

owner or operator may elect to check

and record the control system fan motor

amperes and damper positions on a

once-per-shift basis. Alternatively, the

owner or operator may elect to install,

calibrate, and maintain a monitoring

device that continuously records the

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood. Finally, the

owner or operator may choose to

continuously record the volumetric flow

rate at the inlet of the air pollution

control device in addition to checking

and recording damper positions on a

once-per shift basis. Operation of the

control system fan motor amperes at

values less than the value established

during the performance test or operation

at flow rates lower than those

established during the performance test

would establish the need to initiate

corrective action as soon as practicable

after the monitoring exceedance. Failure

to monitor or failure to take corrective

action would be a violation of the

general duty to operate in a manner

consistent with good air pollution

control practices that minimizes

emissions per § 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the

General Provisions.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

The owner or operator would be

required to submit notifications

described in the General Provisions,

which include initial notification of

applicability, notifications of

performance tests and of opacity and

visible emissions observations, and

notification of compliance status.

As required by the General

Provisions, the owner or operator would

be required to submit a report of

performance test results and opacity or

visible emissions observations, and

report semiannually any events where

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan was not followed. In addition to

the information required under § 63.10

of the General Provisions, the owner or

operator shall submit semiannual

reports required under the baghouse

maintenance plan and the fugitive dust

control plan. The owner or operator

shall also submit reports of excess

emissions events such as the

exceedance of the scrubber pressure

drop limit or the exceedance of the

opacity limit on a quarterly basis, unless

the owner or operator can satisfy the

requirements in § 63.10(e)(3) of the

General Provisions. Finally, the owner

or operator must submit semiannual

reports on the capture system that

address any monitoring parameter

exceedances and the corrective actions

taken.

The owner or operator also would be

required to maintain records required by

the General Provisions and records

needed to document compliance with

the standard. These records would

include operating parameter

measurements, a copy of the written

operation and maintenance plans, and

air pollution control device inspection

records.

All records must be retained for at

least five years following the date of

each occurrence, measurement,

maintenance, corrective action, report,

or record. The records for the most

recent two years must be retained on

site; records for the remaining three

years may be retained off site, but still

must be readily available for review.

The files may be retained on microfilm,

microfiche, on a computer, or on

computer or magnetic disks. The owner

or operator may report required

information on paper or a labeled

computer disk using commonly

available and compatible computer

software.

V. Summary of Proposed

Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, and

Ferrochromium Rule

A. Sources To Be Regulated

The proposed NESHAP would apply

to new and existing ferroalloy

production facilities that manufacture

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, and

ferrochromium and are major sources or

are co-located at major sources. The

HAP emission sources at a ferroalloy

production facility that would be

affected by the rule are: Open

submerged arc furnaces, semi-closed

submerged arc furnaces, metal oxygen

refining (MOR) process, crushing and

screening operations, and fugitive dust

sources.

B. Emission Limits and Maintenance

Requirements

Emission limits are being proposed

for new and reconstructed open

submerged arc furnaces and semi-closed

submerged arc furnaces. The proposed

requirement is that the combined

emissions collected from the furnace

surface (primary emissions) and from

the tapping operation may not exceed

0.23 kilograms of PM per hour per

megawatt (kg/hr/MW) (0.51 pounds of

PM per hour per megawatt (lb/hr/MW)).

In addition, the EPA proposes that

emission streams from any new or

reconstructed MOR process or
41514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

individual equipment associated with

the crushing and screening operation

may not exceed 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/

dscf). Fugitive dust sources at the plant

would be subject to the applicable work

practice standards for existing sources.

Standards for existing ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces depend on the

design of the furnace. Elkem Marietta

has a single semi-closed submerged arc

furnace, whose design is unique in the

industry. This furnace is equipped with

a cover over the furnace surface with

openings in the cover to accommodate

the electrodes. Emissions that are not

ducted to a control device are collected

above the cover and vented through four

stacks directly to the atmosphere.

Emissions from the control device

containing primary emissions from this

furnace would be limited to 0.04 kg/hr/

MW (0.09 lb/hr/MW) of PM. Combined

vent stack emissions may not exceed

0.67 kg/hr/MW (1.48 lb/hr/MW) of PM.

The remaining furnaces at Elkem

Marietta are of the open furnace design,

which is characterized by the presence

of a canopy hood above the furnace

surface that collects primary emissions.

Combined primary and tapping

emissions from each of the open

furnaces would be limited to 0.51 kg/hr/

MW (1.13 lb/hr/MW) of PM.

Other emission sources at the facility

include the MOR process and crushing

and screening operations. In addition,

tapping emissions from the semi-closed

submerged arc furnace are controlled by

the baghouse that controls emissions

from the MOR process. Emissions from

each air pollution control device serving

these sources would be limited to 69

mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) of PM.

The proposed standard would

establish a 20 percent opacity limit on

the shop buildings housing one or more

of the open submerged arc furnaces. The

shop building opacity limit would focus

on those furnace emissions escaping

capture by the furnace hood. A different

limit is proposed for the shop building

housing the semi-closed submerged arc

furnace because two of the furnace draft

stacks exhaust directly into the roof

monitor. Visible emissions from this

building may exceed greater than 20

percent opacity, for not more than one

distinct 6-minute period in any 60

minutes, but shall not exceed 60

percent, as a distinct 6-minute block

average at any time.

The proposed standard also imposes a

duty on the owner or operator to

prepare and at all times operate

according to a fugitive dust control plan

that describes the measures that will be

put in place to control fugitive dust

sources. Fugitive dust HAP emissions

can be generated when dust containing

metallic HAP is released into the

outdoor air. The entrainment of dust

containing metallic HAP into the

outdoor air may be caused by natural

events (e.g., wind erosion of feed storage

piles) or by operations conducted by

facility personnel. Potential fugitive

dust emission sources at

ferromanganese facilities include: (1)

Dust entrained when transporting on

unpaved roads at the site, HAPcontaining materials in dump trucks,

front-end loaders, and other vehicles; (2)

dust generated when unloading or

loading HAP-containing materials from

or into trucks or railcars; (3) wind

erosion of outdoor storage piles, and (4)

transferring HAP-containing materials to

or from conveyor systems.

This written plan would be prepared

by the owner or operator and would

describe the specific control measures

that are used to limit fugitive dust

emissions from the individual sources at

the ferromanganese facility. The duty of

the owner or operator to operate

according to the fugitive dust control

plan would be incorporated into the

operating permit for the ferromanganese

facility that is issued by the designated

permitting authority under 40 CFR part

70 (the actual fugitive dust control plan

for a facility would not be part of the

permit itself). Examples of control

measures that could be included in the

written fugitive dust control plan

include, but are not limited to, covering

conveyor systems and using local

ventilation hoods vented to a control

device at the conveyor transfer points;

placing metallic HAP-containing

stockpiles below grade or installing

wind screens or wind fences around the

stockpiles; and spraying water or

applying appropriate dust suppression

agents on roadways or outdoor storage

piles.

Proper maintenance of emission

sources and air pollution control

devices to minimize HAP emissions is

an essential component of the proposed

standard. In addition to satisfying the

maintenance requirements imposed by

§ 63.6(e) of the part 63 General

Provisions, owners and operators would

be required to develop and implement

a written maintenance plan for each air

pollution control device subject to this

subpart. The procedures specified in the

maintenance plan shall include, at a

minimum, a preventive maintenance

schedule that is consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions.

Finally, the owner or operator must

also perform monthly operational status

inspections of the equipment that is

important to the performance of the

capture system (i.e., pressure sensors,

dampers, and damper switches).

C. Compliance Provisions

Compliance with the standards would

need to be achieved within 2 years of

promulgation for existing sources, and

upon startup for new or reconstructed

sources.

The owner or operator would be

required to conduct an initial

compliance test for the air pollution

control devices and vent stacks subject

to the standard to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable

emission limits. Thereafter, the owner

or operator must conduct annual

performance tests for the air pollution

control devices associated with the

ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, with

the exception of any air pollution

control devices that also serve nonfurnace emission sources.

In addition to satisfying specified test

conditions, if the emission source is

controlled with a venturi scrubber, the

owner or operator shall also establish as

a site-specific operating parameter the

average pressure drop across the

scrubber during the performance test.

The owner or operator may choose to

augment the data obtained from the

initial compliance test by either

conducting multiple performance tests

to establish a range of compliant

operating values or by using historic

compliance data obtained in a manner

consistent with the test methods and

other compliance requirements of the

subpart to establish the range. In either

case, the lowest value of the range

would be selected as the operating

parameter monitoring value. This value

will serve as a direct measure of

compliance for purposes of monitoring.

To demonstrate compliance with the

opacity standard, the owner or operator

would be required to conduct initial

opacity observations for the shop

buildings subject to the standards.

Compliance would be demonstrated by

observations that are less than the limit

specified in the proposed standard.

Ongoing compliance with the shop

building standard is established through

the use of parameter monitoring. During

the period when the initial shop

building opacity observations are

conducted, the owner or operator would

establish the capture system operating

parameters selected by the owner or

operator for ongoing monitoring. The

operating parameters to be established

are either the control system fan motor

amperes and damper positions, the total

volumetric flow rate to the air pollution

control device and all damper positions,

or the volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood. In order to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41515

demonstrate ongoing compliance with

the shop building opacity standard, the

owner or operator would monitor the

selected capture system parameters.

Compliance with the work practice

standard would be demonstrated by

having a fugitive dust control plan. In

addition, the owner or operator would

be required to report any deviations in

operation from the manual and to take

necessary corrective action. Failure to

achieve compliance 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

that minimize emissions per

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions.

Sampling locations for all compliance

tests would be determined by EPA

Reference Method 1. Stack gas velocity

and volumetric flow rate would be

determined by EPA Reference Method 2.

Gas analysis would be conducted

according to EPA Reference Methods 3

and 4. Determination of PM emissions

would require use of EPA Method 5

(negative pressure baghouses and

scrubbers) or Method 5D (positive

pressure baghouses). The EPA Reference

Method 9 will be used to determine

compliance with the opacity limits.

D. Monitoring Requirements

The proposed standard would

establish monitoring requirements for

the air pollution control devices serving

the affected units subject to the

emission limitation standard. The

requirements would vary depending on

the type of air pollution control device

and the affected units.

The baghouse monitoring

requirements for the Ferromanganese

rule would require the owner or

operator to monitor on a daily basis for

the presence of any visible emissions for

the baghouses serving the ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces, the MOR

process, and the crushing and screening

operation. If any visible emissions are

observed, the owner or operator would

be required to take corrective action as

soon as practicable after the occurrence

of the visible emissions observation.

Failure to conduct observations or to

take corrective action would be a

violation of the general duty to operate

in a manner consistent with good air

pollution control practices that

minimize emissions per § 63.6(e)(1)(i) of

the General Provisions.

In addition to the visible emissions

observations, compliance assurance

would also be achieved for all affected

baghouses by monitoring specified

baghouse parameters. The parameters

include daily monitoring of pressure

drop, weekly confirmation that dust is

being removed from hoppers, daily

check of compressed air supply for

pulse-jet baghouses, monitoring

cleaning cycles, monthly checks of bag

cleaning mechanisms for proper

functioning, quarterly confirmation of

the physical integrity of the baghouse,

and semiannual inspection of the fans.

Negative pressure baghouses or positive

pressure baghouses equipped with a

stack would also be required to be

equipped with a bag leak detection

system capable of detecting PM

emissions at concentrations of 10

milligrams per actual cubic meter

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) and

satisfying other design criteria specified

in § 63.1625(a)(4).

For those sources controlled with a

venturi scrubber, the owner or operator

would be required to monitor and

record the pressure drop at the venturi

at least every 5 minutes and to maintain

the average hourly pressure drop at or

above the average pressure drop

measured during the compliance

demonstration. A pressure drop

measurement lower than this limit

would be considered a violation of the

standard, unless the owner or operator

can demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that a decrease in the

pressure drop was due to an upset

condition or malfunction.

As part of the start-up, shutdown, and

malfunction plan developed pursuant to

§ 63.6(e), the owner or operator shall

develop and implement corrective

action procedures to be followed in the

following instances: (1) A bag leak

detection system alarm, (2) the

observation of visible emissions from

the baghouse, or (3) and the indication

through the periodic baghouse system

inspections that the system is not

operating properly. The owner or

operator shall initiate corrective action

as soon as practicable after the

occurrence of the observation or event

indicating a malfunction. Failure to

monitor or failure to take corrective

action under the requirements 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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

The owner or operator shall monitor

the capture system, which means the

equipment (including hoods, ducts,

fans, dampers) used to capture or

transport PM generated by an affected

ferroalloy electric arc furnace, to ensure

it is properly operated and maintained.

Unless the owner or operator uses the

provisions of § 63.8(f) of the General

Provisions to request approval to use an

alternative monitoring method, the

owner or operator has three options to

select from in performing this

monitoring. First, the owner or operator

may elect to check and record the

control system fan motor amperes and

damper positions on a once-per-shift

basis. Alternatively, the owner or

operator may elect to install, calibrate,

and maintain a monitoring device that

continuously records the volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood. Finally, the owner or

operator may choose to continuously

record the volumetric flow rate at the

inlet of the air pollution control device

in addition to checking and recording

damper positions on a once-per-shift

basis. Operation of the control system

fan motor amperes at values less than

the value established during the

performance test or operation at flow

rates lower than those established

during the performance test would

establish the need to initiate corrective

action as soon as practicable after the

monitoring exceedance. Failure to

monitor or failure to take corrective

action would be a violation of the

general duty to operate in a manner

consistent with good air pollution

control practices that minimizes

emissions per § 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the

General Provisions.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

The owner or operator would be

required to submit notifications

described in the General Provisions,

which include initial notification of

applicability, notifications of

performance tests and of opacity or

visible emissions observations, and

notification of compliance status.

As required by the General

Provisions, the owner or operator would

be required to submit a report of

performance test results and opacity or

visible emissions observations, and

report semiannually any events where

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan was not followed. In addition to

the information required under § 63.10

of the General Provisions, the owner or

operator shall submit semiannual

reports required under the baghouse

maintenance plan and the fugitive dust

control plan. The owner or operator

shall also submit reports of excess

emissions events such as the

exceedance of the scrubber pressure

drop limit on a quarterly basis, unless

the owner or operator can satisfy the

requirements in § 63.10(e)(3) of the

General Provisions. Finally, the owner

or operator must submit semiannual

reports on the capture system that

address any monitoring parameter

exceedances and the corrective actions

taken.
41516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The owner or operator also would be

required to maintain records required by

the General Provisions and records

needed to document compliance with

the standard. These records would

include operating parameter

measurements, a copy of the written

operation and maintenance plans, and

air pollution control device inspection

records.

All records must be retained for at

least five years following the date of

each occurrence, measurement,

maintenance, corrective action, report,

or record. The records for the most

recent two years must be retained on

site; records for the remaining three

years may be retained off site, but still

must be readily available for review.

The files may be retained on microfilm,

microfiche, on a computer, or on

computer or magnetic disks. The owner

or operator may report required

information on paper or a labeled

computer disk using commonly

available and compatible computer

software.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

The following discussion of

environmental, energy, and economic

impacts is limited to the only two

facilities that exist and that will be

subject to these standards if adopted. As

discussed earlier, it is possible that the

existing ferronickel facility will be

permanently shut down, which would

then limit impacts of this rule to the

ferromanganese facility. No new

facilities are currently anticipated.

If Glenbrook Nickel continues to

operate, the EPA anticipates that the

proposed levels of control for the

Ferronickel rule will have the primary

effect of codifying existing control

equipment and practices. Elkem

Marietta should also be able to comply

with the proposed standards with

existing control equipment and

practices. Therefore, no additional

emission control equipment would be

required to comply with the proposed

standards, and no significant emission

reduction or other environmental

impacts are anticipated to result from

this rulemaking.

When compared to existing State

permit conditions, however, apparent

differences in the levels of allowable

emissions occur for some of the

proposed standards. In the case of

Glenbrook Nickel, the baghouses serving

the calciners and ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces have allowable emissions

of approximately 1,550 tons per year of

PM based on the July 1997 test results.

However, if those baghouses were

emitting at the level of the proposed

standard (i.e., 34 mg/dscm or 0.015 gr/

dscf) their combined emissions would

be 350 tons per year of PM, which

represents a 77-percent reduction in

allowable PM emissions. Based on

discussions with plant personnel, the

EPA believes that a baghouse upgrade

being planned should substantially

improve the performance of these

baghouses, and the baghouses’ actual

performance will be much closer to the

proposed standard. If the EPA proceeds

with the final rule and test results are

available that demonstrate the

performance of the upgraded baghouses,

the EPA will consider these data in

setting the final standard.

In the case of Elkem Marietta, there

are apparent differences in the level of

control required under existing permit

conditions on the ferroalloy submerged

arc furnaces compared to the level of

control proposed in the MACT standard.

A calculation of permitted, allowable

emissions reveals that the source could

emit approximately 70 more tons of PM

per year than would be allowed under

the proposed MACT limits. However,

because the proposed MACT limits were

established to reflect actual performance

of the associated air pollution control

devices, the EPA believes that there

would be no measurable difference in

emissions in the absence of the MACT

standard.

Cost and economic impacts are

expected to be minimal. The only costs

associated with the proposed standards

are those required to perform

compliance assurance activities such as

performance testing, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping. However,

these costs are minor compared to costs

already incurred by the facilities in

meeting their permit obligations.

Section VIII.F. of this preamble

addresses the recordkeeping and

reporting burden associated with

Federal rules.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the

Proposed Standards

This section describes the rationale

for the decisions made by the

Administrator in selecting the proposed

standards.

A. Selection of Source Category and

Pollutants

The EPA published an initial list of

categories of major and area sources of

HAP selected for regulation in

accordance with section 112(c) of the

Act in the Federal Register on July 16,

1992 (57 FR 31576). Ferroalloys

production is one of the 174 categories

of sources listed. The category, as

initially defined, consisted of any

facility engaged in producing ferroalloys

such as ferrosilicon, ferromanganese,

and ferrochromium and similarly

produced products such as calcium

carbide. A preliminary survey of the

industry revealed the presence of 18

ferroalloys facilities producing

ferronickel and related products such as

silicon metal and calcium carbide in

addition to the products listed above.

The 1992 listing was based on the

Administrator’s determination that

ferroalloys production facilities may

reasonably be anticipated to emit

several of the 188 listed HAP in

quantities sufficient to designate them

as major sources. Major sources are

defined in the Act as those sources that

emit or have the potential to emit,

considering controls, greater than 9.1

Mg/yr (10 tpy) of a single HAP or greater

than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of a

combination of HAP (section 112(a)(1)).

Ferroalloys production facilities emit

several of the HAP listed in section

112(b) of the Act. For example, the

Agency has determined that polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which

are a surrogate for polycylcic organic

matter (POM), are emitted from

ferroalloy facilities. However, estimated

quantities from the entire industry are

0.26 tons per year to 0.56 tons per year,

depending on the number of PAH

compounds included in the estimate.

Metallic HAP such as arsenic,

chromium, manganese, nickel, lead,

antimony, cadmium, mercury,

selenium, and cobalt are also emitted.

However, at most ferroalloy facilities

these emissions are the result of metals

present in trace quantities in raw

materials, and the sources do not emit

major source quantities. For these

sources, potential HAP emissions per

facility were estimated to range from 40

pounds per year up to 11 tons per year,

which are all below major source

thresholds.

However, at facilities that produce

products containing a metallic HAP as

a major constituent of the final product,

HAP emissions approach or exceed

major source thresholds. One facility,

the only existing ferrochromium

producer, has certified in its Title V

permit application that its potential

emissions are below major source

thresholds. Both the State and EPA have

reviewed the supporting calculations,

and concur with the facility’s

conclusion. The only other domestic

producers of products containing HAP

as a major constituent (i.e., the

production of ferronickel at Glenbrook

Nickel and the production of

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, and,

potentially, ferrochromium at Elkem

Marietta) have a potential to emit, and

actually do emit, at levels above the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41517

major source thresholds. Therefore, the

proposed standards will limit metallic

HAP (and PM (most of which are less

than 1.5 microns in diameter))

emissions from existing and new and

reconstructed ferronickel production

facilities and ferromanganese,

silicomanganese, and ferrochromium

production facilities.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

For the purpose of implementing a

NESHAP, an affected source is defined

to mean the stationary source, group of

stationary sources, or portion of a

stationary source that is regulated by a

relevant standard or other requirement

established under section 112 of the

Act. Each relevant standard is to

designate the affected source for the

purpose of implementing that standard.

Within a source category, the EPA

selects the emission sources (i.e.,

emission points or groupings of

emission points) for which emission

standards and other requirements are to

be established according to the statutory

directives set out in section 112. In

selecting the specific emission sources

requiring the development of air

standards, primary consideration is

given to the constituent HAP and

quantity emitted from individual or

groups of emission points.

In selecting the affected sources for

both the Ferronickel rule and the

Ferromanganese rule, the EPA sought to

identify the HAP-emitting operations at

each of the existing facilities. At the

ferronickel facility, these operations

consist of ferronickel ore processing,

calcining and the ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces, the ferronickel refining

furnaces, and fugitive dust sources.

These operations comprise the

collection of affected sources for the

Ferronickel rule. The proposed

standards for new, reconstructed, and

existing sources would apply to these

operations.

The operations at the Elkem Marietta

plant can be divided into two areas. One

area contains operations related to the

production of silicomanganese and

ferromanganese alloys in the three

operating submerged arc furnaces, is

physically located on the south side of

the facility, and emits over 99 percent

of the HAP emissions at the facility.

These HAP-emitting operations consist

of the ferroalloy submerged arc

furnaces, the MOR process, crushing

and screening operations, and fugitive

dust sources. These operations comprise

the collection of affected sources for the

Ferromanganese rule. The proposed

standards for new, reconstructed, and

existing sources would apply to these

operations.

Under the proposed Ferronickel rule,

new or reconstructed sources are subject

to the same emission limits as existing

sources. This is because new source and

existing source MACT are the same.

However, under the proposed

Ferromanganese rule, new or

reconstructed open submerged arc

furnaces, semi-closed submerged arc

furnaces, MOR processes, and crushing

and screening operations would be

subject to more stringent standards (e.g.,

new source MACT) than existing

sources. As described in the proposed

emission standards, the construction or

reconstruction of any one of these

operations would trigger the

applicability of new source MACT on

that emission unit. The remaining

affected sources at the facility would

continue to be subject to existing source

MACT.

Other operations at Elkem Marietta,

which are all located on the north side

of the plant, include a Simplex

process, which uses a low-pressure

vacuum furnace to remove impurities

from briquettes to produce low carbon

ferrochrome, high chromium

ferrochrome, and nitrided

ferromanganese products. Elkem

Marietta also operates a briquetting

operation that produces several types of

specialty products including low carbon

ferrochrome, vacuum grade electrolytic

chromium, manganese nitride, and

aluminum alloy briquettes. Finally,

Elkem Marietta also operates two

electrolytic processes, manganese metal

and chromium metal, along with their

associated acid waste treatment system.

While these other operations emit some

HAP, their combined emissions are only

0.19 percent of total actual emissions,

which represents fewer than 800

pounds per year. Another way of

viewing the relative impact of the other

operations’ emission potential is that

they only represent 4 percent of the

ferroalloy submerged arc furnace mass

production capacity. The limited HAP

emitting potential of these sources has

led the EPA to exclude them from the

proposed affected source definition for

the Ferromanganese rule.

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards for Existing and

New Sources

1. Background

In general terms, ferroalloys

production consists of charging the

electric arc furnace (EAF) with raw

materials, smelting the ores, and tapping

or pouring the molten product. Other

emission sources relate to raw material

and product handling (e.g., crushing

and screening operations). However,

there are three operations that occur

only at the ferronickel production

facility. The first operation consists of

an ore dryer followed by rotary kiln

calciners to remove water from the ore

and increase the nickel and carbon

content of the ore. The second operation

is that of hot ore transfer. After

calcining, the hot ore is transferred by

inclined hoists to hot ore bins, from

which it is batch fed to the open arc

melt EAF. Finally, ladle treatment,

which is where the ferronickel reaction

occurs, is the third operation that is

unique to ferronickel production.

Because of these process differences,

and the impact they have on control

equipment configurations at the two

facilities, the EPA proposes to regulate

emissions from ferronickel processing

separately from emissions from

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, and

ferrochromium processing.

2. Selection of MACT

Because there are only two existing

major sources in the source category,

and the EPA has determined that it is

appropriate to distinguish between

them, the MACT floor for existing

sources for each facility type is based on

current emissions control practices at

each individual facility.

There are no viable, cost-effective

beyond-the-floor options for the control

devices already employed at Glenbrook

Nickel. Therefore, the existing emission

controls represent MACT for both new

and existing sources.

With the exception of fugitive dust

sources, all of the emission units at

Glenbrook Nickel are currently

controlled with baghouses or a scrubber

(in the case of the ore dryer). These

emission units can be further grouped as

(1) the baghouses controlling emissions

from the combined calciners and

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces, (2)

ferronickel ore processing, which

consists of the ore dryer, crushing and

screening operations, ore storage bins,

and hot ore transfer, and (3) the

ferronickel refining furnaces. The

baghouses serving the combined

calciners and ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces emit over 90 percent of

the stationary source PM emissions

within the affected facility. The

remaining 8 percent of emissions are

spread over 14 individual stationary

sources and comprise fewer than 32 lb/

hour of PM and 0.8 lb/hour of nickel

compounds on average.

In the case of Elkem Marietta, the

controls (e.g., scrubbers) in place on the

furnaces represent good air pollution

control practices. While the installation

of new baghouses represents a beyondthe-floor option, the costs of the
41518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

wholesale replacement of functioning

control devices is not justified. For

example, the cost effectiveness of

replacing both of the scrubbers

controlling open furnace emissions at

the Elkem Marietta facility is $29

thousand per ton of HAP emissions

reduced, based on the annualized cost

of the new baghouses. Therefore, the

MACT floor for existing sources is

selected as the MACT for the

Ferromanganese rule. However, the

owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed ferromanganese,

silicomanganese, or ferrochromium

electric arc furnace would be expected

to install a baghouse, which represents

the MACT level of technology for new

sources, because it is technically and

economically feasible for new sources.

The EPA has considerable experience

in developing new source performance

standards (NSPS) for similar sources

(part 60, subpart N Standards of

Performance for Primary Emissions from

Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces for

which Construction or Reconstruction

Commenced after June 11, 1973 and part

60, subpart LL Standards of

Performance for Metallic Mineral

Processing Plants.) As a result of this

experience, the EPA believes that new,

state-of-the-art baghouses are capable of

achieving greater levels of emissions

reductions than are currently permitted

for the Elkem Marietta MOR process and

the crushing and screening operations.

Therefore, new source MACT for these

emission units is represented by the

performance that should be achievable

by new baghouses.

Fugitive dust emissions at existing

ferroalloy facilities (including

Glenbrook Nickel and Elkem Marietta)

are controlled by using a variety of

different methods. Not all facilities

control the same sources or use the

same type of control. The fugitive dust

control measures used at a given facility

vary depending on the dust controls

required by the facility’s State air permit

and the facility owner’s preferences and

policies regarding fugitive dust control.

These controls can range from daily

water spraying of plant roads and

outdoor storage piles to enclosure and

venting of the source to a control device.

No specific group of fugitive dust

control measures could be identified

that reflected an average emission

limitation for the existing facilities. The

EPA decided to propose that the MACT

floor for fugitive dust sources is to

develop and implement a site-specific

set of fugitive dust control measures to

be implemented according to a written

plan. No best-controlled fugitive dust

sources could be identified by the EPA.

Therefore, the proposed new source

MACT floor is the same as the existing

source MACT floor for fugitive dust

sources. For these reasons, the EPA

proposes that the MACT floor should

equal MACT.

D. Selection of Format

Section 112 of the Act requires the

Administrator to prescribe emission

control standards for HAP control

unless, in the Administrator’s

judgement, it is not feasible to prescribe

or enforce emission standards. Section

112(h) defines two conditions under

which it is not feasible to prescribe or

enforce emission standards: (1) If the

HAP cannot be emitted through a

conveyance device designed and

constructed to emit or capture the HAP,

and (2) if the application of a

measurement methodology to a

particular class of sources in not

practicable because of technological or

economic limitations. If it is not feasible

to prescribe or enforce emission

standards, then the Administrator may

instead promulgate equipment, work

practice, design, or operational

standards, or a combination thereof.

For the Ferronickel rule, an emission

standard is feasible for the controlled

emission sources at the facility. The

EPA considered both a mass

concentration (mg/dscm (gr/dscf))

format and various process emission

rate formats. Although the process

emission rate formats had the advantage

of being consistent with the source’s

existing permit conditions, this

approach seemed unnecessarily

complex for purposes of the MACT

standards. Instead, the EPA selected an

outlet concentration format because it

represents a direct measure of

compliance and is consistent with other

similar standards in the metallurgical

industry.

The EPA chose to establish the

emission limitation using PM emissions

as a surrogate for the primary HAP,

which is nickel. The main reason is that

the facility faces differences in the

incoming grades of nickel, and

emissions can vary depending on the

nickel content of the ore. A PM standard

overcomes this variability. In addition,

the metallic HAP to be controlled by the

proposed standards, i.e., nickel, is a

component of the total PM released by

the emission sources at the facility.

Control of PM results in control of

nickel.

The EPA selected an opacity standard

for the air pollution control devices

serving the existing calciners and

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces.

The need for this limit was driven by

the fact that an opacity limit represents

the best means for allowing ongoing

compliance determinations from these

air pollution control devices. As they

are presently configured, these devices

are known to consistently emit visible

emissions, so a monitoring requirement

based on the baseline assumption of no

visible emissions is not appropriate. The

proposed opacity standard is also

consistent with the facility’s Title V

operating permit conditions for these

sources.

The EPA also proposes to establish an

opacity standard for the smelter

building housing the ferronickel EAF.

The limit on smelter building opacity is

a means of ensuring that the facility

operates and maintains good capture

systems on the furnaces to reduce

fugitive HAP emissions.

The third standard proposed is a work

practice standard on fugitive dust

sources within the plant, which include

plant roadways, yard areas, and outdoor

material storage and transfer operations.

Work practices are required because it is

not feasible to prescribe or enforce

emission standards for these sources.

The inherent mechanisms by which

pollutants are emitted from fugitive dust

sources prevents the application of

batch stack sampling methods to

measure the level of the emissions from

these sources. It is not feasible to

capture the emissions and subsequently

discharge these emissions through a

duct or other conveyance to a control

device. Therefore, as allowed under

section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA

decided to use a work practice format

for the proposed standards for fugitive

sources.

The proposed standards would

require the owner or operator to

implement appropriate work practice

control measures specific to the types of

fugitive dust sources at a facility. For

many fugitive dust sources there are

several equivalent control measures

available for controlling fugitive dust

emissions from a particular type of

source. Therefore, the standard for each

affected owner or operator to develop

and implement a site-specific fugitive

dust control plan is being proposed

rather than the EPA establishing the

specific individual work practices that

all owners and operators must use. The

EPA believes that flexibility provided to

the owner and operator by the sitespecific approach is needed because the

best fugitive dust control options for a

given facility are determined by the

physical layout of the facility, the types

of fugitive dust sources, and the control

measures that are already being

implemented. These factors vary

significantly from facility to facility.

An emission standard is feasible for

the controlled emission sources at
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41519

ferromanganese, silicomanganese,

ferrochromium production facilities.

The selection of specific formats was

driven in part by the body of data

available to establish the standard and

existing permit conditions. As discussed

in section VII.E. of this preamble, there

are numerous emission tests on the

control devices serving the three

existing furnaces at the Elkem Marietta

facility. Because these tests were

conducted to demonstrate compliance

with State PM limits, most of the tests

do not provide HAP emissions data.

This lack of HAP data combined with

the fact that variations in ore grade can

affect HAP emissions, has led EPA to

propose PM standards as a surrogate for

HAP. In addition, the metallic HAP to

be controlled by the proposed standard,

i.e., manganese and chromium, is a

component of the total PM released by

the emission sources at the facility.

Therefore, control of PM results in

control of metallic HAP.

An analysis of these test data has led

EPA to propose a standard for the

control devices serving the ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces in units of kg/

hr/MW. An advantage of this format is

that it allows the source to determine

compliance on the basis of combined

emission streams from the affected

furnaces. For example, the semi-closed

submerged arc furnace is equipped with

four draft stacks. The EPA is proposing

a standard for the combined emissions

from these stacks, which offers some

flexibility in the compliance

determination, because higher than

‘‘normal’’ emissions from one stack

could be offset by lower emissions in

another stack. Similarly, the open

submerged arc furnaces would be

subject to a standard for combined

primary emissions from the furnace

surface and tapping emissions. The

other advantage of this format is that

power consumption is a function of

production and is related to emission

rates. The plant continuously monitors

power consumption, so this data should

be readily available. Another advantage

to this format is that it is consistent with

the ferroalloys NSPS (part 60, subpart

Z), and is widely accepted by the

industry.

An emission limit in mg/dscm (gr/

dscf) is proposed for the MOR process

and the crushing and screening

operation air pollution control devices.

As discussed in section VII.E. of this

preamble, there are only limited data

available on the actual performance of

these control devices. This selected

format reflects existing permit

conditions and engineering judgement

that well operated and maintained

sources are capable of achieving these

limits on a continuous basis.

The EPA also proposes to establish

opacity standards for the shop buildings

housing the ferroalloy submerged arc

furnaces. The limits on shop building

opacity will ensure that the facility

operates and maintains good capture

systems on the furnaces to reduce

fugitive HAP emissions.

The third standard proposed for the

Ferromanganese rule is a work practice

standard on fugitive dust sources within

the plant, which include plant

roadways, yard areas, and outdoor

material storage and transfer operations.

Work practices are required because it is

not feasible to prescribe or enforce

emission standards for these sources.

The inherent mechanisms by which

pollutants are emitted from fugitive dust

sources prevents the application of

batch stack sampling methods to

measure the level of the emissions from

these sources. It is not feasible to

capture the emissions and subsequently

discharge these emissions through a

duct or other conveyance to a control

device. Therefore, as allowed under

section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA

decided to use a work practice format

for the proposed standards for fugitive

sources.

The proposed standards would

require the owner or operator to

implement appropriate work practice

control measures specific to the types of

fugitive dust sources at a facility. For

many fugitive dust sources there are

several equivalent control measures

available for controlling fugitive dust

emissions from a particular type of

source. Therefore, the standard for each

affected owner or operator to develop

and implement a site-specific fugitive

dust control plan is being proposed

rather than the EPA establishing the

specific individual work practices that

all owners and operators must use. The

EPA believes that flexibility provided to

the owner and operator by the sitespecific approach is needed because the

best fugitive dust control options for a

given facility are determined by the

physical layout of the facility, the types

of fugitive dust sources, and the control

measures that are already being

implemented. These factors vary

significantly from facility to facility.

E. Selection of Emission Limits

As discussed, each plant’s existing

emission controls represent the MACT

floor for each of the facility types.

Therefore, the EPA reviewed the test

data available on the emission control

devices at each of the plants. In most

cases, the performance measured in the

body of emission tests showed that the

sources were routinely achieving levels

of performance better than their

currently permitted emission limits for

PM. The EPA determined that the HAP

emission limits should reflect these

actual performance capabilities, and is

proposing standards on this basis.

1. Ferronickel Rule Emission Limits

At Glenbrook Nickel, the body of test

data is clouded by two factors. One

factor is that control device

configurations have changed

significantly over the years, and the

majority of the historical test data are

not representative of current operating

conditions. Another factor is that,

except for the two most recent tests, the

outlet air flow rates on the positive

pressure baghouses were improperly

calculated, leading to erroneously low

emission rates. Therefore, the plant

agreed to undertake a comprehensive

test program of all of the control devices

serving affected emission units to obtain

up-to-date measures of performance.

The test program occurred in July 1997.

Since that time, the plant has upgraded

both of the baghouses serving the

combined calciner and ferronickel

electric arc melt furnaces by replacing

the fabric filter bags. Both the plant and

the EPA would expect the performance

of the baghouses to improve after the

upgrade, perhaps substantially.

However, confirming test data are not

available at this time and may not be

available prior to promulgation of the

final rule.

The July 1997 test results revealed

good overall performance of the control

devices associated with the ferronickel

ore processing operation. The EPA

intends to base the proposed emission

limit for ferronickel ore processing at a

level that reflects the overall

performance of these sources, which is

69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf). The

proposed emission limit would be

calculated as a weighted average based

on the combined mass emission rates of

all streams divided by the total air flow

rates of the combined streams. The

emission limit would result in the same

level of control that would be achieved

by applying individual emission limits

on each piece of equipment without

resulting in unnecessary replacement of

individual controls with no additional

environmental benefit. In addition, the

emission characteristics of the group of

sources are similar, if not identical,

because all of the units are handling

similar materials, i.e., nickel ore.

Finally, the proposed level of control is

consistent with the proposed level of

control for similar ore handling

equipment at Elkem Marietta.
41520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The EPA also considered the July

1997 test results in establishing the

proposed emission limit for the

ferronickel refining furnaces. The EPA

proposes to set the emission limit at 2.3

mg/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf), which reflects

the highest outlet concentration

recorded on the six test runs (3 runs for

each control device). These units are

unique in the industry and their actual

performance reflects MACT. Because of

the limited test data available, (data

from 1996 was determined to reflect less

optimal operation and maintenance of

the control devices), the EPA is

proposing to base the standards on the

highest reported concentration to

address the possibility of variability in

performance.

The July 1997 test results on the

baghouses controlling the combined

calciner and ferronickel electric arc melt

furnace emissions indicated a level of

performance that is not an acceptable

basis for the MACT standard (outlet

concentrations of 120 to 180 mg/dscm

(0.052 to 0.080 gr/dscf)). Therefore, the

EPA proposes to set an emission limit

on each baghouse that reflects the

anticipated performance achievable by

MACT level performance on other

similar units. The EPA considered

several sources of information to

establish the proposed limit. For the

calciners, the EPA looked to the

performance required by the NSPS for

calciners and dryers, subpart UUU in 40

CFR part 60, which is 92 mg/dscm

(0.040 gr/dscf). For the furnaces, the

EPA considered the NSPS for electric

arc furnaces, subpart AA in 40 CFR part

60, which establishes furnace outlet

concentration limits at 12 mg/dscm

(0.0052 gr/dscf), and the NSPS for basic

oxygen process furnaces, subpart N in

40 CFR part 60, which establishes

furnace outlet concentration limits at 50

mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). Also, the EPA

considered the performance of other

large positive pressure baghouses

serving electric arc furnaces producing

ferrosilicon and silicon metal, which

use many of the same raw materials

(coal, woodchips, silicon, metallic ore)

as do the ferronickel furnaces. Based on

data gathered during a 1993–1994 test

program conducted by the industry, the

top five performing baghouses are

capable of achieving performance levels

of 5 to 14 mg/dscm (0.0022 to 0.006 gr/

dscf). (A summary of these test results

are in the project docket number A–92–

59.)

When these emission rates are

weighted by the relative air flows

between the calciners (15 percent) and

the ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces

(85 percent) at Glenbrook Nickel, an

overall performance level of 57 mg/

dscm (0.025 gr/dscf) is indicated if the

furnace factor analogous to the NSPS for

basic oxygen furnaces is selected.

However, if a furnace factor represented

by the performance of air pollution

control devices on electric arc furnaces

subject to the NSPS or to other

ferroalloy furnaces is selected (14 mg/

dscm (0.006 gr/dscf)) is selected, then

an overall level of performance of 25

mg/dscm (0.011 gr/dscf) is indicated.

The EPA believes that the MACT level

of performance lies between these two

values, and is probably better

represented by the data from existing

ferroalloy furnaces. Therefore, the EPA

proposes an emission limit of 34 mg/

dscm (0.015 gr/dscf).

As noted above, the plant has

upgraded the affected baghouses by

replacing the fabric filter bags. Should

test data confirming the performance of

these bags become available prior to

promulgation of the final rule, the EPA

would consider these data in setting the

final standard.

The EPA selected 20 percent opacity

as the standard for the smelter building.

This limit is based on the limit required

in the source’s Title V permit and is

representative of good performance.

Because of the unique nature of the

ferronickel production process, there are

no data on which to base a MACT

determination for new sources that

differs from the existing source

determination. Therefore, MACT for

existing sources is equivalent to MACT

for new sources.

2. Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese,

and Ferrochromium Standard Emission

Limits

As discussed in the previous section,

the majority of available test data from

the Elkem Marietta facility is for the

control devices serving the three

submerged arc furnaces. These data

were used to establish the emission

limits for these sources. Because of its

unique configuration, the data from the

semi-closed submerged arc furnace were

evaluated separately. The data from four

compliance tests on this furnace were

considered. Data from four additional

tests were excluded from consideration.

One test was excluded because the

pressure drops measured during the test

indicated abnormal operation of the

control device (a scrubber). Three other

tests were excluded because they were

not conducted using certified EPA

methods.

In order to monitor performance of

the scrubber serving the semi-closed

submerged arc furnace, the EPA decided

to separate the emission limit on the

scrubber from the limit on the

uncontrolled vent stacks. The maximum

scrubber emissions from the test data

was 0.04 kg/hr/MW (0.09 lb/hr/MW).

The maximum total emissions from the

four vent stacks were 0.67 kg/hr/MW

(1.48 lb/hr/MW). The EPA believes

these data represent the expected

variability of the emission sources.

These limits are the proposed MACT for

the semi-closed submerged arc furnace.

The remaining two open submerged

arc furnaces are similar in design, and

both primary and tapping emissions are

controlled. Fourteen compliance tests

comprise the body of available test data

over the last seven years. The maximum

combined primary and tapping

emissions from either of the furnaces

was determined to be 0.51 kg/hr/MW

(1.13 lb/hr/MW), which the EPA

selected as the MACT emission limit.

This value represents the normal

variability in emissions from these

sources.

The EPA also considered whether

new source MACT for an affected open

submerged arc furnace should be more

stringent (no new or reconstructed semiclosed submerged arc furnaces are

currently anticipated). In the absence of

recent test data on new, state-of-the-art

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, or

ferrochromium submerged arc furnaces,

the EPA chose to draw on the fact that

the existing NSPS for ferroalloy

production facilities would require a

new ferroalloy submerged arc furnace

producing these products to meet an

emission limit on the combined primary

emissions and tapping emissions stream

of 0.23 kg/hr/MW (0.51 lb/hr/MW). This

limit is proposed as new source MACT.

There are no reliable data on the MOR

process baghouse and the crushing and

screening baghouses, because the

facility is not required to test them in

order to satisfy existing permit

conditions. In the absence of these data,

the EPA selected the existing permit

requirements limiting emissions to 69

mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) on several of the

existing control devices as

representative of MACT performance.

Permit requirements also included

process weight rate limitations, but

because of the extremely generic nature

of these limitations and the lack of an

equipment specific correlation to actual

performance, the EPA did not consider

these in selecting the MACT floor.

For new or reconstructed MOR

processes or the equipment associated

with the crushing and screening

operation, the EPA believes that new

source MACT is represented by the

NSPS for similar sources. For example,

the part 60, subpart N Standards of

Performance for Primary Emissions from

Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces for

which Construction or Reconstruction
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41521

Commenced after June 11, 1973, limits

PM emissions to the equivalent of 50

mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). A basic oxygen

process furnaces melts metallic

materials in a vessel where oxygen rich

gas is introduced. The EPA believes that

a new or reconstructed MOR process

should be capable of meeting this level

of emissions reduction as well.

Similarly, the EPA believes that new

source MACT emission limits for

equipment associated with the crushing

and screening operation should be

capable of meeting the limits specified

in the part 60, subpart LL Standards of

Performance for Metallic Mineral

Processing Plants. The NSPS limits

crusher PM emissions to the equivalent

of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).

Therefore, new source MACT limits of

50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) are

proposed for the MOR process and for

individual equipment associated with

the crushing and screening operation.

The EPA selected 20 percent opacity

as the standard for the shop buildings

housing the open submerged arc

furnaces. For the shop building housing

the semi-closed submerged arc furnace,

the EPA selected a 20 percent opacity

limit, with the allowance for

‘‘excursions’’ of up to 60 percent opacity

for not more than one distinct sixminute period in any sixty minutes. The

shop opacity limits are based on the

limits required in the source’s existing

operating permits, are representative of

good performance for existing sources,

and address the unique configuration of

the semi-closed furnace.

F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

1. Ferronickel Rule Monitoring

Requirements

The proposed monitoring

requirements for the emission limit

standard are dependent on the type of

air pollution control device used. For

the majority of baghouses, the EPA

proposes to require the owner or

operator to monitor for the presence of

visible emissions on a daily basis

combined with regular monitoring and

maintenance of the baghouse operation.

This approach is consistent with the

source’s overall monitoring

requirements established in the Title V

permit and will provide sufficient

information for enforcement and

compliance assurance.

As discussed earlier, the EPA also

proposes the application of weekday

opacity observations for the baghouses

serving the existing calciners and

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces

based on the presence of frequent

visible emissions. The use of continuous

opacity monitors requires an outlet

stack to function and are not feasible for

the positive pressure baghouses

controlling these sources. At Glenbrook

Nickel, as in many other applications of

the positive pressure baghouse

technology, emissions are discharged

through roof monitors rather than

through discrete stacks.

Finally, new baghouses meeting the

criteria for implementation of bag leak

detection systems (i.e., negative

pressure baghouses or positive pressure

baghouses equipped with a stack),

would be required to be equipped with

such systems. Bag leak detection is a

cost-effective option that results in real

time monitoring to detect changes in

particle mass loading to identify upset

conditions within the baghouse (e.g.,

torn bags). In combination with the

required maintenance and corrective

action plan for the baghouse, the EPA

believes that this technology will ensure

ongoing compliance with the standard.

The Glenbrook Nickel facility also

operates a scrubber on the ore dryer.

The correlation between scrubber

performance and pressure drop has been

well established by EPA in the past.

This, combined with the fact that

pressure monitors can easily be

installed on the scrubber, means this

monitoring option is viable for the

source and is proposed as a monitoring

requirement in the proposed rule.

The smelter building opacity

monitoring requirements would allow

the source to either (1) check and record

the control system fan motor amperes

and damper positions on a once-pershift basis, (2) install, calibrate, and

maintain a monitoring device that

continuously records the volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood, or (3) install, calibrate,

and maintain a monitoring device that

continuously records the total

volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the

air pollution control device and check

and record damper positions on a onceper-shift basis. These options would

require the source to have established

the appropriate monitoring parameter

envelope during the compliance test

showing that the overall system is in

compliance with the emission limits

prescribed by the standards. These

options represent valid monitoring

parameters, and have been used in a

variety of Federal rules, including the

NSPS for Steel Mills (40 CFR part 60,

subpart AA and subpart AAa).

2. Ferromanganese Rule Monitoring

Requirements

The proposed monitoring

requirements for the Ferromanganese

rule emission limits are dependent on

the type of air pollution control device

used. For existing baghouses, the EPA

proposes to require the owner or

operator to monitor for the presence of

visible emissions on a daily basis

combined with regular monitoring and

maintenance of the baghouse operation.

Elkem Marietta personnel have

indicated that their baghouses routinely

emit zero visible emissions. Therefore, a

monitoring requirement based on an

assumption of no routine visible

emissions is appropriate for all of the

affected baghouses.

New baghouses meeting the criteria

for implementation of bag leak detection

systems (i.e., negative pressure

baghouses or positive pressure

baghouses equipped with a stack),

would be required to be equipped with

such systems. Bag leak detection is a

cost-effective option that results in real

time monitoring to detect changes in

particle mass loading to identify upset

conditions within the baghouse (e.g.,

torn bags). In combination with the

required maintenance and corrective

action plan for the baghouse, the EPA

believes that this technology will ensure

ongoing compliance with the standard.

Elkem Marietta operates scrubbers on

the ferroalloy electric arc furnaces. The

correlation between scrubber

performance and pressure drop has been

well established by EPA in the past.

This, combined with the fact that

pressure monitors can easily be

installed, means this monitoring option

is viable for the source and is proposed

as a monitoring requirement in the

proposed rule.

The shop building opacity monitoring

requirements would allow the source to

either (1) check and record the control

system fan motor amperes and damper

positions on a once-per-shift basis, (2)

install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously

records the volumetric flow rate through

each separately ducted hood, or (3)

install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously

records the total volumetric flow rate at

the inlet to the air pollution control

device and check and record damper

positions on a once-per-shift basis.

These options would require the source

to have established the appropriate

monitoring parameter envelope during

the compliance test showing that the

overall system is in compliance with the

emission limits prescribed by the

standards. These options represent valid

monitoring parameters, and have been

used in a variety of Federal rules,

including the NSPS for Steel Mills (40

CFR part 60, subpart AA and subpart

AAa).
41522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

G. Selection of Test Methods

The proposed NESHAP would require

an initial performance test to determine

compliance. The initial test would

consist of emission testing of exhaust

gases from air pollution control devices

and vent stacks serving the affected

emission units. In addition, at

Glenbrook Nickel, these tests should be

repeated at least once per permit term,

i.e., every 5 years. Annual performance

testing at both facilities would be

limited to the emissions sources that

result in the largest quantity of HAP

emissions, that is the ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces at Elkem

Marietta and the combined ferronickel

electric arc melt furnace/calciners at

Glenbrook Nickel. This testing

frequency is consistent with each

facility’s current permit requirements

and ensures that the performance of air

pollution control devices on the

significant HAP sources remains high.

Standard EPA particulate test

methods, as described in section IV.C. of

this preamble, would be used to obtain

the needed methods. Opacity

observations would be conducted using

Method 9.

The EPA also proposes to incorporate

the State of Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality Source Sampling

Method 8, Sampling Particulate

Emissions from Stationary Sources

(High Volume Method), as an optional

alternative in the Ferronickel rule to the

use of EPA Method 5 on negative

pressure baghouses. The use of this

method would be consistent with

Glenbrook Nickel’s Title V permit and

offers advantages in reduced sampling

time for sources with low grain loadings

and better sampling access in some

cases. The use of this rule would be

limited to ferronickel sources located in

the State of Oregon.

In a recent separate rulemaking

(published in the Federal Register on

August 27, 1997 at page 45369), the EPA

proposed changes to Method 5D for

positive pressure baghouses that are not

equipped with outlet stacks. The

proposed amendment would change the

outlet volumetric flow rate calculation

procedure to be used in those cases

where the outlet measurement site(s)

velocity is too low to accurately

measure using a type S pitot. Originally

the method instructed testers to close up

all leaks, measure the inlet volume, and

assume that the outlet volume was the

same as the inlet. Many people have

told EPA that this was not practical. The

proposed change is based on the

assumption that differences between the

average fabric filter gas inlet and outlet

temperatures are due to cooling with

ambient air. This information on

temperature differences can be used to

calculate the outlet volume.

A copy of the proposed Method 5D is

available on the Emission Measurement

Center (EMC) home page (http://

www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/emc) by

choosing ‘‘test methods’’, then

‘‘proposed’’, then ‘‘EPA Methods (New

EMMC Format)’’. For those already

familiar with the EMTIC home page

under the TTN electronic umbrella, the

files can be similarly obtained via that

electronic route. (http://www.epa.gov/

ttn), then choose ‘‘Directory of TTN

Sites’’, then ‘‘EMTIC’’, then ‘‘Proposed

Methods’’, then ‘‘EPA Methods (New

EMMC Format)’.

H. Selection of Notification, Reporting

and Recordkeeping Requirements

The proposed rules require the owner

or operator to comply with the

notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the General

Provisions.

In addition, the rules establish

subpart-specific reporting and

recordkeeping requirements needed to

ensure compliance with rule-specific

requirements. For example, sources

must submit baghouse monitoring

reports, fugitive dust control reports,

and capture system monitoring reports.

Similarly, the sources must also retain

a copy of the written maintenance plan

for each emission control device, a copy

of the fugitive dust control plan, and

records of each maintenance inspection

and repair, replacement, or other

corrective action.

I. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA seeks full public

participation in arriving at its final

decisions, and strongly encourages

comments on all aspects of this proposal

from all interested parties. Whenever

applicable, full supporting data and

detailed analyses should be submitted

to allow the EPA to make maximum use

of the comments. All comments should

be directed to the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, Docket

No. A–92–59 (see ADDRESSES).

Comments on this notice must be

submitted on or before the date

specified in DATES.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments,

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI). Send

submissions containing such

proprietary information directly to the

following address to ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Conrad Chin, c/o Ms. Melva

Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential Business

Information Manager, OAQPS (MD–13);

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,

27711. Do not send CBI to the public

docket or through e-mail. The EPA will

disclose information covered by a claim

of confidentiality only to the extent

allowed and by the procedures set forth

in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the

submission when it is received by the

EPA, it may be made available to the

public without further notice to the

commenter.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The

docket is a dynamic file, because

material is added throughout the

rulemaking development. The docketing

system is intended to allow members of

the public and industries involved to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process. Along with

the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, the

contents of the docket will serve as the

record in the case of judicial review.

(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

submit to OMB for review significant

regulatory actions. The Executive Order

defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

as one that OMB determines is likely to

result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Because the proposed rules will only

affect two existing facilities, the

projected nationwide economic impacts

are estimated to be far less than $100

million. Furthermore, because the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41523

proposed rules result in the codification

of existing controls and practices, no

significant adverse effects to the

facilities are anticipated. Under

Executive Order 12866, this action is

not a significant regulatory action, and

is, therefore, not subject to review by

OMB.

C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, EPA has involved State

governments in the development of the

proposed rule. Although this proposal

does not impose requirements on State,

local, or tribal governments, these

entities will be required to implement

the rule by incorporating the rule into

permits and enforcing the rule upon

delegation. They will collect permit fees

that will be used to offset the resource

burden of implementing the rule.

Comments have been solicited from

State partners and have been carefully

considered in the rule development

process. In addition, all State, local, and

tribal governments and other

representatives are encouraged to

comment on this proposed rule during

the public comment period, and the

EPA intends to fully consider these

comments in the development of the

final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

requires that the Agency prepare a

budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of more than $100

million in any one year. Section 203

requires the Agency to establish a plan

for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Because this proposed rule, if

promulgated, does not include a Federal

mandate and is estimated to result in

the expenditure by State, local, and

tribal governments or the private sector

of significantly less than $100 million in

any one year, the Agency has not

prepared a budgetary impact statement

or specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. In

addition, because small governments

will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the Agency is not

required to develop a plan with regard

to small governments. Therefore, the

requirements of the UMRA do not apply

to this action.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small business,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it only

applies currently to two sources, neither

of which is a small business. Therefore,

I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection requirements

associated with the proposed standards

(those included in 40 CFR part 63,

subpart A and subpart XXX) have been

submitted to the OMB for approval

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1831), and a

copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE, Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2136), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202)260–2740.

The total 3-year monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting burden for

this collection is estimated at 5,052

labor hours at a total cost of $140,626

for the two facilities, and the annual

average burden is 1,684 labor hours and

$46,875 for the two facilities. This

estimate includes a one-time

performance test and report; subsequent

performance tests and reports for some

sources; semiannual reports when the

procedures in a startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan were not followed;

quarterly and semiannual excess

emissions reports; maintenance

inspections; notifications; and

recordkeeping. There are no separate

capital/startup costs associated with the

proposed rules.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,

or provide information to or for a

Federal Agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

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 EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques, to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460, and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Office for

EPA.’’ Include the EPA ICR number in

any correspondence. The final rule will

respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

G. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risk Under Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 applies to

any rule that (1) OMB determines is

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

EPA determines the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety

aspects of the planned rule on children;

and explain why the planned regulation

is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

The proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health risks or safety

risks that may disproportionately affect

children.
41524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal

agencies to use voluntary consensus

standards instead of government-unique

standards in their regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

material specifications, test methods,

sampling and analytical procedures,

business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by one or more

voluntary consensus standards bodies.

Examples of organizations generally

regarded as voluntary consensus

standards bodies include the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM), the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA), and the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The

NTTAA requires Federal agencies like

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

with explanations when an agency

decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

This action does not involve the

proposal of any new technical

standards. It does, however, incorporate

by reference existing technical

standards. Incorporated are

longstanding EPA Reference test

methods and procedures for

demonstrating compliance with

particulate standards and opacity

standards, specifically EPA test methods

1 through 5 and 9, as codified under 40

CFR 60, Appendix A. Consequently, the

Agency searched for voluntary

consensus standards that might be

applicable. The search was conducted

through the National Standards System

Network (NSSN), an automated service

provided by the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) for

identifying available national and

international standards. The search

identified no applicable standards.

Therefore, the EPA proposes to use the

government-unique technical standards

cited above for determining compliance.

The EPA welcomes comments on this

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,

specifically, invites the public to

identify potentially-applicable

voluntary consensus standards and to

explain why such standards should be

used in this regulation.

As part of a larger effort, the EPA is

undertaking a project to cross-reference

existing voluntary consensus standards

on testing, sampling, and analysis, with

current and future EPA test methods.

When completed, this project will assist

the EPA in identifying potentiallyapplicable voluntary consensus

standards which can then be evaluated

for equivalency and applicability in

determining compliance with future

regulations.

IX. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

proposal is provided by sections 101,

112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412,

7414, 7416, and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Ferroalloys production,

Ferromanganese, silicomanganese, and

ferrochromium production, Ferronickel

production, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency proposes to amend

40 CFR part 63 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.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart XXX to read as follows:

Subpart XXX—National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ferroalloys

Production

Sec.

Ferronickel Production Rule

63.1620 Applicability and compliance

dates.

63.1621 Definitions.

63.1622 Standards for new and existing

sources.

63.1623 Maintenance requirements.

63.1624 Compliance demonstrations,

performance testing, and test methods.

63.1625 Monitoring requirements.

63.1626 Notification requirements.

63.1627 Reporting requirements.

63.1628 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.1629 Delegation of authorities.

63.1630–63.1649 [Reserved].

Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese,

Ferrochromium Production Rule

63.1650 Applicability and compliance

dates.

63.1651 Definitions.

63.1652 Emission standards for new and

existing sources.

63.1653 Maintenance requirements.

63.1654 Compliance demonstrations,

performance testing, and test methods.

63.1655 Monitoring requirements.

63.1656 Notification requirements.

63.1657 Reporting requirements.

63.1658 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.1659 Delegation of authorities.

63.1660–63.1679 [Reserved].

Table 1 to Subpart XXX—General Provisions

Applicability to Subpart XXX

Subpart XXX—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Ferroalloys Production

Ferronickel Production Rule

§ 63.1620 Applicability and compliance

dates.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to all new and existing ferronickel

production facilities that are major

sources or are co-located at major

sources.

(b) For the purpose of implementing

this subpart, the affected sources at a

ferronickel production facility subject to

this subpart are the sources listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section:

(1) Ferronickel ore processing,

(2) Calcining and ferronickel electric

arc melt furnaces,

(3) Ferronickel refining furnaces, and

(4) Fugitive dust sources.

(c) A new affected source is an

affected source for which construction

or reconstruction commences after

August 4, 1998.

(d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies

the provisions of subpart A of this part

that apply and those that do not apply

to owners and operators of ferronickel

production facilities subject to this

subpart.

(e) Compliance dates: (1) Each owner

or operator of an existing affected source

shall achieve compliance with the

requirements of this subpart no later

than [Insert date 2 years from

publication of final rule in Federal

Register.]

(2) Each owner or operator of a new

or reconstructed affected source subject

to this subpart that commences

construction or reconstruction after

August 4, 1998 shall achieve

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart by [Insert date of

publication of final rule in Federal

Register] or upon startup of operations,

whichever is later.

§ 63.1621 Definitions.

Terms in this subpart are defined in

the Clean Air Act (the Act), in subpart

A of this part, or in this section as

follows:

Bag leak detection system means an

instrument that is capable of monitoring

relative particulate matter (dust)

loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41525

order to detect bag failures. A bag leak

detection system includes, but is not

limited to, an instrument that operates

on triboelectric light scattering,

transmittance or other effect to monitor

relative particulate matter loadings.

Calcining means the use of calciners

to reduce the dried and sized ore to less

than 4 percent total moisture.

Capture system means the equipment

(including hoods, ducts, fans, dampers,

etc.) used to capture or transport

particulate matter generated by an

affected ferronickel electric arc furnace.

Ferronickel means an alloy consisting

of iron and nickel.

Ferronickel electric arc furnace means

any furnace that produces molten

materials and heats the charge materials

with electric arcs from carbon

electrodes. These furnaces include those

used to melt the nickel ore (ferronickel

electric arc melt furnaces) or to refine

the ferronickel product (ferronickel

refining furnaces).

Ferronickel ore processing means the

following group of emissions sources:

Ore dryer, raw material crushing and

screening operation, ore storage bins,

and hot ore transfer.

Fugitive dust source means a

stationary source from which nickelbearing particles are discharged to the

atmosphere due to wind or mechanical

inducement such as vehicle traffic.

Fugitive dust sources include plant

roadways, yard areas, and outdoor

material storage and transfer operations.

Hot ore transfer means the system of

skip hoists and skip cars or other means

that carry the calcined ore to hoppers

above the ferronickel electric arc melt

furnaces.

Ore dryer means a rotary kiln used to

dry mined ore up to 10 percent free

moisture.

Ore storage bins means the bins used

to store the dried ore prior to being

calcined.

Plant roadway means any area at a

ferronickel production facility that is

subject to plant mobile equipment, such

as fork lifts, front end loaders, or trucks,

carrying nickel-bearing materials.

Excluded from this definition are

employee and visitor parking areas,

provided they are not subject to traffic

by plant mobile equipment.

Raw material crushing and screening

means the hoppers, crushers, grinders,

mills and/or screens used to crush, size,

and prepare ferronickel raw materials

for calcining.

Smelter building means the building

which houses one or more ferronickel

electric arc furnaces.

Weekday opacity observations means

observations conducted using EPA

Method 9 once each weekday (Monday

through Friday) of operation, excluding

company work holidays.

§ 63.1622 Standards for new and existing

sources.

(a) On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be

conducted in § 63.7(a) is completed, no

owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause:

(1)(i) The emissions of particulate

matter from an air pollution control

device serving the calciners and

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces to

exceed 34 milligrams per dry standard

cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.015 grains per

dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)).

(ii) The emissions of particulate

matter from an air pollution control

device serving the ferronickel refining

furnaces to exceed 2.3 mg/dscm (0.001

gr/dscf).

(iii) The weighted average emissions

of particulate matter from air pollution

control devices serving the ferronickel

ore processing operation to exceed 69

mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).

(iv) In addition, no owner or operator

shall cause the emissions of particulate

matter from the air pollution control

devices serving existing calciners and

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces to

exhibit more than 20 percent opacity.

(2) No owner or operator shall cause

the emissions of particulate matter that

exit from a smelter building to exhibit

more than 20 percent opacity.

(b) Each owner or operator of an

affected ferronickel production facility

shall prepare and at all times operate

according to a fugitive dust control plan

in accordance with the requirements

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(4) of this section.

(1) The fugitive dust control plan

shall describe the specific control

measures that are used to reduce

emissions from the individual fugitive

dust sources at the facility. Examples of

control measures that may be used

include, but are not limited to: Installing

an enclosure, installing and operating a

local hood capture system vented to a

control device, placing stockpiles below

grade, Installing wind screens or wind

fences, using water sprays, applying

appropriate dust suppression agents, or

any combination of these control

measures as appropriate for a given

fugitive dust source.

(2) The fugitive dust control plan

shall include, at a minimum, a

description of the control measures

implemented for each of the fugitive

dust sources listed in paragraphs

(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of this section.

(i) Roads or other areas within the

plant property boundary used by trucks

or other motor vehicles (e.g., front-end

loaders) transporting bulk quantities of

fugitive dust materials. Paved roads and

areas of the facility that are not used by

these vehicles are not required to be

included in the plan (e.g., employee and

visitor parking lots);

(ii) Operations to unload or load

fugitive dust materials from or into

trucks or railcars;

(iii) Outdoor piles used to store

fugitive dust materials;

(iv) Transfer points in conveying

systems used to convey fugitive dust

materials. These points include, but are

not limited to, those points where the

material is transferred from a conveyor

belt to a second conveyor belt or

discharged from a conveyor to a hopper

or bin; and

(v) Other fugitive dust sources at a

facility as designated by the

Administrator or delegated permitting

authority.

(3) The owner or operator shall

submit a copy of the fugitive dust

control plan to the designated

permitting authority on or before the

applicable compliance date for the

affected source as specified in

§ 63.1620(e). The requirement for the

owner or operator to operate the facility

according to a written fugitive dust

control plan shall be incorporated in the

operating permit for the facility that is

issued by the designated permitting

authority under part 70 of this chapter.

(4) To satisfy the requirements of this

paragraph to develop a fugitive dust

control plan, the owner or operator may

use the affected source’s standard

operating procedures (SOP) manual or

other plan, provided the alternative plan

meets the requirements of this

paragraph and is made available for

inspection when requested by the

Administrator.

§ 63.1623 Maintenance requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an

affected source shall comply with the

requirements of § 63.6(e).

(b)(1) In addition to the requirements

specified in paragraph (a) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

develop and implement a written

maintenance plan for each air pollution

control device subject to the provisions

of this part. The owner or operator shall

keep the maintenance plan on record

after it is developed to be made

available for inspection, upon request,

by the Administrator for the life of the

air pollution control device or until the

affected source is no longer subject to

the provisions of this part.

(2) To satisfy the requirements of this

paragraph to develop an air pollution

control device maintenance plan, the

owner or operator may use the affected
41526 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

source’s standard operating procedures

(SOP) manual or other plan, provided

the alternative plan meets the

requirements of this paragraph and is

made available for inspection when

requested by the Administrator.

(c) The procedures specified in the

maintenance plan shall, at a minimum,

include a preventive maintenance

schedule that is consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions and, for

baghouses, ensure that the requirements

specified in § 63.1625(a) are met.

(d) The owner or operator shall

perform monthly operational status

inspections of the equipment that is

important to the performance of the

total capture system (i.e., pressure

sensors, dampers, and damper

switches). This inspection shall include

observations of the physical appearance

of the equipment (e.g., presence of holes

in ductwork or hoods, flow

constrictions caused by dents or

accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan

erosion). Any deficiencies shall be

noted and proper maintenance

performed.

§ 63.1624 Compliance demonstrations,

performance testing, and test methods.

(a) Compliance demonstration with

emission limit standard. All

performance tests shall be conducted

according to the requirements in § 63.7.

(1) The owner or operator shall

conduct both an initial performance test

as well as subsequent performance tests

at each renewal of the source’s Title V

operating permit for all of the air

pollution control devices subject to the

standards specified in § 63.1622(a)(1) to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable emission limit.

(2) The owner or operator shall

conduct annual performance tests for

the air pollution control devices subject

to the standards specified in

§ 63.1622(a)(1)(i), i.e., those serving the

calciners and the ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces.

(3) Following development, and

approval, if required, of the site-specific

test plan, the owner or operator shall

conduct an emission test for each air

pollution control device to measure the

outlet of the control device to determine

compliance with the applicable

standard.

(i) Compliance is achieved with the

emission limitation specified in

§ 63.1622(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) if the

outlet concentration is less than or equal

to the applicable emission limitation.

(ii) Compliance is achieved with the

emission limitation specified in

§ 63.1622(a)(1)(iii) for ferronickel ore

processing, if the weighted average

outlet concentration from the air

pollution control devices serving the

ferronickel ore processing operation is

less than or equal to 69 mg/dscm (0.03

gr/dscf), using the following equation:

C M Q k i i

i

N

i

N

= [ ] [ ] ∗

= =

∑ / ∑

1 1

Where:

C=concentration of particulate matter,

mg/dscm (gr/dscf).

N=total number of exhaust streams at

which emissions are quantified.

Mi=mass rate of each emission source,

kg/hr (lb/hr).

Qi=volumetric flow rate of each

emission source, dscm (dscf).

k = a constant.

(5) [Reserved]

(6) If a venturi scrubber is being used

to achieve compliance with the

emission limits, the owner or operator

shall establish as a site-specific

operating parameter the average hourly

pressure drop across the venturi during

the performance test. The pressure drop

shall be monitored and recorded at least

every 5 minutes during the test.

(i) The owner or operator shall

determine the operating parameter

monitoring value as the average of the

values recorded during each of the three

runs constituting the test.

(ii) The owner or operator may

augment the data obtained under

paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section by

conducting multiple performance tests

to establish a range of compliant

operating parameter values. The lowest

value of this range would be selected as

the operating parameter monitoring

value. The use of historic compliance

data may be used to establish the

compliant operating parameter value if

the previous values were recorded

during the performance tests using the

test methods specified in this subpart

and established in the manner required

in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(6)(i) of this

section.

(7)(i) Compliance with the applicable

emission limit shall be determined by

the average of three runs. Each run shall

be conducted under conditions that are

representative of normal process

operations.

(ii) The minimum sampling volume

shall be 0.9 dscm (30 dscf), unless

Oregon Method 8 (high volume sampler)

is used. When Oregon Method 8 is used,

the minimum sampling volume shall be

4.2 dscm (150 dscf). Sample times shall

be a minimum of 15 minutes for Oregon

Method 8 and 60 minutes for all other

methods.

(b) Compliance demonstration with

the opacity standard. (1)(i) The owner

or operator shall conduct initial opacity

observations for the air pollution control

devices serving the calciners and the

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces

subject to the standards specified in

§ 63.1622(a)(1)(iv) and the smelter

building subject to the standards

specified in § 63.1622(a)(2) to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable opacity limitations according

to the requirements in § 63.6(h)(5),

conduct of opacity or visible emissions

observations.

(ii) In conducting the opacity

observations for the smelter building,

the observer shall limit his or her field

of view to the area of the smelter

building roof monitor that corresponds

to the placement of the affected

ferronickel electric arc furnaces.

(2)(i) When the smelter building

opacity observations required by

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section are

conducted, the owner or operator shall

establish either the control system fan

motor amperes and all damper

positions, the total volumetric flow rate

to the air pollution control device and

all damper positions, or the volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood during all periods in which

a hood is operated for the purpose of

capturing emissions from the ferronickel

electric arc furnaces, depending on the

parameter to be monitored under the

requirements established in

§ 63.1625(c)(1) or (c)(2).

(ii) The owner or operator may

petition the Administrator for

reestablishment of these parameters

whenever the owner or operator can

demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that the ferronickel electric

arc furnace operating conditions upon

which the parameters were previously

established are no longer applicable.

The values of these parameters as

determined during the most recent

demonstration of compliance shall be

maintained at the appropriate level for

each applicable period.

(3) The owner or operator shall

conduct weekday opacity observations

for air pollution control devices serving

the calciners and ferronickel electric arc

melt furnaces subject to the standards

specified in § 63.1622(a)(1)(iv) to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable opacity limitations according

to the requirements in § 63.1625(a)(1).

(c) Compliance demonstration with

the work practice standard. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41527

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions per § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(d) Test methods. The following test

methods in Appendix A of part 60 of

this chapter shall be used to determine

compliance with the emission

standards.

(1) Method 1 shall be used to select

the sampling port location and the

number of traverse points.

(2) Method 2 shall be used to measure

volumetric flow rate.

(3) Method 3 shall be used for gas

analysis to determine the dry molecular

weight of the stack gas.

(4) Method 4 shall be used to

determine moisture content of the stack

gas.

(5) Method 5 shall be used for

particulate matter emissions from

control devices such as negative

pressure baghouses and scrubbers with

suction pressure.

(6) Method 5D shall be used for

positive pressure baghouses.

(7) Method 9 shall be used to

determine compliance with opacity

limits.

(8) State of Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality Source Sampling

Method 8, Sampling Particulate

Emissions from Stationary Sources

(High Volume Method) may be used

instead of Method 5 for negative

pressure baghouses. Use of this test

method is limited to ferronickel

facilities located in the State of Oregon.

(9) The owner or operator may use

equivalent alternative measurement

methods approved by the Administrator

following the procedures described in

§ 63.7(f).

§ 63.1625 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Baghouses. (1)(i) The owner or

operator shall conduct weekday opacity

observations of the baghouses serving

the existing calciners and ferronickel

electric arc melt furnaces in accordance

with Method 9 for at least one 6-minute

period during normal operation of the

applicable emission units.

(ii) Observations that exceed the

opacity limitation would be a violation

of the opacity standard, unless the

owner or operator can demonstrate to

the Administrator’s satisfaction that the

exceedance was due to an upset

condition or malfunction.

(iii) As part of the start-up, shutdown,

and malfunction plan developed

pursuant to § 63.6(e), the owner or

operator shall develop and implement

corrective action procedures to be

followed in the case of a violation of the

opacity requirement. The owner or

operator shall initiate corrective action

as soon as practicable after the

exceedance.

(2) For the baghouses serving the

emission units defined in

§ 63.1622(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii), the

owner or operator shall monitor on a

daily basis for the presence of any

visible emissions.

(3) In addition to the daily visible

emissions observation, the owner or

operator shall conduct the following

activities specified in paragraphs

(a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(viii) of this

section for all baghouses serving

emissions units defined in

§ 63.1622(a)(1).

(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop

across each baghouse cell.

(ii) Weekly confirmation that dust is

being removed from hoppers through

visual inspection, or equivalent means

of ensuring the proper functioning of

removal mechanisms.

(iii) Daily check of compressed air

supply for pulse-jet baghouses.

(iv) An appropriate methodology for

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure

proper operation.

(v) Monthly check of bag cleaning

mechanisms for proper functioning

through visual inspection or equivalent

means.

(vi) Monthly check of bag tension on

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses.

Such checks are not required for shakertype baghouses using self-tensioning

(spring loaded) devices.

(vii) Quarterly confirmation of the

physical integrity of the baghouse

through visual inspection of the

baghouse interior for air leaks.

(viii) Semiannual inspection of fans

for wear, material buildup, and

corrosion through visual inspection,

vibration detectors, or equivalent

means.

(4) In addition to the meeting the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and

(a)(3) of this section, the owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

ferronickel electric arc furnace shall

install and continuously operate a bag

leak detection system if the furnace

primary and/or tapping emissions are

ducted to a negative pressure baghouse

or to a positive pressure baghouse

equipped with a stack. The bag leak

detection system must meet the

following requirements:

(i) The bag leak detection system must

be certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of detecting particulate matter

emissions at concentrations of 10

milligrams per actual cubic meter

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or

less.

(ii) The bag leak detection system

sensor must provide output of relative

particulate matter 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) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed and operated in a

manner consistent with available

written guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such written guidance,

the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations for

installation, operation, and adjustment

of the system.

(v) The initial adjustment of the

system shall, 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, the

owner or operator shall not adjust the

sensitivity or range, averaging period,

alarm set points, or alarm delay time,

except as detailed in the maintenance

plan required under § 63.1623(b). In no

event shall the sensitivity be increased

by more than 100 percent or decreased

more than 50 percent over a 365-day

period unless such adjustment follows a

complete baghouse inspection which

demonstrates the baghouse is in good

operating condition.

(vii) Where multiple detectors are

required, the system’s instrumentation

and alarm may be shared among

detectors.

(5) As part of the start-up, shutdown,

and malfunction plan developed

pursuant to § 63.6(e), the owner or

operator shall develop and implement

corrective action procedures to be

followed in the case of a bag leak

detection system alarm for baghouses

equipped with such a system, the

observation of visible emissions from

the baghouse, or the indication through

the periodic baghouse system

inspections that the system is not

operating properly. The owner or

operator shall initiate corrective action

as soon as practicable after the

occurrence of the observation or event

indicating a malfunction.

(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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(b) Venturi scrubbers. (1) The owner

or operator shall monitor the pressure

drop at the venturi at least every 5

minutes and record the average hourly

pressure drop. Measurement of an

average hourly pressure drop below the

limit established during the most recent
41528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

compliance demonstration would be a

violation of the emission limitation

standard, unless the owner or operator

can demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that a decrease in the

pressure drop was due to an upset

condition or malfunction.

(2) As part of the start-up, shutdown,

and malfunction plan developed

pursuant to § 63.6(e), the owner or

operator shall develop and implement

corrective action procedures to be

followed in the case of a violation of the

pressure drop requirement. The owner

or operator shall initiate corrective

action as soon as practicable after the

exceedance.

(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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(c) Smelter building opacity. The

owner or operator subject to

§ 63.1622(a)(2) shall monitor the capture

system as specified by paragraphs (c)(1),

(c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section,

depending on the parameters monitored

during the compliance test in

§ 63.1624(b)(2). Alternatively, the owner

or operator may use the provisions of

§ 63.8(f) to request approval to use an

alternative monitoring method.

(1) The owner or operator shall check

and record the control system fan motor

amperes and damper positions on a

once-per-shift basis;

(2) The owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously

records the volumetric flow rate through

each separately ducted hood. The

monitoring device(s) may be installed in

any appropriate location in the exhaust

duct such that reproducible flow rate

monitoring will result. The flow rate

monitoring device(s) shall have an

accuracy ±10 percent over its normal

operating range and shall be calibrated

according to the manufacturer’s

instructions. The Administrator may

require the owner or operator to

demonstrate the accuracy of the

monitoring device(s) relative to Methods

1 and 2 of Appendix A of part 60 of this

chapter; or

(3) The owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously

records the volumetric flow rate at the

inlet of the air pollution control device

and shall check and record the control

system damper positions on a once-pershift basis. The monitoring device may

be installed in any appropriate location

in the exhaust duct such that

reproducible flow rate monitoring will

result. The flow rate monitoring device

shall have an accuracy ±10 percent over

its normal operating range and shall be

calibrated according to the

manufacturer’s instructions. The

Administrator may require the owner or

operator to demonstrate the accuracy of

the monitoring device(s) relative to

Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A of part

60 of this chapter.

(4) Operation of control system fan

motor amperes less than the value

established under § 63.1624(b)(2) or

operation at flow rates lower than those

established under § 63.1624(b)(2) would

establish the need to initiate corrective

action as soon as practicable after the

monitoring exceedance in order to

minimize excess emissions.

(5) 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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(6) Where the capture system is

designed and operated such that all

emissions are captured and ducted to a

control device, the owner or operator

shall not be subject to the requirements

of this section.

§ 63.1626 Notification requirements.

(a) As required by § 63.9(b), unless

otherwise specified in this subpart, the

owner or operator shall submit the

following written notifications to the

Administrator:

(1) The owner or operator of an area

source that subsequently becomes

subject to the requirements of the

standard shall provide notification to

the applicable permitting authority as

required by § 63.9(b)(1).

(2) As required by § 63.9(b)(2), the

owner or operator of an affected source

that has an initial startup before the

effective date of the standard shall

notify the Administrator that the source

is subject to the requirements of the

standard. The notification shall be

submitted not later than 120 calendar

days after the effective date of this

standard (or within 120 calendar days

after the source becomes subject to this

standard) and shall contain the

information specified in § 63.9(b)(2)(i)

through (b)(2)(v).

(3) As required by § 63.9(b)(3), the

owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source, or a

source that has been reconstructed such

that it is an affected source, that has an

initial startup after the effective date

and for which an application for

approval of construction or

reconstruction is not required under

§ 63.5(d), shall notify the Administrator

in writing that the source is subject to

the standards no later than 120 days

after initial startup. The notification

shall contain the information specified

in § 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v),

delivered or postmarked with the

notification required in § 63.9(b)(5).

(4) As required by § 63.9(b)(4), the

owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed major affected source that

has an initial startup after the effective

date of this standard and for which an

application for approval of construction

or reconstruction is required under

§ 63.5(d) shall provide the information

specified in § 63.9(b)(4)(i) through

(b)(4)(v).

(5) As required by § 63.9(b)(5), the

owner or operator who, after the

effective date of this standard, intends

to construct a new affected source or

reconstruct an affected source subject to

this standard, or reconstruct a source

such that it becomes an affected source

subject to this standard, shall notify the

Administrator, in writing, of the

intended construction or reconstruction.

(b) Request for extension of

compliance. As required by § 63.9(c), if

the owner or operator of an affected

source cannot comply with this

standard by the applicable compliance

date for that source, or if the owner or

operator has installed BACT or

technology to meet LAER consistent

with § 63.6(i)(5), he/she may submit to

the Administrator (or the State with an

approved permit program) a request for

an extension of compliance as specified

in § 63.6(i)(4) through (i)(6).

(c) Notification that source is subject

to special compliance requirements. As

required by § 63.9(d), an owner or

operator of a new source that is subject

to special compliance requirements as

specified in § 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) shall

notify the Administrator of his/her

compliance obligations not later than

the notification dates established in

§ 63.9(b) for new sources that are not

subject to the special provisions.

(d) Notification of performance test.

As required by § 63.9(e), the owner or

operator of an affected source shall

notify the Administrator in writing of

his or her intention to conduct a

performance test at least 15 calendar

days before the performance test is

scheduled to begin to allow the

Administrator to review and approve

the site-specific test plan required under

§ 63.7(c), if requested by the

Administrator, and to have an observer

present during the test.

(e) Notification of opacity

observations. As required by § 63.9(f),

the owner or operator of an affected
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41529

source shall notify the Administrator in

writing of the anticipated date for

conducting the opacity observations

specified in § 63.6(h)(5). The

notification shall be submitted with the

notification of the performance test date,

as specified in paragraph (d) of this

section, or if visibility or other

conditions prevent the opacity

observations from being conducted

concurrently with the initial

performance test required under § 63.7,

the owner or operator shall deliver or

postmark the notification not less than

15 days before the opacity observations

are scheduled to take place.

(f) Notification of compliance status.

The owner or operator of an affected

source shall submit a notification of

compliance status as required by

§ 63.9(h). The notification shall be sent

before the close of business on the 60th

day following completion of the

relevant compliance demonstration.

§ 63.1627 Reporting requirements.

(a) General reporting requirements.

The owner or operator of a ferronickel

production facility shall comply with all

of the reporting requirements under

§ 63.10, unless otherwise specified in

this subpart.

(1) Frequency of reports. As provided

by § 63.10(a)(5), if the owner or operator

is required to submit periodic reports to

a State on an established timeline, the

owner or operator may change the dates

by which periodic reports submitted

under this part may be submitted

(without changing the frequency of

reporting) to be consistent with the

State’s schedule by mutual agreement

between the owner or operator and the

State. This provision may be applied at

any point after the source’s compliance

date.

(2) Reporting results of performance

tests. As required by § 63.10(d)(2), the

owner or operator of an affected source

shall report the results of the initial

performance test as part of the

notification of compliance status

required in § 63.1626(f).

(3) Reporting results of opacity

observations. As required by

§ 63.10(d)(3), the owner or operator

shall report the opacity results

(produced using Test Method 9 or an

approved alternative to these methods)

along with the results of the

performance test required under § 63.7.

If visibility or other conditions prevent

the opacity observations from being

conducted concurrently with the

performance test required under § 63.7,

the owner or operator shall report the

opacity results before the close of

business on the 30th day following the

completion of the opacity observations.

(4) Periodic startup, shutdown, and

malfunction reports. (i) As required by

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i), if actions taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction of an affected

source (including actions taken to

correct a malfunction) are consistent

with the procedures specified in the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall state

such information in a semiannual

report. The report, to be certified by the

owner or operator or other responsible

official, shall be submitted

semiannually and delivered or

postmarked by the 30th day following

the end of each calendar half; and

(ii) Any time an action taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction (including

actions taken to correct a malfunction)

is not consistent with the procedures in

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall

comply with all requirements of

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

(b) Specific reporting requirements. In

addition to the information required

under § 63.10, reports required under

paragraph (a) of this section shall

include the information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section. As allowed by § 63.10(a)(3), if

any State requires a report that contains

all of the information required in a

report listed in this section, an owner or

operator may send the Administrator a

copy of the report sent to the State to

satisfy the requirements of this section

for that report.

(1) Air pollution control devices. The

owner or operator shall submit reports

that summarize the records maintained

as part of the practices described in the

maintenance plan for air pollution

control devices required under

§ 63.1623(b), including an explanation

of the periods when the procedures

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(i) Venturi scrubbers. In addition to

the information required to be

submitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

submit reports that identify the periods

when the average hourly pressure drop

of venturi scrubbers used to control

particulate emissions dropped below

the levels established in § 63.1624(a)(5),

and an explanation of the corrective

actions taken.

(ii) Baghouses serving the existing

ferronickel electric arc melt furnaces

and calciners. In addition to the

information required to be submitted in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the

owner or operator shall submit reports

that identify the periods when the

weekday opacity observations taken in

accordance with the requirements in

§ 63.1625(a)(1) exceeded the opacity

limitation specified in

§ 63.1622(a)(1)(iv), and an explanation

of the corrective actions taken.

(2) Fugitive dust. The owner or

operator shall submit reports that

explain the periods when the

procedures outlined in the fugitive dust

control plan pursuant to § 63.1622(b)

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(3) Capture system. The owner or

operator shall submit reports that

summarize the monitoring parameter

exceedances measured pursuant to

§ 63.1625(c)(3) and the corrective

actions taken.

(4)(i) The owner or operator shall

submit reports pursuant to § 63.10(e)(3)

that are associated with excess

emissions events such as the

exceedance of the scrubber pressure

drop limit per paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this

section or the exceedance of the opacity

limit per paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this

section. These reports are to be

submitted on a quarterly basis, unless

the owner or operator can satisfy the

requirements in § 63.10(e)(3) to reduce

the frequency to a semiannual basis.

(ii) All other reports specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section shall be submitted

semiannually.

§ 63.1628 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping

requirements. (1) The owner or operator

of a ferronickel production facility shall

comply with all of the recordkeeping

requirements under § 63.10.

(2) As required by § 63.10(b), the

owner or operator shall maintain

records for five years from the date of

each record of:

(i) The occurrence and duration of

each startup, shutdown, or malfunction

of operation (i. e., process equipment

and control devices);

(ii) The occurrence and duration of

each malfunction of the source or air

pollution control equipment;

(iii) All maintenance performed on

the air pollution control equipment;

(iv) Actions taken during periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(including corrective actions to restore

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment to its

normal or usual manner of operation)

when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan;

(v) All information necessary to

demonstrate conformance with the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan when all actions taken during

periods of startup, shutdown, and
41530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

malfunction (including corrective

actions) are consistent with the

procedures specified in such plan. This

information can be recorded in a

checklist or similar form (see

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v).);

(vi) All required measurements

needed to demonstrate compliance with

the standard and to support data that

the source is required to report,

including, but not limited to,

performance test measurements

(including initial and any subsequent

performance tests) and measurements as

may be necessary to determine the

conditions of the initial test or

subsequent tests;

(vii) All results of initial or

subsequent performance tests and

opacity and visible emissions

observations;

(viii) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from recordkeeping or

reporting requirements under § 63.10(f),

any information demonstrating whether

a source is meeting the requirements for

a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting

requirements;

(ix) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from the initial

performance test under § 63.7(h), a copy

of the full request and the

Administrator’s approval or

disapproval;

(x) All documentation supporting

initial notifications and notifications of

compliance status required by § 63.9;

and

(xi) As required by § 63.10((b)(3),

records of any applicability

determination, including supporting

analyses.

(b) Specific recordkeeping

requirements. (1) In addition to the

general records required by paragraph

(a) of this section, the owner or operator

shall maintain records for five years

from the date of each record of:

(i) Records of pressure drop across the

venturi if a venturi scrubber is used;

(ii) Records of results of weekday

opacity observations;

(iii) Records of manufacturer

certification that monitoring devices are

accurate to within 5 percent and of

semiannual calibration;

(iv) Copy of the written maintenance

plan for each air pollution control

device;

(v) Copy of the fugitive dust control

plan; and

(vi) Records of each maintenance

inspection and repair, replacement, or

other corrective action.

(c) All records for the most recent two

years of operation must be maintained

on site. Records for the previous three

years may be maintained off site.

§ 63.1629 Delegation of authorities.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

Administrator and not transferred to a

State.

(b) No authorities are retained by the

Administrator.

§ 63.1630—§ 63.1649 [Reserved]

Ferromanganese, Silicomanganese, and

Ferrochromium Production Rule

§ 63.1650 Applicability and compliance

dates.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to all new and existing ferroalloy

production facilities that manufacture

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, or

ferrochromium and are major sources or

are co-located at major sources.

(b) For the purpose of implementing

this subpart, the affected sources at a

ferroalloy production facility subject to

this subpart are the sources listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this

section:

(1) Open submerged arc furnaces,

(2) Semi-closed submerged arc

furnaces,

(3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR)

process,

(4) Crushing and screening

operations, and

(5) Fugitive dust sources.

(c) A new affected source is an

affected source for which construction

or reconstruction commences after

August 4, 1998.

(d) Table 2 of this subpart specifies

the provisions of subpart A of this part

that apply and those that do not apply

to owners and operators of ferroalloy

production facilities subject to this

subpart.

(e) Compliance dates:

(1) Each owner or operator of an

existing affected source shall achieve

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart no later than [Insert date 2

years from publication of final rule in

Federal Register.]

(2) Each owner or operator of a new

or reconstructed affected source subject

to this subpart that commences

construction or reconstruction after

August 4, 1998 shall achieve

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart by [Insert date of

publication of final rule in Federal

Register] or upon startup of operations,

whichever is later.

§ 63.1651 Definitions.

Terms in this subpart are defined in

the Clean Air Act (the Act), in subpart

A of this part, or in this section as

follows:

Bag leak detection system means an

instrument that is capable of monitoring

relative particulate matter (dust)

loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in

order to detect bag failures. A bag leak

detection system includes, but is not

limited to, an instrument that operates

on triboelectric light scattering,

transmittance or other effect to monitor

relative particulate matter loadings.

Capture system means the equipment

(including hoods, ducts, fans, dampers,

etc.) used to capture or transport

particulate matter generated by an

affected ferroalloy submerged arc

furnace.

Casting means the period of time from

when molten ferroalloy falls from the

furnace tapping runner into the ladle

until pouring into molds is completed.

This includes the following operations:

Ladle filling, pouring alloy from one

ladle to another, slag separation, slag

removal, and ladle transfer by crane or

truck.

Crushing and screening means the

feed hoppers, jaw crushers, gyro

crushers, grinders, mills, and rotary

screens used to crush, size, and prepare

for packing manganese-or chromiumcontaining materials, including raw

materials, intermediate products, or

final products, associated with

submerged arc furnace operations.

Ferroalloy submerged arc furnace

means any electric submerged arc

furnace that produces molten

ferromanganese, silicomanganese, or

ferrochromium.

Fugitive dust source means a

stationary source from which

manganese-or chromium-bearing

particles are discharged to the

atmosphere due to wind or mechanical

inducement such as vehicle traffic.

Fugitive dust sources include plant

roadways, yard areas, and outdoor

material storage and transfer operations.

Furnace power input means the

resistive electrical power consumption

of a ferroalloy submerged arc furnace.

Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process

means the reduction of the carbon

content of ferromanganese through the

use of oxygen.

Open submerged arc furnace means

an electric submerged arc furnace that is

equipped with a canopy hood above the

furnace to collect primary emissions.

Plant roadway means any area at a

ferroalloy production facility that is

subject to plant mobile equipment, such

as fork lifts, front end loaders, or trucks,

carrying manganese- or chromiumbearing materials. Excluded from this

definition are employee and visitor

parking areas, provided they are not

subject to traffic by plant mobile

equipment.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41531

Primary emissions are composed of

reaction gases from the furnace surface.

They are collected by hoods and

ductwork located above the furnace or

under the cover of a semi-closed

surface.

Semi-closed submerged arc furnace

means an electric submerged arc furnace

equipped with a partially sealed cover

over the furnace. This cover is equipped

with openings to allow penetration of

the electrodes into the furnace. Mix is

introduced into the furnace around the

electrode holes forming a partial seal

between the electrodes and the cover.

Furnace emissions generated under the

cover are ducted to an emission control

device. Emissions that escape the cover

are collected and vented through stacks

directly to the atmosphere.

Shop means the building which

houses one or more ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces.

Tapping emissions means a source of

air pollutant emissions that occur

during the process of removing the

molten product from the furnace.

Tapping period means the time

duration from initiation of the process

of opening the tap hole until the

plugging of the tap hole is complete.

§ 63.1652 Emission standards for new and

existing sources.

(a)(1) On and after the date on which

the performance test required to be

conducted in § 63.7(a) is completed, no

owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere from

any new or reconstructed ferroalloy

submerged arc furnace any gases which

exit from an air pollution control device

containing primary and/or tapping

emissions streams and contain

particulate matter in excess of 0.23

kilograms per hour per megawatt (kg/hr/

MW) (0.51 pounds per hour per

megawatt (lb/hr/MW)) for the combined

primary and tapping emissions for each

open submerged arc furnace or semiclosed submerged arc furnace.

(2) On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be

conducted in § 63.7(a) is completed, no

owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere from

any new or reconstructed MOR process

or from individual equipment

associated with the crushing and

screening operation any gases which

contain particulate matter in excess of

50 milligrams per dry standard cubic

meter (mg/dscm) (0.022 grains per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)).

(3) All other new or reconstructed

operations at the ferroalloy production

facility, as defined in § 63.1650(b), will

be regulated under the applicable

existing source requirements specified

in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b) On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be

conducted in § 63.7(a) is completed, no

owner or operator subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere from

any existing affected source any gases

which:

(1) Exit from an air pollution control

device containing primary and/or

tapping emissions streams from any

open submerged arc furnace and contain

particulate matter in excess of 0.51 kg/

hr/MW (1.13 lb/hr/MW) for the

combined primary and tapping

emissions for each affected furnace.

(2)(i) Exit from an air pollution

control device containing primary

emissions streams from a semi-closed

submerged arc furnace and contain

particulate matter in excess of 0.04 kg/

hr/MW (0.09 lb/hr/MW).

(ii) Exit from vent stacks containing

primary emissions streams from a semiclosed submerged arc furnace and

contain particulate matter emissions in

excess of 0.67 kg/hr/MW (1.48 lb/hr/

MW) for the combined vent stacks.

(3) Exit from an air pollution control

device containing emissions streams

from MOR processes or crushing and

screening operations and contain

particulate matter in excess of 69 mg/

dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).

(4)(i) Exit from a shop and, due solely

to operations of any affected open

submerged arc furnace, exhibit greater

than 20 percent opacity for more than

one distinct six-minute block average.

(ii) Visible particulate emissions that

exit from a shop and, due solely to

operation of a semi-closed submerged

arc furnace, may exceed greater than 20

percent opacity, for not more than one

distinct six-minute period in any sixty

minutes, but they shall not exceed 60

percent opacity, as a distinct six-minute

block average, at any time.

(iii) Blowing taps, poling and oxygen

lancing of the tap hole, burndowns

associated with electrode measurements

and maintenance activities, and casting

operations associated with ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces are exempt from

the opacity limit specified in paragraphs

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

(c) Each owner or operator of an

affected ferroalloy production facility

shall prepare and at all times operate

according to a fugitive dust control plan

in accordance with the requirements

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(4) of this section.

(1) The fugitive dust control plan

shall describe the specific control

measures that are used to reduce

emissions from the individual fugitive

dust sources at the facility. Examples of

control measures that may be used

include, but are not limited to: Installing

an enclosure, installing and operating a

local hood capture system vented to a

control device, placing stockpiles below

grade, installing wind screens or wind

fences, using water sprays, applying

appropriate dust suppression agents, or

any combination of these control

measures as appropriate for a given

fugitive dust source.

(2) The fugitive dust control plan

shall include, at a minimum, a

description of the control measures

implemented for each of the fugitive

dust sources listed in paragraphs

(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(v) of this section.

(i) Roads or other areas within the

plant property boundary used by trucks

or other motor vehicles (e.g., front-end

loaders) transporting bulk quantities of

fugitive dust materials. Paved roads and

areas of the facility that are not used by

these vehicles are not required to be

included in the plan (e.g., employee and

visitor parking lots);

(ii) Operations to unload or load

fugitive dust materials from or into

trucks or railcars;

(iii) Outdoor piles used to store

fugitive dust materials;

(iv) Transfer points in conveying

systems used to convey fugitive dust

materials. These points include, but are

not limited to, those points where the

material is transferred from a conveyor

belt to a second conveyor belt or

discharged from a conveyor to a hopper

or bin; and

(v) Other fugitive dust sources at a

facility as designated by the

Administrator or delegated permitting

authority.

(3) The owner or operator shall

submit a copy of the fugitive dust

control plan to the designated

permitting authority on or before the

applicable compliance date for the

affected source as specified in

§ 63.1650(e). The requirement for the

owner or operator to operate the facility

according to a written fugitive dust

control plan shall be incorporated in the

operating permit for the facility that is

issued by the designated permitting

authority under part 70 of this chapter.

(4) To satisfy the requirements of this

paragraph to develop a fugitive dust

control plan, the owner or operator may

use the affected source’s standard

operating procedures (SOP) manual or

other plan, provided the alternative plan

meets the requirements of this

paragraph and is made available for

inspection when requested by the

Administrator.
41532 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

§ 63.1653 Maintenance requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an

affected source shall comply with the

requirements of § 63.6(e).

(b)(1) In addition to the requirements

specified in paragraph (a) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

develop and implement a written

maintenance plan which includes each

air pollution control device associated

with ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces,

metal oxygen refining processes, and

crushing and screening operations

subject to the provisions of this part.

The owner or operator shall keep the

maintenance plan on record after it is

developed to be made available for

inspection, upon request, by the

Administrator for the life of the air

pollution control device or until the

affected source is no longer subject to

the provisions of this part.

(2) To satisfy the requirements of this

paragraph to develop an air pollution

control device maintenance plan, the

owner or operator may use the affected

source’s standard operating procedures

(SOP) manual or other plan, provided

the alternative plan meets the

requirements of this paragraph and is

made available for inspection when

requested by the Administrator.

(c) The procedures specified in the

maintenance plan shall, at a minimum,

include a preventive maintenance

schedule that is consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions and, for

baghouses, ensure that the requirements

specified in § 63.1655(a) are met.

(d) The owner or operator shall

perform monthly operational status

inspections of the equipment that is

important to the performance of the

total capture system (i.e., pressure

sensors, dampers, and damper

switches). This inspection shall include

observations of the physical appearance

of the equipment (e.g., presence of holes

in ductwork or hoods, flow

constrictions caused by dents or

accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan

erosion). Any deficiencies shall be

noted and proper maintenance

performed.

§ 63.1654 Compliance demonstrations,

performance testing, and test methods.

(a) Compliance demonstration with

emission limit standard. All

performance tests shall be conducted

according to the requirements in § 63.7.

(1) The owner or operator shall

conduct an initial performance test for

air pollution control devices or vent

stacks subject to the standard specified

in § 63.1652(a)(1) and § 63.1652(b)(1)

through (b)(3) to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable

emission limits.

(2) The owner or operator shall

conduct annual performance tests for

the air pollution control devices and

vent stacks associated with the

ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces, with

the exception of any air pollution

control devices that also serve nonfurnace emission sources. The results of

these annual tests will be used to

demonstrate compliance with the

emission limit specified in

§ 63.1652(a)(1) and § 63.1652(b)(1) and

(b)(2), as applicable.

(3) Following development, and

approval, if required, of the site-specific

test plan, the owner or operator shall

conduct an emission test for each air

pollution control device or vent stack to

measure the outlet of the control device

or vent to determine compliance with

the applicable standard. Compliance is

achieved if the measured, or calculated

value as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)

of this section, is less than or equal to

the applicable emission limitation.

(i) For those sources subject to the

requirements of § 63.1652(a)(3), the

measurements shall be recorded in mg/

dscm (gr/dscf).

(ii) For those sources subject to the

requirements of § 63.1652(a)(1) and

§ 63.1652(b)(1) and (b)(2), the

measurements shall be recorded in kg/

hr (lb/hr) and the emission rate (E) shall

be computed for the average emissions

from the performance test using the

following equation:

E C P si

i

N

= 



 



 =

∑

1

/

Where:

E=emission rate of particulate matter,

kg/hr/MW (lb/hr/MW).

N=total number of exhaust streams at

which emissions are quantified.

Csi= concentration of particulate matter

from exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, kg/hr (lb/

hr).

P=average furnace power input, MW.

(4) If a venturi scrubber is being used

to achieve compliance with the

emission limits, the owner or operator

shall establish as a site-specific

operating parameter the average hourly

pressure drop across the venturi during

the performance test. The pressure drop

shall be monitored and recorded at least

every 5 minutes during the test.

(i) The owner or operator shall

determine the operating parameter

monitoring value as the average of the

values recorded during each of the three

runs constituting the test.

(ii) The owner or operator may

augment the data obtained under

paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section by

conducting multiple performance tests

to establish a range of compliant

operating parameter values. The lowest

value of this range would be selected as

the operating parameter monitoring

value. The use of historic compliance

data may be used to establish the

compliant operating parameter value if

the previous values were recorded

during the performance tests using the

test methods specified in this subpart

and established in the manner required

in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(4)(i) of this

section.

(5) Compliance with the applicable

emission limit shall be determined by

the average of three runs. Each run shall

be conducted under conditions that are

representative of normal process

operations. Emissions tests conducted

on air pollution control devices serving

ferroalloy submerged arc furnaces shall

be conducted such that at least one

tapping cycle is included per run. The

sampling time for each test run shall be

at least as long as three times the

average tapping period of the tested

furnace, but no less than 60 minutes.

The sample volume for each test run

shall be at least 0.9 dscm (30 dscf).

(b) Compliance demonstration with

opacity standards. (1)(i) The owner or

operator shall conduct initial opacity

observations for the shop building

subject to the standards specified in

§ 63.1652(a)(4) to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable opacity

limitations according to the

requirements in § 63.6(h)(5), conduct of

opacity or visible emission observations.

(ii) In conducting the opacity

observations for the shop building, the

observer shall limit his or her field of

view to the area of the shop building

roof monitor that corresponds to the

placement of the affected ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces.

(2)(i) When the initial shop building

opacity observations required by

paragraph (b)(1) of this section are

conducted, the owner or operator shall

establish either the control system fan

motor amperes and all damper

positions, the total volumetric flow rate

to the air pollution control device and

all damper positions, or the volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood during all periods in which

a hood is operated for the purpose of

capturing emission from the ferroalloy

submerged arc furnaces, depending on

which parameter to be monitored under

the requirements established in

§ 63.1655(c)(1) or (c)(2).

(ii) The owner or operator may

petition the Administrator for

reestablishment of these parameters

whenever the owner or operator can
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41533

demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that the ferroalloy

submerged arc furnace operating

conditions upon which the parameters

were previously established are no

longer applicable. The values of these

parameters as determined during the

most recent demonstration of

compliance shall be maintained at the

appropriate level for each applicable

period.

(c) Compliance demonstration with

the work practice standard. 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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(d) Test methods. The following test

methods in Appendix A of part 60 of

this chapter shall be used to determine

compliance with the emission

standards.

(1) Method 1 shall be used to select

the sampling port location and the

number of traverse points.

(2) Method 2 shall be used to measure

volumetric flow rate.

(3) Method 3 shall be used for gas

analysis to determine the dry molecular

weight of the stack gas.

(4) Method 4 shall be used to

determine moisture content of the stack

gas.

(5) Method 5 shall be used for

particulate matter emissions from

control devices such as negative

pressure baghouses and scrubbers with

suction pressure.

(6) Method 5D shall be used for

positive pressure baghouses.

(7) Method 9 shall be used to

determine compliance with opacity

limits.

(8) The owner or operator may use

equivalent alternative measurement

methods approved by the Administrator

following the procedures described in

§ 63.7(f).

§ 63.1655 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Baghouses. (1) For the baghouses

serving the ferroalloy submerged arc

furnaces, the metal oxygen refining

process, and crushing and screening

operations, the owner or operator shall

monitor on a daily basis for the presence

of any visible emissions.

(2) In addition to the daily visible

emissions observation, the owner or

operator shall conduct the following

activities specified in paragraphs

(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(viii) of this

section.

(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop

across each baghouse cell.

(ii) Weekly confirmation that dust is

being removed from hoppers through

visual inspection, or equivalent means

of ensuring the proper functioning of

removal mechanisms.

(iii) Daily check of compressed air

supply for pulse-jet baghouses.

(iv) An appropriate methodology for

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure

proper operation.

(v) Monthly check of bag cleaning

mechanisms for proper functioning

through visual inspection or equivalent

means.

(vi) Monthly check of bag tension on

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses.

Such checks are not required for shakertype baghouses using self-tensioning

(spring loaded) devices.

(vii) Quarterly confirmation of the

physical integrity of the baghouse

through visual inspection of the

baghouse interior for air leaks.

(viii) Semiannual inspection of fans

for wear, material buildup, and

corrosion through visual inspection,

vibration detectors, or equivalent

means.

(3) In addition to the meeting the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and

(a)(2) of this section, the owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

ferroalloy submerged arc furnace shall

install and continuously operate a bag

leak detection system if the furnace

primary and/or tapping emissions are

ducted to a negative pressure baghouse

or to a positive pressure baghouse

equipped with a stack. The bag leak

detection system must meet the

following requirements:

(i) The bag leak detection system must

be certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of detecting particulate matter

emissions at concentrations of 10

milligrams per actual cubic meter

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or

less.

(ii) The bag leak detection system

sensor must provide output of relative

particulate matter 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) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed and operated in a

manner consistent with available

written guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such written guidance,

the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations for

installation, operation, and adjustment

of the system.

(v) The initial adjustment of the

system shall, 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, the

owner or operator shall not adjust the

sensitivity or range, averaging period,

alarm set points, or alarm delay time,

except as detailed in the maintenance

plan required under § 63.1653(b). In no

event shall the sensitivity be increased

by more than 100 percent or decreased

more than 50 percent over a 365-day

period unless such adjustment follows a

complete baghouse inspection which

demonstrates the baghouse is in good

operating condition.

(vii) Where multiple detectors are

required, the system’s instrumentation

and alarm may be shared among

detectors.

(4) As part of the start-up, shutdown,

and malfunction plan developed

pursuant to § 63.6(e), the owner or

operator shall develop and implement

corrective action procedures to be

followed in the case of a bag leak

detection system alarm for baghouses

equipped with such a system, the

observation of visible emissions from

the baghouse, or the indication through

the periodic baghouse system

inspections that the system is not

operating properly. The owner or

operator shall initiate corrective action

as soon as practicable after the

occurrence of the observation or event

indicating a malfunction.

(5) 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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(b) Venturi scrubbers. (1) The owner

or operator shall monitor the pressure

drop at the venturi at least every 5

minutes and record the average hourly

pressure drop. Measurement of an

average hourly pressure drop below the

limit established during the most recent

compliance demonstration would be a

violation of the emission limitation

standard, unless the owner or operator

can demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that a decrease in the

pressure drop was due to an upset

condition or malfunction.

(2) As part of the start-up, shutdown,

and malfunction plan developed

pursuant to § 63.6(e), the owner or

operator shall develop and implement

corrective action procedures to be

followed in the case of a violation of the

pressure drop requirement. The owner

or operator shall initiate corrective
41534 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

action as soon as practicable after the

exceedance.

(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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(c) Shop opacity. The owner or

operator subject to § 63.1652(a)(4) shall

monitor the capture system as specified

by paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) of

this section, depending on the

parameters monitored during the

compliance test in § 63.1654(b)(2).

Alternatively, the owner or operator

may use the provisions of § 63.8(f) to

request approval to use an alternative

monitoring method.

(1) The owner or operator shall check

and record the control system fan motor

amperes and damper positions on a

once-per-shift basis;

(2) The owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously

records the volumetric flow rate through

each separately ducted hood. The

monitoring device(s) may be installed in

any appropriate location in the exhaust

duct such that reproducible flow rate

monitoring will result. The flow rate

monitoring device(s) shall have an

accuracy ±10 percent over its normal

operating range and shall be calibrated

according to the manufacturer’s

instructions. The Administrator may

require the owner or operator to

demonstrate the accuracy of the

monitoring device(s) relative to Methods

1 and 2 of Appendix A of part 60 of this

chapter; or

(3) The owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously

records the volumetric flow rate at the

inlet of the air pollution control device

and shall check and record the control

system damper positions on a once-pershift basis. The monitoring device may

be installed in any appropriate location

in the exhaust duct such that

reproducible flow rate monitoring will

result. The flow rate monitoring device

shall have an accuracy ±10 percent over

its normal operating range and shall be

calibrated according to the

manufacturer’s instructions. The

Administrator may require the owner or

operator to demonstrate the accuracy of

the monitoring device(s) relative to

Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A of part

60 of this chapter.

(4) Operation of control system fan

motor amperes at values less than the

value established under § 63.1654(b)(2)

or operation at flow rates lower than

those established under § 63.1654(b)(2)

would establish the need to initiate

corrective action as soon as practicable

after the monitoring exceedance in order

to minimize excess emissions.

(5) 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 § 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(6) Where the capture system is

designed and operated such that all

emissions are captured and ducted to a

control device, the owner or operator

shall not be subject to the requirements

of this section.

§ 63.1656 Notification requirements.

(a) As required by § 63.9(b), unless

otherwise specified in this subpart, the

owner or operator shall submit the

following written notifications to the

Administrator:

(1) The owner or operator of an area

source that subsequently becomes

subject to the requirements of the

standard shall provide notification to

the applicable permitting authority as

required by § 63.9(b)(1).

(2) As required by § 63.9(b)(2), the

owner or operator of an affected source

that has an initial startup before the

effective date of the standard shall

notify the Administrator that the source

is subject to the requirements of the

standard. The notification shall be

submitted not later than 120 calendar

days after the effective date of this

standard (or within 120 calendar days

after the source becomes subject to this

standard) and shall contain the

information specified in § 63.9(b)(2)(i)

through (b)(2)(v).

(3) As required by § 63.9(b)(3), the

owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected source, or a

source that has been reconstructed such

that it is an affected source, that has an

initial startup after the effective date

and for which an application for

approval of construction or

reconstruction is not required under

§ 63.5(d), shall notify the Administrator

in writing that the source is subject to

the standards no later than 120 days

after initial startup. The notification

shall contain the information specified

in § 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v),

delivered or postmarked with the

notification required in § 63.9(b)(5).

(4) As required by § 63.9(b)(4), the

owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed major affected source that

has an initial startup after the effective

date of this standard and for which an

application for approval of construction

or reconstruction is required under

§ 63.5(d) shall provide the information

specified in § 63.9(b)(4)(i) through

(b)(4)(v).

(5) As required by § 63.9(b)(5), the

owner or operator who, after the

effective date of this standard, intends

to construct a new affected source or

reconstruct an affected source subject to

this standard, or reconstruct a source

such that it becomes an affected source

subject to this standard, shall notify the

Administrator, in writing, of the

intended construction or reconstruction.

(b) Request for extension of

compliance. As required by § 63.9(c), if

the owner or operator of an affected

source cannot comply with this

standard by the applicable compliance

date for that source, or if the owner or

operator has installed BACT or

technology to meet LAER consistent

with § 63.6(i)(5), he/she may submit to

the Administrator (or the State with an

approved permit program) a request for

an extension of compliance as specified

in § 63.6(i)(4) through (i)(6).

(c) Notification that source is subject

to special compliance requirements. As

required by § 63.9(d), an owner or

operator of a new source that is subject

to special compliance requirements as

specified in § 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) shall

notify the Administrator of his/her

compliance obligations not later than

the notification dates established in

§ 63.9(b) for new sources that are not

subject to the special provisions.

(d) Notification of performance test.

As required by § 63.9(e), the owner or

operator of an affected source shall

notify the Administrator in writing of

his or her intention to conduct a

performance test at least 30 calendar

days before the performance test is

scheduled to begin to allow the

Administrator to review and approve

the site-specific test plan required under

§ 63.7(c), if requested by the

Administrator, and to have an observer

present during the test.

(e) Notification of opacity and visible

emission observations. As required by

§ 63.9(f), the owner or operator of an

affected source shall notify the

Administrator in writing of the

anticipated date for conducting the

opacity or visible emission observations

specified in § 63.6(h)(5). The

notification shall be submitted with the

notification of the performance test date,

as specified in paragraph (d) of this

section, or if visibility or other

conditions prevent the opacity or visible

emission observations from being

conducted concurrently with the initial

performance test required under § 63.7,

the owner or operator shall deliver or

postmark the notification not less than
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41535

30 days before the opacity or visible

emission observations are scheduled to

take place.

(f) Notification of compliance status.

The owner or operator of an affected

source shall submit a notification of

compliance status as required by

§ 63.9(h). The notification shall be sent

before the close of business on the 60th

day following completion of the

relevant compliance demonstration.

§ 63.1657 Reporting requirements.

(a) General reporting requirements.

The owner or operator of a ferroalloy

production facility shall comply with all

of the reporting requirements under

§ 63.10, unless otherwise specified in

this subpart.

(1) Frequency of reports. As provided

by § 63.10(a)(5), if the owner or operator

is required to submit periodic reports to

a State on an established timeline, the

owner or operator may change the dates

by which periodic reports submitted

under this part may be submitted

(without changing the frequency of

reporting) to be consistent with the

State’s schedule by mutual agreement

between the owner or operator and the

State. This provision may be applied at

any point after the source’s compliance

date.

(2) Reporting results of performance

tests. As required by § 63.10(d)(2), the

owner or operator of an affected source

shall report the results of the initial

performance test as part of the

notification of compliance status

required in § 63.1656(f).

(3) Reporting results of opacity

observations. As required by

§ 63.10(d)(3), the owner or operator

shall report the opacity results

(produced using Test Method 9 or an

approved alternative to these methods)

along with the results of the

performance test required under § 63.7.

If visibility or other conditions prevent

the opacity observations from being

conducted concurrently with the

performance test required under § 63.7,

the owner or operator shall report the

opacity results before the close of

business on the 30th day following the

completion of the opacity observations.

(4) Periodic startup, shutdown, and

malfunction reports. (i) As required by

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i), if actions taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction of an affected

source (including actions taken to

correct a malfunction) are consistent

with the procedures specified in the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall state

such information in a semiannual

report. The report, to be certified by the

owner or operator or other responsible

official, shall be submitted

semiannually and delivered or

postmarked by the 30th day following

the end of each calendar half; and

(ii) Any time an action taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction (including

actions taken to correct a malfunction)

is not consistent with the procedures in

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall

comply with all requirements of

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

(b) Specific reporting requirements. In

addition to the information required

under § 63.10, reports required under

paragraph (a) of this section shall

include the information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this

section. As allowed by § 63.10(a)(3), if

any State requires a report that contains

all of the information required in a

report listed in this section, an owner or

operator may send the Administrator a

copy of the report sent to the State to

satisfy the requirements of this section

for that report.

(1) Air pollution control devices. The

owner or operator shall submit reports

that summarize the records maintained

as part of the practices described in the

maintenance plan for air pollution

control devices required under

§ 63.1653(b), including an explanation

of the periods when the procedures

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(2) Venturi scrubbers. In addition to

the information required to be

submitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

submit reports that identify the periods

when the average hourly pressure drop

of venturi scrubbers used to control

particulate emissions dropped below

the levels established in § 63.1654(a)(4),

and an explanation of the corrective

actions taken.

(3) Fugitive dust. The owner or

operator shall submit reports that

explain the periods when the

procedures outlined in the fugitive dust

control plan pursuant to § 63.1652(c)

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(4) Capture system. The owner or

operator shall submit reports that

summarize the monitoring parameter

exceedances measured pursuant to

§ 63.1655(c)(3) and the corrective

actions taken.

(5)(i) The owner or operator shall

submit reports pursuant to § 63.10(e)(3)

that are associated with excess

emissions events such as the

exceedance of the scrubber pressure

drop limit per paragraph (b)(2) of this

section. These reports are to be

submitted on a quarterly basis, unless

the owner or operator can satisfy the

requirements in § 63.10(e)(3) to reduce

the frequency to a semiannual basis.

(ii) All other reports specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section shall be submitted

semiannually.

§ 63.1658 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping

requirements:

(1) The owner or operator of a

ferroalloy production facility shall

comply with all of the recordkeeping

requirements under § 63.10.

(2) As required by § 63.10(b)(2), the

owner or operator shall maintain

records for five years from the date of

each record of:

(i) The occurrence and duration of

each startup, shutdown, or malfunction

of operation (i.e., process equipment

and control devices);

(ii) The occurrence and duration of

each malfunction of the source or air

pollution control equipment;

(iii) All maintenance performed on

the air pollution control equipment;

(iv) Actions taken during periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(including corrective actions to restore

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment to its

normal or usual manner of operation)

when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan;

(v) All information necessary to

demonstrate conformance with the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan when all actions taken during

periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction (including corrective

actions) are consistent with the

procedures specified in such plan. This

information can be recorded in a

checklist or similar form (see

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v).);

(vi) All required measurements

needed to demonstrate compliance with

the standard and to support data that

the source is required to report,

including, but not limited to,

performance test measurements

(including initial and any subsequent

performance tests) and measurements as

may be necessary to determine the

conditions of the initial test or

subsequent tests;

(vii) All results of initial or

subsequent performance tests;

(viii) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from recordkeeping or

reporting requirements under § 63.10(f),

any information demonstrating whether

a source is meeting the requirements for

a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting

requirements;

(ix) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from the initial
41536 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

performance test under § 63.7(h), a copy

of the full request and the

Administrator’s approval or

disapproval;

(x) All documentation supporting

initial notifications and notifications of

compliance status required by § 63.9;

and

(xi) As required by § 63.10(b)(3),

records of any applicability

determination, including supporting

analyses.

(b) Specific recordkeeping

requirements:

(1) In addition to the general records

required by paragraph (a) of this section,

the owner or operator shall maintain

records for five years from the date of

each record of:

(i) Records of pressure drop across the

venturi if a venturi scrubber is used;

(ii) Records of manufacturer

certification that monitoring devices are

accurate to within 5 percent and of

semiannual calibration;

(iii) Copy of the written maintenance

plan for each air pollution control

device;

(iv) Copy of the fugitive dust control

plan; and

(v) Records of each maintenance

inspection and repair, replacement, or

other corrective action.

(c) All records for the most recent two

years of operation must be maintained

on site. Records for the previous three

years may be maintained off site.

§ 63.1659 Delegation of authorities.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

subpart E of this part, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

Administrator and not transferred to a

State.

(b) No authorities are retained by the

Administrator.

§ 63.1660—§ 63.1679 [Reserved]

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART XXX.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART XXX

Reference, subpart A general provisions

Applies to

subpart XXX,

§§ 63.1620—

63.1679

Comment

63.1–63.5 ..................................................................................... Yes.

63.6(a)–(g), (i)–(j) ......................................................................... Yes.

63.6(h)(1)–(h)(6), (h)(8)–(h)(9) ..................................................... Yes.

63.7(h)(7) ..................................................................................... No ................ § 63.6(h)(7), use of continuous opacity monitoring system, not

applicable.

63.7 .............................................................................................. Yes.

63.8 .............................................................................................. Yes.

63.9 .............................................................................................. Yes ............... Notification of performance test results changed to a 30-day

notification period.a

63.10 ............................................................................................ Yes ............... Allow changes in dates by which periodic reports are submitted by mutual agreement between the owner or operator

and the State to occur any time after the source’s compliance date.

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

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

a Comment applies to §§ 63.1650–63.1679. For §§ 63.1620–63.1649, comment reads ‘‘Notification of performance test results and of opacity

observations changed to a 15-day notification period.’’

[FR Doc. 98–20511 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL–6133–9]

RIN 2050 AD38

Land Disposal Restrictions—

Treatment Standards for Spent

Potliners From Primary Aluminum

Reduction (K088); Notice of Data

Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: EPA has received a number of

data sets from which Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR) may be derived for

EPA Hazardous Waste: K088—Spent

potliners from primary aluminum

reduction. In today’s document, the

Agency is presenting these data sets for

comment in the context of developing a

treatment standard for total arsenic (mg/

kg) in K088 waste.

The public has 10 days from

publication of this document to

comment on these data sets and their

utility in the development of K088

treatment standards. This document

does not reopen for comment any other

LDR Phase III or Phase IV issue.

DATES: Comments on this document

must be submitted by August 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the

public must send an original and two

copies to Docket Number F–98–K88A–

FFFFF, located at the RCRA Docket. The

mailing address is: RCRA Information

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (5305W), 401 M. Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460. RCRA

Information Center is located at 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The RCRA

Information Center is open for public

inspection and copying of supporting

information for RCRA rules from 9 a.m.

to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday,

except for Federal holidays. The public

must make an appointment to review

docket materials by calling (703) 603–

9230. A maximum of 100 pages may be

copied from any regulatory document at

no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15

per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information or to order paper

copies of this Federal Register

document, call the RCRA Hotline.

Callers within the Washington,

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). Long-distance callers may

call 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–800–

553–7672. The RCRA Hotline is open

Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.,

Eastern Standard Time. For other

information on this document, contact

Elaine Eby (703) 308–8449 or Katrin

Kral at (703) 308–6120, Office of Solid

Waste, Mail Code 5302W, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460.