72508 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895; FRL–9491–8] 

RIN 2060–AQ–11 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 

Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for Ferroalloys Production to address 

the results of the residual risk and 

technology review that the EPA is 

required to conduct under the Clean Air 

Act. These proposed amendments 

include revisions to particulate matter 

standards for electric arc furnaces, metal 

oxygen refining processes, and crushing 

and screening operations. The 

amendments also add emission limits 

for hydrochloric acid, mercury, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 

formaldehyde from electric arc furnaces. 

Furthermore, the amendments expand 

and revise the requirements to control 

fugitive emissions from furnace 

operations and casting. Other proposed 

requirements related to testing, 

monitoring, notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting are included. We are also 

proposing to revise provisions 

addressing periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction to ensure 

that the rules are consistent with a 

recent court decision. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 9, 2012. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before December 23, 

2011. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by December 5, 2011, a public 

hearing will be held on December 8, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0895, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0895. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0895. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0895. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566– 

1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on 

December 8, 2011 and will be held at 

the EPA’s campus in Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate 

facility nearby. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a public hearing is to be 

held should contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, (D243–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0832. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–02), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–1512; fax number: (919) 541– 

3207; and email address: 

chin.conrad@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, 

Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division (C539–02), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2076; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

email address: smith.darcie@epa.gov. 

For information about the applicability 

of the National Emissions Standards for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72509 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to 

a particular entity, contact the 

appropriate person listed in Table 1 of 

this preamble. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP for: OECA contact 1 OAQPS contact 2

Ferroalloys Production ......... Cary Secrest, (202) 564–8661 secrest.cary@epa.gov ... Conrad Chin, (919) 541–1512, chin.conrad@epa.gov. 

1EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

2EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories, and risk modeling are 

included in this preamble. While this 

may not be an exhaustive list, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

and acronyms are defined here: 

ACI Activated Carbon Injection 

ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BLDS bag leak detection system 

BPT benefit-per-ton 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California EPA 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of 

Toxicology 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 

1.1.0 

HI Hazard Index 

HON hazardous organic national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

ICR information collection request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

kg/hr kilograms per hour 

kg/hr/MW kilograms per hour per megawatt 

km kilometer 

lb/hr pounds per hour 

lb/hr/MW pounds per hour per megawatt 

lb/yr pounds per year 

LML lowest measured level 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MACT Code Code within the National 

Emissions Inventory used to identify 

processes included in a source category 

MDL method detection limit 

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

MM millions 

MW megawatt 

NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline 

Levels for Hazardous Substances 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PM particulate matter 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

QA quality assurance 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RDL representative detection level 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SOP standard operating procedures 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

TPY tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF uncertainty factor 

mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit 

URE unit risk estimate 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

WWW world wide web 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

B. What are NESHAP? 

C. Does this action apply to me? 

D. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

E. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What is this source category and how 

did the 1999 MACT standards regulate 

its HAP emissions? 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

C. What other relevant background 

information from previous studies on 

ferroalloys emissions is available? 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we address unregulated 

emissions sources? 

B. How did we estimate risks posed by the 

source category? 

C. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

D. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

E. What other issues are we addressing in 

this proposal? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What are the results of our analyses and 

proposed decisions regarding 

unregulated pollutants? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions based 

on risk acceptability and ample margin 

of safety? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What demographic groups might benefit 

from this regulation? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

Consistent with the recently issued 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ we 

have estimated the costs and benefits of 

the proposed rule. The estimated net 

benefits of the proposed rule at a 3 

percent discount rate are $67 to $170 

million or $59 to $150 million at a 7 

percent discount rate. The monetized 

benefits in this analysis are due to PM2.5

co-benefits, as HAP benefits are not 

monetized. Table 2 presents a summary 

of the results of the analysis. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, SOCIAL COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE

PROPOSED RULE IN 2015 

[Millions of 2010$] a

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Total Monetized Benefits b ... $71 to $170 ..................................................................... $63 to $160. 

Total Social Costs c .............. $4.0 ................................................................................. $4.0. 

Net Benefits ......................... $67 to $170 ..................................................................... $59 to $150. 

Non-monetized Benefits ....... Reduced exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), including Manganese, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAH), Chromium, Arsenic, Nickel, and Mercury. 

aAll estimates are for implementation year 2015 (the benefit estimates use 2016 values as an approximation); and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-ton 

(BPT) estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become particulate matter (PM)2.5. These benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. The BPT estimates are based on recent air quality modeling specific 

to the ferroalloys sector. bAll estimates are for 2016, which we use as an approximation for impacts in 2015. 

cThe compliance costs of the proposal serve as a proxy for the social costs. The compliance costs are estimated using a 7% interest rate. 

Under the proposed amendments, 

ferroalloys production facilities are 

expected to incur $11.4 million in 

capital costs to install new air pollution 

controls and new or improved 

monitoring systems. We have estimated 

the annualized costs to be $4.0 million, 

which includes estimated monitoring 

and testing costs. Section V.C of this 

preamble contains more detail on these 

estimated cost impacts. 

B. What are NESHAP? 

1. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of HAP 

from stationary sources. In the first 

stage, after the EPA has identified 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

112(b), CAA section 112(d) calls for us 

to promulgate national technologybased emission standards for hazardous 

air pollutants (NESHAP) for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit or have the potential to emit 10 

tons per year (tpy) or more of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

these technology-based standards must 

reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must require the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems, 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that (1) Reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (2) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage, or fugitive 

emissions point; (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards (including 

requirements for operator training or 

certification); or (5) are a combination of 

the above. CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)– 

(E). The MACT standards may take the 

form of design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards where 

the EPA first determines either that, (1) 

a pollutant cannot be emitted through a 

conveyance designed and constructed to 

emit or capture the pollutants, or that 

any requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (2) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA sections 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

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

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floors for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

The EPA is then required to review 

these technology-based standards and 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years, under 

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

this review, the EPA is not obliged to 

completely recalculate the prior MACT 

determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1084 (DC Cir., 2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., 

‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, 

first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72511 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 

widespread adverse effect, which may be 

reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life or 

natural resources, including adverse impacts on 

populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities 

over broad areas. 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks, and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted this report 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA– 

453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress 

did not act in response to the report, 

thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze 

and address residual risk. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to 

determine for source categories subject 

to certain MACT standards, whether 

those emissions standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. If the MACT standards for HAP 

‘‘classified as a known, probable, or 

possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ the EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory), as necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In doing so, the 

EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 

2008). (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards 

provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety,’’ 

then the Agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’) The EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect,1 but must consider cost, energy, 

safety and other relevant factors in 

doing so. 

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

preserves our use of the two-step 

process for developing standards to 

address any residual risk and our 

interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ developed in the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions From 

Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ 

Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke 

By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 Federal Register (FR) 

38044, September 14, 1989). The first 

step in this process is the determination 

of acceptable risk. The second step 

provides for an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health, which is the 

level at which the standards are to be set 

(unless an even more stringent standard 

is necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA’s 

interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP, and the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

concluded that the EPA’s interpretation 

of subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable 

one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 

(DC Cir. 2008), which says 

‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 

incorporates the EPA’s interpretation of 

the Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

standard, complete with a citation to the 

Federal Register.’’ See also, A 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 

(Senate debate on Conference Report). 

We also notified Congress in the 

Residual Risk Report to Congress that 

we intended to use the Benzene 

NESHAP approach in making CAA 

section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, 

p. ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as 

an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 

maximum feasible protection against risks to 

health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) 

protecting the greatest number of persons 

possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; 

and (2) limiting to no higher than 

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

1 million] the estimated risk that a person 

living near a facility would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

The Agency also stated that, ‘‘The 

EPA also considers incidence (the 

number of persons estimated to suffer 

cancer or other serious health effects as 

a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be 

an important measure of the health risk 

to the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ The Agency 

went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated 

incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging 

acceptability.’’ As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

the EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,’’ but rather considers 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). 

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a 

judgment of ‘‘what risks are acceptable 

in the world in which we live’’ 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride 

decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing 

that our world is not risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately one in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR 38045. We discussed the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk (or 

maximum individual risk (MIR)) as 

being ‘‘the estimated risk that a person 

living near a plant would have if he or 

she were exposed to the maximum 

pollutant concentrations for 70 years.’’ 

Id. We explained that this measure of 

risk ‘‘is an estimate of the upper bound 

of risk based on conservative 

assumptions, such as continuous 

exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 

years.’’ Id. We acknowledge that 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk ‘‘does not necessarily reflect the 

true risk, but displays a conservative 

risk level which is an upper-bound that 

is unlikely to be exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the 

presumptive risk level of 100 in one 

million (one in 10 thousand) provides a 

benchmark for judging the acceptability 

of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 

for making that determination. Further, 

in the Benzene NESHAP, we noted that, 

‘‘Particular attention will also be 

accorded to the weight of evidence 

presented in the risk assessment of 

potential carcinogenicity or other health 

effects of a pollutant. While the same 

numerical risk may be estimated for an 

exposure to a pollutant judged to be a 

known human carcinogen, and to a 

pollutant considered a possible human 

carcinogen based on limited animal test 

data, the same weight cannot be 

accorded to both estimates. In 

considering the potential public health 

effects of the two pollutants, the 

Agency’s judgment on acceptability, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

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

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

including the MIR, will be influenced 

by the greater weight of evidence for the 

known human carcinogen.’’ Id. at 

38046. 

The Agency also explained in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: 

‘‘In establishing a presumption for MIR, 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, 

the Agency intends to weigh it with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors. These include the overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious 

health effects within the exposed 

population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime 

risk range and associated incidence 

within, typically, a 50-kilometer (km) 

exposure radius around facilities, the 

science policy assumptions and 

estimation uncertainties associated with 

the risk measures, weight of the 

scientific evidence for human health 

effects, other quantified or unquantified 

health effects, effects due to co-location 

of facilities, and co-emissions of 

pollutants.’’ Id. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks 

judged ‘acceptable’ by EPA in the first 

step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are 

already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘ample margin 

of safety,’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further * * *. 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties, and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the Agency will establish the standard 

at a level that provides an ample margin 

of safety to protect the public health as 

required by section 112.’’ 

In NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1082 

(DC Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals 

held that section 112(f)(2) ‘‘incorporates 

EPA’s ‘interpretation’ of the Clean Air 

Act from the Benzene Standard, and the 

text of this provision draws no 

distinction between carcinogens and 

non-carcinogens.’’ Additionally, the 

Court held there is nothing on the face 

of the statute that limits the Agency’s 

section 112(f) assessment of risk to 

carcinogens. Id. at 1081–82. In the 

NRDC case, the petitioners argued, 

among other things, that section 

112(f)(2)(B) applied only to noncarcinogens. The DC Circuit rejected 

this position, holding that the text of 

that provision ‘‘draws no distinction 

between carcinogens and noncarcinogens,’’ id., and that Congress’ 

incorporation of the Benzene standard 

applies equally to carcinogens and noncarcinogens. 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the Agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step. 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties, and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the Agency will establish the standard 

at a level that provides an ample margin 

of safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046. 

2. How do we consider the risk results 

in making decisions? 

As discussed in the previous section 

of this preamble, we apply a two-step 

process for developing standards to 

address residual risk. In the first step, 

the EPA determines if risks are 

acceptable. This determination 

‘‘considers all health information, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

and includes a presumptive limit on 

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] 

risk (MIR) 2 of approximately one in 10 

thousand [i.e., 100 in one million].’’ 54 

FR 38045. In the second step of the 

process, the EPA sets the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately one in one million, as 

well as other relevant factors, including 

costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. 

In past residual risk determinations, 

the EPA presented a number of human 

health risk metrics associated with 

emissions from the category under 

review, including: The MIR; the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

noncancer hazard index (HI); and the 

maximum acute noncancer hazard. In 

estimating risks, the EPA considered 

sources under review that are located 

near each other and that affect the same 

population. The EPA developed risk 

estimates based on the actual emissions 

from the source category under review 

as well as based on the maximum 

emissions allowed pursuant to the 

source category MACT standard. The 

EPA also discussed and considered risk 

estimation uncertainties. The EPA is 

providing this same type of information 

in support of these actions. 

The Agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making our determinations 

and how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: ‘‘The policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of 

noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health.’ ’’ 

For example, the level of the MIR is 

only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risks. The 

Benzene NESHAP explains ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately one in 10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors.’’ Similarly, with 

regard to the ample margin of safety 

analysis, the Benzene NESHAP states 

that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight 

of the many factors that can be 

considered in selecting an ample margin 

of safety can only be determined for 

each specific source category. This 

occurs mainly because technological 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72513 

3EPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial 

Source Category List—Final Report, EPA/OAQPS, 

EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. 

4The emission limits were revised on March 22, 

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

reconsideration submitted to the EPA following 

promulgation of the final rule, and a petition for 

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

District of Columbia Circuit. 

and economic factors (along with the 

health-related factors) vary from source 

category to source category.’’ 

C. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated industrial source 

category that is the subject of this 

proposal is listed in Table 3. Table 3 of 

this preamble is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding the entities likely 

to be affected by this proposed action. 

The proposed standards, once finalized, 

will be directly applicable to affected 

sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 

government entities are not affected by 

this proposed action. As defined in the 

MACT (major source) source category 

listing report published by the EPA in 

1992, the ‘‘Ferroalloys Production’’ 

source category is any facility engaged 

in producing ferroalloys such as 

ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, and 

ferrochrome.3 Subsequently, the EPA 

redefined the MACT source category 

when it promulgated the Ferroalloy 

MACT standard so that it now includes 

only major sources that produce 

products containing manganese. (64 FR 

27450, May 20, 1999) The MACT 

standard applies specifically to two 

ferroalloy product types: 

ferromanganese and silicomanganese. 

TABLE 3—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS code 1 MACT code 2

Ferroalloys Production .................................................. Ferroalloys Production .................................................. 331112 0304 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

D. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Supporting 

documents and other relevant 

information including a version of the 

regulatory text showing specific 

proposed changes is located in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895). 

Additional information is available on 

the residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 

information includes source category 

descriptions and detailed emissions 

estimates and other data that were used 

as inputs to the risk assessment. 

E. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comments that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. 

II. Background 

A. What is this source category and how 

did the 1999 MACT standards regulate 

its HAP emissions? 

The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for 

Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese 

and Silicomanganese was promulgated 

on May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27450) and 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

XXX.4 The 1999 NESHAP applies to all 

new and existing ferroalloys production 

facilities that manufacture 

ferromanganese or silicomanganese and 

are major sources or are co-located at 

major sources of HAP emissions. The 

rule’s product-specific applicability 

reflected the fact that there was only one 

known major source within the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

at the time of promulgation. Since then, 

one other major source of 

silicomanganese has started production, 

but it was permitted as an existing 

source. 

Today, there are two ferroalloys 

production facilities subject to the 

MACT rule. No greenfield manganese 

ferroalloys production facilities have 

been built in over 20 years, and we 

anticipate no greenfield manganese 

ferroalloys production facilities in the 

foreseeable future, although one facility 

is currently exploring expanding 

operations through the addition of a 

new furnace. 

Ferroalloys are alloys of iron in which 

one or more chemical elements (such as 

chromium, manganese, and silicon) are 

added into molten metal. Ferroalloys are 

consumed primarily in iron and steel 

making and are used to produce steel 

and cast iron products with enhanced or 

special properties. 

Ferroalloys within the scope of this 

source category are produced using 

submerged electric arc furnaces, which 

are furnaces in which the electrodes are 

submerged into the charge. The 

submerged arc process is a reduction 

smelting operation. The reactants 

consist of metallic ores (ferrous oxides, 

silicon oxides, manganese oxides, etc.) 

and a carbon-source reducing agent, 

usually in the form of coke, charcoal, 

high- and low-volatility coal, or wood 

chips. Raw materials are crushed and 

sized, and then conveyed to a mix house 

for weighing and blending. Conveyors, 

buckets, skip hoists, or cars transport 

the processed material to hoppers above 

the furnace. The mix is gravity-fed 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72514 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA. AP–42, 12.4. Ferroalloy Production. 10/86. 

through a feed chute either 

continuously or intermittently, as 

needed. At high temperatures in the 

reaction zone, the carbon source reacts 

with metal oxides to form carbon 

monoxide and to reduce the ores to base 

metal.5 The molten material (product 

and slag) is tapped from the furnace, 

sometimes subject to post-furnace 

refining, and poured into casting beds 

on the furnace room floor. Once the 

material hardens, it is transported to 

product crushing and sizing systems 

and packaged for transport to the 

customer. 

HAP generating processes include 

electrometallurgical (furnace) operations 

(smelting and tapping), other furnace 

room operations (ladle treatment and 

casting), building fugitives, raw material 

handling and product handling. HAP 

are emitted from ferroalloys production 

as process emissions, process fugitive 

emissions, and outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions. 

Process emissions are the exhaust 

gases from the control devices, 

primarily the furnace control device, 

metal oxygen refining control device 

and crushing operations control device. 

The HAP in process emissions are 

primarily composed of metals (mostly 

manganese, arsenic, nickel, lead, 

mercury and chromium) and also may 

include organic compounds that result 

from incomplete combustion of coal, 

coke or other fuel that is charged to the 

furnaces as a reducing agent. There are 

also process metal HAP emissions from 

the product crushing control devices. 

Process fugitive emissions occur at 

various points during the smelting 

process (such as during charging and 

tapping of furnaces and casting) and are 

assumed to be similar in composition to 

the process emissions. Outdoor fugitive 

dust emissions result from the 

entrainment of HAP in ambient air due 

to material handling, vehicle traffic, 

wind erosion from storage piles, and 

other various activities. Outdoor fugitive 

dust emissions are composed of 

particulate metal HAP only. 

The MACT rule applies to process 

emissions from the submerged arc 

furnaces, the metal oxygen refining 

process, and the product crushing 

equipment, process fugitive emissions 

from the furnace and outdoor fugitive 

dust emissions sources such as 

roadways, yard areas, and outdoor 

material storage and transfer operations. 

For process sources, the NESHAP 

specifies numerical emissions limits for 

particulate matter (as a surrogate for 

non-mercury (or particulate) metal HAP) 

from the electric (submerged) arc 

furnaces (including smelting and 

tapping emissions), with the specific 

limits depending on furnace type, size, 

and product being made. Particulate 

matter emission limits (again as a 

surrogate for particulate metal HAP) are 

also in place for process emissions from 

the metal oxygen refining process and 

product crushing and screening 

equipment. Table 4 is a summary of the 

applicable limits. 

TABLE 4—EMISSION LIMITS IN SUBPART XXX 

New or reconstructed or 

existing source Affected source Applicable PM emission standards 

Subpart XXX 

reference 

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

hour per megawatt 

(kg/hr/MW) (0.51 

pounds per hour per 

megawatt (lb/hr/ 

MW) or 35 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic 

meter (mg/dscm) 

(0.015 grains per 

dry standard cubic 

foot (gr/dscf).

40 CFR 63.1652(a)(1) 

and (a)(2) 

Existing ......................... Open submerged arc furnace producing ferromanganese and operating at a furnace power input of 22 megawatts (MW) or less.9.8 kg/hr (21.7 lb/hr) .. 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(1) 

Existing ......................... Open submerged arc furnace producing ferromanganese and operating at a furnace power input greater than 22 MW.13.5 kg/hr (29.8 lb/hr) 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(2) 

Existing ......................... Open submerged arc furnace producing silicomanganese and operating at a furnace power input greater than 25 MW.16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/hr) 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(3) 

Existing ......................... Open submerged arc furnace producing silicomanganese and operating at a furnace power input of 25 MW or less.12.3 kg/hr (27.2 lb/hr) 40 CFR 63.1652(b)(4) 

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

stacks) producing ferromanganese.

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

New, reconstructed, or 

existing.

Metal oxygen refining process ............................................................. 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/ 

dscf).

40 CFR 63.1652(d) 

New or reconstructed ... Individual equipment associated with the product crushing and 

screening operation.

50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/ 

dscf).

40 CFR 63.1652(e)(1) 

Existing ......................... Individual equipment associated with the product crushing and 

screening operation.

69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/ 

dscf).

40 CFR 63.1652(e)(2) 

The 1999 NESHAP established a 

building opacity limit of 20 percent that 

is measured during the required furnace 

control device performance test. The 

rule provides an excursion limit of 60 

percent opacity for one 6-minute period 

during the performance test. The 

opacity observation is focused only on 

emissions exiting the shop due solely to 

operations of any affected submerged 

arc furnace. In addition, blowing taps, 

poling and oxygen lancing of the tap 

hole; burndowns associated with 

electrode measurements; and 

maintenance activities associated with 

submerged arc furnaces and casting 

operations are exempt from the opacity 

standards specified in § 63.1653. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72515 

6Eramet Marrietta, located in Marietta, Ohio. 

7 In press: Kim Y et al. Motor function in adults 

of an Ohio community with environmental 

manganese exposure. 2011 Neurotoxicology, doi: 

10.1016/j. neuro.2011.07.011. 

For outdoor fugitive dust sources, as 

defined in § 63.1652, the 1999 NESHAP 

requires that plants prepare and operate 

according to an outdoor fugitive dust 

control plan that describes in detail the 

measures that will be put in place to 

control outdoor fugitive dust emissions 

from the individual outdoor fugitive 

dust sources at the facility. The owner 

or operator must submit a copy of the 

outdoor fugitive dust control plan to the 

designated permitting authority on or 

before the applicable compliance date. 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

In April 2010, we issued an 

information collection request (ICR), 

pursuant to CAA section 114, to the two 

companies that own and operate the two 

known ferroalloys production facilities 

producing ferromanganese and 

silicomanganese. The ICR requested 

available information regarding process 

equipment, control devices, point and 

fugitive emissions, practices used to 

control fugitive emissions, and other 

aspects of facility operations. The two 

companies completed the surveys for 

their facilities and submitted the 

responses to us in the fall of 2010. We 

also requested that the two facilities 

conduct additional emissions tests in 

2010 for certain HAP from specific 

processes that were considered 

representative of the industry. 

Additional emissions testing was 

performed for most HAP metals (e.g., 

manganese, arsenic, chromium, lead, 

nickel and mercury), hydrochloric acid 

(HCl), formaldehyde, and PAH. The 

results of these tests were submitted to 

the EPA in the fall of 2010 and are 

available in the docket for this action. 

During the development of this 

regulation we discovered other types of 

ferroalloys production facilities (e.g., 

non-manganese ferroalloy production) 

that are not subject to this NESHAP. We 

plan to gather additional information on 

these other types of sources, and then 

evaluate whether we need to establish 

MACT standards for these sources. 

C. What other relevant background 

information from previous studies on 

ferroalloys emissions is available? 

In addition to the emissions 

information and risk assessment 

described in this preamble, other 

sources of publicly available data exist. 

Based on historical emissions data from 

the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory, one 

of the manganese ferroalloys facilities in 

this source category 6 has been one of 

the highest-emitters of manganese in the 

country for at least 15 years (http:// 

www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/tri/ 

index.html). Several agencies have 

conducted studies of the emissions from 

this facility and potential health effects 

of those emissions. 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR), of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, along with the Ohio 

Department of Health and the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

conducted two health consultations in 

the communities surrounding this 

manganese ferroalloys facility between 

2004 and 2007. The investigations 

found average ambient concentrations of 

manganese at levels higher than 

background concentrations and higher 

than health benchmark concentrations. 

More information about these studies 

can be found at http:// 

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/ 

washington_marietta/index.html. 

As a result of these findings, a health 

study of chronic adult exposure to 

ambient manganese in the communities 

surrounding the facility was funded by 

the EPA. Available results show no 

significant differences in blood 

manganese concentrations or major 

health outcomes between residents 

living near the facility and residents in 

a comparison town; however some 

subtle, subclinical motor (movement) 

differences were found in residents in 

the town with the facility.7

In addition, under the EPA’s School 

Air Toxics Initiative, ambient 

concentrations of manganese were 

monitored at three schools located near 

the ferroalloys production facility in late 

2009. At these locations, mean 

manganese concentrations above the 

health benchmark value were observed. 

We note that the daily monitored values 

were in some cases above the RfC and 

in some cases below. The daily values 

were highly variable as they were likely 

influenced by wind direction and speed. 

More information about the health 

benchmark value is available in section 

III.B. More information on the School 

Air Toxics Initiative can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/index/ 

html, while the study including the area 

around this facility can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/pdfs/ 

MariettaTechReport.pdf. The 

monitoring was conducted for the 

School Air Toxics Initiative; however 

we do present a comparison of modeled 

concentrations to monitored 

concentrations in the Risk Assessment 

document, which is available in the 

docket. 

III. Analyses Performed 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR for this 

source category. 

A. How did we address unregulated 

emissions sources? 

In the course of evaluating the 

Ferroalloys Production source category, 

we identified certain HAP for which we 

failed to establish emission standards in 

the original MACT. See National Lime 

v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (DC Cir. 

2000) (EPA has ‘‘clear statutory 

obligation to set emissions standards for 

each listed HAP’’). Specifically, we 

identified and evaluated emissions 

standards for four HAP (or groups of 

HAP), described below, that are not 

specifically regulated in the existing 

1999 MACT standard, or are only 

regulated for certain emissions points. 

As described below, for these HAP (or 

groups of HAP), we are proposing 

emissions limits pursuant to section 

112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3). The results and 

proposed decisions based on the 

analyses performed pursuant to CAA 

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

presented in section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

1. Hydrochloric acid 

We were unaware of the potential for 

hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions when 

we developed the 1999 NESHAP. As a 

result, we did not establish standards 

for HCl for these sources in the 1999 

NESHAP. We recently received HCl 

emissions data in response to the ICR. 

Therefore, we are proposing a standard 

pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) 

(as described further in section IV.A of 

this preamble). 

2. Mercury 

The 1999 NESHAP specified 

emissions limits for particulate metal 

HAP (e.g., manganese, arsenic, nickel, 

chromium) in terms of a particulate 

matter emissions limit (i.e., particulate 

matter is used as a surrogate for metal 

HAP that are mainly emitted in 

particulate form). There is no explicit 

standard for mercury, and a significant 

fraction of the mercury emissions are 

expected to be in gaseous mercury forms 

(e.g., gaseous elemental mercury or 

gaseous oxidized mercury) with a 

smaller fraction in particulate form. 

Therefore, we are proposing a standard 

specifically for mercury pursuant to 

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

described further in section IV.A of this 

preamble). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. 

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

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

10A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

3. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

As described above, the 1999 

NESHAP only regulated particulate 

metal HAP emissions and did not 

establish standards for PAH. Since then, 

we have determined that electric arc 

furnaces emit PAH, and we are 

proposing a standard pursuant to 

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

described further in section IV.A of this 

preamble). 

4. Formaldehyde 

As described above, the 1999 

NESHAP only regulated particulate 

metal HAP emissions and did not 

establish standards for formaldehyde. 

Since then, we have determined that 

electric arc furnaces emit formaldehyde, 

and we are proposing a standard 

pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) 

(as described further in section IV.A of 

this preamble). 

B. How did we estimate risks posed by 

the source category? 

The EPA conducted a risk assessment 

that provided estimates of the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from each 

source in the source category, the HI for 

chronic exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for 

acute exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects. The assessment also provided 

estimates of the distribution of cancer 

risks within the exposed populations, 

cancer incidence and an evaluation of 

the potential for adverse environmental 

effects for each source category. The risk 

assessment consisted of seven primary 

steps, as discussed below. The docket 

for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category. The 

methods used to assess risks (as 

described in the seven primary steps 

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

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 

and described in their peer review 

report issued in 2010; 8 they are also 

consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. Establishing the Nature and 

Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 

Identifying the Emissions Release 

Characteristics 

The two existing ferromanganese and 

silicomanganese production facilities 

constitute the dataset that is the basis 

for the risk assessment. We estimated 

the magnitude of emissions using data 

collected through the ICR. In addition to 

the quality assurance (QA) of the source 

data for the facilities contained in the 

dataset, we also checked the coordinates 

of every emission source in the dataset 

through visual observations using tools 

such as GoogleEarth and ArcView. 

Where coordinates were found to be 

incorrect, we identified and corrected 

them to the extent possible. We also 

performed QA of the emissions data and 

release characteristics to ensure the data 

were reliable and that there were no 

outliers. 

2. Establishing the Relationship 

Between Actual Emissions and MACT– 

Allowable Emissions Levels 

The emissions data in the MACT 

dataset include estimates of the mass of 

emissions actually emitted during the 

specified annual time period. These 

‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower 

than the emission levels that a facility 

might be allowed to emit and still 

comply with the MACT standards. The 

emissions level allowed to be emitted by 

the MACT standards is referred to as the 

‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions level. 

This represents the highest emissions 

level that could be emitted by facilities 

without violating the MACT standards. 

We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the 

final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk 

rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP residual 

risk rules (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, 

and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 

respectively). In those previous actions, 

we noted that assessing the risks at the 

MACT-allowable level is inherently 

reasonable because these risks reflect 

the maximum level sources could emit 

and still comply with national emission 

standards. But we also explained that it 

is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in both steps of the risk 

analysis, in accordance with the 

Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989.) 

For the Ferroalloys Production source 

category, we evaluated allowable stack 

emissions, based on the level of control 

required by the MACT standards 

compared to the level of reported actual 

emissions and available information on 

the level of control achieved by the 

emissions controls in use. Further 

explanation is provided in the technical 

document: Draft Development of the 

RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category, 

which is available in the docket. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures, and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 

version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs 

three of the primary risk assessment 

activities listed above: (1) Conducting 

dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, 

(2) estimating long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposures to individuals 

residing within 50 km of the modeled 

sources, and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.9 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year of hourly surface and upper air 

observations for 189 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library, of United States Census 

Bureau census block 10 internal point 

locations and populations, provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

(Census, 2000). In addition, for each 

census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

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

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72517 

11National Toxicology Program (NTP), 2011. 

Report on carcinogens. 12th ed. Research Triangle 

Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS), Public Health Service. Available 

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

roc12.pdf. 

12 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARD), 1990. IARC monographs on the evaluation 

of carcinogenic risks to humans. Chromium, nickel, 

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

Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 

Organization Vol. 49:256. 

13World Health Organization (WHO, 1991) and 

the European Union’s Scientific Committee on 

Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER, 2006). 

14Two UREs (other than the current IRIS values) 

have been derived for nickel compounds as a group: 

one developed by the California Department of 

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

summary/nickel_tech_b.pdf) and the other by the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

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

healtheffectsinfo.pdf). 

15U.S. EPA. Performing risk assessments that 

include carcinogens described in the Supplemental 

Guidance as having a mutagenic mode of action. 

Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 

Implementation Work Group Communication I: 

Memo from W.H. Farland, dated October 4, 2005. 

16See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories 

document available in the docket for a list of HAP 

with a mutagenic mode of action. 

17U.S. EPA Supplemental Guidance for Assessing 

Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-3/ 

003F, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_

supplement_final.pdf. 

18U.S. EPA Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated 

June 14, 2006. 

19These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

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

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board 

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

Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) entitled, NATA— 

Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available 

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

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/

ecadv02001.pdf. 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each of the HAP 

emitted by each source for which we 

have emissions data in the source 

category. The air concentrations at each 

nearby census block centroid were used 

as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of inhabited census blocks. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

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

estimate (URE), which is an upper 

bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible dose 

response values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

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

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

In the case of nickel compounds, to 

provide a health protective estimate of 

potential cancer risks, we used the URE 

value for nickel subsulfide in this 

assessment. Based on past scientific and 

technical considerations, the 

determination of the percent of nickel 

subsulfide was considered a major 

factor for estimating the extent and 

magnitude of the risks of cancer due to 

nickel-containing emissions. Nickel 

speciation information for some of the 

largest nickel-emitting sources 

(including oil combustion, coal 

combustion, and others) suggested that 

at least 35 percent of the total nickel 

emissions may be soluble compounds 

and that the URE for the mixture of 

inhaled nickel compounds (based on 

nickel subsulfide, and representative of 

pure insoluble crystalline nickel) could 

be derived to reflect the assumption that 

65 percent of the total mass of nickel 

may be carcinogenic. Based on 

consistent views of major scientific 

bodies (i.e., National Toxicology 

Program in their 12th Report on 

Carcinogens,11 International Agency for 

Research on Cancer,12 and other 

international agencies) 13 that consider 

all nickel compounds to be 

carcinogenic, we currently consider all 

nickel compounds to have the potential 

of being carcinogenic to humans. The 

major scientific bodies mentioned above 

have also recognized that there are 

differences in toxicity and/or 

carcinogenic potential across the 

different nickel compounds. More 

discussion of the nickel URE can be 

found in the risk assessment report in 

the docket for this action. For this 

analysis, to take a more healthprotective approach, we considered all 

nickel compounds to be as carcinogenic 

as nickel subsulfide in our inhalation 

risk assessments and have applied the 

IRIS URE for nickel subsulfide without 

a factor to reflect the assumption that 

100 percent of the total mass of nickel 

may be as carcinogenic as pure nickel 

subsulfide. In addition, given that there 

are two URE values 14 derived for 

exposure to mixtures of nickel 

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

lower than the IRIS URE for nickel 

subsulfide, we also consider it 

reasonable to use a value that is 50 

percent of the IRIS URE for nickel 

subsulfide for providing an estimate of 

the lower end of a plausible range of 

cancer potency values for different 

mixtures of nickel compounds. 

We also note that polycyclic organic 

matter (POM) (of which PAH are a 

subset), a carcinogenic HAP with a 

mutagenic mode of action, is emitted by 

the facilities in this source category.15

For this compound group,16 the agedependent adjustment factors (ADAF) 

described in the EPA’s Supplemental 

Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility 

from Early-Life Exposure to 

Carcinogens 17 were applied. This 

adjustment has the effect of increasing 

the estimated lifetime risks for POM by 

a factor of 1.6. In addition, although 

only a small fraction of the total POM 

emissions were not reported as 

individual compounds, the EPA 

expresses carcinogenic potency for 

compounds in this group in terms of 

benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based on 

evidence that carcinogenic POM has the 

same mutagenic mechanism of action as 

benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, the 

EPA’s Science Policy Council 18

recommends applying the Supplemental 

Guidance to all carcinogenic PAH for 

which risk estimates are based on 

relative potency. Accordingly, we have 

applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene 

equivalent portion of all POM mixtures. 

Incremental individual lifetime 

cancer risks associated with emissions 

from the two facilities in the source 

category were estimated as the sum of 

the risks for each of the carcinogenic 

HAP (including those classified as 

carcinogenic to humans, likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive 

evidence of carcinogenic potential 19) 

emitted by the modeled source. Cancer 

incidence and the distribution of 

individual cancer risks for the 

population within 50 km of the sources 

were also estimated for the source 

category as part of this assessment by 

summing individual risks. A distance of 

50 km is consistent with both the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

20NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 

Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 

Chemicals, page 2. 

21ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion 

models, including AERMOD. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference value, which is either the EPA 

reference concentration (RfC), defined 

as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty 

spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 

exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime,’’ 

or, in cases where an RfC from the 

EPA’s IRIS database is not available, the 

EPA will utilize the following 

prioritized sources for our chronic doseresponse values: (1) The Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Minimum Risk Level, which is defined 

as ‘‘an estimate of daily human 

exposure to a substance that is likely to 

be without an appreciable risk of 

adverse effects (other than cancer) over 

a specified duration of exposure’’; (2) 

the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level (REL), which is defined as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration’’; and 

(3), as noted above, in cases where 

scientifically credible dose-response 

values have been developed in a manner 

consistent with the EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process 

similar to that used by the EPA, we may 

use those dose-response values in place 

of or in concert with other values. 

Screening estimates of acute 

exposures and risks were also evaluated 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest off-site exposure for each facility 

(i.e., not just the census block 

centroids), assuming that a person is 

located at this spot at a time when both 

the peak (hourly) emission rate and 

worst-case dispersion conditions (1991 

calendar year data) occur. The acute HQ 

is the estimated acute exposure divided 

by the acute dose-response value. In 

each case, acute HQ values were 

calculated using best available, shortterm dose-response values. These acute 

dose-response values, which are 

described below, include the acute REL, 

acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) 

and emergency response planning 

guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure 

durations. As discussed below, we used 

conservative assumptions for emission 

rates, meteorology and exposure 

location for our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http://

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

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Acute REL values 

are based on the most sensitive, 

relevant, adverse health effect reported 

in the medical and toxicological 

literature. Acute REL values are 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the 

inclusion of margins of safety. Because 

margins of safety are incorporated to 

address data gaps and uncertainties, 

exceeding the REL does not 

automatically indicate an adverse health 

impact. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

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

opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),20 ‘‘the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response, and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military, 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ This document also states that 

AEGL values ‘‘represent threshold 

exposure limits for the general public 

and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

eight hours.’’ The document lays out the 

purpose and objectives of AEGL by 

stating (page 21) that ‘‘the primary 

purpose of the AEGL program and the 

National Advisory Committee for Acute 

Exposure Guideline Levels for 

Hazardous Substances is to develop 

guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, 

short-term exposures to airborne 

concentrations of acutely toxic, highpriority chemicals.’’ In detailing the 

intended application of AEGL values, 

the document states (page 31) that ‘‘[i]t 

is anticipated that the AEGL values will 

be used for regulatory and 

nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal 

and state agencies and possibly the 

international community in conjunction 

with chemical emergency response, 

planning, and prevention programs. 

More specifically, the AEGL values will 

be used for conducting various risk 

assessments to aid in the development 

of emergency preparedness and 

prevention plans, as well as real-time 

emergency response actions, for 

accidental chemical releases at fixed 

facilities and from transport carriers.’’ 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes (page 3) that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as parts per million or milligrams per 

cubic meter of a substance above which 

it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s document entitled, 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

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

1documents/committees/

ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, 

‘‘Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 21

The ERPG–1 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing other than 

mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, 

objectionable odor.’’ Similarly, the 

ERPG–2 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing or 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72519 

22The SAB peer review of RTR Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E2

63D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-

007-unsigned.pdf 

23U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect 

Referenhce Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 

Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/r-09/061, and available 

on-line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/dfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed because the types of 

effects for these chemicals are not 

consistent with the AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

definitions; in these instances, higher 

severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG–2 values 

are compared to our modeled exposure 

levels to screen for potential acute 

concerns. When AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

values are available, they are used in 

our acute risk assessments. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often the same as the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures in the absence of hourly 

emissions data, generally we first 

develop estimates of maximum hourly 

emissions rates by multiplying the 

average actual annual hourly emissions 

rates by a default factor to cover 

routinely variable emissions. For the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

hourly emissions estimates were 

available for individual emissions 

points, so we did not use the default 

factor of 10. Using emission test data, 

hourly emission rates were developed 

for those processes considered to 

operate continuously (i.e., steady-state 

operations for 8,760 hours per year) and 

for those processes considered to 

operate intermittently (i.e., non-steadystate operations for less than 8,760 

hours per year). A discussion of the 

hourly emissions estimates is provided 

in the Methodology for Estimation of 

Maximum Hourly Emissions for 

Ferroalloy Sources, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

As part of our acute risk assessment 

process, for cases where acute HQ 

values from the screening step were less 

than or equal to 1, acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In cases where 

an acute HQ from the screening step 

was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

For this source category, the data 

refinements employed consisted of 

using the site-specific facility layout to 

distinguish facility property from an 

area where the public could be exposed. 

These refinements are discussed in the 

draft risk assessment document, which 

is available in the docket for this source 

category. Ideally, we would prefer to 

have continuous measurements over 

time to see how the emissions vary by 

each hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly 

emission rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. However, we recognize that 

having this level of data is rare, hence 

our use of the multiplier approach. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

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

risk assessment methodologies,22 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., 

RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the SAB’s acknowledgement 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 23 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. 

4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure 

and Risk Screening 

The potential for significant human 

health risks due to exposures via routes 

other than inhalation (i.e., 

multipathway exposures) and the 

potential for adverse environmental 

impacts were evaluated in a two-step 

process. In the first step, we determined 

whether any facilities emitted any PB– 

HAP (HAP known to be persistent and 

bio-accumulative in the environment). 

There are 14 PB–HAP compounds or 

compound classes identified for this 

screening in the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk 

Assessment Library (available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_

vol1.html). They are cadmium 

compounds, chlordane, chlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, 

hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, 

methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, POM, toxaphene and 

trifluralin. 

Because one or more of these PB–HAP 

are emitted by at least one facility in the 

source category, we proceeded to the 

second step of the evaluation. In this 

step, we determined whether the 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the emitted PB–HAP were large enough 

to create the potential for significant 

non-inhalation human or environmental 

risks under reasonable worst-case 

conditions. To facilitate this step, we 

have developed emission rate 

thresholds for each PB–HAP using a 

hypothetical worst-case screening 

exposure scenario developed for use in 

conjunction with the EPA’s Total Risk 

Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, 

and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) 

model. The hypothetical screening 

scenario was subjected to a sensitivity 

analysis to ensure that its key design 

parameters were established such that 

environmental media concentrations 

were not underestimated (i.e., to 

minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that 

risks might be acceptable when, in fact, 

actual risks are high) and to also 

minimize the occurrence of false 

positives for human health endpoints. 

We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model TRIM–Screen. The 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the PB–HAP in the source category were 

compared to the TRIM–Screen emission 

threshold values for each of the PB– 

HAP identified in the source category 

datasets to assess the potential for 

significant human health risks or 

environmental risks via non-inhalation 

pathways. 

5. Assessing Risks Considering 

Emissions Control Options 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and screening for 

potential multipathway risks, we also 

estimated risks considering the potential 

emissions reductions that would be 

achieved by the main control options 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

24Short-term mobility is movement from one 

micro-environment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

25U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

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

2001; page 85.) 

under consideration. In these cases, the 

expected emissions reductions were 

applied to the specific HAP and 

emissions points in the source category 

dataset to develop corresponding 

estimates of risk reductions. 

6. Conducting Other Risk-Related 

Analyses: Facilitywide Assessments 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we typically examine the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category of interest, but 

also emissions of HAP from all other 

emissions sources at the facility for 

which we have data. However, for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category, 

there are no other significant HAP 

emissions sources operating at present. 

Thus, there was no need to perform a 

separate facility wide risk assessment. 

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for the 

source category addressed in this 

proposal. Although uncertainty exists, 

we believe that our approach, which 

used conservative tools and 

assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health-protective. A brief discussion 

of the uncertainties in the emissions 

dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation 

exposure estimates and dose-response 

relationships follows below. A more 

thorough discussion of these 

uncertainties is included in the risk 

assessment documentation (Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category) 

available in the docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions 

Dataset 

Although the development of the RTR 

dataset involved quality assurance/ 

quality control processes, the accuracy 

of emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the datasets are accurate, 

errors were made in estimating 

emissions values and other factors. The 

emission estimates considered in this 

analysis generally are annual totals for 

certain years that do not reflect shortterm fluctuations during the course of a 

year or variations from year to year. 

The estimates of peak hourly 

emissions rates from stacks for the acute 

effects screening assessment were based 

on actual maximum hourly emissions 

estimates for individual emission 

points, which is intended to account for 

emissions fluctuations due to normal 

facility operations. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

While the analysis employed the 

EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we 

recognize that there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

AERMOD. In circumstances where we 

had to choose between various model 

options, where possible, model options 

(e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, 

chemistry) were selected to provide an 

overestimate of ambient air 

concentrations of the HAP rather than 

underestimates. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., meteorology, building 

downwash) have the potential in some 

situations to overestimate or 

underestimate ambient impacts. For 

example, meteorological data were 

taken from a single year (1991) and 

facility locations can be a significant 

distance from the site where these data 

were taken. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe that at off-site locations and 

census block centroids, the approach 

considered in the dispersion modeling 

analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.24 The 

assumption of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, 

nor does it affect the estimate of cancer 

incidence because the total population 

number remains the same. It does, 

however, affect the shape of the 

distribution of individual risks across 

the affected population, shifting it 

toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

high risk levels (e.g., one in 10,000 or 

one in one million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. 

The assessment evaluates the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of 

an individual. In reality, both the length 

of time that modeled emissions sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more 

or less than 70 years), and the domestic 

growth or decline of the modeled 

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

the number or size of United States 

facilities), will influence the future risks 

posed by a given source or source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, 

where a facility maintains or increases 

its emissions levels beyond 70 years, 

residents live beyond 70 years at the 

same location, and the residents spend 

most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be 

underestimated. Annual cancer 

incidence estimates from exposures to 

emissions from these sources would not 

be affected by uncertainty in the length 

of time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.25

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72521 

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

help_gloss.htm). 

27An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

28According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

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

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

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

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

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

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

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

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

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology, and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the 

point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

residual risk documentation which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).26 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.27 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

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

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC) 

and reference dose (RfD) values 

represent chronic exposure levels that 

are intended to be health-protective 

levels. Specifically, these values provide 

an estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) or 

a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. To derive values that 

are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable 

risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an 

uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. 

EPA, 1993, 1994) which considers 

uncertainty, variability and gaps in the 

available data. The UF are applied to 

derive reference values that are 

intended to protect against appreciable 

risk of deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,28 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

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

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

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

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. The UF are applied based 

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

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

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

derive an acute reference value at 

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

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

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

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer and noncancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources 

included in this assessment, some HAP 

continue to have no reference values for 

cancer or chronic noncancer or acute 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

29Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

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

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

effects. Because exposures to these 

pollutants cannot be included in a 

quantitative risk estimate, an 

understatement of risk for these 

pollutants at environmental exposure 

levels is possible. For a group of 

compounds that are either unspeciated 

or do not have reference values for every 

individual compound (e.g., glycol 

ethers), we conservatively use the most 

protective reference value to estimate 

risk from individual compounds in the 

group of compounds. 

Additionally, chronic reference values 

for several of the compounds included 

in this assessment are currently under 

the EPA IRIS review and revised 

assessments may determine that these 

pollutants are more or less potent than 

the current value. We may re-evaluate 

residual risks for the final rulemaking if 

these reviews are completed prior to our 

taking final action for this source 

category and a dose-response metric 

changes enough to indicate that the risk 

assessment supporting this notice may 

significantly understate human health 

risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Effects Assessment 

We generally assume that when 

exposure levels are not anticipated to 

adversely affect human health, they also 

are not anticipated to adversely affect 

the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the sitespecific levels of PB–HAP emissions to 

determine whether a full assessment of 

the multipathway and environmental 

effects is necessary. Our screening 

methods use worst-case scenarios to 

determine whether multipathway 

impacts might be important. The results 

of such a process are biased high for the 

purpose of screening out potential 

impacts. Thus, when individual 

pollutants or facilities screen out, we are 

confident that the potential for 

multipathway impacts is negligible. On 

the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipollutant 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility. 

C. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

In evaluating and developing 

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

discussed in section I.B of this 

preamble, we apply a two-step process 

to address residual risk. In the first step, 

the EPA determines whether risks are 

acceptable. This determination 

‘‘considers all health information, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

and includes a presumptive limit on 

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] 

risk (MIR) 29 of approximately one in 10 

thousand [i.e., 100 in one million]’’ (54 

FR 38045). In the second step of the 

process, the EPA sets the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately one in one million, as 

well as other relevant factors, including 

costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ (Id.) 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

has presented and considered a number 

of human health risk metrics associated 

with emissions from the category under 

review, including: the MIR; the numbers 

of persons in various risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum non-cancer HI; 

and the maximum acute non-cancer 

hazard (72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 

FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In most recent 

proposals (75 FR 65068, October 21, 

2010; 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010; 

and 76 FR 29032, May 19, 2011), the 

EPA also presented and considered 

additional measures of health 

information, such as estimates of the 

risks associated with the maximum 

level of emissions which might be 

allowed by the current MACT standards 

(see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 

and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010). 

The EPA also discussed and considered 

risk estimation uncertainties. The EPA 

is providing this same type of 

information in support of the proposed 

actions described in this Federal 

Register notice. 

The Agency is considering all 

available health information to inform 

our determinations of risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety under CAA 

section 112(f). Specifically, as explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information’’ (54 FR 38046). 

Similarly, with regard to making the 

ample margin of safety determination, 

as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ‘‘[in 

the ample margin decision, the Agency 

again considers all of the health risk and 

other health information considered in 

the first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making determinations and 

how these factors might be weighed for 

each source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: ‘‘The policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health’ ’’ (54 FR at 38057). 

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one 

factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately one in 10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors’’ (Id. at 38045). 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘* * * 

EPA believes the relative weight of the 

many factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category’’ (Id. at 38061). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72523 

30EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

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

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

to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 

entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key 

Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk 

Assessment Methodologies. 

The EPA wishes to point out that 

certain health information has not been 

considered to date in making residual 

risk determinations. In assessing risks to 

populations in the vicinity of the 

facilities in each category, we present 

estimates of risk associated with HAP 

emissions from the source category 

alone (source category risk estimates), 

and generally we have also assessed 

risks due to HAP emissions from the 

entire facility at which the covered 

source category is located (facilitywide 

risk estimates). We have not, however, 

attempted to characterize the risks 

associated with all HAP emissions 

impacting the populations living near 

the sources in these categories. That is, 

at this time, we do not attempt to 

quantify those HAP risks that may be 

associated with emissions from other 

facilities that do not include the source 

categories in question, mobile source 

emissions, natural source emissions, 

persistent environmental pollution, or 

atmospheric transformation in the 

vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The Agency understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. This is particularly 

important when assessing non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

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

based on the assumption that thresholds 

exist for adverse health effects. For 

example, the Agency recognizes that, 

although exposures attributable to 

emissions from a source category or 

facility alone may not indicate the 

potential for increased risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects in a 

population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

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

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the EPA SAB advised us 

‘‘* * * that RTR assessments will be 

most useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in 

the broader context of aggregate and 

cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 30

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facilitywide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. At this point, we believe that 

such estimates of total HAP risks will 

have significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than for the source 

category or facilitywide estimates, and 

hence would compound the uncertainty 

in any such comparison. This is because 

we have not conducted a detailed 

technical review of HAP emissions data 

for source categories and facilities that 

have not previously undergone an RTR 

review or are not currently undergoing 

such review. We are requesting 

comment on whether and how best to 

estimate and evaluate total HAP 

exposure in our assessments, and, in 

particular, on whether and how it might 

be appropriate to use information from 

the EPA’s NATA to support such 

estimates. We are also seeking comment 

on how best to consider various types 

and scales of risk estimates when 

making our acceptability and ample 

margin of safety determinations under 

CAA section 112(f). 

D. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the 1999 NESHAP was 

promulgated. In cases where the 

technology review identified such 

developments, we conducted an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

applying these developments, along 

with the estimated impacts (costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions, 

etc.) of applying these developments. 

We then made decisions on whether it 

is necessary to propose amendments to 

the 1999 NESHAP to require any of the 

identified developments. 

Based on our analyses of the data and 

information collected by the ICR and 

our general understanding of the 

industry and other available information 

on potential controls for this industry, 

we identified several potential 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. For the 

purpose of this exercise, we considered 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the 1999 NESHAP. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the 1999 

NESHAP) that could result in significant 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

1999 NESHAP. 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the 1999 NESHAP. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

were not considered at the time we 

developed the 1999 NESHAP, we 

reviewed a variety of data sources in our 

evaluation of whether there were 

additional practices, processes, or 

controls to consider for the Ferroalloys 

Production industry. Among the data 

sources we reviewed were the NESHAP 

for various industries that were 

promulgated after the 1999 NESHAP. 

We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these regulatory actions 

to identify any practices, processes, and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emissions sources in the Ferroalloys 

Production source category, as well as 

the costs, non-air impacts, and energy 

implications associated with the use of 

these technologies. 

Additionally, we requested 

information from facilities regarding 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technology. Finally, we 

reviewed other information sources, 

such as State or local permitting agency 

databases and industry-supported 

databases. 

E. What other issues are we addressing 

in this proposal? 

In addition to the analyses described 

above, we also reviewed other aspects of 

the MACT standards for possible 

revision as appropriate and necessary. 

Based on this review we have identified 

aspects of the MACT standards that we 

believe need revision. This includes 

proposing revisions to the startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 

provisions of the MACT rule in order to 

ensure that they are consistent with a 

recent court decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In 

addition, we are proposing various other 

changes to monitoring and testing 

requirements to ensure that this rule 

includes the measures needed to ensure 

continuous compliance at major sources 

subject to the revised NESHAP for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Our analyses and proposed decisions 

related to SSM and other testing and 

reporting requirements for this source 

category are presented in section IV.E of 

this preamble. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section of the preamble provides 

the results of our review of the MACT 

rule including the RTR for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

and our proposed decisions concerning 

changes to the 1999 NESHAP. 

A. What are the results of our analyses 

and proposed decisions regarding 

unregulated pollutants? 

In this section, we describe how we 

addressed unregulated emissions, 

including how we calculate MACT 

floors, how we account for variability in 

those floor calculations, and how we 

consider beyond the floor options. As 

described previously, the CAA section 

112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate 

national technology-based emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for listed source categories, 

including this source category. For more 

information on this analysis, see the 

Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the 

Ferroalloys Production Source Category 

which is available in the docket for this 

proposed action. Based on the ICR data 

that we collected, we conducted a 

MACT Floor analysis. 

Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA 

requires that the MACT standards for 

existing sources be at least as stringent 

as the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best performing five 

sources (for which the Administrator 

has or could reasonably obtain 

emissions information) in a category 

with fewer than 30 sources. The 

Ferroalloy Production source category 

consists of fewer than 30 sources. 

Where, as here, there are five or fewer 

sources, we base the MACT floor limit 

on the average emissions limitation 

achieved by those sources for which we 

have data. 

The EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant 

factors and available data, to determine 

the level of emissions control that has 

been achieved by the best performing 

sources under variable conditions. It is 

recognized in the case law that the EPA 

may consider variability in estimating 

the degree of emissions reduction 

achieved by best-performing sources 

and in setting MACT floors. See 

Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 

F.3d 1232, 1241–42 (DC Cir 2004) 

(holding the EPA may consider 

emissions variability in estimating 

performance achieved by bestperforming sources and may set the 

floor at a level that a best-performing 

source can expect to meet ‘‘every day 

and under all operating conditions’’). 

With regard to data used to determine 

the MACT limits, we received detailed 

emissions data for multiple HAP from 

one furnace and one crushing system 

baghouse at each plant (collected at the 

outlet of the control device) based on an 

ICR sent to the two companies in 2010. 

We are soliciting additional emissions 

data for the operating furnaces and 

crushing system baghouses for which 

we do not have data and any other 

emissions sources at ferroalloys 

production facilities including available 

information on the quantity and 

composition of process fugitive 

emissions. 

1. Mercury Emissions 

The raw materials used to produce 

ferroalloys contain various amounts of 

mercury, which is emitted during the 

smelting process. These mercury 

emissions are derived primarily from 

the manganese ore although there may 

be trace amounts in the coke or coal 

used in the smelting process. While 

some of the mercury that is in 

particulate or oxidized forms is 

captured by the particulate control 

devices, the more volatile elemental 

mercury is largely emitted to the 

atmosphere. We found that mercury 

emissions are emitted from the furnaces 

as measured during the ICR test program 

(estimated to be 540 pounds per year 

(lb/yr) at one plant and 140 lb/yr at the 

other plant). Pursuant to CAA section 

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

proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 

include emission limits for mercury. 

As discussed above, the MACT floor 

limit is calculated based on the average 

performance of the units in each 

category plus an amount to account for 

these units’ variability. To account for 

variability in the operation and 

emissions, the stack test data were used 

to calculate the average emissions and 

the 99 percent upper predictive limit 

(UPL) to derive the MACT floor limit. 

For more information on how we 

calculated the MACT floors and other 

emission limits, see the Ferroalloys 

Production MACT Floor Analysis 

document, which is available in the 

docket. 

Using this method, the MACT floor 

(or 99 percent UPL) for exhaust mercury 

concentrations from existing furnaces is 

80 mg/dscm at 2 percent carbon dioxide 

(CO2). This MACT floor limit is higher 

than the actual emissions measured 

during the ICR performance tests at each 

plant. Therefore, we anticipate that both 

of the existing sources would be able to 

meet this limit without installing 

additional controls. 

With regard to new sources, as 

described above, the MACT floor for 

new sources cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions performance that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. A variability 

analysis similar to that used for existing 

sources was then performed to calculate 

a 99 percent UPL using the three run 

test data from the top source. For this 

source category, we calculate that the 

UPL MACT floor limit for new sources 

is 16 mg/dscm at 2 percent CO2. This 

limit is based on the performance of the 

best performing source. 

The next step in establishing MACT 

standards is the beyond the floor 

analysis. In this step, we investigate 

other mechanisms for further reducing 

HAP emissions that are more stringent 

than the MACT floor level of control in 

order to ‘‘require the maximum degree 

of reduction in emissions’’ of HAP. In 

setting such standards, section 112(d)(2) 

requires the Agency to consider the cost 

of achieving the additional emission 

reductions, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. Historically, these factors 

have included factors such as solid 

waste impacts of a control, effects of 

emissions on bodies of water, as well as 

the energy impacts. 

As described below, we considered 

beyond-the-floor control options to 

further reduce emissions of mercury. 

Because of our limited data set, we 

considered setting a MACT limit for 

existing sources based on the 

performance of the best performing 

source (i.e., based upon the test data 

used to calculate the MACT floor for 

new sources) such that the MACT limit 

for existing sources would be the same 

as the UPL MACT limit for new sources 

(i.e., 16 mg/dscm). Under this option, the 

best performing source would need no 

additional controls to meet the limit, 

since their current performance defines 

the new source limit. With regard to the 

other facility in the source category, as 

described below, we believe this limit 

could be achieved by the addition of an 

activated carbon injection system, 

which is a proven technology for 

mercury control. Compliance would be 

demonstrated by periodic performance 

testing and continuous parameter 

monitoring. 

In evaluating a beyond the floor 

option, we evaluate, among other things, 

the costs of achieving additional 

emission reductions beyond the floor 

level of control. No facilities in the 

source category use add-on control 

devices or work practices to limit 

mercury emissions beyond what is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72525 

31National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Gold Mine Ore Processing and 

Production Area Source Category. Proposed Rule 

(75 FR 22470); 

32Conversation with D. Lipscomb, Albemarle. 

August 22, 2011. 

achieved as co-control of the emissions 

with the particulate matter control 

device. However, we identified both 

carbon bed technology and activated 

carbon injection as commercially 

available mercury emission reduction 

techniques. Carbon bed technology 

(which is one of the primary control 

devices used at Industrial Gold 

Production facilities in the U.S. to 

minimize mercury emissions, as 

described in the proposed rule for that 

category 31) does not appear to be a 

viable technology to control the large 

volumes of airflow generated by the 

electric arc furnaces in the Ferroalloys 

Production source category. The carbon 

bed technology is applicable to gas 

streams with low volumes of airflow, 

and is characterized with relatively high 

pressure drops. Accordingly this 

technology is not used in industries 

with high volumes of airflow, such as 

industrial boilers and power plants. 

In contrast, activated carbon injection 

has been used to control mercury 

emissions at various types of facilities 

that have large volumes of airflow 

including some coal-fired power plants, 

waste incinerators and cement kilns. 

Based on available information, 

activated carbon injection appears to be 

a technologically feasible control for 

mercury for these larger volume 

combustion sources. Mercury 

reductions of up to 90 or 95 percent 

have been reported at these other 

sources and should also be achievable at 

ferroalloys production facilities. Based 

on data and information on these 

mercury controls for other combustion 

sources (such as utility boilers, 

incinerators and cement kilns), and 

based on our experience with these 

controls, we conclude that activated 

carbon injection is a viable control 

technology for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category. 

Activated carbon injection can be 

installed upstream or downstream of an 

existing particulate matter control 

device. In cases where a source is 

concerned about potential impacts of 

waste carbon on the source’s waste 

stream and resulting disposal options or 

the ability to sell or reuse baghouse 

dust, the source can install the activated 

carbon injection downstream of the 

particulate matter control device with a 

separate polishing baghouse to collect 

the carbon. In other cases, the source 

can install the activated carbon injection 

upstream of the particulate matter 

control device and use the existing 

particulate control device to remove the 

carbon from the airstream. 

We reviewed facility specific control 

options that included putting the 

mercury controls downstream of the 

existing furnace baghouse to avoid the 

potential issues with sale or reuse of 

baghouse dust associated with upstream 

controls. Under this scenario, the 

activated carbon injection system would 

be followed by a ‘‘polishing’’ baghouse 

to capture the activated carbon for 

disposal. In the case of the existing 

furnace scrubber, we assumed the 

source could put the activated carbon 

injection system upstream of the 

scrubber, the carbon would be captured 

by the scrubber and the resulting sludge 

treated according to the existing 

treatment process at the plant. Based on 

discussion 32 with a vendor and other 

control technology experts, we do not 

believe that the resulting carbon waste 

in either scenario would trigger waste 

disposal concerns. We request comment 

on these assumptions. 

We estimate that under this beyond 

the floor option described above (i.e., a 

proposed limit of 16 mg/dscm), that one 

facility would need to install additional 

controls such as activated carbon 

injection to meet this limit, and that this 

would achieve about 420 pounds of 

reduction per year in mercury 

emissions. The capital costs are 

estimated to be $1.7 million, annualized 

capital and operating costs to be $1.4 

million, with an overall costeffectiveness of $3,300 per pound. The 

general range of costs for mercury 

controls from other MACT rules has 

been about $1,250 to $55,200 per pound 

of mercury removed (76 FR 25075, May 

3, 2011). The EPA requests information 

on other control technologies available 

to Ferroalloys Production manufacturers 

to reduce mercury emissions. Other 

controls might include process changes, 

substitution of materials, collection or 

enclosure systems, work practices, or 

combinations of such methods; which 

reduce the volume of mercury emissions 

from existing sources. 

It is important to note that there is no 

bright line for determining costeffectiveness. Each rulemaking is 

different and various factors must be 

considered. Nevertheless, the costeffectiveness of mercury controls in this 

proposed rule for Ferroalloys 

Production is near the lower end of the 

range. Some of the factors we consider 

in determining the costs of control 

technologies under section 112(d)(2) 

include, but are not limited to the 

following: total capital costs; annual 

costs; and costs compared to total 

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

Other factors besides cost are 

considered into our decision. For 

example, whether the standards 

significantly impact one or more small 

businesses, whether the controls would 

significantly impact production, and 

whether, and to what extent, the 

controls result in adverse impacts to 

other media (e.g., hazardous waste 

issues). We propose that these mercury 

controls are feasible for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category from a 

technical standpoint and are cost 

effective. We are proposing a MACT 

standard for mercury emissions of 16 

mg/dscm for both existing and new 

sources under the authority of sections 

112(d)(2) and (d)(3). To meet this 

proposed limit, we have preliminarily 

determined that activated carbon 

injection is feasible to implement for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category 

from a technical standpoint and that 

control costs fall within the range of 

other mercury controls in other MACT 

rules. More information regarding how 

the MACT standards were calculated 

and the costs is provided in Ferroalloys 

Production MACT Floor and Cost 

Memos, which are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

We are requesting comment on the 

proposed standard of 16 mg/dscm for 

mercury. We also seek comments and 

information on our conclusion that 

activated carbon injection technology to 

meet the mercury emissions limit for 

this source category is technically and 

economically feasible. Moreover, we 

seek comments on the factors related to 

costs and economics (such as those 

described in the paragraph above) 

regarding the feasibility and costs of 

activated carbon injection for this 

industry. We also seek comments on 

other possible controls that could be 

effective to reduce mercury emissions 

beyond the floor, including the amount 

and cost of the resulting emissions 

reductions. Furthermore, we seek 

comment on whether work practices to 

minimize mercury emissions, such as 

switching to manganese ores with low 

mercury content, could be technically 

and economically feasible. 

Moreover, we request comment on 

whether there is a basis to subcategorize 

manganese production operations for 

mercury. For example, is there a basis 

on which to subcategorize 

ferromanganese production and 

silicomanganese production processes? 

Although we are requesting comment on 

subcategorization, we do not believe 

that subcategorization would have any 

substantive effect on the resulting 

standards or the costs of controls since 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

33We conducted this analysis for all measured 

pollutant according to the following method when 

non detects were reported. However only the 

hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde data needed a 

detection limit correction to adequately account for 

variability, as described below. 

there would be no change in the costs 

and feasibility of mercury controls 

evaluated for these sources. 

We are proposing that any source 

installing activated carbon injection 

would be required to continuously 

monitor the carbon injection rate into 

the airstream being controlled. We 

request comment on the level of 

variability in the carbon injection rate 

that should be allowed, and what 

percent decrease in the rate should be 

considered significant. 

We also propose that sources monitor 

the mercury content in the manganese 

ore. Specifically, we propose that the 

determination of a significant increase 

in mercury content would be that the 

12-month rolling weighted average 

mercury concentration based on 

monthly sampling in the manganese ore 

increases by 10 percent or more 

compared to the baseline weighted 

average mercury concentration. If that 

limit is exceeded, the source would be 

required to readjust the carbon injection 

rate as specified in the source’s 

monitoring plan or retest within 30 days 

if there is not a dedicated mercury 

control device. If a new ore is added, 

sampling would be required as well. 

We request comment on this ore 

monitoring provision. We are especially 

interested in any data that would show 

the variability in mercury concentration 

between different ore samples from the 

same location and the variability of the 

types of ores used in manganese 

production. If ore type and mercury 

content are demonstrated to be stable, 

we might consider reducing the 

frequency of sampling/calculations to 

quarterly or less. 

2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) 

PAH emissions are products of 

incomplete combustion from the 

smelting operation, and a subset of the 

listed HAP POM. Some of these 

emissions are likely to be in particulate 

form, but a significant portion is 

expected to be in a gaseous form. 

Therefore, the existing particulate 

matter control devices only achieve 

partial control of these compounds. No 

existing facilities in the source category 

control PAH or use work practices to 

limit emissions of PAH emissions 

specifically. However, under today’s 

proposal, these pollutants would be 

controlled with the same activated 

carbon injection technology as mercury. 

Because of this, emission reductions 

could be achieved via co-control at no 

additional costs. Pursuant to CAA 

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

proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 

include an emission limit for PAH. 

We have stack test data from only one 

furnace for PAH emissions. As such, the 

MACT floor would be based on the 

performance level achieved at that 

furnace (i.e., the average emissions of 

that furnace plus an amount to account 

for variability). Based on these data and 

applying the 99 percent UPL, we 

calculate that the MACT floor limit for 

PAHs would be 887 mg/dscm. We also 

evaluated control performance that 

could be achieved via co-control of 

mercury emissions with activated 

carbon injection as a beyond-the-floor 

option. Based on information from 

carbon vendors, an activated carbon 

system that is designed to achieve a 90 

percent reduction in mercury emissions 

(which we expect would be applied to 

meet the proposed mercury standard 

discussed above) should also achieve a 

high degree of reduction in PAH with 

no additional costs. Assuming a 90 

percent reduction from the calculated 

99 percent UPL of 887 mg/dscm, the 

resulting limit would be 89 mg/dscm. 

Thus, a proposed limit for PAHs of 89 

mg/dscm could be achieved with the 

same controls needed for mercury with 

no additional costs. 

Therefore, pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (d)(3), we are proposing to 

revise the 1999 NESHAP to include an 

emission limit for PAH of 89 mg/dscm 

for new and existing sources. 

3. Hydrochloric acid 

Hydrochloric acid (HCl) is a product 

of combustion, and the level of 

emissions is dictated by the chlorine 

content of the coal or coke used as a 

reducing agent in the smelting process. 

Based on test data from the ICR, we 

estimate that the two facilities in this 

source category emit 6 to 11 tpy of HCl. 

While these levels of emissions are 

nontrivial, they are relatively low 

compared to some other types of 

combustion sources. The primary reason 

for this is that manganese producers use 

coke instead of coal as the primary 

reducing agent in the smelting 

operation. Because coke is a refined 

product, much of the original chlorine 

content in the coal is removed in the 

coking process, which greatly reduces 

potential emissions. Second, one of the 

five furnaces at these plants is equipped 

with a scrubber, which provides cocontrol of particulate matter and HCl 

emissions. Notwithstanding the 

relatively low HCl emissions from 

facilities in this source category, section 

112(d) requires us to set MACT for HAP 

emitted from the source category. 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 

1999 NESHAP to include emission 

limits for HCl. 

As discussed above, the MACT floor 

limit is calculated based on the average 

performance of the units in each 

category plus an amount to account for 

these units’ variability. To account for 

variability in the operation and 

emissions, the stack test data were used 

to calculate the average emissions and 

the 99 percent UPL to derive the MACT 

floor limit. However, a number (50 

percent) of the individual data points 

were reported as below the applicable 

test detection limits.33 The following 

discussion describes how we handle 

such data in our MACT calculations. 

Also, as described below, we request 

comment on how this uncertainty might 

influence establishing an emission limit 

instead of a work practice standard. 

Test method measurement 

imprecision is a contributor to the 

variability of a set of emissions data. 

One element is associated with method 

detection capabilities and a second is a 

function of the measurement value. 

Measurement imprecision is 

proportionally highest for values 

measured below or near a method’s 

detection level and proportionally lower 

for values measured above the method 

detection level. 

The probability procedures applied in 

calculating the MACT floor or beyond 

the floor emissions limit inherently and 

reasonably account for emissions data 

variability including measurement 

imprecision when the database 

represents multiple tests from multiple 

emissions units for which all of the data 

are measured significantly above the 

method detection level. This is less true 

when the database includes some 

emissions occurring below method 

detection capabilities that are reported 

as the method detection level values. 

The EPA’s guidance to facilities for 

reporting pollutant emissions in 

response to the ICR data collection 

specified the criteria for determining 

test-specific method detection levels. 

Those criteria ensure that there is only 

about a 1 percent probability of an error 

in deciding that the pollutant measured 

at the method detection level is present 

when in fact it was absent. Such a 

probability is also called a false positive 

or an alpha, Type I, error. Because of 

sample and emissions matrix effects, 

laboratory techniques, sample size, and 

other factors, method detection levels 

normally vary from test to test for any 

specific test method and pollutant 

measurement. The expected 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72527 

34American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 

Reference Method Accuracy and Precision 

(ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 

Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 

2001. 

measurement imprecision is 40 to 50 

percent or greater at levels measured at 

the method detection level or less. The 

expected measurement imprecision 

decreases to 10 to 15 percent for values 

measured at a level about three times 

the method detection level or greater.34

Also in accordance with our 

guidance, source owners identified 

emissions data which were measured 

below the method detection level and 

reported those values as equal to the 

method detection level as determined 

for that test. An effect of reporting data 

in this manner is that the resulting 

database is somewhat truncated at the 

lower end of the measurement range 

(i.e., no values reported below the testspecific method detection level). A 

MACT floor or beyond the floor 

emissions limit based on a truncated 

database or otherwise including values 

measured near the method detection 

level may not adequately account for 

measurement imprecision contribution 

to the data variability. 

We applied the following procedures 

to account for the effect of measurement 

imprecision associated with a database 

that includes method detection level 

data. The following process also 

addresses the concerns associated with 

use of a small data set, such as the 

Ferroalloys Production data set for HCl. 

As a first step, we reviewed an HCl 

emissions data set for the industrial 

boilers rule, which represents several 

hundred emissions tests used in the 

floor calculations (i.e., best performers) 

for the boilers rule to determine typical 

method detection levels. We have data 

from multiple industrial boilers tests 

and used those data to confirm that 

method detection levels that testers 

reported were as good as or better (i.e., 

lower) than the values reported in the 

method. We presume that data for the 

best performing units also reflect the 

capabilities of high quality testing 

companies and laboratories. Further, the 

method detection levels calculated from 

larger data sets are more representative 

of the inherent measurement variability 

both within and between testing 

companies than the limited Ferroalloys 

Production dataset. We believe that 

emissions tests conducted with these 

methods for most combustion 

operations (e.g., fossil fuel, biomass, and 

waste fired units; brick and clay kilns; 

Portland cement kilns), including 

ferroalloys production, should produce 

method detection levels very similar to 

the level of 60 mg/dscm that is the result 

of this review. 

The second step in the process was to 

calculate three times the RDL and 

compare that value to the calculated 

MACT floor or beyond the floor 

emissions limit. We use the 

multiplication factor of three to 

approximate a 99 percent upper 

confidence interval for a data set of 

seven or more values. If three times the 

RDL was less than the calculated MACT 

floor emissions limit calculated from the 

UPL, we would conclude that 

measurement variability was adequately 

addressed. The calculated MACT floor 

or beyond the floor emissions limit 

would need no adjustment. If, on the 

other hand, the value equal to three 

times the RDL was greater than the UPL, 

we would conclude that the calculated 

MACT floor or beyond the floor 

emissions limit does not account 

entirely for measurement variability. If 

indicated, we substituted the value 

equal to three times the RDL to apply as 

the adjusted MACT floor or beyond the 

floor emissions limit. This adjusted 

value would ensure measurement 

variability is adequately addressed in 

the MACT floor or the beyond the floor 

emissions limit. 

For HCl, three times the RDL was less 

than the calculated 99 percent UPL for 

exhaust HCl concentration from existing 

furnaces. Thus, for existing sources, the 

MACT floor for HCl is set at the UPL, 

or 809 mg/dscm corrected to 2 percent 

CO2. 

Consistent with CAA section 

112(d)(3), the MACT floor for new 

sources cannot be less stringent than the 

emissions control that is achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. The 99 percent UPL calculated 

for HCl based on the best performing 

source is less stringent than the MACT 

floor for HCl at existing furnaces. We 

determined that the use of the best 

performing source UPL is not 

appropriate in this situation because the 

high variability and small data pool 

would result in a new source MACT 

floor limit that is less stringent than the 

limit based on the UPL calculated from 

the larger data pool for existing sources. 

Given that the 99 percent UPL for new 

sources is higher than the 99 percent 

UPL for existing sources, we determined 

that the MACT limit for new sources 

should be equal to the MACT limit for 

existing sources. 

We then considered a beyond-thefloor option to further reduce emissions 

of HCl at existing sources based on 

application of additional add-on control 

devices, such as lime injection, but their 

use is not indicated given the high costs 

of installing and operating such 

controls. There is also concern that use 

of this technology could prevent the 

current practice of reusing or selling 

baghouse dust and the resulting waste 

reduction benefits. See the Draft MACT 

Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category in the 

docket for more discussion of this topic. 

Therefore, pursuant to CAA sections 

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

proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 

include emission limits for new and 

existing sources for HCl of 809 mg/dscm. 

At this level, we do not anticipate that 

either source would be required to 

install controls to meet the limits. For 

more information on how these limits 

were derived, see the Draft MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production 

Source Category. As described above, 

there are some measurements (i.e., 50 

percent) reported as below the method 

detection level. Because of the potential 

uncertainty in basing a limit partially on 

non-detect values, we considered the 

possibility of proposing work practice 

standards such as a limit on the amount 

of coal (the primary source of chlorine 

in the raw materials) in lieu of 

numerical emission limits. We request 

comment on whether this or other work 

practices might be appropriate. 

4. Formaldehyde 

Formaldehyde emissions are also 

products of incomplete combustion 

from the smelting operation. Based on 

test data from the ICR, we estimate that 

the two facilities in this source category 

emit approximately 2 tpy of 

formaldehyde. Pursuant to CAA section 

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

proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 

include emission limits for 

formaldehyde. 

The measured average formaldehyde 

emissions ranged from 57 to 78 mg/dscm 

corrected to 2 percent CO2. Because the 

formaldehyde emissions data included 

some data points (50 percent) reported 

as below the detection limit, we 

employed a version of the methodology 

used for HCl to determine the MACT 

floor. However, in this case we lack the 

underlying large data set of 

formaldehyde method detection limits 

that we had for HCl method detection 

limits. In this case, the first step was to 

define a method detection level that is 

representative of the data used in 

defining the best performers for the 

inclusive source category (i.e., 

combined data for all subcategories). We 

identified all of the available reported 

pollutant specific method detection 

levels and calculated the arithmetic 

mean value. We deemed the resulting 

mean of the method detection levels as 

the (RDL). Three times the RDL was 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

greater than the calculated 99 percent 

UPL for exhaust formaldehyde 

concentrations from existing furnaces, 

resulting in a MACT floor of three times 

the RDL, or 201 mg/dscm at 2 percent 

CO2. Based on available data, all of the 

existing sources could meet this limit 

without installing additional controls. 

Due to the high variability in the data 

pool, the 99 percent UPL for the bestperforming source is less stringent than 

the existing source MACT floor. 

Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 

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

proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 

include an emission limit for 

formaldehyde for new and existing 

sources of 201 mg/dscm based on the 

MACT floor calculation. We have not 

identified any appropriate beyond-thefloor control technology options 

specifically for formaldehyde. We 

recognize the potential for some cocontrol of formaldehyde emissions that 

would be achieved by using activated 

carbon injection to control mercury 

emissions, but we were unable to 

quantify those reductions. More 

information regarding how the MACT 

limits were calculated and the costs is 

provided in Ferroalloys Production 

MACT Floor and Cost Memos, which 

are available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Finally, because of the 

potential uncertainty in basing a limit 

partially on non-detect values, we 

considered the possibility of proposing 

work practice standards. We request 

comment on whether there are any work 

practices that might be appropriate. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

As described above, for the 

Ferroalloys Production source category, 

we conducted an inhalation risk 

assessment for all HAP emitted. We also 

conducted multipathway screening 

analyses for mercury and POM. Details 

of the risk assessment and additional 

analyses can be found in the residual 

risk documentation referenced in 

section III.B of this preamble, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

The Agency considered the available 

health information—the MIR; the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer HI; the maximum worst-case 

acute non-cancer HQ; the extent of noncancer risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; and distribution 

of risks in the exposed population (54 

FR 38044, September 14, 1989) in 

developing the proposed CAA section 

112(f)(2) standards for the Ferroalloys 

Production source category. 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 5 of this preamble provides an 

overall summary of the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment. 

TABLE 5—FERROALLOYS PRODUCTION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 1 Estimated population at increased 

risk of cancer 

≥ 1-in-1 million 

Estimated annual 

cancer incidence 

(cases per year) 

Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 3

Maximum screening acute nonBased on actual cancer HQ 4

emissions level 2

Based on allowable emissions 

level 

Based on actual 

emissions level 

Based on allowable emissions 

level 

80 100 26,000 0.002 90 200 10 

1Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

2Based on the consistent views of major scientific bodies (i.e., NTP in their 12th Report on Carcinogens, IARC, and other international agencies) that consider all nickel compounds to be carcinogenic, we currently consider all nickel compounds to have the potential of being as carcinogenic as nickel subsulfide. To implement this approach we apply the nickel subsulfide IRIS URE without a factor to reflect the assumption that 

100 percent of the total mass of nickel may be carcinogenic. The EPA also considers it reasonable to use a value that is 50 percent of the IRIS 

URE for nickel subsulfide for providing an estimate of the lower end of a plausible range of cancer potency values for different mixtures of nickel 

compounds. If the lower end of the nickel URE range is used, the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk based on actual emissions would be 

50 in 1 million. The allowable cancer risk would remain 100 in a million because at one facility nickel is not the primary cancer driver. The estimated annual cancer incidence would also be reduced, but due to our presentation of incidence to one significant figure, remains 0.002. Estimated population values are not scalable with the nickel URE range, but would be lower using the lower value. 3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Ferroalloys Production source category is the central nervous system. 4The maximum off-site HQ acute value of 10 is driven by emissions of nickel. See section III.B of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The results of the chronic baseline 

inhalation cancer risk assessment 

indicate that, based on estimates of 

current actual emissions, the current 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk posed by these two facilities could 

be up to 80 in one million (50 in one 

million with the lower nickel URE 

value), with process fugitive emissions 

(from the furnace, crushing operation, 

and casting) of nickel, chromium and 

arsenic as major contributors to the risk. 

The total estimated cancer incidence 

from this source category based on 

actual emission levels is 0.002 excess 

cancer cases per year or one case in 

every 500 years, with emissions of 

nickel, chromium and arsenic 

contributing 36 percent, 24 percent and 

24 percent respectively, to this cancer 

incidence. In addition, we note that 

approximately 1,100 people are 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than 10 in one million, and 

approximately 26,000 people are 

estimated to have risks greater than one 

in one million as a result of emissions 

from these two facilities. When 

considering the risks associated with 

MACT-allowable emissions, both 

facilities have allowable risks of 100 in 

one million, driven by nickel, 

chromium VI, and arsenic at one facility 

(which would have an allowable cancer 

risk of 70 in one million when using the 

lower nickel URE value) and chromium 

VI and arsenic at the other facility 

(which would have an allowable cancer 

risk of 100 in one million when using 

the lower nickel URE value). 

The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the source 

category based on actual emissions 

could be up to 90 with emissions of 

manganese from process fugitives 

contributing greater than 90 percent of 

those impacts. A TOSHI of 90 means 

that the modeled long-term average air 

concentration of manganese at that 

location is about 4.5 mg/m3, or 90 times 

above the RfC (i.e., 0.05 mg/m3). 

Approximately 28,000 people are 

exposed to TOSHI levels above 1 and 

approximately 30 people are exposed to 

a TOSHI greater than 10. When 

considering MACT-allowable emissions, 

which did not adjust the fugitive 

emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 200. 

Our screening analysis for worst-case 

acute impacts indicates the potential for 

two pollutants, nickel and arsenic, to 

exceed an HQ value of 1, with a 

potential maximum HQ up to 10 for 

nickel and 9 for arsenic based on acute 

REL values for each substance. There 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72529 

are no AEGL, ERPG, or short-term 

occupational values for these pollutants 

to use as comparison to acute REL 

values, as has been done in other RTR 

actions. In addition, there are no 

reference values available to assess any 

potential risks from acute exposure to 

manganese. These acute result values 

were based on hourly emissions 

estimates and a review of the facility 

boundaries to make sure the estimated 

impacts were off facility property. Refer 

to Appendix 1 of the Risk Assessment 

document in the docket for a detailed 

description of how the hourly emissions 

were developed for this source category. 

These results suggest there may be 

potential for acute impacts of concern 

from the emissions of nickel and arsenic 

from the two facilities in this category. 

In characterizing the potential for acute 

noncancer impacts of concern, it is 

important to remember the upward bias 

of these exposure estimates (e.g., worstcase meteorology coinciding with a 

person located at the point of maximum 

concentration during the hour) and to 

consider the results along with the 

uncertainties related to the emissions 

estimates and the screening 

methodology. 

2. Multipathway Risk Screening and 

Results 

The PB–HAP emitted by facilities in 

this category include mercury, POM (as 

benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalents, or 

TEQ), and lead. To identify potential 

multipathway health risks from PB– 

HAP other than lead, we first performed 

a screening analysis that compared 

emissions of other PB–HAP emitted 

from the Ferroalloys Production source 

category to emission threshold values. 

The two facilities in the source category 

reported emissions of mercury and 

POM, and both of them had baseline 

emission rates greater than the screening 

emission threshold values for the 

pollutants indicating that there may be 

potential multipathway impacts of 

concern due to emissions of these 

pollutants from these two facilities. 

Since the two PB–HAP did not screen 

out during our initial screening analysis, 

we refined our analysis somewhat with 

some additional site-specific 

information to develop an ‘‘intermediate 

screen,’’ which is a more realistic 

analysis but still considered a screening 

analysis. (See Appendix 5 of the Risk 

Assessment document in the docket for 

more information about this 

intermediate screen.) The additional 

site-specific information included land 

use around the facilities, the location of 

fishable lakes, and local wind direction 

and speed. The result of this analysis 

was the development of site-specific 

emission screening thresholds for POM 

and mercury. Based on this intermediate 

screening analysis, neither facility 

screened out, meaning that we cannot 

rule out the potential for multipathway 

impacts of concern due to emissions of 

these pollutants from these two 

facilities. We were unable to obtain the 

data necessary to conduct a fully refined 

assessment of multipathway risks from 

these two facilities. 

In evaluating the potential for 

multipathway effects from emissions of 

lead, modeled maximum annual lead 

concentrations were compared to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for lead (0.15 mg/m3). Results 

of this analysis estimate that the 

NAAQS for lead could be exceeded at 

one of the two facilities, largely due to 

process fugitive emissions. This analysis 

estimates that the annual lead 

concentrations could be as high as two 

times the NAAQS for lead, and if the 

maximum 3-month rolling average 

concentrations were used, the result 

could be even greater concentrations 

above the NAAQS. However, this 

additional analysis was not conducted 

because, as shown below (in section 

IV.C.2), the maximum annual lead 

concentration after the proposed 

controls are applied is significantly 

below the NAAQS, with a value of 0.02 

mg/m3. 

3. Facilitywide Risk Assessment Results 

For both facilities in this source 

category, there are no other significant 

HAP emissions sources present beyond 

those included in the source category. 

All significant HAP sources have been 

included in the source category risk 

analysis. Therefore, we conclude that 

the facilitywide risk is essentially the 

same as the source category risk and 

that no separate facilitywide analysis is 

necessary. 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

based on risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

Based on the baseline inhalation risk 

assessment, we estimate that the cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed 

could be up to 80 in one million (50 in 

one million when using the lower nickel 

URE value) due to actual emissions of 

arsenic, chromium and nickel from 

process fugitives and up to 100 in one 

million due to MACT-allowable 

emissions, mainly due to chromium, 

arsenic and nickel stack emissions. 

(There is no change in the allowable 

cancer risk estimate when using the 

lower nickel URE value.) We estimate 

that the incidence of cancer based on 

actual emissions is 0.002 excess cancer 

cases per year, or 1 case every 500 years, 

and that about 26,000 people face a 

cancer risk greater than one in one 

million due to HAP emissions from this 

source category. The chronic noncancer 

TOSHI could be up to 90 due to actual 

emissions of manganese from process 

fugitives and up to 200 due to MACTallowable emissions of manganese from 

process fugitives. We estimate that 

about 28,000 people face a TOSHI level 

greater than 1 and approximately 30 

people face a TOSHI greater than 10 due 

to emissions from this source category. 

With respect to potential acute noncancer health risks, we estimate that, 

based on our refined analysis, the worstcase HQ value could exceed an HQ 

value of 1 for two pollutants, nickel and 

arsenic, with a potential maximum HQ 

up to 10 for nickel and 9 for arsenic. 

This indicates a potential acute concern 

relative to the baseline emissions of 

these two pollutants based on the REL. 

In characterizing the potential for acute 

noncancer impacts of concern, it is 

important to remember the upward bias 

of these exposure estimates and to 

consider the results along with the 

uncertainties related to the emissions 

estimates and screening methodology. 

In the case of ferroalloys, the acute 

emissions estimates were based on 

actual data from the ICR (i.e., there was 

not an acute emissions adjustment 

factor). Our assessment also indicates 

the potential for multipathway impacts 

of concern based on the intermediate 

screening assessment due to baseline 

emissions of mercury and POM. Data 

were unavailable to conduct a fully 

refined assessment of multipathway 

risks from these two facilities. 

The risk assessment for this source 

category was based on facility-specific 

stack-test data and emissions estimates, 

giving us a generally high degree of 

confidence in the results. We applied 

the two-step analysis set out in the 

Benzene NESHAP to assess emissions 

from this source category. Considering 

all of the above information, we are 

proposing that the risks are 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

35 ‘‘Total and respirable dust concentrations were 

highly correlated, with the Mn content of the 

respirable fraction representing on average 25% of 

the manganese content in the total dust. The RfC 

is based on the respirable fraction. 

unacceptable, both for the actual 

emissions scenario and for the MACTallowable emissions scenario. 

The proposed determination that risks 

are unacceptable for this source category 

is primarily based on the fact that the 

maximum chronic noncancer HI values 

(90 based on actual emissions, 200 

based on allowable, both dominated by 

manganese emissions) are higher than 1 

(an HI exposure level of 1 is generally 

considered to be without appreciable 

risk of adverse health effects). The fact 

that 28,000 people are estimated to have 

exposures greater than an HI of 1 (based 

on actual emissions) also weighs in this 

proposed determination. The fact that 

maximum individual cancer risks are 

above 1 in a million also contributes to 

our determination of unacceptability, 

but to a lesser extent. While the 

estimated maximum individual cancer 

risks would, by themselves, not 

generally lead us to a determination that 

risks are unacceptable, the fact that they 

occur along with the chronic noncancer 

TOSHI greater than 1 (approximately 

28,000 people are exposed to TOSHI 

levels above 1 and approximately 30 

people are exposed to a TOSHI greater 

than 10) adds to our concern about these 

exposures, and further supports our 

proposed determination that risks are 

unacceptable. The total estimated 

cancer incidence (0.002 cases per year) 

is not very high, and this fact did not 

weigh significantly in our proposed 

determination of unacceptable risk. 

However, in the past EPA has weighed 

an estimated cancer incidence of 0.002 

cases per year heavily in a 

determination of acceptable risk. EPA 

notes that there were no non-cancer 

concerns in these previous instances. 

We further note that, while our 

screening for potential acute and multipathway impacts of concern from the 2 

sources in the category did identify 

some potential concerns for a few HAPs, 

these screening results did not weigh 

heavily in our proposed determination 

that risks are unacceptable. 

Given that chronic noncancer risks 

associated with manganese emissions 

are the primary determinant of 

unacceptable risks, we provide here a 

brief discussion of the EPA’s RfC 

associated with the inhalation of 

manganese and our confidence in the 

principal studies supporting the 

development of that RfC for context. 

The RfC is the level below which there 

is not likely to be appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects; however, the EPA 

cannot state at what exposure level 

there will be an appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. In the case of 

manganese, the effect of concern was a 

decrease in visual reaction time in 

adults who were occupationally 

exposed to manganese. The effects were 

seen at a dose adjusted value of 0.05 

mg/m3 and then to derive the RfC, the 

EPA divided this value by 1000 to 

account for uncertainties related to 

sensitive individuals (10×), use of the 

lowest exposure level at which effects 

were observed in lieu of a level without 

effects (10×) and due to database 

limitations (10×). We note that the 

concentration reflected in the maximum 

TOSHI of 90 (0.0045 mg/m3) is 

approximately a factor of 10 lower than 

the 0.05 mg/m3 dose adjusted effect 

level in an adult male work force and 

used in the derivation of the RfC 

(0.00005 mg/m3). The EPA has 

‘‘medium confidence’’ (as used and 

described in the IRIS database) in the 

RfC value of 0.00005 mg/m3. The 

confidence level reflects the overall 

level of uncertainty in the principle 

studies, which were based on human 

occupational studies, and the database. 

Overall confidence in the principal 

studies (Roels et al., 1987, 1992) is 

‘‘medium’’. Neither of the principal 

studies identified a no observed adverse 

effect level (NOAEL) for 

neurobehavioral effects, nor did either 

study directly measure particle size or 

provide information on the particle size 

distribution. The 1992 study by Roels et 

al. did provide respirable and total dust 

measurements, but the 1987 study 

measured only total dust.35 These 

limitations of the studies are mitigated 

by the fact that the principal studies 

found similar indications of 

neurobehavioral dysfunction, which 

was consistent with the results of other 

human studies. In addition, the 1992 

Roels et al. study provides sufficient 

information to establish individual 

integrated exposures; the 1987 Roels et 

al. study did not. 

Confidence in the database on 

manganese health effects is ‘‘medium’’. 

The duration of exposure was relatively 

limited and the workers were relatively 

young in all of the principal and 

supporting studies. These temporal 

limitations raise concerns that longer 

durations of exposure and/or 

interactions with aging might result in 

the detection of effects at lower 

concentrations, as suggested by results 

from other studies. In addition, the 

studies, with the exception of the 1992 

Roels et al. study in which manganese 

exposure was limited to manganese 

oxide, did not specify the species of 

manganese to which workers were 

exposed. It is not clear whether certain 

compounds or oxidation states of 

manganese are more toxic than others. 

Although the primary 

neurotoxicological effects of exposure to 

airborne manganese have been 

qualitatively well characterized by the 

general consistency of effects across 

studies, the exposure-effect relationship 

remains to be well quantified, and a noeffect level for neurotoxicity has not 

been identified in any of these studies 

thus far. Finally, the effects of 

manganese on development and 

reproduction have not been studied 

adequately. See the full IRIS summary 

for manganese for more information 

(IRIS, Manganese, available at: 

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

As noted in the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP, the Agency weighs multiple 

risk factors in making a determination of 

acceptable or unacceptable risk, and 

notes that acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor. In applying 

the balancing factors to this action, EPA 

considered a wide range of data 

including the MIR; the number of 

persons in various cancer and 

noncancer risk ranges; cancer incidence; 

the maximum noncancer HI; the 

maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

In summary, the MIR was 80 in a 

million based on actual emissions and 

100 in one million based on allowable 

emissions; the total estimated cancer 

incidence was 0.002 cases per year (or 

1 case in every 500 years); and 

approximately 30 people could be 

exposed at a TOSHI greater than 10 

while approximately 28,000 could be 

exposed at a TOSHI greater than 1. 

Since the RfC is 1000 fold below the 

lowest level at which neurological 

effects were seen, the maximum TOSHI 

of 90 (or 200 for allowable risks) is still 

below the effect level used to derive the 

RfC and there is uncertainty as to 

exactly what level of exposure above the 

RfC will lead to appreciable risk of 

adverse effects. The population from 

which the effect level was derived was 

an adult male worker population, and 

that this population does not necessarily 

represent the general population. We 

note that the concentration reflected in 

the maximum TOSHI of 90 (0.0045 mg/ 

m3) is approximately a factor of 10 

lower than the 0.05 mg/m3 dose 

adjusted effect level in an adult male 

work force which was used in the 

derivation of the RfC. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72531 

Based on our assessment of the 

information, we are proposing that the 

risks are unacceptable. We solicit 

comment on all aspects of this proposed 

determination. Specifically, we solicit 

any information (and supporting data) 

that would further inform our proposed 

decision. 

We also solicit comment on whether 

an alternative balancing of all the same 

factors including the weights afforded to 

individual factors discussed above and 

their associated uncertainties could lead 

to a different decision regarding risks. 

EPA also solicits any information (and 

supporting data) that would further 

inform this alternative approach. 

Under the two-step Benzene NESHAP 

approach, we are required under CAA 

section 112(f)(2)(A) to make a 

determination as to what controls are 

needed to achieve an ample margin of 

safety for the source category after we 

make a determination on risk 

acceptability. The discussion of the 

controls needed to achieve an ample 

margin of safety in section IV.C.3 

addresses both what would be needed if 

we find risks are unacceptable as well 

as what would be needed if we find that 

risks are acceptable. 

2. Proposed Controls To Address Risks 

We conducted an assessment to 

estimate the risks from the two facilities 

in the source category based on a postcontrol scenario reflecting the proposed 

requirements described above to address 

unregulated HAP (section IV.A) and the 

proposed controls described below. 

Details are provided in the Draft Risk 

Assessment report which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

a. Allowable Stack Emissions 

In order to ensure that the risks 

associated with this source category are 

acceptable, we evaluated the potential 

to reduce MACT-allowable stack 

emissions, which had driven the cancer 

MIR based on allowable emissions to 

100 in a million, primarily due to 

allowable stack emissions of arsenic, 

nickel and chromium, and contributed 

significantly to the chronic noncancer 

TOSHI (based on allowable emissions) 

of 200, primarily due to allowable stack 

emissions of manganese. Our analysis 

determined that we could lower the 

existing particulate matter emission 

limits by approximately 50 percent for 

furnace stack emissions, by 80 percent 

for crushing and screening stack 

emissions and by 98 percent for the 

metal oxygen refining process. After the 

implementation of these tighter PM 

stack limits, the estimated cancer MIR 

for the source category based on 

allowable emissions would become 80 

in one million and the TOSHI would be 

about 90. 

For the reasons described above, 

under the authority of CAA section 

112(f)(2), we propose to set particulate 

matter emission limits for the stacks at 

the following levels: 9.3 mg/dscm 

corrected to 2 percent CO2 for new or 

reconstructed electric arc furnaces, 24 

mg/dscm corrected to 2 percent CO2 for 

existing electric arc furnaces, 1.5 mg/ 

dscm corrected to 2 percent CO2 for any 

new, reconstructed or existing MOR 

process, and 13 mg/dscm for any new, 

reconstructed or existing crushing and 

screening equipment. We believe 

sources can achieve these limits with 

existing controls. These new emissions 

limits will reduce potential risks due to 

allowable emissions from the stacks and 

prevent backsliding. We propose that 

compliance for existing sources will be 

demonstrated by annual stack testing 

and installation and operation of bag 

leak detection systems for both new and 

existing sources. 

b. Process Fugitive Emissions Sources 

Process fugitive sources are partially 

controlled by the existing MACT via a 

shop building opacity standard; 

however, that standard was only 

intended to address tapping process 

fugitives generated under ‘‘normal’’ 

tapping process operating conditions. 

Casting and crushing and screening 

process fugitives in the furnace building 

were not included. Under the authority 

of section 112(d)(2) of the Act, which 

allows the use of measures to enclose 

systems or processes to eliminate 

emissions and measures to collect, 

capture or treat such pollutants when 

released from a process, stack, storage, 

or fugitive emissions point, we 

evaluated several options to achieve 

improved emissions capture. We 

developed several control scenarios to 

assess options to improve/add local 

ventilation and associated control (e.g., 

improve tapping capture, install capture 

and control on casting operations), but 

we concluded that these were all 

ineffective in significantly reducing 

emissions and risks. As part of the 

technology review process, we 

identified a furnace building ventilation 

system at a non-manganese producer of 

ferroalloys. We evaluated an option 

based on this furnace building 

ventilation system, which involves 

enclosing the furnace building(s) and 

evacuating the emissions to a control 

device(s). Based on our assessment we 

conclude that this option would reduce 

process fugitive emissions by about 98 

percent and reduce the maximum 

noncancer TOSHI to about 2. A TOSHI 

of 2 means that the modeled long-term 

concentration of manganese at that 

location would be about 0.1 mg/m3 (i.e., 

about 2 times higher than the RfC). 

These controls would also significantly 

reduce the emissions of arsenic, 

chromium and nickel and therefore 

significantly reduce the cancer risks. 

These reductions would result in 

acceptable risk levels. Therefore, under 

the authority of CAA section 112(f), we 

are proposing such an approach, 

whereby the furnace buildings must be 

enclosed and process fugitive emissions 

would need to be collected under 

negative pressure at the ridge vents of 

the shop building and ducted to a 

control device. 

We are proposing that the PM 

emissions limit (as a surrogate for 

particulate metal HAP) at the control 

device would be the same as it is for the 

furnace stacks (24 mg/dscm). This 

would allow sources the option to duct 

some or all process fugitive emissions to 

an existing furnace control device if it 

has excess capacity. If the existing 

control device at the facility does not 

have sufficient excess capacity to 

handle the captured emissions, the 

facility would have to install additional 

controls capable of complying with the 

proposed emission limit. 

The source would also have to 

monitor building opacity, prepare and 

operate according to a process fugitives 

ventilation plan and conduct annual 

performance testing of the building 

ventilation control device to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed standards. Baghouses would 

be required to be equipped with BLDS. 

We also propose that facilities would 

need to continue the practices to 

minimize outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions that are required by the 1999 

MACT rule which includes 

implementing measures specified in 

their outdoor fugitive dust control plans 

as approved by the Administrator. 

However, recognizing that there may 

be other control measures that could 

achieve equivalent emissions reductions 

that we have not yet identified, and to 

provide some flexibility for facilities to 

determine the best approach to reduce 

their emissions, we are also proposing 

an equivalent alternative compliance 

approach. Under this alternative 

approach, we propose that facilities 

would still need to continue the work 

practices to minimize outdoor fugitive 

dust emissions that are required by the 

1999 MACT rule which includes 

implementing measures specified in 

their outdoor fugitive dust control plans 

as approved by the Administrator. 

However, in lieu of building the full 

enclosure and capture and evacuation 

system described above to control 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

process fugitive emissions, we are 

proposing that facilities can design and 

implement an equivalent alternative 

approach (e.g., local capture, controls, 

and work practices) to address the risks 

associated with those process fugitive 

emissions. Compliance would be 

demonstrated by ensuring facilities 

apply the equivalent alternative 

approach to control process fugitive 

emissions, continue the work practices 

to minimize outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions, and also conduct fenceline 

monitoring to demonstrate that the 

ambient concentration of manganese at 

their facility boundary is no more than 

0.1 mg/m3 on a 60-day rolling average, 

as described below. 

Specifically, we propose to require 

that sources seeking to use this 

alternative prepare and submit for the 

Administrator’s approval a written plan 

describing and explaining the 

equivalent alternative approach that 

they propose to apply and a proposed 

compliance monitoring network that 

must consist of at least two monitors 

located at or near the facility boundary, 

and in locations expected to have the 

highest concentrations of manganese, 

and the procedures for sampling, 

sample handling and custody, sample 

analysis, quality assurance, and 

recordkeeping procedures. The purpose 

of the ambient air monitoring network 

would be to ensure that manganese 

concentrations in air near the facility 

boundaries remain at or below 0.1 mg/ 

m3 based on 10-sample rolling averages, 

with samples being collected every 6 

days (i.e., 60-day rolling averages). The 

monitoring plan must include a 

minimum of two monitoring sites that 

are placed in locations that are most 

likely to capture measurements of the 

maximum concentrations at or near the 

facility boundaries. For example, at least 

one monitor must be placed in the 

predominant downwind direction from 

main emissions sources based on 

historical weather patterns in the area. 

This standard for manganese emissions 

would be a surrogate for all particulate 

HAP metals (including arsenic, nickel 

and chromium) since they are emitted 

by the same processes and controlled 

with the same devices and measures. 

We propose to set this alternative limit 

using manganese as a surrogate for 

metal HAP because manganese is the 

primary HAP metal emitted from this 

source category. We considered the 

feasibility of using PM as a surrogate, 

but developing a reliable relationship 

between fenceline manganese 

concentration and filterable PM 

concentration is almost impossible. We 

request comment on the use of 

manganese as a surrogate for HAP 

metals in the alternative approach. 

This alternative regulatory 

requirement would provide flexibility to 

facilities in determining the withinfacility emission sources that should be 

captured and vented to a control device 

that are most effective for reducing 

process fugitive emissions at their 

facilities. However, any facility 

considering this alternative approach 

would need to demonstrate that they 

can be expected to achieve the fenceline 

limitation with the proposed alternative 

approach and obtain approval from the 

Administrator. This is especially 

important for facilities with a history of 

elevated ambient manganese 

concentrations based on monitoring by 

state regulatory agencies or the EPA, or 

any facility that has been confirmed as 

the main contributor to elevated 

monitored manganese concentrations in 

a particular area. Nevertheless, we are 

seeking comments on this proposed 

alternative requirement, including the 

controls and practices that can achieve 

the equivalent level of reductions, the 

averaging time for monitoring, and 

whether two monitors would be 

sufficient or if more monitors may be 

warranted. 

We propose to set the fenceline 

concentration level at 0.1 mg/m3 to 

reflect the equivalent level of emissions 

control that we estimate will be 

achieved with the requirement to 

enclose the furnace building(s) and 

evacuate the emissions to a control 

device(s). As described in section 

IV.D.2, the maximum modeled chronic 

noncancer inhalation TOSHI value is 2 

after full enclosure and evacuation of 

emissions based on the post-control 

modeling analysis. This means that the 

modeled concentration at the maximum 

impact location after these controls are 

in place would be 0.1 mg/m3, which is 

2 times higher than the value of the RfC 

for manganese. Therefore, achieving and 

maintaining an air manganese level of 

0.1 mg/m3 at the facility boundary is 

proposed as the equivalent alternative 

standard to minimize emissions of HAP 

metals. Nevertheless, we request 

comment on other concentration values 

that might be appropriate to serve as the 

concentration level for fenceline 

monitoring under this alternative. We 

also request comment on whether a 

different averaging period should be 

required. 

As part of this alternative, we are also 

proposing a provision that would allow 

for reduced monitoring if the facility 

demonstrates ambient manganese 

concentrations less than 50 percent of 

the ambient manganese concentration 

limit for 3 consecutive years at each 

monitor. We propose that a revised 

monitoring plan may be submitted (for 

review and possible approval by the 

Administrator) to reduce the sampling 

and analysis frequency if all of the 10- 

sample rolling average concentrations at 

each monitor are less than 50 percent of 

the limit of 0.1 mg/m3 over a 3-year 

period. 

All of these proposed controls are 

described further under the technology 

review (in section IV.D.2.) of this 

preamble. 

c. Results of the Post-Control Risk 

Assessment 

The results of the post-control chronic 

inhalation cancer risk assessment 

indicate that, based on actual emissions, 

the maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk posed by these two facilities, after 

the implementation of the proposed 

controls, could be up to 5 in one 

million, reduced from 80 in one million 

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

reduction in cancer incidence to 0.0004 

excess cancer cases per year, reduced 

from 0.002 excess cancer cases per year. 

In addition, the number of people 

estimated to have a cancer risk greater 

than or equal to one in one million 

would be reduced from 26,000 to 1,300. 

The results of the post-control 

assessment also indicate that, based on 

actual emissions, the maximum chronic 

noncancer inhalation TOSHI value 

would be reduced to 2, from the 

baseline estimate of 90. The number of 

people estimated to have a TOSHI 

greater than 1 would be reduced from 

28,000 to less than 10. 

We also estimate that after the 

implementation of controls, the 

maximum worst-case acute refined HQ 

value would be reduced from a potential 

high of 10 to 0.3 (based on the REL 

value for nickel compounds) 

eliminating any potential for acute 

impacts of concern. 

Considering post-control emissions of 

multipathway HAP, mercury emissions 

would be reduced approximately 88 

percent, while POM emissions would be 

reduced approximately 66 percent from 

the baseline emission rates. Based on 

our intermediate screening approach for 

multipathway risks, emissions of 

mercury ‘‘screen out,’’ or are reduced 

below the screening threshold for both 

facilities, indicating no potential for 

multipathway impacts of concern due to 

mercury. However, emissions of POM 

(as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ) remain above 

the intermediate screening thresholds 

for both facilities (one by a factor of 20 

and one by a factor of 2), indicating that 

we cannot rule out the potential for 

multipathway impacts of concern due to 

emissions of POM from these facilities. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72533 

As mentioned above, the highest lead 

concentration after controls, 0.02 mg/m3, 

is well below the NAAQS, indicating a 

low potential for multipathway impacts 

of concern due to lead. 

3. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and 

Proposed Controls 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we evaluate the cost and 

feasibility of available control 

technologies and other measures 

(including the controls, measures and 

costs reviewed under the technology 

review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the 

risks due to emissions of HAP identified 

in our risk assessment. 

We estimate that the actions proposed 

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

described above to address unacceptable 

risks, will reduce the MIR associated 

with arsenic, nickel and chromium from 

80 in one million (50 in one million 

using the lower end of the nickel URE 

range) to 5 in one million for actual 

emissions. The cancer incidence will be 

reduced from 0.002 to 0.0004, and the 

number of people estimated to have 

cancer risks greater than one in one 

million will be reduced, from 26,000 

people to 1,300 people. The chronic 

noncancer inhalation TOSHI will be 

reduced from 90 to 2, and the number 

of people exposed to a TOSHI level 

greater than 1 will be reduced from 

28,000 people to less than 10 people. In 

addition, the maximum acute HQ value 

will be reduced from potentially up to 

10 to less than 1, and the potential 

multipathway impacts will be reduced. 

Based on all of the above information, 

we conclude that the risks after 

implementation of the proposed 

controls are acceptable. Based on our 

research and analysis, we did not 

identify any cost-effective controls 

beyond those proposed above that 

would achieve further reduction in risk. 

Therefore we conclude that the controls 

to achieve acceptable risks (described 

above) will also achieve an ample 

margin of safety. Although we conclude 

that the implementation of the proposed 

requirements described above will 

provide public health protection with 

an ample margin of safety we 

acknowledge that there may be other 

control technologies that may also 

achieve these goals. 

We are soliciting comments and 

information regarding additional dust 

and process fugitive control measures 

and work practices that may be more 

feasible to implement and effective in 

further reducing process and dust 

fugitive emissions of metal HAP, or 

additional monitoring that may be 

warranted to ensure adequate control of 

fugitive emissions. We also request 

comments on the cost effectiveness of 

achieving the proposed process fugitive 

control measures and any additional 

options that may be more cost effective. 

We also note that we are soliciting 

comment on our proposed risk finding. 

If we conclude, after evaluating data and 

information received in comments on 

this proposed rule, that the risks posed 

by this source category are acceptable, 

then based on the data and information 

we currently have, we would likely 

adopt the same controls described in 

section IV.C.2 as being necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety. As 

noted above in this section and in 

section IV.C.2.c., the proposed controls 

provide significant risk reductions 

beyond the current rule. Furthermore, as 

discussed more extensively in section 

IV.D.2 of this notice, below, we 

conclude that these controls are cost 

effective and technically feasible. We 

solicit comment on the appropriateness 

of these controls in the event we find, 

based on data and information received 

in comment, that the current rule 

provides an acceptable risk. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

Based on our technology review, we 

determined that there have been 

advances in emissions control measures 

since the Ferroalloys Production 

NESHAP was originally promulgated in 

1999. Since promulgation, facilities 

have steadily improved the performance 

of their control devices through 

upgrades or replacements. They have 

also developed improved capture 

techniques for some process fugitives 

(e.g., casting and tapping emissions). 

Additional details regarding these 

analyses can be found in the following 

technical document for this action 

which is available in the docket: Draft 

Technology Review for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category. 

1. Metal HAP Emissions From Stacks 

We propose to continue to use 

particulate matter as a surrogate for 

metal HAP other than mercury. For a 

discussion regarding the 

appropriateness of particulate matter as 

a surrogate for non-mercury metal HAP, 

please see the memo ‘‘Surrogate for 

Metal HAP Emissions for the 

Ferroalloys Source Category’’ in the 

docket for this proposed rule. Based on 

the results from the ICR test program, 

we determined that all of the sources of 

stack emissions are emitting at 

significantly lower levels than their 

maximum permitted levels. For this 

reason, under the authority of CAA 

section 112(d)(6), we are proposing 

revised emission limits for new and 

existing sources. We are also proposing 

that any uncontrolled furnace vent 

stacks would be subject to the same 

concentration limits. 

We calculated the proposed emission 

limits based on a UPL analysis, resulting 

in a proposed existing source furnace 

stack emissions limit of 24 mg/dscm 

and proposed new source furnace stack 

emissions limit of 9.3 mg/dscm. We also 

calculated a proposed stack emission 

limit of 13 mg/dscm for crushing and 

screening equipment that would apply 

to both new and existing sources. 

The metal oxygen refining operation 

is a unique process, and so we only 

have a single ICR test data point. 

Therefore, we calculated a proposed 

emissions limit for this source using the 

99 percent UPL from the test data, 

resulting in a proposed limit of 3.9 mg/ 

dscm that would apply to new and 

existing metal oxygen refining operation 

sources. We request comment on 

whether we should instead set the MOR 

limit to be the same as the proposed 

furnace stack limit for existing sources. 

This change would allow a facility to 

use any excess capacity in the MOR 

control device to treat furnace 

emissions, if needed. Such a limit is still 

more stringent than the current limit 

included in subpart XXX for the MOR 

(approximately 69 mg/dscm). 

Based on our analyses, we expect that 

no additional controls would be 

required for the facilities to comply with 

these proposed limits. To demonstrate 

compliance, we propose that sources 

would be required to conduct periodic 

performance testing, and develop and 

operate according to a baghouse 

operating plan or continuously monitor 

scrubber operating parameters. Furnace 

baghouses would be required to be 

equipped with bag leak detection 

systems (BLDS). 

2. Metal HAP Emissions From Process 

Fugitives 

As described above, we evaluated 

several options to improve and increase 

the capture and control of process 

fugitive sources. The two main options 

involve either local ventilation or 

building ventilation. Local ventilation 

(e.g., hoods or ductwork located in close 

proximity to an emissions source such 

as tapping or casting) is common in this 

industry, but performance varies due to 

design of the capture system, 

maintenance practices and control 

device capacity. Industry 

representatives have expressed concern 

that extensive retrofitting of local 

ventilation is complicated at existing 

facilities because of the need for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

material movement using large overhead 

cranes and ladles. We identified a 

furnace building ventilation system at a 

ferrosilicon producer, using a similar 

production process. This ‘‘system’’ is 

basically an enclosure of the furnace 

building with evacuation of emission to 

a control device. 

We evaluated an option to enclose the 

furnace building(s) and evacuate the 

emissions to a control device(s) similar 

to the system used at the ferrosilicon 

producing facility described above. 

Based on that evaluation, we believe 

that it is feasible to install enclosures 

and have the fugitive emissions at the 

ridge vents of the shop building 

collected under negative pressure and 

ducted to a control device, and have a 

PM emissions limit at the control device 

the same as it is for the furnace stacks 

(i.e., 24 mg/dscm). This would allow 

sources the option to duct some or all 

process fugitive emissions to an existing 

furnace control device if it has excess 

capacity. If it does not have excess 

capacity, the facility would have to 

install additional controls. Under this 

option, the source would also have to 

monitor building opacity; prepare and 

operate according to a process fugitives 

emissions ventilation plan, which 

would include requirements to 

demonstrate that the building is being 

operated at a negative pressure of at 

least 0.007 inches of water; and conduct 

periodic performance testing of the 

building ventilation control device to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed standards. Baghouses would 

be required to be equipped with BLDS. 

We estimate the total capital costs of 

installing the required ductwork, fans, 

and baghouses under this option to be 

$9.4 million and the total annualized 

costs to be $2.3 million for the two 

plants. We estimate that particulate 

metal HAP emissions would be reduced 

by 81 tons, resulting in a cost per ton 

of HAP removed at $28,000 per ton ($14 

per pound). We also estimate that this 

option would achieve PM emission 

reductions of 630 tons, resulting in a 

cost per ton of PM removed at $3,600 

per ton and achieve PM2.5 emission 

reductions of 257 tons, resulting in a 

cost per ton of PM2.5 removed of $8800 

per ton. In light of the technical 

feasibility and cost effectiveness of this 

approach, we are proposing this option 

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

These proposed requirements are 

exactly the same as those proposed 

under Section 112(f) which are 

described in section IV.C.2 of this 

preamble. 

As described above in section 

IV.C.2.b, we are also proposing an 

equivalent alternative compliance 

approach. Facilities can design and 

implement an equivalent alternative 

approach (e.g., local capture, controls, 

and work practices) to achieve 

equivalent reductions of their process 

fugitive emissions. Compliance would 

be demonstrated by ensuring facilities 

apply the equivalent alternative 

approach to control process fugitive 

emissions, continue the work practices 

to minimize outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions, and also conduct fenceline 

monitoring to demonstrate that the 

ambient concentration of manganese at 

their facility boundary is no more than 

0.1 mg/m3 on a 60-day rolling average. 

3. Hydrochloric Acid, Formaldehyde, 

Mercury and PAH Emissions From 

Furnace Stacks 

The controls for HCl, formaldehyde, 

mercury and PAHs were described in 

Section IV.A., and no additional 

controls have been identified. 

4. Outdoor Fugitive Dust Emissions 

The existing rule has a requirement 

for an outdoor fugitive dust control 

plan. We are unable to quantify HAP 

emissions from outdoor fugitive dust 

sources and did not identify any 

additional procedures or controls that 

could be expected to have a significant 

impact on these emissions. Therefore, 

we are not proposing to change the 

existing requirements. 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacated portions of two provisions in 

the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations 

governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, 

the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 

CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a 

regulation, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that the EPA 

promulgated under CAA section 112. 

When incorporated into CAA section 

112(d) regulations for specific source 

categories, these two provisions exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emissions standard 

during periods of SSM. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in this rule. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to Table 1 to 

subpart XXX of part 63 (the General 

Provisions Applicability table). For 

example, we are proposing to eliminate 

the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source 

develop an SSM plan. We also are 

proposing to eliminate or revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting that related 

to the SSM exemption. The EPA has 

attempted to ensure that we have not 

included in the proposed regulatory 

language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, has not 

proposed different standards for those 

periods. 

Information on periods of startup and 

shutdown received from the industry in 

the ICR indicate that emissions during 

these periods do not increase. Control 

devices such as baghouses for metal 

HAP particulate control and activated 

carbon controls for mercury are started 

up before the process units, and are 

operational during the shutdown phase 

of a process. Therefore, no increase in 

emissions is expected during these 

periods. Building ventilation systems 

for process fugitive emissions will be in 

place at all times. Therefore, separate 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are not being proposed. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under CAA 

section 112, emissions standards for 

new sources must be no less stringent 

than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source, and emission 

standards for existing sources generally 

must be no less stringent than the 

average emissions limitation ‘‘achieved’’ 

by the best performing 12 percent (or 5 

sources in cases where there are fewer 

than 30 sources in the source category) 

of sources in the category. There is 

nothing in CAA section 112 that directs 

the Agency to consider malfunctions in 

determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the 

best performing or best controlled 

sources when setting emissions 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72535 

standards. Moreover, while the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards consistent with the 

CAA section 112 case law, nothing in 

that case law requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses 

the concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ and 

‘‘best performing’’ unit in defining the 

level of stringency that CAA section 112 

performance standards must meet. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a 

unit that is malfunctioning presents 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree, 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) 

(The EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem. We 

generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to 

‘‘invest the resources to conduct the 

perfect study.’’) See also, Weyerhaeuser 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 

1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

regulation’’). In addition, the goal of a 

best controlled or best performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation’’ 

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an 

exceedance of the relevant emissions 

standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 

15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore 

proposing to add to the final rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emissions limits that are 

caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 

63.1622 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

to mean, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or 

defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which 

are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding). We also are proposing 

other regulatory provisions to specify 

the elements that are necessary to 

establish this affirmative defense; the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1627 (40 

CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emissions limit meets 

the narrow definition of malfunction in 

40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

* * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.1623(g) and 

to prevent future malfunctions. For 

example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when the applicable emissions 

limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken 

to minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health * * *.’’ 

In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative 

defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, 

appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with CAA section 113 

(see also 40 CFR 22.27). 

The EPA included an affirmative 

defense in the proposed rule in an 

attempt to balance a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure 

adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

limits may be exceeded under 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ‘‘limit the 

quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) 

(defining ‘‘emission limitation and 

emission standard’’). See generally 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

(DC Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is 

required to ensure that section 112 

emissions limitations are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission limitation is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While ‘‘continuous’’ limitations, 

on the one hand, are required, there is 

also caselaw indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA 

to account for the practical realities of 

technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 

433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit 

acknowledged that in setting standards 

under CAA section 111 ‘‘variant 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. 

1973). Though intervening caselaw such 

as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 

amendments undermine the relevance 

of these cases today, they support the 

EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is 

reasonable. The affirmative defense 

simply provides for a defense to civil 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

penalties for excess emissions that are 

proven to be beyond the control of the 

source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, the EPA has formalized its 

approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit 

required this type of formalized 

approach when regulating ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). But 

see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (DC Cir. 1978) 

(holding that an informal approach is 

adequate). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to 

both ensure that its emission limitations 

are ‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 

U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. 

Specifically, we are proposing the 

following changes to the rule. 

• Added general duty requirements in 

40 CFR 63.1623(g) to replace General 

Provision requirements that reference 

vacated SSM provisions. 

• Added replacement language that 

eliminates the reference to SSM 

exemptions applicable to performance 

tests in 40 CFR 63.1625(a)(5). 

• Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 

63.1629(d) requiring the reporting of 

malfunctions as part of the affirmative 

defense provisions. 

• Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 

63.1629(b) requiring the keeping of 

certain records during malfunctions as 

part of the affirmative defense 

provisions. 

• Developed Table 1 to subpart XXX 

of part 63 to reflect changes in the 

applicability of the General Provisions 

to this subpart resulting from a court 

vacatur of certain SSM requirements in 

the General Provisions. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA and other authorities such as 

state, local and tribal agencies must 

have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 

and 129 standards, as well as for many 

other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development, and annual emission rate 

determinations. We believe that 

improvements in the process of 

submitting, reviewing and storing test 

data would result in increases in 

efficiency and cost savings to the 

regulated community; state, local and 

tribal agencies; the public and 

ourselves. These improvements are 

possible because stack testing firms are 

increasingly collecting performance test 

data in electronic format, making it 

possible to move to an electronic data 

submittal system that would increase 

the ease and efficiency of data submittal 

and improve data accessibility. 

Through this proposal, the EPA is 

proposing a step to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

the EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of Ferroalloys Production 

facilities submit electronic copies of 

required performance test reports to the 

EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

As proposed above, data entry would 

be through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT would 

be able to transmit the electronic report 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange network for storage in the 

WebFIRE database, making submittal of 

data very straightforward and easy. A 

description of the ERT can be found at 

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

index.html. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

would apply only to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that 

will be supported by the ERT. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at http:// 

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

We believe that industry would benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these 

data, the EPA would be able to develop 

improved emission factors, make fewer 

information requests, and promulgate 

better regulations. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what 

testing information would be required. 

Another important proposed benefit of 

submitting these data to the EPA at the 

time the source test is conducted is that 

it should substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in 

the future. When the EPA has 

performance test data in hand, there 

will likely be fewer or less substantial 

data collection requests in conjunction 

with prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a reduced burden on 

both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and the EPA (in 

terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the 

results). 

State, local, and tribal agencies could 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would 

allow for an electronic review process 

rather than a manual data assessment 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data 

submittal to WebFIRE electronically is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data for 

establishing emissions factors and by 

ensuring that the factors are more 

representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emission factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while also improving the quality of 

emission inventories and, as a result, air 

quality regulations. 

3. Emissions Averaging 

We are proposing to add an emissions 

averaging option for electric arc furnace 

stack emissions (PM, mercury, PAH, 

HCl or formaldehyde). If you have more 

than one existing emission source (e.g., 

electric arc furnace) located at one or 

more contiguous properties, which are 

under common control of the same 

person (or persons under common 

control), you may demonstrate 

compliance by emission averaging 

among the existing emission sources, if 

your averaged emissions for such 

emission sources are equal to or less 

than the applicable emission limit. 

We are also proposing to allow 

averaging between existing process 

fugitive control devices for PM stack 

emissions as a second averaging group. 

However, we believe it may be 

appropriate to combine these process 

fugitive stack emissions into the furnace 

stack averaging group for PM emissions 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72537 

36Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59 FR 19425; 

April 22, 1994). 

for two reasons. First, both types of 

emissions are likely to be controlled 

with similar, if not common control 

devices, e.g., large fabric filters. Second, 

we are proposing to apply an identical 

PM emission limit for both of these 

emission sources, which would simplify 

averaging of PM emissions. We request 

comment on this option. 

We are also proposing to allow 

averaging between existing crushing and 

screening equipment for PM stack 

emissions. We believe this is a distinct 

averaging group compared to the 

furnace and process fugitives groups. 

The airflow and associated control 

devices are typically much smaller and 

they are subject to a more stringent 

emission limit than the other PM 

sources. However, we request comment 

on the potential for more broadly 

defined averaging options for this group. 

As part of the EPA’s general policy of 

encouraging the use of flexible 

compliance approaches where they can 

be properly monitored and enforced, we 

are including emissions averaging for 

existing sources in this proposed rule. 

Emissions averaging can provide 

sources the flexibility to comply in the 

least costly manner while still 

maintaining regulation that is workable 

and enforceable. Emissions averaging 

would allow owners and operators of an 

existing affected source to demonstrate 

that the source complies with the 

proposed emission limits by averaging 

the emissions from an individual 

affected emission unit that is emitting 

above the proposed emission limits with 

other affected emission units at the 

same facility that are emitting below the 

proposed emission limits and that are 

within the same averaging group, as 

described below. 

This proposed rule includes an 

emissions averaging compliance 

alternative because emissions averaging 

represents an equivalent, more flexible, 

and less costly alternative to controlling 

certain emission points to MACT levels. 

We have concluded that a limited form 

of averaging could be implemented that 

would not lessen the stringency of the 

MACT limits and would provide 

flexibility in compliance, cost and 

energy savings to owners and operators 

of existing sources. We also recognize 

that we must ensure that any emissions 

averaging option can be implemented 

and enforced, will be clear to sources, 

and most importantly, will be no less 

stringent than unit by unit 

implementation of the MACT limits. 

The EPA is proposing to establish 

within a NESHAP a unified compliance 

regimen that permits averaging within 

an existing affected source across 

individual affected units subject to the 

standard under certain conditions. 

Averaging across affected units is 

permitted only if it can be demonstrated 

that the total quantity of any regulated 

pollutant that may be emitted by that 

portion of a contiguous major source 

that is subject to the NESHAP will not 

be greater under the averaging 

mechanism than it could be if each 

individual affected unit complied 

separately with the applicable standard. 

Under this test, the practical outcome of 

averaging is equivalent to compliance 

with the MACT limits by each discrete 

unit, and the statutory requirement that 

the MACT standard reflect the 

maximum achievable emissions 

reductions is, therefore, fully 

effectuated. 

In past rulemakings, the EPA has 

generally imposed certain limits on the 

scope and nature of emissions averaging 

programs. These limits include: (1) No 

averaging between different types of 

pollutants; (2) no averaging between 

sources that are not part of the same 

affected source; (3) no averaging 

between individual sources within a 

single major source if the individual 

sources are not subject to the same 

NESHAP; and (4) no averaging between 

existing sources and new sources. This 

proposed rule is consistent with these 

limitations. First, emissions averaging 

would only be permitted between 

individual sources at a single existing 

affected source, and would only be 

permitted between individual sources 

subject to the proposed Ferroalloys 

Production NESHAP. Further, emissions 

averaging would not be permitted 

between two or more different affected 

sources. Finally, new affected sources 

could not use emissions averaging. 

Accordingly, we have concluded that 

the averaging of emissions across 

affected units is consistent with the 

CAA. 

In addition, this proposed rule would 

require each facility that intends to 

utilize emission averaging to submit an 

emission averaging plan, which 

provides additional assurance that the 

necessary criteria will be met. In this 

emission averaging plan, the facility 

must include the identification of: (1) 

All units in the averaging group; (2) the 

control technology installed; (3) the 

process parameters that will be 

monitored; (4) the specific control 

technology or pollution prevention 

measure(s) to be used; (5) the test plan 

for the measurement of the HAP being 

averaged; and (6) the operating 

parameters to be monitored for each 

control device. Upon receipt, the 

regulatory authority would not be able 

to approve an emission averaging plan 

containing averaging between emissions 

of different types of pollutants or 

between different affected sources (e.g., 

between furnaces and crushing and 

screening equipment). 

We seek comment on use of a 

discount factor when emissions 

averaging is used and on the appropriate 

value of a discount factor, if used. Such 

discount factors (e.g., 10 percent) have 

been used in previous NESHAP, 

particularly where there was variation 

in the types of units within a common 

source category to ensure that the 

environmental benefit was being 

achieved. In this situation, however, the 

affected sources are more homogeneous, 

making emissions averaging a more 

straight forward analysis. Further, with 

the monitoring and compliance 

provisions that are being proposed, 

there is additional assurance that the 

environmental benefit will be realized. 

The emissions averaging provisions in 

this proposed rule are based in part on 

the emissions averaging provisions in 

the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). 

The legal basis and rationale for the 

HON emissions averaging provisions 

were provided in the preamble to the 

final HON.36

4. Other Changes 

The following lists additional minor 

changes to the NESHAP we are 

proposing. The main focus of these 

changes is to ensure that the rule 

provides adequate monitoring, 

reporting, recordkeeping and testing 

provisions to ensure that the affected 

sources are able to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the 

proposed standards. These changes 

reflect changes we have made to many 

other existing NESHAP to improve the 

quality of these compliance 

requirements. This list also includes 

proposed rule changes that address 

editorial corrections and plain language 

revisions: 

• Reduce frequency of emission testing for 

the primary furnace control devices for PM 

and propose periodic testing for PM and 

other regulated pollutants. This change is 

possible because of requirement to conduct 

continuous monitoring. Also add a periodic 

testing requirement for the building 

ventilation system control devices and 

crushing and screening equipment control 

devices. 

• Add requirement for new and existing 

baghouses that control furnace or building 

ventilation systems to be equipped with 

BLDS to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. Retain provisions for baghouses 

to have a baghouse SOP manual. 

• Add requirements to implement and 

enforce more detailed requirements for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

continuous parameter monitoring systems to 

ensure continuous compliance. 

• Reduce the shop building opacity limit 

to 10 percent opacity to reflect current 

industry performance. Eliminate 6-minute 

excursion level because it does not provide 

any significant flexibility (sources that tend 

to exceed the general opacity limit in any 6- 

minute period tend to do so for several 

minutes so that the excursions for one 6- 

minute period is meaningless). Eliminate 

events excluded from the opacity observation 

as they are infrequent, can be avoided in 

some cases, are emitted from operations we 

intend to control better, and can be confusing 

to enforce. 

• Change the format of the PM standards 

to reflect an outlet concentration format (mg/ 

dscm). This format is the direct output of the 

emissions test and reflects the constant 

output nature of the predominant control 

device, i.e., a baghouse. 

• Add PM continuous emissions 

monitoring system as an alternative to 

installing and operating a BLDS. 

• Editorial changes, including revising the 

titles of sections in the subpart to better 

reflect the description of proposed 

requirements and to make the regulation 

easier for the reader to navigate. 

• Update the recordkeeping and reporting 

sections to reflect the new monitoring 

requirements and monitoring options 

described above. 

• Update the compliance dates to include 

the anticipated dates the proposed 

requirements will become effective. 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

We are proposing that facilities must 

comply with the new proposed 

requirements in this action (which are 

being proposed under CAA sections 

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

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

later than 2 years after the effective date 

of this rule. In the period between the 

effective date of this rule and the 

compliance date, existing sources would 

continue to comply with the existing 

requirements specified in §§ 63.1650 

through 63.1661. 

Under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii), ‘‘the 

owner or operator of an existing source 

unable to comply with a relevant 

standard established * * * pursuant to 

section 112(f) * * * may request that 

the Administrator grant an extension 

allowing the source up to 2 years after 

the standard’s effective date to comply 

with the standard.’’ The rule further 

specifies a written application for such 

a request. Here, the EPA is already fully 

aware of the steps needed for each 

source to comply with the proposed 

standards and to reasonably estimate the 

amount of time it will take each source 

to do so. We believe that the 2-year 

extension would be warranted in all 

cases for sources needing to upgrade 

current practice. This includes the time 

needed to: Construct required building 

ventilation systems and install 

associated control devices for process 

fugitive sources; determine appropriate 

mercury and PAH control devices, 

locations, amount and type of carbon 

needed and assess potential waste 

disposal issues; select and install 

appropriate monitoring technologies; 

seek bids, select a vendor, install and 

test the new equipment; and, purchase, 

install and conduct QA and quality 

control measures on compliance 

monitoring equipment (see Estimated 

Time Needed to Achieve Compliance 

with The Proposed Revisions to the 

MACT standard for Ferroalloys 

Production Facilities, which is available 

in the docket for this proposed action). 

The EPA believes it reasonable to 

interpret 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii) to allow 

this plenary finding, rather than 

utilizing a facility-by-facility application 

process, when the facts are already 

known and a category-wide 

adjudication is therefore possible. In 

addition, utilizing this process allows 

for public comment on the issue which 

would not be possible if a case-by-case 

application process with a 90-day 

window for completion were used. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We anticipate that the two manganese 

production ferroalloys production 

facilities currently operating in the 

United States will be affected by these 

proposed amendments. We do not know 

of any new facilities that are expected 

to be constructed in the foreseeable 

future. However, there is one facility 

that has a permit to produce 

ferromanganese or silicomanganese in 

an electric arc furnace, but it did so for 

only a brief period, several years ago. It 

is possible that this facility could 

resume production or another nonmanganese ferroalloy producer could 

decide to commence production of 

ferromanganese or silicomanganese. 

One of the existing facilities is 

considering building a new manganese 

furnace, but their timeline and actual 

intent to go forward is unclear. Given 

this uncertainty, our impact analysis is 

focused on the two existing sources that 

are currently operating. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

The EPA estimated the emissions 

reductions that are expected to result 

from the proposed amendments to the 

1999 NESHAP compared to the 2010 

baseline emissions estimates. A detailed 

documentation of the analysis can be 

found in: Draft Cost Impacts of the 

Revised NESHAP for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category. 

Emissions of metal HAP from 

ferroalloys production sources have 

declined in recent years, primarily as 

the result of state actions and also due 

to the industry’s own initiative. The 

current proposal would cut HAP 

emissions (primarily particulate metal 

HAP such as manganese, arsenic and 

nickel) by 60 percent from their current 

levels. Under the proposed emissions 

limit for process fugitives emissions 

from the furnace building, we estimate 

that the HAP emissions reductions 

would be 81 tpy, including significant 

reductions of manganese. We also 

anticipate mercury reductions of 420 lb/ 

yr and PAH reductions of 2.5 tpy from 

installation of activated carbon injection 

controls at one facility. Total HAP 

reductions for the two facilities are 

estimated to be 84 tpy. 

Based on the emissions data available 

to the EPA, we believe that both 

facilities will be able to comply with the 

proposed emissions limits for HCl and 

formaldehyde without additional 

controls. There may be some 

formaldehyde emission reductions at 

the facility that we believe will be 

required to install an activated carbon 

injection system, but we have not 

quantified these reductions because of 

the uncertainty of the effectiveness of 

the activated carbon system designed for 

mercury and PAH removal compared to 

formaldehyde removal. We do not 

anticipate any reductions in HCl. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the proposed amendments, 

ferroalloys production facilities are 

expected to incur capital costs for the 

installation of ductwork and baghouses 

for building ventilation and activated 

carbon injection systems. There would 

also be capital costs associated with 

installing new or improved continuous 

monitoring systems, included 

installation of BLDS on the furnace and 

building ventilation baghouses that are 

not currently equipped with these 

systems. 

The capital costs for each facility were 

estimated based on the number and 

types of upgrades required. The 

memorandum Draft Cost Impacts of the 

Revised NESHAP for the Ferroalloys 

Production Source Category includes a 

complete description of the cost 

estimate methods used for this analysis 

and is available in the docket. 

The majority of the capital costs 

estimated for compliance with the 

amendments proposed in this action are 

for purchasing new control devices. For 

the shop building ventilation system, 

we assumed that each facility would 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72539 

37http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo. 38Sargent & Lundy, IPM Model—Revisions to 

Cost and Performance for APC Technologies, 

Mercury Control Cost Development Methodology 

Final, March, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/ 

progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/append5_3.pdf. 

need to install a building ventilation 

system in order to comply with the 

proposed shop building emissions 

limits. For each facility, we estimated 

the square footage of shop building air 

that would need to be evacuated and the 

size of control device that would be 

required. Although the proposed 

amendments would provide the 

alternative option to install monitors at 

or near the property boundary to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

building ventilation requirements, we 

assume that sources would be unlikely 

to meet the alternative standard without 

improving the level of control in the 

shop building. 

To estimate the cost for the building 

ventilation fabric filter, we contacted a 

vendor who had recently supplied a 

fabric filter to one of the facilities to 

obtain assistance in developing a cost 

estimate for the installation. The 

equipment-only cost supplied by the 

vendor was used in conjunction with 

techniques described in the sixth 

edition of the EPA Air Pollution Control 

Cost Manual 37 to estimate total installed 

capital cost and annual costs. 

Our cost model included installation 

of the baghouse and any necessary fans, 

ductwork, and site work, including 

extra ductwork for connection to the 

building roof monitors. The total 

installed capital cost of three fabric 

filters (two at one facility, one at the 

second facility) designed for a flow-rate 

of 150,000 actual cubic feet per minute 

was estimated at $9.4 million. The 

annualized capital cost and operational 

and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$2.3 million, via techniques described 

in the sixth edition of the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual. The 

annualized cost assumes a 20-year life 

expectancy for the unit and, to be 

consistent with OMB Guidance in 

Circular A–4, a 7 percent cost of capital 

as an estimate of the annualized capital 

cost. 

We considered installation of both 

fixed carbon beds and activated carbon 

injections for the control of mercury and 

PAH emissions. After talking to carbon 

vendors, we learned that fixed carbon 

beds are not a viable option given the 

size of the furnace airstream we would 

need to control. We also considered 

whether to put the activated carbon 

injection upstream or downstream of the 

existing PM control device. By installing 

the system downstream of the PM 

control device, we would avoid 

potential concerns with the activated 

carbon interfering with potential sale or 

reuse of baghouse dust or potential 

increase in mercury load in the scrubber 

sludge impoundment. This approach 

requires installation of a separate 

‘‘polishing’’ baghouse to capture the 

injected carbon for disposal. 

Unlike activated carbon systems used 

primarily for control of volatile organic 

compounds, we have been told that 

mercury impregnated compounds 

cannot be recycled. There is concern 

that such downstream control could 

result in sufficient concentration of 

mercury in the baghouse dust that the 

facility would be required to treat such 

dust as a hazardous waste under the 

RCRA. However, based on conversations 

with vendors and other mercury control 

experts, we believe that the resulting 

waste will most likely be nonhazardous. 

We are seeking comments on the cost 

methodology and assumptions used to 

develop these cost estimates. 

Costs for Activated Carbon Injection 

(ACI) were estimated using cost 

equations developed for the Utility 

NESHAP.38 The calculated equipment 

costs for ACI and fabric filters were used 

in conjunction with techniques 

described in the sixth edition of the EPA 

Air Pollution Control Cost Manual to 

estimate total installed capital cost and 

annual costs. Our cost model included 

installation of the two ACI systems, one 

polishing fabric filter, and associated 

fans, ductwork, and site work. We 

estimate the total capital costs are $1.7 

million and the annual costs are $1.4 

million. 

The estimated costs for the proposed 

change to the monitoring requirements 

for baghouses, including installation of 

seven new BLDS for four existing 

furnace baghouses and three building 

ventilation baghouses is $270,000 of 

capital cost. The capital cost for a 

differential pressure monitor to ensure 

that shop buildings are under negative 

pressure is $9,200. The capital cost 

estimated for a continuous parameter 

monitoring system for the wet scrubber 

at one facility is estimated to be 

$50,000. Finally, the estimated capital 

cost for carbon injection monitoring is 

$20,000. The capital costs for all 

additional monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements, including 

the baghouse monitoring proposed, is 

estimated at $340,200. 

Annualized costs are estimated to be 

$94,000 for the BLDS, $18,000 for the 

scrubber parameter monitoring system, 

and $6,200 for the carbon injection 

monitoring system. There is also an 

estimated annualized cost to monitor 

the manganese ore content for mercury 

emissions of $1,200. The estimated 

annual cost for reporting and 

recordkeeping is $37,000. We estimate 

the costs of the periodic performance 

testing requirements to be $800,000. The 

resulting total annualized costs are 

$347,000. 

The total annualized costs for the 

proposed rule are estimated at $4.0 

million (2010 dollars). Table 6 provides 

a summary of the estimated costs and 

emissions reductions associated with 

the proposed amendments to the 

Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 

presented in today’s action. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARDS IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Estimated capital cost 

($MM) 1

Estimated annual cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions 

reductions 

(tpy) 

Cost effectiveness in 

$ per ton total HAP 

reduction 

(and in $ per pound) 

Capture and Control Process Fugitives .................................... 9.4 2.3 81 (of metal HAP) .... $0.03 MM per ton. 

($14 per pound). 

MACT Limits for Mercury .......................................................... 1.7 1.4 0.2 (of mercury) ....... $6.7 MM per ton. 

($3,300 per pound). 

MACT Limits for co-control of PAH ........................................... NA N/A 2.5 (of PAH) ............. N/A. 

HCl and formaldehyde concentration limits .............................. 0 0 0 ............................... N/A. 

Compliance testing over 3-year period ..................................... N/A 0.26 N/A ........................... N/A. 

Annual average monitoring over 3-year period ........................ 0.11 0.08 N/A ........................... N/A. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

39Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment 

Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. 

Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 

40Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. 

‘‘The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of 

reducing a ton of air pollution.’’ Air Qual Atmos 

Health (2009) 2:169–176. 

41U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. 

Technical support document: Estimating the benefit 

per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from the 

ferroalloy sector (Draft); EPA: Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 42Pope et al, 2002. ‘‘Lung Cancer, 

Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term 

Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.’’ Journal 

of the American Medical Association. 287:1132– 

1141. 

43Laden et al, 2006. ‘‘Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.’’ American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

173: 667–672. 

44U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. October. 

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

ecas/ria.html. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We estimate that there will be no 

more than a 0.2 percent price change 

and a similar reduction in output 

associated with the proposal. The 

impacts to affected firms will be low 

because the annual compliance costs are 

quite small when compared to the 

annual revenues for the two affected 

parent firms (much less than 1 percent 

for each). The impacts to affected 

consumers should also be quite small. 

Thus, there will not be any significant 

impacts on affected firms and their 

consumers as a result of this proposal. 

E. What are the benefits? 

We estimate the monetized benefits of 

this regulatory action to be $71 million 

to $170 million (2010$), at a 3 percent 

discount rate in the implementation 

year (2015). The monetized benefits of 

the regulatory action at a 7 percent 

discount rate are $63 million to $160 

million (2010$) in the same 

implementation year. Using alternate 

relationships between PM2.5 and 

premature mortality supplied by 

experts, higher and lower benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these two estimates.39 A summary of the 

monetized benefits estimates at discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in 

Table 7 of this preamble. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR THE FERROALLOYS INDUSTRY IN 2015 

[Millions of 2010$] 

Pollutant 

Estimated 

emission 

reductions 

(tpy) 

Total monetized benefits 

(3% discount rate) 

Total monetized benefits 

(7% discount rate) 

PM2.5 ............................................................................................... 257 $71 to $170 ............................... $63 to $160. 

1All estimates are for the implementation year (‘‘2015’’, assuming the final rule is published in January 2012) and are rounded to two significant 

figures so numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects. Benefits from reducing HAPs 

emissions are not included. 

These benefits estimates represent the 

total monetized human health benefits 

for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 

2015 from controls installed to reduce 

air pollutants in order to meet these 

proposed standards. These estimates are 

calculated as the sum of the monetized 

value of avoided premature mortality 

from reducing PM2.5. To estimate human 

health benefits derived from reducing 

PM2.5, we used the general approach 

and methodology laid out in Fann, 

Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009).40

However, in this proposal we utilized 

source apportionment air quality 

modeling for the ferroalloys industry.41

Therefore all benefits per ton estimates 

are specific to the ferroalloys sector. 

To generate the BPT estimates, we 

used a model to convert emissions of 

direct PM2.5 into changes in ambient 

PM2.5 levels and another model to 

estimate the changes in human health 

associated with that change in air 

quality. Finally, the monetized health 

benefits were divided by the emission 

reductions to create the BPT estimates. 

These models assume that all fine 

particles, regardless of their chemical 

composition, are equally potent in 

causing premature mortality because 

there is no clear scientific evidence that 

would support the development of 

differential effects estimates by particle 

type. In this rule only directly emitted 

PM2.5 is considered. Direct PM2.5

emissions convert directly into ambient 

PM2.5; thus, to the extent that emissions 

occur in population areas, exposures to 

direct PM2.5 will tend to be higher than 

exposure to any other precursor, and 

monetized health benefits will be higher 

as well. 

For context, it is important to note 

that the magnitude of the PM benefits is 

largely driven by the concentration 

response function for premature 

mortality. Experts have advised the EPA 

to consider a variety of assumptions, 

including estimates based on both 

empirical (epidemiological) studies and 

judgments elicited from scientific 

experts, to characterize the uncertainty 

in the relationship between PM2.5

concentrations and premature mortality. 

For this rule, we cite two key empirical 

studies, the American Cancer Society 

cohort study 42 and the extended Six 

Cities cohort study.43 In the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RIA) 44 for this rule, 

we also include benefits estimates 

derived from expert judgments and 

other assumptions. 

The EPA strives to use the best 

available science to support our benefits 

analyses. We recognize that 

interpretation of the science regarding 

air pollution and health is dynamic and 

evolving. After reviewing the scientific 

literature and recent scientific advice, 

we have determined that the nothreshold model is the most appropriate 

model for assessing the mortality 

benefits associated with reducing PM2.5

exposure. Consistent with this recent 

advice, we are replacing the previous 

threshold sensitivity analysis with a 

new ‘‘Lowest Measured Level (LML)’’ 

assessment. While an LML assessment 

provides some insight into the level of 

uncertainty in the estimated PM 

mortality benefits, the EPA does not 

view the LML as a threshold and 

continues to quantify PM-related 

mortality impacts using a full range of 

modeled air quality concentrations. 

Most of the estimated PM-related 

benefits in this rule would accrue to 

populations exposed to higher levels of 

PM2.5. Using the Pope, et al., (2002) 

study, 89 percent of the population is 

exposed at or above the LML of 7.5 mg/ 

m3. Using the Laden, et al., (2006) 

study, 31 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 10 mg/m3. It 

is important to emphasize that we have 

high confidence in PM2.5-related effects 

down to the lowest LML of the major 

cohort studies. This fact is important, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72541 

45U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed 

Manganese Ferroalloys RTR. September 2011 

because as we estimate PM-related 

mortality among populations exposed to 

levels of PM2.5 that are successively 

lower, our confidence in the results 

diminishes. However, our analysis 

shows that the great majority of the 

impacts occur at higher exposures. 

This analysis does not include the 

type of detailed uncertainty assessment 

found in the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS RIA 

because we lack the necessary air 

quality input and monitoring data to run 

the benefits model. In addition, we have 

not conducted any air quality modeling 

for this rule. However, to estimate BPT 

specifically for this sector we did have 

some updated air quality modeling. The 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis 

provides an indication of the sensitivity 

of our results to various assumptions. 

It should be emphasized that the 

monetized benefits estimates provided 

above do not include benefits from 

several important benefit categories, 

including reducing other air pollutants, 

ecosystem effects, and visibility 

impairment, as well as mercury and 

other HAPs. Although we do not have 

sufficient information or modeling 

available to provide monetized 

estimates for this rulemaking, we 

include a qualitative assessment of the 

health effects of these other effects in 

the RIA 45 for this proposed rule. 

F. What demographic groups might 

benefit the most from this regulation? 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice (EJ) issues that 

might be associated with the source 

category, we performed a demographic 

analysis of the at-risk population. In this 

analysis, we evaluated the distributions 

of HAP-related cancer and noncancer 

risks from the Ferroalloys Production 

source category across different social, 

demographic and economic groups 

within the populations living near these 

two facilities. The methodology and the 

results of the demographic analyses are 

included in a technical report, Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Ferroalloys Facilities, available in 

the docket for this action. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis are summarized in Table 8 

below. These results, for various 

demographic groups, are based on the 

estimated risks from actual emissions 

levels for the population living within 

50 km of the facilities. 

TABLE 8—FERROALLOY PRODUCTION DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population with 

cancer risk at or 

above 1-in-1 million 

Population with 

chronic hazard 

index above 1 

Total Population ................................................................................................... 285,000,000 26,000 28,000 

Race by Percent 

White .................................................................................................................... 75 97 97 

All Other Races ................................................................................................... 25 3 3 

Race by Percent 

White .................................................................................................................... 75 97 97 

African American ................................................................................................. 12 1 0 .8 

Native American .................................................................................................. 0 .9 0 .3 0 .3 

Other and Multiracial ........................................................................................... 12 2 1 .8 

Ethnicity by Percent 

Hispanic ............................................................................................................... 14 1 0 .7 

Non-Hispanic ....................................................................................................... 86 99 99 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level ............................................................................................ 13 13 13 

Above Poverty Level ............................................................................................ 87 87 87 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ......................................................... 13 11 9 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ........................................................... 87 89 91 

The results of the Ferroalloy 

Production source category 

demographic analysis indicate that there 

are approximately 26,000 people 

exposed to a cancer risk at or above one 

in one million and approximately 

28,000 people exposed to a chronic 

noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 due to 

emissions from the source category (we 

note that many of those in the first risk 

group are the same as those in the 

second). The percentages of the at-risk 

population in each demographic group 

(except for White and non-Hispanic) are 

similar to or lower than their respective 

nationwide percentages. 

Implementation of the provisions 

included in this proposal is expected to 

significantly reduce the number of atrisk people due to HAP emissions from 

these sources (from 26,000 people to 

about 1,000 for cancer risks and from 

28,000 people to less than 10 for chronic 

noncancer TOSHI). 

VI. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. In 

addition to general comments on this 

proposed action, we are also interested 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

in any additional data that may help to 

reduce the uncertainties inherent in the 

risk assessment and other analyses. We 

are specifically interested in receiving 

corrections to the site-specific emissions 

profiles used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section VII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses are available for 

download on the RTR web page at: 

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

rtrpg.html. The data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point for the facilities 

included in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. The 

data fields that may be revised include 

the following: 

Data element Definition 

Control Measure ....................................................................................... Are control measures in place? (yes or no). 

Control Measure Comment ...................................................................... Select control measure from list provided, and briefly describe the control measure. 

Delete ....................................................................................................... Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. 

Delete Comment ....................................................................................... Describes the reason for deletion. 

Emissions Calculation Method Code For Revised Emissions ................. Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEM, material balance, stack test, etc. 

Emissions Process Group ........................................................................ Enter the general type of emissions process associated with the specified emissions point. 

Fugitive Angle ........................................................................................... Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension relative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89 degrees). 

Fugitive Length ......................................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly 

referred to as length (ft). 

Fugitive Width ........................................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to as width (ft). 

Malfunction Emissions .............................................................................. Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (tpy). 

Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly .......................................................... Enter maximum hourly malfunction emissions here (lb/hr). 

North American Datum ............................................................................. Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if 

left blank, NAD83 is assumed. 

Process Comment .................................................................................... Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. 

REVISED Address .................................................................................... Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. 

REVISED City ........................................................................................... Enter revised city name here. 

REVISED County Name ........................................................................... Enter revised county name here. 

REVISED Emissions Release Point Type ............................................... Enter revised Emissions Release Point Type here. 

REVISED End Date .................................................................................. Enter revised End Date here. 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ................................................................. Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/sec). 

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature ............................................................. Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (F). 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity ..................................................................... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). 

REVISED Facility Category Code ............................................................ Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source. 

REVISED Facility Name ........................................................................... Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier ........................................................ Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned 

by the EPA Facility Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code .............................. Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. 

REVISED Latitude .................................................................................... Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED Longitude ................................................................................. Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED MACT Code ............................................................................. Enter revised MACT Code here. 

REVISED Pollutant Code ......................................................................... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. 

REVISED Routine Emissions ................................................................... Enter revised routine emissions value here (tpy). 

REVISED SCC Code ............................................................................... Enter revised SCC Code here. 

REVISED Stack Diameter ........................................................................ Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). 

REVISED Stack Height ............................................................................ Enter revised Stack Height here (ft). 

REVISED Start Date ................................................................................ Enter revised Start Date here. 

REVISED State ........................................................................................ Enter revised State here. 

REVISED Tribal Code .............................................................................. Enter revised Tribal Code here. 

REVISED Zip Code .................................................................................. Enter revised Zip Code here. 

Shutdown Emissions ................................................................................ Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (tpy). 

Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly ............................................................. Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions here (lb/hr). 

Stack Comment ........................................................................................ Enter general comments about emissions release points. 

Startup Emissions ..................................................................................... Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (tpy). 

Startup Emissions Max Hourly ................................................................. Enter maximum hourly startup emissions here (lb/hr). 

Year Closed .............................................................................................. Enter date facility stopped operations. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72543 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number, and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To 

expedite review of the revisions, it 

would also be helpful if you submitted 

a copy of your revisions to the EPA 

directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition to 

submitting them to the docket. 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a facility, you need only submit one file 

for that facility, which should contain 

all suggested changes for all sources at 

that facility. We request that all data 

revision comments be submitted in the 

form of updated Microsoft® Access files, 

which are provided on the RTR Web 

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

rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

In addition, the EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in the RIA for 

this proposed rule. A copy of the 

analysis is available in the docket for 

this action, and the analysis is briefly 

summarized above. 

The cost and benefit analyses are 

subject to uncertainties. More 

information on these uncertainties can 

be found in the RIA and in the cost 

memo for the proposal. 

A summary of the monetized benefits 

and net benefits for the proposed rule at 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent is in Table 2 of this preamble 

and a more detailed discussion of the 

benefits is found in section V.E of this 

preamble. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rulemaking, which is available in the 

docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document prepared by the 

EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2448.01. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. The information 

requirements are based on notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 

which are mandatory for all operators 

subject to national emissions standards. 

These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to Agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

We are proposing new paperwork 

requirements to the Ferroalloys 

Production source category in the form 

of increased frequency and number of 

pollutants tested for stack testing as 

described in § 63.1625(c) and tighter 

parameter monitoring requirements to 

demonstrate continuous compliance as 

described in § 63.1625(c)(6) and 

§ 63.1626. In conjunction shop building 

process fugitives monitoring, we believe 

that sources are currently equipped with 

adequate monitoring equipment and 

that the facilities will not incur a capital 

cost due to this requirement. 

For this proposed rule, the EPA is 

adding affirmative defense to the 

estimate of burden in the ICR. To 

provide the public with an estimate of 

the relative magnitude of the burden 

associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by 

a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$3,141 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review 

relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emissions 

limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to the EPA. The 

EPA provides this illustrative estimate 

of this burden because these costs are 

only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus, we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we 

estimate no more than 1 or 2 such 

occurrences for all sources subject to 

subpart XXX over the 3-year period 

covered by this ICR. We expect to gather 

information on such events in the future 

and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available. 

We estimate two regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart XXX and 

will be subject to all proposed 

standards. The annual monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 

3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart XXX (Ferroalloys Production) is 

estimated to be $384,000 per year. This 

includes 483 labor hours per year at a 

total labor cost of $37,000 per year, and 

total non-labor capital and operation 

and maintenance costs of $347,000 per 

year. This estimate includes 

performance tests, notifications, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

reporting, and recordkeeping associated 

with the new requirements for front-end 

process vents and back-end process 

operations. The total burden for the 

Federal government (averaged over the 

first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standard) is estimated to be 48 hours per 

year at a total labor cost of $2,200 per 

year. Burden is defined at 35 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

these ICRs are approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rules. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Because OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

November 23, 2011, a comment to OMB 

is best assured of having its full effect 

if OMB receives it by December 23, 

2011. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. For this source 

category, which has the NAICS code 

331112 (i.e., Electrometallurgical 

ferroalloy product manufacturing), the 

SBA small business size standard is 750 

employees according to the SBA small 

business standards definitions. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Neither of the companies 

affected by this rule is considered to be 

a small entity per the definition 

provided in this section. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed rule would not result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in aggregate, or the private sector in any 

1 year. The proposed rule imposes no 

enforceable duties on any State, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, this proposed rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state 

governments, and, because no new 

requirements are being promulgated, 

nothing in this proposed rule will 

supersede State regulations. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from State and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because the Agency does 

not believe the environmental health 

risks or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

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

Near Ferroalloys Facilities, shows that, 

prior to the implementation of the 

provisions included in this proposal, on 

a nationwide basis, there are 

approximately 26,000 people exposed to 

a cancer risk at or above one in one 

million and approximately 28,000 

people exposed to a chronic noncancer 

TOSHI greater than 1 due to emissions 

from the source category. The 

percentages for all demographic groups, 

including children 18 years and 

younger, are similar to or lower than 

their respective nationwide percentages. 

Further, implementation of the 

provisions included in this proposal is 

expected to significantly reduce the 

number of at-risk people due to HAP 

emissions from these sources (from 

between 26,000 to 28,000 people to 

about 1,000), providing significant 

benefit to all the demographic groups in 

the at-risk population. 

This proposed rule is expected to 

reduce environmental impacts for 

everyone, including children. This 

action proposes emissions limits at the 

levels based on MACT, as required by 

the CAA. Based on our analysis, we 

believe that this rule does not have a 

disproportionate impact on children. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72545 

early life exposure to manganese, lead, 

arsenic, nickel, or mercury. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), because it is not likely to have 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This 

action will not create any new 

requirements and therefore no 

additional costs for sources in the 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its 

regulatory activities, unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 

5D, 9, 10, 26A, 30B, 316, CARB 429, 

SW–846 Method 3052, SW–846 Method 

7471b and EPA water Method 1631E of 

40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. No 

applicable VCS were identified for EPA 

Methods 30B, 5D, 316, 1631E and CARB 

429, SW–846 Method 3052, and SW– 

846 Method 7471b. 

Two VCS were identified acceptable 

alternatives to EPA test methods for the 

purposes of this rule. The VCS standard 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981–Part 10, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ is an 

acceptable alternative to Method 3B. 

The VCS ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determining the 

Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor 

Ambient Atmosphere’’ is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 9 under specified 

conditions. The Agency identified 18 

VCS as being potentially applicable to 

these methods cited in this rule. 

However, the EPA determined that the 

18 candidate VCS would not be 

practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. The 18 VCS and other 

information and conclusions, including 

the search and review results, are in the 

docket for this proposed rule. The EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

this 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. 

Under section 63.7(f) and section 

63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the 

proposed rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has proposed that the 

current health risks posed by emissions 

from this source category are 

unacceptable. There are about 26,000 to 

28,000 people nationwide that are 

currently subject to health risks which 

may not be considered neglible (i.e., 

cancer risks greater than one in one 

million or chronic noncancer TOSHI 

greater than 1) due to emissions from 

this source category. The demographic 

makeup of this ‘‘at-risk’’ population is 

similar to the national distribution for 

all demographic groups. The proposed 

rule will reduce the number of people 

in this at-risk group from between 

26,000–28,000 people to about 1,000 

people. Based on this analysis, the EPA 

is proposing that the proposed rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 4, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (b)(69); 

b. Revising paragraph (i)(1); 

c. Revising paragraph (p)(6) and 

adding paragraphs (p)(8) and (p)(9); and 

d. By adding paragraphs (r)(1) and 

(r)(2). 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

(b) * * * 

(69) ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity in 

a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b)(9). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ IBR 

approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 

63.865(b), 63.1625(b)(3)(iii), 

63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 

63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 

63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 

63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 

63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 

63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 

63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and 

(f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 

63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), 

table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, 

table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part, 

and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(6) SW–846–7471B, Mercury in Solid 

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

2007, in EPA Publication No. SW–846, 

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, 

Third Edition, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b)(10), table 6 to subpart 

DDDDD of this part and table 5 to 

subpart JJJJJJ of this part. 

* * * * * 

(8) SW–846–Method 3052, Microwave 

Assisted Acid Digestion Of Siliceous 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

and Organically Based Matrices, 

Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA 

Publication No. SW–846, Test Methods 

for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ 

Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR 

approved for § 63.1625(b)(10). 

(9) Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury 

in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, 

and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence 

Spectrometry, August 2002 located at: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/

cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007_07_

10_methods_;method_mercury_

1631.pdf, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b)(10). 

(r) The following material is available 

from the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB), 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, 

California 95814, (http://

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

429.pdf). 

(1) Method 429, Determination of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

(PAH) Emissions from Stationary 

Sources, Adopted September 1989, 

Amended July 1997, IBR approved for 

§ 63.1625(b)(11). 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

Subpart XXX—[Amended] 

3. Section 63.1620 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1620 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate a new or existing 

ferromanganese and/or silicomanganese 

production facility that is a major source 

or is co-located at a major source of 

hazardous air pollutant emissions. 

(b) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate any of the following 

equipment as part of a ferromanganese 

or silicomanganese production facility: 

(1) Open, semi-sealed, or sealed 

submerged arc furnace, 

(2) Casting operations, 

(3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) 

process, 

(4) Crushing and screening 

operations, 

(5) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. 

(c) A new affected source is any of the 

sources listed in paragraph (b) of this 

section for which construction or 

reconstruction commenced after 

November 23, 2011. 

(d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies 

the provisions of subpart A of this part 

that apply to owners and operators of 

ferromanganese and silicomanganese 

production facilities subject to this 

subpart. 

(e) If you are subject to the provisions 

of this subpart, you are also subject to 

title V permitting requirements under 40 

CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. 

(f) Emission standards in this subpart 

apply at all times. 

4. Section 63.1621 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1621 What are my compliance dates? 

(a) Existing affected sources must be 

in compliance with the provisions 

specified in §§ 63.1620 through 63.1630 

no later than [2 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(b) Affected sources in existence prior 

to November 23, 2011 must be in 

compliance with the provisions 

specified in §§ 63.1650 through 63.1661 

by November 21, 2001 and until [2 

YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. As of [2 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the provisions of §§ 63.1650 through 

63.1661 cease to apply to affected 

sources in existence prior to November 

23, 2011. The provisions of §§ 63.1650 

through 63.1661 remain enforceable at a 

source for its activities prior to [2 

YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(c) If you own or operate a new 

affected source that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

November 23, 2011, you must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], or 

upon startup of operations, whichever is 

later. 

5. Section 63.1622 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1622 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

Terms in this subpart are defined in 

the Clean Air Act (Act), in subpart A of 

this part, or in this section as follows: 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Bag leak detection system means a 

system that is capable of continuously 

monitoring particulate matter (dust) 

loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in 

order to detect bag leaks and other upset 

conditions. A bag leak detection system 

includes, but is not limited to, an 

instrument that operates on 

triboelectric, light scattering, light 

transmittance, or other effect to 

continuously monitor relative 

particulate matter loadings. 

Building ventilation means a system 

of ventilated ducts designed to place the 

shop building under negative pressure 

and to capture process fugitive 

emissions from the shop building. 

Capture system means the collection 

of components used to capture the gases 

and fumes released from one or more 

emissions points and then convey the 

captured gas stream to a control device 

or to the atmosphere. A capture system 

may include, but is not limited to, the 

following components as applicable to a 

given capture system design: duct intake 

devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, 

dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans. 

Casting means the period of time from 

when molten ferroalloy is removed from 

the tapping station until pouring into 

casting molds or beds is completed. 

This includes the following operations: 

pouring alloy from one ladle to another, 

slag separation, slag removal, and ladle 

transfer by crane, truck, or other 

conveyance. 

Crushing and screening equipment 

means the crushers, grinders, mills, 

screens and conveying systems used to 

crush, size, and prepare for packing 

manganese-containing materials, 

including raw materials, intermediate 

products, and final products. 

Electric arc furnace means any 

furnace where electrical energy is 

converted to heat energy by 

transmission of current between 

electrodes partially submerged in the 

furnace charge. 

Ladle treatment means a post-tapping 

process including metal and alloy 

additions where chemistry adjustments 

are made in the ladle after furnace 

smelting to achieve a specified product. 

Local ventilation means hoods and 

ductwork designed to capture process 

fugitive emissions close to the area 

where the emissions are generated (e.g., 

tap hoods). 

Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process 

means the reduction of the carbon 

content of ferromanganese through the 

use of oxygen. 

Outdoor fugitive dust source means a 

stationary source from which hazardous 

air pollutant-bearing particles are 

discharged to the atmosphere due to 

wind or mechanical inducement such as 

vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources 

include plant roadways, yard areas, and 

outdoor material storage and transfer 

operations. 

Plant roadway means any area at a 

ferromanganese and silicomanganese 

production facility that is subject to 

plant mobile equipment, such as fork 

lifts, front end loaders, or trucks, 

carrying manganese-bearing materials. 

Excluded from this definition are 

employee and visitor parking areas, 

provided they are not subject to traffic 

by plant mobile equipment. 

Primary emissions means gases and 

emissions collected by hoods and 

ductwork located above an open furnace 

or under the cover of a semi-closed or 

sealed furnace. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72547 

Process fugitive emissions source 

means a source of hazardous air 

pollutant emissions that is associated 

with ferromanganese or silicomanganese 

production, but is not the primary 

exhaust stream from an electric arc 

furnace, MOR or crushing and screening 

equipment, and is not a fugitive dust 

source. Process fugitive sources include 

emissions that escape capture from the 

electric arc furnace, tapping operations, 

casting operations, ladle treatment, 

MOR or crushing or screening 

equipment. 

Shop building means the building 

which houses one or more electric arc 

furnaces. 

Shutdown means the cessation of 

operation of an affected source for any 

purpose. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected source for any purpose. 

Tapping emissions means the gases 

and emissions associated with removal 

of product from the electric arc furnace 

under normal operating conditions, 

such as removal of metal under normal 

pressure and movement by gravity 

down the spout into the ladle and filling 

the ladle. 

Tapping period means the time from 

when a tap hole is opened until the time 

a tap hole is closed. 

6. Section 63.1623 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1623 What are the emissions 

standards for new, reconstructed and 

existing facilities? 

(a) Electric arc furnaces. You must 

install, operate, and maintain a capture 

system that collects the emissions from 

each electric arc furnace (including 

charging, melting, and tapping 

operations and emissions from any vent 

stacks) and conveys the collected 

emissions to a control device for the 

removal of the pollutants specified in 

the emissions standards specified in 

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

section. 

(1) Particulate matter emissions. 

(i) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases (including primary and tapping 

emissions) containing particulate matter 

in excess of 9.3 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), 

corrected to 2 percent carbon dioxide 

(CO2) into the atmosphere from any new 

or reconstructed electric arc furnace. 

This emission limit must be met by any 

furnace vent stacks. 

(ii) You must not discharge exhaust 

gases (including primary and tapping 

emissions) containing particulate matter 

in excess of 24 mg/dscm, corrected to 2 

percent CO2 into the atmosphere from 

any existing electric arc furnace. This 

emission limit must be met by any 

furnace vent stacks. 

(2) Mercury emissions. You must not 

discharge exhaust gases (including 

primary and tapping emissions) 

containing mercury emissions in excess 

of 16 mg/dscm, corrected to 2 percent 

CO2 into the atmosphere from any new, 

reconstructed or existing electric arc 

furnace. 

(3) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

emissions. You must not discharge 

exhaust gases (including primary and 

tapping emissions) containing 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

emissions in excess of 89 mg/dscm, 

corrected to 2 percent CO2 into the 

atmosphere from any new, 

reconstructed or existing electric arc 

furnace. 

(4) Hydrochloric acid emissions. You 

must not discharge exhaust gases 

(including primary and tapping 

emissions) containing hydrochloric acid 

emissions in excess of 809 mg/dscm, 

corrected to 2 percent CO2 into the 

atmosphere from any new, 

reconstructed or existing electric arc 

furnace. 

(5) Formaldehyde emissions. You 

must not discharge exhaust gases 

(including primary and tapping 

emissions) containing formaldehyde 

emissions in excess of 201 mg/dscm, 

corrected to 2 percent CO2 into the 

atmosphere from any new, 

reconstructed or existing electric arc 

furnace. 

(b) Process fugitive emissions. 

(1) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a capture system that collects 

all of the process fugitive emissions 

from the shop building (including 

tapping, casting, ladle treatment and 

crushing and screening equipment 

process fugitives) at a negative pressure 

of at least 0.007 inches of water, and 

conveys the collected emissions to a 

control device. You must not discharge 

into the atmosphere emissions from the 

control device containing particulate 

matter in excess of 24 mg/dscm, 

corrected to 2 percent CO2. 

(2) You must not cause emissions 

exiting from a shop building, to exceed 

10 percent opacity for more than one 6- 

minute period. 

(3) As an alternative to meeting the 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, you can elect to 

demonstrate compliance by meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 

through (b)(3)(ii) of this section. 

(i) You must install compliance 

monitors on or near the plant boundary, 

at locations approved by the 

Administrator, to demonstrate that the 

manganese concentration in air is at all 

times maintained below a 10-sample 

rolling average value of 0.10 mg/m3 at 

each monitor. 

(A) Samples must be collected every 

6 days. All samples are 24-hr integrated 

samples. 

(B) Calculate a 10-sample rolling 

average to demonstrate compliance with 

the action level specified in paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) of this section. Missed or 

invalidated samples must be made up 

only on the established site-specific 1- 

in 6-day schedule to include the 

required number of makeup samples to 

achieve a minimum of 10 valid 

samples). 

(C) Collect particles in the PM10 size 

fraction at a set flow rate of 16.7 l/ 

minute using a 47 mm Teflon filter. 

(D) Conduct the analysis using an 

EPA method (such as compendium 

method IO–3.5) and ensure the 

manganese method detection limit 

(MDL) is no greater than 0.01 mg/m3. 

(E) All data, to include values below 

MDL, must be reported. Under no 

circumstances are data value 

substitutions (e.g., 1⁄2 MDL) acceptable. 

(ii)(A) The monitoring system must 

include at least two ambient monitors 

and at least one of these monitors must 

be in a location that is expected to have 

the highest air concentrations at or near 

the facility boundary based on ambient 

dispersion modeling or other methods 

approved by the Administrator. 

(B) You must submit a written plan 

describing and explaining the basis for 

the design and adequacy of the 

compliance monitoring network, the 

sampling, analytical and quality 

assurance procedures and the 

justification for any data adjustments 

within 45 days after the effective date of 

this subpart. 

(C) The Administrator at any time 

may require changes in or expansion of, 

the monitoring program, including 

additional sampling and more frequent 

sampling, or revisions to the analytical 

protocols and network design. 

(c) Local ventilation emissions. If you 

operate local ventilation to capture 

tapping, casting, or ladle treatment 

emissions and direct them to a control 

device other than one associated with 

the electric arc furnace, you must not 

discharge into the atmosphere any 

captured emissions containing 

particulate matter in excess of 24 mg/ 

dscm, corrected to 2 percent CO2. 

(d) MOR process. You must not 

discharge into the atmosphere from any 

new, reconstructed or existing MOR 

process exhaust gases containing 

particulate matter in excess of 3.9 mg/ 

dscm, corrected to 2 percent CO2. 

(e) Crushing and screening 

equipment. You must not discharge into 

the atmosphere from any new, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

reconstructed, or existing piece of 

equipment associated with crushing and 

screening exhaust gases containing 

particulate matter in excess of 13 mg/ 

dscm. 

(f) Emissions Averaging Option. 

(1) As an alternative to meeting the 

emission standards specified in 

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

section on an electric arc furnacespecific basis, and if you have more 

than one existing electric arc furnace 

located at one or more contiguous 

properties, which are under common 

control of the same person (or persons 

under common control), you may 

demonstrate compliance by emission 

averaging among the existing electric arc 

furnaces, if your averaged emissions for 

such electric arc furnaces are equal to or 

less than the applicable emission limit. 

(2) As an alternative to meeting the 

emission standard specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section on a 

building ventilation control devicespecific basis, and if you have more 

than one existing building ventilation 

control device located at one or more 

contiguous properties, which are under 

common control of the same person (or 

persons under common control), you 

may demonstrate compliance by 

emission averaging among the existing 

building ventilation control devices, if 

your averaged emissions for such 

building ventilation control devices are 

equal to or less than the applicable 

emission limit. 

(3) As an alternative to meeting the 

emission standard specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section on a 

crushing and screening equipment 

control device-specific basis, and if you 

have more than one existing crushing 

and screening equipment control device 

located at one or more contiguous 

properties, which are under common 

control of the same person (or persons 

under common control), you may 

demonstrate compliance by emission 

averaging among the existing crushing 

or screening equipment control devices, 

if your averaged emissions for such 

crushing or screening equipment control 

devices are equal to or less than the 

applicable emission limit. 

(g) The averaged emissions rate from 

the existing equipment specified in 

paragraph (f) of this section 

participating in the emissions averaging 

option must be in compliance with the 

emission standards specified in 

paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of this section 

by the compliance date specified in 

§ 63.1621. You must develop, and 

submit to the applicable regulatory 

authority for review and approval upon 

request, an implementation plan for 

emission averaging according to the 

following procedures and requirements 

in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this 

section. 

(1) You must submit the 

implementation plan no later than 180 

days before the date that the facility 

intends to demonstrate compliance 

using the emission averaging option. 

(2) You must include the information 

contained in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through 

(g)(2)(vii) of this section in your 

implementation plan for all emission 

sources included in an emissions 

average: 

(i) The identification of all existing 

equipment specified in paragraph (f) of 

this section in the applicable averaging 

group, including for each either the 

applicable HAP emission level or the 

control technology installed as of [DATE 

60 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

THE FINAL RULE] and the date on 

which you are requesting emission 

averaging to commence; 

(ii) A description of how you will 

comply with the monitoring procedures 

specified in § 63.1626 for each averaging 

group; 

(iii) The specific control technology to 

be used for each piece of equipment 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section 

in the averaging group and the date of 

its installation or application; 

(iv) The test plan for the measurement 

of particulate matter, hydrochloric acid, 

formaldehyde and mercury emissions, 

as applicable, in accordance with the 

requirements in § 63.1625 and the 

planned test dates to ensure that 

averaged units are tested concurrently 

or with minimal differences in the 

testing dates; 

(v) The operating parameters to be 

monitored for each control system or 

device consistent with § 63.1626 and a 

description of how the operating limits 

will be determined; 

(vi) If you request to monitor an 

alternative operating parameter 

pursuant to § 63.8, you must also 

include: 

(A) A description of the parameter(s) 

to be monitored and an explanation of 

the criteria used to select the 

parameter(s); and 

(B) A description of the methods and 

procedures that will be used to 

demonstrate that the parameter 

indicates proper operation of the control 

device; the frequency and content of 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements; and a 

demonstration, to the satisfaction of the 

applicable regulatory authority, that the 

proposed monitoring frequency is 

sufficient to represent control device 

operating conditions; and 

(vii) A demonstration that compliance 

with each of the applicable emission 

limit(s) will be achieved under 

representative operating conditions. 

(3) The regulatory authority shall 

review and approve or disapprove the 

plan according to the following criteria: 

(i) Whether the content of the plan 

includes all of the information specified 

in paragraph (g)(2) of this section; and 

(ii) Whether the plan presents 

sufficient information to determine that 

compliance will be achieved and 

maintained. 

(4) The applicable regulatory 

authority shall not approve an emission 

averaging implementation plan 

containing any of the following 

provisions: 

(i) Any averaging between emissions 

of differing pollutants or between 

differing sources; or 

(ii) The inclusion of any emission 

source other than an existing unit in the 

same source category. 

(h) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator that may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

7. Section 63.1624 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1624 What are the operational and 

work practice standards for new, 

reconstructed and existing facilities? 

(a) Process fugitives sources. 

(1) If you are complying with the 

standard specified in § 63.1623(b)(1), 

you must prepare and operate according 

to a process fugitives ventilation plan 

for each shop building. 

(2) You prepare a process fugitives 

ventilation schematic for each shop 

building indicating duct size and 

location, enclosure and hood sizes and 

locations, control device types, size and 

locations, and exhaust locations should 

be developed. The process fugitives 

ventilation system schematic must be 

annotated with the location and size of 

each shop building air supply unit and 

each shop building exhaust fan. 

(3) You must conduct a baseline 

survey to establish actual air flow and 

static pressure values before and after 

each emission control device and in 

each branch of the process ventilation 

system after each enclosure or hood. 

You must also determine actual air flow 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72549 

and static pressure values for each shop 

building air supply and exhaust device. 

You must demonstrate that air supply 

and exhaust are balanced. 

(4) You must repeat the baseline 

survey at least every 5 years or 

following significant ventilation system 

changes. 

(5) The process fugitives ventilation 

plan must contain a description of each 

enclosure and hood with explanation 

demonstrating that adequate control of 

the process source is being achieved or 

actions planned to improve 

performance. 

(6) The process fugitives ventilation 

plan must be adequate to ensure that the 

building is continuously maintained at 

a negative pressure of at least 0.007 

inches of water. 

(7) The process fugitives ventilation 

plan must identify critical maintenance 

actions, schedule to complete, and 

verification record of completion. 

(8) You must submit a copy of the 

process fugitives ventilation plan to the 

designated permitting authority on or 

before the applicable compliance date 

for the affected source as specified in 

§ 63.1621. The requirement for you to 

operate the facility according to a 

written process fugitives ventilation 

plan must be incorporated in the 

operating permit for the facility that is 

issued by the designated permitting 

authority under part 70 of this chapter. 

(b) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. 

(1) You must prepare, and at all times 

operate according to, an outdoor fugitive 

dust control plan that describes in detail 

the measures that will be put in place 

to control outdoor fugitive dust 

emissions from the individual fugitive 

dust sources at the facility. 

(2) You must submit a copy of the 

outdoor fugitive dust control plan to the 

designated permitting authority on or 

before the applicable compliance date 

for the affected source as specified in 

§ 63.1621. The requirement for you to 

operate the facility according to a 

written outdoor fugitive dust control 

plan must be incorporated in the 

operating permit for the facility that is 

issued by the designated permitting 

authority under part 70 of this chapter. 

(3) You are permitted to use existing 

manuals that describe the measures in 

place to control outdoor fugitive dust 

sources required as part of a State 

implementation plan or other federally 

enforceable requirement for particulate 

matter to satisfy the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

8. Section 63.1625 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1625 What are the performance test 

and compliance requirements for new, 

reconstructed and existing facilities? 

(a) Performance testing. 

(1) All performance tests must be 

conducted according to the 

requirements in § 63.7 of subpart A. 

(2) Each performance test must 

consist of three separate and complete 

runs using the applicable test methods. 

(3) Each run must be conducted under 

conditions that are representative of 

normal process operations. 

(4) Performance tests conducted on air 

pollution control devices serving 

electric arc furnaces must be conducted 

such that at least one tapping period, or 

at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, 

whichever is less, is included in at least 

two of the three runs. The sampling 

time for each run must be at least as 

long as three times the average tapping 

period of the tested furnace, but no less 

than 60 minutes. 

(5) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section under such conditions 

as the Administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, you must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(b) Test methods. The following test 

methods in appendices of part 60 or 63 

of this chapter or as specified elsewhere 

must be used to determine compliance 

with the emission standards. 

(1) Method 1 of Appendix A–1 of 40 

CFR part 60 to select the sampling port 

location and the number of traverse 

points. 

(2) Method 2 of Appendix A–1 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine the volumetric 

flow rate of the stack gas. 

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

A–2 of 40 CFR part 60 (with integrated 

bag sampling) to determine the outlet 

stack and inlet oxygen and CO2 content. 

(ii) You must measure CO2

concentrations at both the inlet and 

outlet of the positive pressure fabric 

filter in conjunction with the pollutant 

sampling in order to correct pollutant 

concentrations for dilution and to 

determine isokinetic sampling rates. 

(iii) As an alternative to EPA 

Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC–19– 

10–1981–Part 10, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust 

Gas Analyses’’ may be used 

(incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 

63.14). 

(4) Method 4 of Appendix A–3 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine the moisture 

content of the stack gas. 

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

CFR part 60 to determine the particulate 

matter concentration of the stack gas for 

negative pressure baghouses and 

positive pressure baghouses with stacks. 

(ii) Method 5D of Appendix A–3 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine particulate 

matter concentration and volumetric 

flow rate of the stack gas for positive 

pressure baghouses without stacks. 

(iii) The sample volume for each run 

must be a minimum of 4.0 cubic meters 

(141.2 cubic feet). For Method 5 testing 

only, you may choose to collect less 

than 4.0 cubic meters per run provided 

that the filterable mass collected (e.g., 

net filter mass plus mass of nozzle, 

probe and filter holder rinses) is equal 

to or greater than 10 mg. If the total 

mass collected for two of three of the 

runs is less than 10 mg, you must 

conduct at least one additional test run 

that produces at least 10 mg of filterable 

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

volume). Report the results of all test 

runs. 

(6) Method 30B of Appendix A–8 of 

40 CFR part 60 to measure mercury. 

Apply the minimum sample volume 

determination procedures as per the 

method. 

(7)(i) Method 26A of Appendix A–8 of 

40 CFR part 60 to determine outlet stack 

or inlet hydrochloric acid concentration. 

(ii) Collect a minimum volume of 2 

cubic meters. 

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

CFR part 63 to determine outlet stack or 

inlet formaldehyde. 

(ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 

cubic meter. 

(9) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of 40 

CFR part 60 to determine opacity. 

ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere’’ may be used (incorporated 

by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the 

following conditions: 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–09, you or the DCOT 

vendor must present the plumes in front 

of various backgrounds of color and 

contrast representing conditions 

anticipated during field use such as blue 

sky, trees and mixed backgrounds 

(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand). 

(ii) You must also have standard 

operating procedures in place including 

daily or other frequency quality checks 

to ensure the equipment is within 

manufacturing specifications as 

outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM 

D7520–09. 

(iii) You must follow the 

recordkeeping procedures outlined in 

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

compliance report, data sheets and all 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity 

and certification determination. 

(iv) You or the DCOT vendor must 

have a minimum of four (4) 

independent technology users apply the 

software to determine the visible 

opacity of the 300 certification plumes. 

For each set of 25 plumes, the user may 

not exceed 15 percent opacity of any 

one reading and the average error must 

not exceed 7.5 percent opacity. 

(v) Use of this approved alternative 

does not provide or imply a certification 

or validation of any vendor’s hardware 

or software. The onus to maintain and 

verify the certification and/or training of 

the DCOT camera, software and operator 

in accordance with ASTM D7520–09 

and these requirements is on the 

facility, DCOT operator and DCOT 

vendor. 

(10) Methods to determine the 

mercury content of manganese ore 

including a total metals digestion 

technique, SW–846 Method 3052, and a 

mercury specific analysis method, SW– 

846 Method 7471b (Cold Vapor AA) or 

Water Method 1631E (Cold Vapor 

Atomic Fluorescence). 

(11) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) Method 429, Determination of 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

(PAH) Emissions from Stationary 

Sources to determine total PAH 

emissions. The method is available from 

California Resources Board, 1102 Q 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814, 

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

M_429.pdf). 

(12) The owner or operator may use 

alternative measurement methods 

approved by the Administrator 

following the procedures described in 

§ 63.7(f) of subpart A. 

(c) Compliance demonstration with 

the emission standards. 

(1) You must conduct an initial 

performance test for air pollution 

control devices or vent stacks subject to 

§ 63.1623(a) through (e) to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

(2) You must conduct performance 

tests every 5 years for the air pollution 

control devices and vent stacks 

associated with the electric arc furnaces 

and furnace building ventilation 

systems. The results of these periodic 

tests will be used to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 63.1623(a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1) 

and (b)(2), as applicable. 

(3) For any air pollution control 

device that serves tapping emissions 

combined with non-furnace emissions, 

such as the MOR process, or equipment 

associated with crushing and screening, 

casting or ladle treatment, you must 

conduct a performance test at least 

every 5 years. The results of these tests 

will be used to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standards in 

§ 63.1623(c) through (e), as applicable. 

(4) Compliance is demonstrated for all 

sources performing emissions tests if the 

average concentration for the three runs 

comprising the performance test does 

not exceed the standard or if you 

successfully comply with the emission 

averaging option specified in 

§ 63.1623(f). 

(5) Operating Limits. You must 

establish parameter operating limits 

according to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through 

(c)(5)(vi) of this section. Unless 

otherwise specified, compliance with 

each established operating limit shall be 

demonstrated for each 24-hour 

operating day. 

(i) For a wet particulate matter 

scrubber, you must establish the 

minimum liquid flow rate and pressure 

drop as your operating limits during the 

three-run performance test. If you use a 

wet particulate matter scrubber and you 

conduct separate performance tests for 

particulate matter, you must establish 

one set of minimum liquid flow rate and 

pressure drop operating limits. If you 

conduct multiple performance tests, you 

must set the minimum liquid flow rate 

and pressure drop operating limits at 

the highest minimum hourly average 

values established during the 

performance tests. 

(ii) For a wet acid gas scrubber, you 

must establish the minimum liquid flow 

rate and pH, as your operating limits 

during the three-run performance test. If 

you use a wet acid gas scrubber and you 

conduct separate performance tests for 

hydrochloric acid, you must establish 

one set of minimum liquid flow rate and 

pH operating limits. If you conduct 

multiple performance tests, you must 

set the minimum liquid flow rate and 

pH operating limits at the highest 

minimum hourly average values 

established during the performance 

tests. 

(iii) For a dry scrubber, dry sorbent 

injection (DSI) system or activated 

carbon injection system, you must 

establish the minimum hourly average 

sorbent or activated carbon injection 

rate, as measured during the three-run 

performance test as your operating limit. 

(iv) For emission sources with fabric 

filters that choose to demonstrate 

continuous compliance through bag leak 

detection systems you must install a bag 

leak detection system according to the 

requirements in § 63.1626(d), and you 

must set your operating limit such that 

the sum duration of bag leak detection 

system alarms does not exceed 5 percent 

of the process operating time during a 

6-month period. 

(v) If you choose to demonstrate 

continuous compliance through a 

particulate matter CEMS, you must 

determine an operating limit 

(particulate matter concentration in mg/ 

dscm) during performance testing for 

initial particulate matter compliance. 

The operating limit will be the average 

of the PM filterable results of the three 

Method 5 or Method 5D of Appendix A– 

3 of 40 CFR part 60 performance test 

runs. To determine continuous 

compliance, the hourly average PM 

concentrations will be averaged on a 

rolling 30 operating day basis. Each 30 

operating day average would have to 

meet the PM operating limit. 

(v) For any furnace stack, you must 

establish a weighted average mercury 

concentration of the manganese ore 

being used in the furnace during the 

emission test. Collect a sample of all 

ores used in the furnace and prepare a 

weighted average based on the relative 

mass of each type of ore used in the 

furnace charge. 

(d) Compliance demonstration with 

shop building opacity standards. 

(1)(i) If you are subject to 

§ 63.1623(b)(2), you must conduct initial 

opacity observations of the shop 

building to demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable opacity standards 

according to § 63.6(h)(5), which 

addresses the conduct of opacity or 

visible emission observations. 

(ii) You must conduct the opacity 

observations according to EPA Method 

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

a minimum of 60 minutes to include at 

one, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping 

period, whichever is less, in at least two 

of the three runs to coincide with each 

performance test run of the associated 

control device. 

(iii) Repeat this opacity observation at 

least every 5 years during the periodic 

performance tests required pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

(2)(i) When demonstrating initial 

compliance with the shop building 

opacity standard, as required by 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, you 

must simultaneously establish 

parameter values for one of the 

following: The capture system fan motor 

amperes and all capture system damper 

positions, the total volumetric flow rate 

to the air pollution control device and 

all capture system damper positions, or 

volumetric flow rate through each 

separately ducted hood that comprises 

the capture system. 

(ii) You may petition the 

Administrator to reestablish these 

parameters whenever you can 

demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that the electric arc furnace 

operating conditions upon which the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72551 

parameters were previously established 

are no longer applicable. The values of 

these parameters determined during the 

most recent demonstration of 

compliance must be maintained at the 

appropriate level for each applicable 

period. 

(iii) You will demonstrate compliance 

by installing, operating, and 

maintaining a digital differential 

pressure device that shows you are 

maintaining the shop building under 

negative pressure to at least 0.007 

inches of water. 

(3) You will demonstrate continuing 

compliance with the opacity standards 

by following the monitoring 

requirements specified in § 63.1626(h) 

and the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements specified in 

§ 63.1629(b)(5). 

(e) Compliance demonstration with 

the operational and work practice 

standards. 

(1) Process fugitives sources. You will 

demonstrate compliance by developing 

and maintaining a process fugitives 

ventilation plan, by reporting any 

deviations from the plan and by taking 

necessary corrective actions to correct 

deviations or deficiencies. 

(2) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. You 

will demonstrate compliance by 

developing and maintaining an outdoor 

fugitive dust control plan, by reporting 

any deviations from the plan and by 

taking necessary corrective actions to 

correct deviations or deficiencies. 

(3) Baghouses equipped with bag leak 

detection systems. You will demonstrate 

compliance with the bag leak detection 

system requirements by developing 

analysis and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA 

guidance and specifications for bag leak 

detection systems in § 60.57c(h). 

9. Section 63.1626 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1626 What monitoring requirements 

must I meet? 

(a) Baghouse Monitoring. You must 

prepare, and at all times operate 

according to, a standard operating 

procedures manual that describes in 

detail procedures for inspection, 

maintenance, and bag leak detection 

and corrective action plans for all 

baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge 

filters) that are used to control process 

vents, process fugitive, or outdoor 

fugitive dust emissions from any source 

subject to the emissions standards in 

§ 63.1623, including those used to 

control emissions from building 

ventilation. 

(b) You must submit the standard 

operating procedures manual for 

baghouses required by paragraph (a) of 

this section to the Administrator or 

delegated authority for review and 

approval. 

(c) Unless the baghouse is equipped 

with a bag leak detection system, the 

procedures that you specify in the 

standard operating procedures manual 

for inspections and routine maintenance 

must, at a minimum, include the 

requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section. 

(1) You must observe the baghouse 

outlet on a daily basis for the presence 

of any visible emissions. 

(2) In addition to the daily visible 

emissions observation, you must 

conduct the following activities: 

(i) Weekly confirmation that dust is 

being removed from hoppers through 

visual inspection, or equivalent means 

of ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(ii) Daily check of compressed air 

supply for pulse-jet baghouses. 

(iii) An appropriate methodology for 

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation. 

(iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning 

mechanisms for proper functioning 

through visual inspection or equivalent 

means. 

(v) Quarterly visual check of bag 

tension on reverse air and shaker-type 

baghouses to ensure that the bags are 

not kinked (kneed or bent) or lying on 

their sides. Such checks are not required 

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

(vi) Quarterly confirmation of the 

physical integrity of the baghouse 

structure through visual inspection of 

the baghouse interior for air leaks. 

(vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for 

wear, material buildup, and corrosion 

through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(d) Bag leak detection system. 

(1) For each baghouse used to control 

emissions from an electric arc furnace or 

building ventilation system, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a bag leak 

detection system according to 

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

section, unless a system meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this 

section, for a CEMS and continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system, is 

installed for monitoring the 

concentration of particulate matter. You 

may choose to install, operate and 

maintain a bag leak detection system for 

any other baghouse in operation at the 

facility according to paragraphs (d)(2) 

through (d)(4) of this section. 

(2) The procedures you specified in 

the standard operating procedures 

manual for baghouse maintenance must 

include, at a minimum, a preventative 

maintenance schedule that is consistent 

with the baghouse manufacturer’s 

instructions for routine and long-term 

maintenance. 

(3) Each bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

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

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

(i) The bag leak detection system must 

be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 1.0 milligram per dry 

standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains 

per actual cubic foot) or less. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

PM loadings. 

(iii) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate loadings is detected 

over a preset level. 

(iv) You must install and operate the 

bag leak detection system in a manner 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance’’ EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (incorporated 

by reference) and the manufacturer’s 

written specifications and 

recommendations for installation, 

operation, and adjustment of the system. 

(v) The initial adjustment of the 

system must, at a minimum, consist of 

establishing the baseline output by 

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the 

averaging period of the device, and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(vi) Following initial adjustment, you 

must not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time, except as detailed in 

the approved standard operating 

procedures manual required under 

paragraph (a) of this section. You cannot 

increase the sensitivity by more than 

100 percent or decrease the sensitivity 

by more than 50 percent over a 365-day 

period unless such adjustment follows a 

complete baghouse inspection that 

demonstrates that the baghouse is in 

good operating condition. 

(vii) You must install the bag leak 

detector downstream of the baghouse. 

(viii) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(4) You must include in the standard 

operating procedures manual required 

by paragraph (a) of this section a 

corrective action plan that specifies the 

procedures to be followed in the case of 

a bag leak detection system alarm. The 

corrective action plan must include, at 

a minimum, the procedures that you 

will use to determine and record the 

time and cause of the alarm as well as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the corrective actions taken to minimize 

emissions as specified in paragraphs 

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

(i) The procedures used to determine 

the cause of the alarm must be initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm. 

(ii) The cause of the alarm must be 

alleviated by taking the necessary 

corrective action(s) that may include, 

but not be limited to, those listed in 

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

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

(A) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or 

any other malfunction that may cause 

an increase in emissions. 

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device. 

(D) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(e) If you use a wet particulate matter 

scrubber, you must collect the pressure 

drop and liquid flow rate monitoring 

system data according to § 63.1629, 

reduce the data to 24-hour block 

averages and maintain the 24-hour 

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

established during the performance test 

according to § 63.1625(c)(5)(i). 

(f) [Reserved] 

(g) If you use a dry scrubber, DSI 

sorbent injection or carbon injection, 

you must collect the sorbent or carbon 

injection rate monitoring system data for 

the dry scrubber, DSI or ACI according 

to § 63.1629, reducing the data to 24- 

hour block averages; and maintain the 

24-hour average sorbent or carbon 

injection rate at or above the operating 

limit established during the 

performance test according to 

§ 63.1625(c)(5)(iii). 

(h) Shop building opacity. In order to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the opacity standards in § 63.1623, 

you must comply with one of the 

monitoring options in paragraphs (h)(1), 

(h)(2), (h)(3) or (h)(8) of this section. The 

selected option must be consistent with 

that selected during the initial 

performance test described in 

§ 63.1625(d)(2). Alternatively, you may 

use the provisions of § 63.8(f) to request 

approval to use an alternative 

monitoring method. 

(1) You must check and record the 

control system fan motor amperes and 

capture system damper positions once 

per shift. 

(2) You must install, calibrate, and 

maintain a monitoring device that 

continuously records the volumetric 

flow rate through each separately 

ducted hood. 

(3) You must install, calibrate, and 

maintain a monitoring device that 

continuously records the volumetric 

flow rate at the inlet of the air pollution 

control device and check and record the 

capture system damper positions once 

per shift. 

(4) The flow rate monitoring devices 

must meet the following requirements: 

(i) Be installed in an appropriate 

location in the exhaust duct such that 

reproducible flow rate monitoring will 

result. 

(ii) Have an accuracy ± 10 percent 

over its normal operating range and be 

calibrated according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(5) The Administrator may require 

you to demonstrate the accuracy of the 

monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 

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

this chapter. 

(6) Failure to maintain the appropriate 

capture system parameters (fan motor 

amperes, flow rate, and/or damper 

positions) establishes the need to 

initiate corrective action as soon as 

practicable after the monitoring 

excursion in order to minimize excess 

emissions. 

(7) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a digital differential pressure 

monitoring system to continuously 

monitor each total enclosure as 

described in paragraphs (h)(7)(i) through 

(h)(7)(v) of this section. 

(i) You must install and maintain a 

minimum of one building digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

at each of the following three walls in 

the shop building: 

(A) The leeward wall. 

(B) The windward wall. 

(C) An exterior wall that connects the 

leeward and windward wall at a 

location defined by the intersection of a 

perpendicular line between a point on 

the connecting wall and a point on its 

furthest opposite exterior wall, and 

intersecting within plus or minus ten 

meters of the midpoint of a straight line 

between the two other monitors 

specified. The midpoint monitor must 

not be located on the same wall as either 

of the other two monitors. 

(ii) The digital differential pressure 

monitoring systems must be certified by 

the manufacturer to be capable of 

measuring and displaying negative 

pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm 

mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) 

with a minimum accuracy of plus or 

minus 0.001 mm mercury (0.0005 

inches of water). 

(iii) You must equip each digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

with a continuous recorder. 

(iv) You must calibrate each digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

specifications at least once every 12 

calendar months or more frequently if 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

(v) You must equip the digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

with a backup, uninterruptible power 

supply to ensure continuous operation 

of the monitoring system during a 

power outage. 

(8) If you comply with the 

requirements specified in 

§ 63.1623(b)(3), you must install, 

operate and maintain a continuous 

monitoring system for the measurement 

of manganese concentrations in air as 

specified in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) through 

(h)(8)(v) of this section. 

(i) You must operate a minimum of 

two compliance monitors sufficient in 

location and frequency of sample 

collection to detect expected maximum 

concentrations of manganese in air due 

to emissions from the affected source(s) 

in accordance with a written plan as 

described in paragraph (h)(8)(ii) of this 

section and approved by the 

Administrator. The plan must include 

descriptions of the sampling and 

analytical methods used. At least one 

24-hour sample must be collected from 

each monitor every 6 days. All records 

pertaining to the implementation and 

results of the compliance monitoring 

shall be kept on-site for a period of no 

less than 5 years from the date of 

generation of the record. 

(ii) You must submit a written plan 

describing and explaining the basis for 

the design and adequacy of the 

compliance monitoring network, the 

sampling, sample handling and custody, 

analytical procedures, quality assurance 

procedures, recordkeeping procedures 

and any other related procedures, and 

the justification for any seasonal, 

background, or other data adjustments 

within [45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(iii) The Administrator at any time 

may require changes in, or expansion of, 

the monitoring program, including 

additional sampling and, more frequent 

sampling, revisions to the analytical 

protocols and network design. 

(iv) If all rolling 10-sample average 

concentrations of manganese in air 

measured by the compliance monitoring 

system are less than 50 percent of the 

manganese concentration limits 

specified in § 63.1623(b)(3)(i) for 3 

consecutive years, you may submit a 

proposed revised plan to reduce the 

monitoring sampling and analysis 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72553 

frequency to the Administrator for 

review. If approved by the 

Administrator, you may adjust your 

monitoring accordingly. 

(v) For any subsequent period, if any 

rolling 10-sample average manganese 

concentration in air measured at any 

monitor in the monitoring system 

exceeds 50 percent of the concentration 

limits specified in § 63.1623(b)(3), you 

must resume monitoring pursuant to 

paragraph (h)(8)(i)(A) of this section at 

all monitors until another 3 consecutive 

years of manganese concentration 

measurements is demonstrated to be 

less than 50 percent of the manganese 

concentration limits specified in 

§ 63.1623(b)(3). 

(i) Furnace Capture System. You must 

perform monthly inspections of the 

equipment that is important to the 

performance of the furnace capture 

system, including capture of both 

primary and tapping emissions. This 

inspection must include an examination 

of the physical condition of the 

equipment (e.g., has hood location been 

changed or obstructed because of 

contact with cranes or ladles), to 

include detecting holes in ductwork or 

hoods, flow constrictions in ductwork 

due to dents or accumulated dust, and 

operational status of flow rate 

controllers (pressure sensors, dampers, 

damper switches, etc.). Any deficiencies 

must be recorded and proper 

maintenance and repairs performed. 

(j) Requirements for sources using 

CMS. If you demonstrate compliance 

with any applicable emissions limit 

through use of a continuous monitoring 

system (CMS), where a CMS includes a 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) as well as a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS), 

you must develop a site-specific 

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

least 60 days before your initial 

performance evaluation (where 

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

the monitoring system design, data 

collection, and the quality assurance 

and quality control elements outlined in 

this section and in § 63.8(d). You must 

install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to the procedures in your 

approved site-specific monitoring plan. 

Using the process described in 

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

monitoring system quality assurance 

and quality control procedures 

alternative to those specified in 

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

section in your site-specific monitoring 

plan. 

(1) The performance criteria and 

design specifications for the monitoring 

system equipment, including the sample 

interface, detector signal analyzer and 

data acquisition and calculations; 

(2) Sampling interface location such 

that the monitoring system will provide 

representative measurements; 

(3) Equipment performance checks, 

system accuracy audits, or other audit 

procedures; 

(4) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1) and (c)(3); and 

(5) Conditions that define a 

continuous monitoring system that is 

out of control consistent with 

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

of control periods consistent with 

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

to this subpart, as applicable. 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

provisions in § 63.10(c), (e)(1) and 

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

as applicable. 

(k) If you have an operating limit that 

requires the use of a CPMS, you must 

install, operate, and maintain each 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system according to the procedures in 

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

section. 

(1) The continuous parameter 

monitoring system must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. You 

must have a minimum of four 

successive cycles of operation to have a 

valid hour of data. 

(2) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, system 

accuracy audits and required zero and 

span adjustments), you must operate the 

CMS at all times the affected source is 

operating. A monitoring system 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

You are required to complete 

monitoring system repairs in response 

to monitoring system malfunctions and 

to return the monitoring system to 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

(3) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions, 

repairs associated with monitoring 

system malfunctions, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

control activities in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. 

You must use all the data collected 

during all other required data collection 

periods in assessing the operation of the 

control device and associated control 

system. 

(4) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required quality monitoring system 

quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

system accuracy audits and required 

zero and span adjustments), failure to 

collect required data is a deviation of 

the monitoring requirements. 

(5) You must conduct other CPMS 

equipment performance checks, system 

accuracy audits, or other audit 

procedures specified in your sitespecific monitoring plan at least once 

every 12 months. 

(6) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of each CPMS in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan. 

(7) You must record the results of 

each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check. 

(l) CPMS for measuring gaseous flow. 

(1) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of 

the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per 

minute, whichever is greater, 

(2) Check all mechanical connections 

for leakage at least every month, and 

(3) Perform a visual inspection at least 

every 3 months of all components of the 

flow CPMS for physical and operational 

integrity and all electrical connections 

for oxidation and galvanic corrosion if 

your flow CPMS is not equipped with 

a redundant flow sensor. 

(m) CPMS for measuring liquid flow. 

(1) Use a flow sensor with a 

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of 

the flow rate and 

(2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal 

velocity distributions due to upstream 

and downstream disturbances. 

(n) CPMS for measuring pressure. 

(1) Minimize or eliminate pulsating 

pressure, vibration, and internal and 

external corrosion and 

(2) Use a gauge with a minimum 

tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or 

a transducer with a minimum tolerance 

of 1 percent of the pressure range. 

(3) Perform checks at least once each 

process operating day to ensure pressure 

measurements are not obstructed (e.g., 

check for pressure tap pluggage daily). 

(o) CPMS measuring flow of sorbent or 

carbon (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, 

or hopper flow measurement device). 

Install and calibrate the device in 

accordance with manufacturer’s 

procedures and specifications. 

(p) CPMS for measuring pH. 

(1) Ensure the sample is properly 

mixed and representative of the fluid to 

be measured. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Check the pH meter’s calibration 

on at least two points every 8 hours of 

process operation. 

(q) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you 

are using a CEMS to measure particulate 

matter emissions to meet requirements 

of this subpart, you must install, certify, 

operate, and maintain the particulate 

matter CEMS as specified in paragraphs 

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

(1) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of the PM CEMS according to 

the applicable requirements of § 60.13, 

and Performance Specification 11 at 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix B of this 

chapter. 

(2) During each PM correlation testing 

run of the CEMS required by 

Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix B of this chapter, PM 

and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) collect 

data concurrently (or within a 30- to 60- 

minute period) by both the CEMS and 

by conducting performance tests using 

Method 5 or 5D at 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–3 or Method 17 at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix A–6 of this chapter. 

(3) Perform quarterly accuracy 

determinations and daily calibration 

drift tests in accordance with Procedure 

2 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F of this 

chapter. Relative Response Audits must 

be performed annually and Response 

Correlation Audits must be performed 

every 3 years. 

(4) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS relative 

accuracy test audit or performance test 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with this subpart, you must submit the 

relative accuracy test audit data and 

performance test data to the EPA by 

successfully submitting the data 

electronically into the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttnchie1/ert/). 

(r) Ore Sampling Requirements. 

(1) Following completion of the initial 

compliance demonstration where you 

established a weighted average mercury 

concentration of the manganese ore 

being used in the furnace during the 

emission test, you must determine the 

weighted average mercury concentration 

of the manganese ores used in the 

process on a monthly basis. If you 

introduce a new type of ore, you must 

analyze the sample according the 

methods specified in § 63.1625(b)(10) 

and factor the results into your updated 

weighted average mercury 

concentration. 

(2) If the weighted average mercury 

concentration is more than 10 percent 

higher than the weighted average 

operating limit, and you are operating 

an activated carbon injection system, 

you must reassess the activated carbon 

injection rate and revise the rate 

according to procedures established in 

your CMS monitoring plan. 

(3) If the weighted average mercury 

concentration is more than 10 percent 

higher than the weighted average 

operating limit, and you are not 

operating an activated carbon injection 

system, you must retest the control 

device within 30 days to demonstrate 

compliance with the mercury emission 

limit and establish a new weighted 

average mercury concentration and 

associated activated carbon injection 

rate. 

10. Section 63.1627 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1627 What is an affirmative defense 

for exceedence of an emissions limit during 

malfunction? 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in paragraph 

§ 63.1623 you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if the respondent 

fails to meet its burden of proving all of 

the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall 

not be available for claims for injunctive 

relief. 

(a) Affirmative Defense. To establish 

the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, you must meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the facility was 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. 

(1) If you experience an exceedence of 

the facilities’ emission limit(s) during a 

malfunction, you must notify the EPA 

Administrator by telephone or facsimile 

(Fax) transmission as soon as possible, 

but no later than two (2) business days 

after the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if you wish to avail 

yourself of an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for that malfunction. 

(2) You must also submit a written 

report to the EPA Administrator, within 

45 days of the initial occurrence of the 

exceedence of the standard in § 63.1623, 

to demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that you 

have met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(3) You may seek an extension of this 

deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the 

Administrator before the expiration of 

the 45-day period. Until a request for an 

extension has been approved by the 

Administrator, you are subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedances. 

11. Section 63.1628 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1628 What notification requirements 

must I meet? 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

notification requirements of § 63.9 of 

subpart A, General Provisions. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72555 

Electronic notifications are encouraged 

when possible. 

(b)(1) You must submit the process 

fugitives ventilation plan required 

under § 63.1624(a), the outdoor fugitive 

dust control plan required under 

§ 63.1624(b), the site-specific 

monitoring plan for CMS required under 

§ 63.1626(j), the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a) and the 

manganese monitoring alternative plan 

required under § 63.1626(h)(8) to the 

Administrator or delegated authority 

along with a notification that you are 

seeking review and approval of these 

plans and procedures. You must submit 

this notification no later than [1 YEAR 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. For sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

you must submit this notification no 

later than 180 days before startup of the 

constructed or reconstructed 

ferromanganese or silicomanganese 

production facility. For an affected 

source that has received a construction 

permit from the Administrator or 

delegated authority on or before 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

you must submit this notification no 

later than [1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(2) The plans and procedures 

documents submitted as required under 

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

submitted to the Administrator in 

electronic format for review and 

approval of the initial submittal and 

whenever an update is made to the 

procedure. 

12. Section 63.1629 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1629 What recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements must I meet? 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in § 63.10 of the 

General Provisions that are referenced 

in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) Records must be maintained in a 

form suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). However, electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting is 

encouraged, and required for some 

records and reports. 

(2) Records must be kept on site for 

at least 2 years after the date of 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) You must maintain, for a period of 

5 years, records of the information listed 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13) of 

this section. 

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak 

detection system output. 

(2) An identification of the date and 

time of all bag leak detection system 

alarms, the time that procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm were 

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken, and the date and time the cause 

of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and 

maintenance activities required under 

§ 63.1626(a) as part of the practices 

described in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(c). 

(4) Electronic records of the pressure 

drop and water flow rate values for wet 

scrubbers used to control particulate 

matter emissions as required in 

§ 63.1626(e), identification of periods 

when the 1-hour average pressure drop 

and water flow rate values below the 

established minimum established and 

an explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(5) Electronic records of the shop 

building capture system monitoring 

required under § 63.1626(h)(1) through 

(h)(3), (h)(7) and (h)(8), as applicable, 

identification of periods when the 

capture system parameters were not 

maintained or the manganese 

concentration exceeded the rolling 10- 

sample concentration level as required 

under § 63.1623(b)(3) and an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(6) Records of the results of monthly 

inspections of the furnace capture 

system required under § 63.1626(i). 

(7) Electronic records of the 

continuous flow monitors or pressure 

monitors required under § 63.1626(j) 

and (k) and an identification of periods 

when the flow rate or pressure was not 

maintained as required in § 63.1626(e). 

(8) Electronic records of the output of 

any CEMS installed to monitor 

particulate matter emissions meeting the 

requirements of § 63.1626(j). 

(9) Records of the total sorbent 

injection rate required under 

§ 63.1626(k). 

(10) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each startup and/or 

shutdown. 

(11) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. 

(12) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1623(g), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

(13) Records that explain the periods 

when the procedures outlined in the 

process fugitives ventilation plan 

required under § 63.1624(a), the 

fugitives dust control plan required 

under § 63.1624(b), the site-specific 

monitoring plan for CMS required under 

§ 63.1626(j), the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a) and the 

manganese monitoring alternative plan 

required under § 63.1626(h)(8) were not 

followed and the corrective actions 

taken. 

(c) You must comply with all of the 

reporting requirements specified in 

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions that 

are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) You must submit reports no less 

frequently than specified under 

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

(2) Once a source reports a violation 

of the standard or excess emissions, you 

must follow the reporting format 

required under § 63.10(e)(3) until a 

request to reduce reporting frequency is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(d) In addition to the information 

required under the applicable sections 

of § 63.10, you must include in the 

reports required under paragraph (c) of 

this section the information specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) of this 

section. 

(1) Reports that explain the periods 

when the procedures outlined in the 

process fugitives ventilation plan 

required under § 63.1624(a), the 

fugitives dust control plan required 

under § 63.1624(b), the site-specific 

monitoring plan for CMS required under 

§ 63.1626(j), the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.1626(a) and the 

manganese monitoring alternative plan 

required under § 63.1626(h)(8) were not 

followed and the corrective actions 

taken. 

(2) Reports that identify the periods 

when the average hourly pressure drop 

or flow rate of venturi scrubbers used to 

control particulate emissions dropped 

below the levels established in 

§ 63.1626(e) and an explanation of the 

corrective actions taken. 

(3) Bag leak detection system. Reports 

including the following information: 

(i) Records of all alarms. 

(ii) Description of the actions taken 

following each bag leak detection 

system alarm. 

(4) Reports of the shop building 

capture system monitoring required 

under § 63.1626(h)(1) through (h)(3), 

(h)(7) and (h)(8), as applicable, 

identification of periods when the 

capture system parameters were not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

maintained or the manganese 

concentration exceeded the rolling 10- 

sample concentration level as required 

under § 63.1623(b)(3) and an 

explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(5) Reports of the results of monthly 

inspections of the furnace capture 

system required under § 63.1626(g). 

(6) Reports of the CPMS required 

under § 63.1626, an identification of 

periods when the monitored parameters 

were not maintained as required in 

§ 63.1626, and corrective actions taken. 

(7) If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, the report must 

include the number, duration, and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the 

reporting period and caused or may 

have caused any applicable emissions 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1623(g), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(8) You must submit records pursuant 

to paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(iii) 

of this section. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test, as 

defined in § 63.2 and as required in this 

subpart, you must submit performance 

test data, except opacity data, 

electronically to the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttnchie1/ert/). Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with the 

Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to 

this requirement to be submitted 

electronically into the EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. 

(ii) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and 

required by this subpart, you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data electronically into the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange by using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned 

in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section. 

Only data collected using test methods 

compatible with the Electronic 

Reporting Tool are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted 

electronically into the EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. 

(iii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraph (d)(8)(i) and (d)(8)(ii) of 

this section must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 

Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to 

paragraph (d)(9)(i) and (d)(9)(ii) of this 

section in paper format. 

13. Section 63.1630 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1630 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

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

delegated authority such as the 

applicable state, local, or tribal agency. 

If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to a state, local, or 

tribal agency, then that agency, in 

addition to the U.S. EPA, has the 

authority to implement and enforce this 

subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or 

tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a state, local, or tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 

be transferred to the state, local, or tribal 

agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

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

(1) Approval of alternatives to 

requirements in §§ 63.1620 and 63.1621 

and 63.1623 and 63.1624. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

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

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

in this subpart. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in 

§ 63.90, and as required in this subpart. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

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

required in this subpart. 

14. Section 63.1650 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (d); 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(1); and 

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

follows: 

§ 63.1650 Applicability and Compliance 

Dates. 

* * * * * 

(d) Table 1 to this subpart specifies 

the provisions of subpart A of this part 

that apply to owners and operators of 

ferroalloy production facilities subject 

to this subpart. 

(e) * * * 

(1) [Reserved] 

(2) Each owner or operator of a new 

or reconstructed affected source that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after August 4, 1998 and 

before November 23, 2011 must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

May 20, 1999 or upon startup of 

operations, whichever is later. 

15. Section 63.1651 is amended by 

adding a definition for ‘‘Affirmative 

defense’’ in alphabetic order to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1651 Definitions. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.1652 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1652 Emission standards. 

* * * * * 

(f) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator that may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

17. Section 63.1656 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraph (a)(6); 

b. Revising paragraph (e)(1); and 

c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

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

§ 63.1656 Performance testing, test 

methods, and compliance demonstrations. 

(a) * * * 

(6) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section under such conditions 

as the Administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, you must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Fugitive dust sources. Failure to 

have a fugitive dust control plan or 

failure to report deviations from the 

plan and take necessary corrective 

action would be a violation of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72557 

general duty to ensure that fugitive dust 

sources are operated and maintained in 

a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions per § 63.1652(f). 

(2) * * * 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.1657 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(6); 

b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and 

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

follows: 

§ 63.1657 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(6) Failure to monitor or failure to 

take corrective action under the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section would be a violation of the 

general duty to operate in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices that minimizes 

emissions per § 63.1652(f). 

(b) * * * 

(3) Failure to monitor or failure to 

take corrective action under the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section would be a violation of the 

general duty to operate in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices that minimizes 

emissions per § 63.1652(f). 

(c) * * * 

(7) Failure to monitor or failure to 

take corrective action under the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section would be a violation of the 

general duty to operate in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices that minimizes 

emissions per § 63.1652(f). 

19. Section 63.1659 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

(a) * * * 

(4) Reporting malfunctions. If a 

malfunction occurred during the 

reporting period, the report must 

include the number, duration, and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1652(f), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

20. Section 63.1660 is amended by: 

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

(a)(2)(ii); and 

b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

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

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment; 

(ii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1652(f), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation; 

* * * * * 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

21. Section 63.1662 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1662 Affirmative defense for 

exceedance of emission limit during 

malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in § 63.1652 through 

§ 63.1654 you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 

CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed, however, if you fail to meet 

your burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense. 

The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile (FAX) 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in § 63.1652 through 

§ 63.1654 to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

22. Add Table 1 to the end of subpart 

XXX to read as follows: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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

Reference Applies to subpart XXX Comment 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.6(f)(2)–(f)(3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h)(1) through (3), (h)(5) and 

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

Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................................................................. No See 63.1629 and 63.1660 for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. 

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

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

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

63.(10)(b)(3) ................................................................... Yes. 

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

63.10(c)(10)–(11) ........................................................... No See 63.1629 and 63.1630 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

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

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

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

63.10(d)(5) ..................................................................... No See 63.1629(d)(8) and 63.1659(a)(4) for reporting of 

malfunctions. 

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

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

limits. 

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

[FR Doc. 2011–29455 Filed 11–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2