[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53163-53178]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se08-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154; FRL-8715-8]
RIN 2060-AO13
Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section
112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production
Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is revising the area source category list by changing the
name of the ferroalloys production category to clarify that it includes
all types of ferroalloys. We are also adding two additional products
(calcium carbide and silicon metal) to the source category. Because
calcium carbide and silicon metal production involve the use of
equipment and processes similar to those employed in ferroalloy
production, we are proposing to address these two products as part of
the ferroalloys production category. EPA is also proposing national
emissions standards for control of hazardous air pollutants for area
source ferroalloys production facilities. The proposed emissions
standards for new and existing sources are based on EPA's proposed
determination as to what constitutes the generally available control
technology (GACT) or management practices for the source category. We
are proposing to exempt the ferroalloys production area source
categories from title V permitting requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2008, unless
a public hearing is requested by September 25, 2008. If a hearing is
requested on these proposed rules, written comments must be received by
October 30, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must be received by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on or before October 15, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information
whose disclosure is
[[Page 53164]]
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Area Source National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Ferroalloys Production Facilities Docket, EPA/
DC, 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
Air Docket is (202)566-1742.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0154. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address: chin.conrad@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards.
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for
these proposed standards?
B. What source category is affected by these proposed standards?
C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and
available controls?
D. What existing federal standards apply to ferroalloys
production?
III. Revision to the Source Category List
IV. Summary of Proposed Requirements
A. Do these proposed standards apply to my source?
B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?
C. What are these proposed standards?
D. What are the initial and subsequent testing requirements?
E. What are the monitoring requirements?
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
V. Rationale for this Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source category?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How did we address the ferroalloys production metal HAP in
this proposed rule?
D. How was GACT determined?
E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
F. How did we decide to exempt this are source category from
title V permit requirements?
VI. Summary of Impacts of these Proposed Standards
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 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 and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the
proposed standards include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
Electrometallurgical 331112 Area source facilities
Ferroalloy Product that manufacture
Manufacturing. ferroalloys.
Primary Smelting and 331419 Area source facilities
Refining of Nonferrous that manufacture
Metal (except Copper and silicon metal.
Aluminum).
All Other Basic Inorganic 325188 Area source facilities
Chemical Manufacturing. that manufacture
calcium carbide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated
by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 63.11393 of subpart YYYYYY (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Area Sources: Ferroalloys
Production Facilities). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental
[[Page 53165]]
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154. Clearly mark the part or all
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to 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 comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 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/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. When would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning these proposed rules by September 25, 2008, we will hold a
public hearing on September 30, 2008. If you are interested in
attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-
7966 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is
held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research
Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site
nearby.
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for these
proposed standards?
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish
NESHAP for both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major
source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or
more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An
area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to
regulation. We also implemented these requirements through the
Strategy. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from
stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of GACT or
management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous
air pollutants.'' Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate
report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20,
1989), which describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories like this one that
have a majority of small businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances,
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered generally available for the area
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and
economic impacts of available control technologies and management
practices on that category.
We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 10
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by
December 15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March
2006). Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining
source categories that are due in December 2008.
B. What source categories are affected by these proposed standards?
We listed the ferroalloys source category under CAA section
112(c)(3) in one of a series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR
70427) to the original source category list included in the 1999
Integrated Urban Strategy. The inclusion of this source category on the
section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based on 1990 emissions
data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing.
Ferroalloys production was listed for its contributions toward meeting
the 90 percent requirement of chromium compounds, manganese compounds,
and nickel compounds.
Based on current information, we believe that there are 10
facilities currently operating that would be subject to the proposed
area source standards. Seven of these facilities are considered bulk
ferroalloy producers, meaning that they use large electric arc furnaces
(EAF) and typically produce anywhere from 8,000 tpy of product per
furnace up to over 100,000 tpy of product per furnace. Two of these
facilities currently produce ferrosilicon; three produce silicon metal;
and two produce calcium carbide. There are also three specialty
ferroalloy producers. These producers use small EAF or other small
reaction vessels with lower throughput rates, typically around 10,000
tpy or less for total plant-wide production of ferrovanadium and/or
ferromolybdenum. All of these facilities are well controlled as a
result of State standards and permitting requirements and regulations
issued under other sections of the CAA.
C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available
controls?
Bulk ferroalloys are produced using submerged EAF, which are
furnaces in which the electrodes are submerged into the charge.
Submerged EAF are
[[Page 53166]]
predominately characterized by their energy rating and design-type.
Furnace design capacities typically range from 10 megawatts (MW) to 50
MW. Submerged EAF are classified as open, semi-sealed, or sealed,
depending on their cover configuration.
The submerged arc process is a reduction smelting operation. The
reactants consist of metallic ores (e.g., ferrous oxides, silicon
oxides, manganese oxides, chrome oxides) and a carbon-source reducing
agent, usually in the form of coke, charcoal, high- and low-volatility
coal, or wood chips. Limestone may also be added as a flux material. In
the case of calcium carbide production, the raw materials are coke and
lime. The raw materials are charged to the furnace and then smelted in
the furnace. The molten product is tapped from the furnace periodically
or continuously and then cast and allowed to harden before being
crushed and sized to fit customer specifications.
Specialty ferroalloys such as ferromolybdenum and ferrovanadium use
an exothermic (metallothermic) process to produce high-grade alloys
with low-carbon content. The intermediate molten alloy used in the
process may come directly from a submerged EAF (such as the case in
ferrovanadium production at one plant) or from another type of heating
device. Silicon or aluminum combines with oxygen in the molten alloy,
resulting in a sharp temperature rise and strong agitation of the
molten bath. Aluminum reduction is used to produce ferrovanadium and a
mixed alumino/silico thermal process is used for producing
ferromolybdenum. Exothermic processes are generally carried out in open
vessels and tend to occur very quickly--sometimes within 5 to 10
minutes and up to 25 minutes. Once the reaction is initiated, it is
self-perpetuating until all of the charge is used up.
The electrometallurgical operation is the primary source of
potential metal HAP emissions at the plant, and all processes have
capture systems to capture the emissions, which are ducted to control
devices. Emission points are primary emissions (from the combustion
zone at the top of the furnace or other vessel), tapping emissions when
molten product is poured into a ladle for transfer to the casting area,
and fugitive emissions from the furnace.
The metallic HAP and any condensable organics are controlled by
particulate matter (PM) control devices, primarily fabric filters and
scrubbers.
D. What existing federal standards apply to ferroalloys production?
As described in 40 CFR 60.260, subpart Z, the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for ferroalloys production facilities
apply to the following sources: ``Electric submerged arc furnaces which
produce silicon metal, ferrosilicon, calcium silicon, silicomanganese
zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, high-carbon ferrochrome,
charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferromanganese
silicon, or calcium carbide; and dust-handling equipment.'' Any new or
reconstructed sources constructed after October 21, 1974, are subject
to this proposed rule.
As described in 40 CFR 63.1650, subpart XXX, the major source
NESHAP applies to the following sources: ``All new and existing
ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facilities that
manufacture ferromanganese or silicomanganese and are major sources, or
are co-located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions.''
Sources that would be subject to this proposed area source rule are
subject to the NSPS if they have a new or reconstructed furnace.
However, sources that are subject to the major source NESHAP would not
be covered by this proposed area source rule.
III. Revision to the Source Category List
This proposed rule announces a revision to the area source category
list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant
to CAA section 112(c)(3). The revision includes changing the name of
the source category to clarify that it includes all types of
ferroalloys and adding two additional products (calcium carbide and
silicon metal) to the source category.
Specifically, the revision changes the name of the listed area
source category, from ``Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and
Silicomanganese.'' to ``Ferroalloys Production Facilities.'' We are
making this revision to clarify that the source category includes all
types of ferroalloys. This is simply a change in the name of the source
category and does not change the universe of sources that were the
basis of the area source inventory. The underlying 1990 emissions
inventory was based on data derived from the Toxics Release Inventory
for the standard industrial classification (SIC) 3313,
Electrometallurgical Products, except Steel. The U.S. Department of
Labor defines this SIC as follows:
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing ferro and
nonferrous metal additive alloys by electrometallurgical or
metallothermic processes, including high percentage ferroalloys and
high percentage nonferrous additive alloys.
This SIC definition lists several products, including ferromanganese,
ferromolybdenum, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium and ferrovanadium.
Therefore, this name change is being made to be consistent with the
scope of facilities that formed the basis of the original listing.
The source category list should be clarified regarding
ferrotitanium production, however. There are two processes available to
produce ferrotitanium. One is properly covered by SIC 3313, because it
is an electrometallurgical and metallothermic process. This process
produces 35 percent ferrotitanium, but is only used today in Russia,
China, Brazil, and India. There are no known domestic producers. This
35 percent grade product is produced using rutile ore and/or illmenite
ore, and aluminum is used as the reductant. It is an endothermic
reaction that requires external heat such as from an EAF. In summary,
this process would be covered by SIC 3313 since it is an
electrometallurgical and metallothermic operation that purifies and
reduces a metal compound.
In contrast, the two existing domestic ferrotitanium producers use
an induction melting process to produce a 70 percent grade
ferrotitanium. This process uses scrap metal and is neither a reduction
nor a purification process. These facilities were not intended to be
covered in the section 112(k) inventory under this SIC code. Similarly,
the same induction melting process is used to produce ferroaluminum,
and this production process is not considered part of the ferroalloy
production source category.
As described below, after examining the 1990 inventory and the
metallurgical operations included in the inventory, we concluded that
silicon metal production and calcium carbide production are
appropriately covered by the ferroalloys production source category.
Silicon metal producers are covered by SIC 3339, Primary Smelting
and Refining of Nonferrous Metals, Except Copper and Aluminum. Sources
reporting to SIC 3339 were addressed in the section 112(k) inventory
for the following metal HAP: Arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and
nickel. However, when the Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous
Metals, Except Copper and Aluminum source
[[Page 53167]]
category was listed, its scope was limited to zinc, cadmium and
beryllium smelting.\1\ The subsequent area source standards that were
proposed and promulgated only address these sources. See 40 CFR part
63, Subpart GGGGGG-NESHAP for Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources-
Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium. Silicon metal production uses virtually
the same equipment and processes as ferroalloys, and was included in
the NSPS. Because silicon metal production was not included in the
Primary Nonferrous Metals NESHAP and because it was historically
included in the ferroalloys production source category, we are
proposing to include silicon metal production sources in the
ferroalloys production source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from Barbara Driscoll, EPA, to Urban Strategy
Docket. Expanded Description of Source Categories Listed in June
2002 for Future Regulatory Development. November 18, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, calcium carbide producers report to SIC code 2819,
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified, which
includes calcium carbide manufacturing. These data also formed the
basis for the section 112(k) inventory and included several HAP metals:
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. An
area source NESHAP for various operations in this source category is
currently under development, but most of the sources in the category
are defined by SIC 2819, which covers more traditional chemical
industry production operations. Calcium carbide production uses
virtually the same equipment and processes as ferroalloys, and was
included in the NSPS. Because of the similarities between calcium
carbide production and ferroalloys production, we are proposing to
address calcium carbide production in this proposed rule, as opposed to
the inorganic chemicals area source NESHAP.
IV. Summary of Proposed Requirements
A. Do these proposed standards apply to my source?
The proposed subpart YYYYYY standards would apply to each existing
or new electrometallurgical operation located at an area source that
produces silicon metal, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium using the aluminum
reduction process, ferrovanadium, ferromolybdenum, calcium silicon,
silicomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, high-
carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, calcium carbide or other
ferroalloy products. These proposed standards do not apply to research
and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.
B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?
All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than
180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. We believe that 180 days would provide sufficient time for
existing sources to comply with the requirements of the final rule. To
our knowledge, there is no existing facility that would be required to
install or modify emission control equipment to meet the requirements
of the final rule. New sources would be required to comply with these
rule requirements upon the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.
C. What are the proposed standards?
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emissions Limit
These proposed standards establish a limit, as measured by Method
22, on the duration of visible emissions (VE) from the control
device(s) on the electrometallurgical operations. The Method 22 test is
designed to measure the amount of time that any VE are observed during
an observation period. The owner or operator must demonstrate that the
control device outlet emissions do not exceed 3 percent of accumulated
occurrences in a 60-minute observation period. We refer to this as the
3 percent limit throughout this document.
2. Furnace Building Opacity Limit
These proposed standards establish a limit for fugitive emissions,
as determined by Method 9, from the furnace building due solely to
electrometallurgical operations. The owner or operator must demonstrate
that the furnace building emissions do not exhibit opacity greater than
20 percent (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour
that does not exceed 40 percent during the 1-hour observation period.
The observation period must include product tapping.
D. What are the initial and subsequent testing requirements?
1. Electrometallurgical Operations VE Limit
For each control device on an electrometallurgical operation, the
owner or operator would be required to conduct an initial Method 22
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) VE test for at least 60 minutes. A
semiannual Method 22 test is required thereafter. In the case of a
fabric filter control device, emissions would be observed at the
monovent or outlet stack(s), as applicable. For ferroalloy facilities
using wet scrubbers for PM control, the observations would be conducted
at the scrubber outlet stack. For example, scrubber outlet emissions
may be directed to a flare or to another combustion source such as a
dryer. In this case the outlet of the downstream device or process
would be observed.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
In order to demonstrate compliance with the furnace building
opacity requirements, the owner or operator would be required to
conduct an initial 60-minute (ten 6-minute averages) opacity test for
fugitive emissions from the furnace building according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.6(h) (subpart A of the 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions) and Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60. The owner
or operator would then conduct a follow up Method 9 test every 6
months.
In order to provide flexibility to sources and reduce the costs of
demonstrating compliance, we are proposing to allow sources to monitor
visible emissions using a Method 22 test in place of the semiannual
Method 9 test. The Method 22 test is successful if no visible emissions
are observed for 90 percent of the readings over the furnace cycle (tap
to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE are observed greater
than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60 minutes,
whichever is more, then the facility must conduct a Method 9
performance test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar
days after the Method 22 test.
E. What are the monitoring requirements?
For existing ferroalloy facilities, the owner or operator would be
required to conduct and record daily visual inspection of the control
device outlet. In the case of a fabric filter, the source would observe
the monovent or fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE. In the case
of a wet scrubber, the source would observe the scrubber outlet stack.
Should any of the daily observations reveal any visible emissions, the
owner or operator must conduct a Method 22 test as described earlier
within 24 hours.
The owner or operator of a new electrometallurgical operation
equipped with a new fabric filter would be required to install and
operate a bag leak detection system and prepare a site-specific
monitoring plan instead of
[[Page 53168]]
complying with the daily visual inspection requirements for existing
sources. In addition, existing sources would have the option of
complying with the bag leak detection system requirements as an
alternative to the daily visual inspections.
In case of bag leak detection system alarm, the source would be
required to conduct a visual inspection within 1 hour. If the visual
monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, the source would be required
to conduct a Method 22 test within 24 hours of determining the presence
of any VE.
The owner or operator of a new sealed EAF equipped with a wet
scrubber\2\ would be required to install, operate and maintain a
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to measure and record the
3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate instead of
complying with the daily visual inspection requirements. Existing
sources would have the option of conducting CPMS monitoring in place of
the daily visual inspection requirements, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The exhaust gases from the sealed EAF can be captured using
lower airflows than from an open EAF, but the temperature is higher,
precluding the use of fabric filters. Such sources use wet scrubbers
as the primary emissions control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When operating a CPMS, if the 3-hour average pressure drop or
scrubber water flow rate is below the minimum levels that indicate
normal operation of the control device, the source would be required to
conduct visual monitoring of the outlet stack(s) within 1 hour.
Manufacturer's specifications will be used to provide the values for
normal operation. If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any
VE, the source would be required to conduct a Method 22 test within 24
hours of determining the presence of any VE.
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
The affected new and existing sources would be required to comply
with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. The
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan and reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e).
Each facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. The owner or operator would be
required to submit the Initial Notification within 120 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or
operator would be required to submit a Notification of Compliance
Status within 90 days after the applicable compliance date to
demonstrate initial compliance with these proposed standards.
In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, owners and
operators would also be required to maintain records of all monitoring
data including:
Date, place, and time of the monitoring event
Person conducting the monitoring
Technique or method used
Operating conditions during the activity
Results, including the date, time, and duration of the
period from the time the monitoring indicated a problem to the time
that monitoring indicated proper operation.
V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source category?
As described in section II.B, we listed the ferroalloys production
source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR
70427). The inclusion of this source category on the area source
category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory,
which represents 1990 urban air information. Ferroalloys production was
listed for its contributions toward meeting the 90 percent requirement
of chromium compounds, manganese compounds, and nickel compounds.
For this source category, we solicited information on the
production operations, emission sources, and available controls for
both area and major sources using written facility surveys, reviews of
published literature, information gathered during the major source
NESHAP, and reviews of operating permits. We also held discussions with
industry representatives, State permitting organizations, and EPA
experts. This research confirmed that the ferroalloys production source
category emits the above-noted urban HAP, although we found that
current emissions of such HAP are lower than the amounts estimated in
the section 112(k) inventory.
B. How did we select the affected source?
Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. In
selecting the affected source for regulation, we identified the
ferroalloys production metal HAP emitting operations and the quantity
of metal HAP emissions from the individual or groups of emissions
points. We concluded that designating the electrometallurgical
operation (including EAF or other reactions vessels such as crucibles)
as the affected source was the most appropriate approach and consistent
with existing ferroalloys regulations (i.e., the major source NESHAP
and the NSPS). This proposed rule includes requirements for the control
of primary, tapping, and fugitive emissions from electrometallurgical
operations.
C. How did we address the ferroalloys production metal HAP in this
proposed rule?
For this proposed rule, we have selected PM as a surrogate for
ferroalloys production metal HAP. We decided that it was not practical
to establish individual standards for each specific type of metallic
HAP that could be present in the emissions (e.g., separate standards
for manganese emissions, chromium emissions, and nickel emissions)
because the types and quantities of metal HAP can vary widely in the
raw materials. Further, and more significantly, when released, each of
the metallic HAP compounds behaves as PM. The control technologies used
for the control of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of
performance for these metallic HAP emissions, i.e., when PM is
captured, HAP metals are captured nonpreferentially as part of the PM.
Therefore, emission standards requiring control of PM will also achieve
comparable control of metallic HAP emissions.
D. How was GACT determined?
As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards
representing GACT for the ferroalloys production source HAP emissions.
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the statute allows the
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
Moreover, all of the facilities in this source category have good
operational controls in place. We evaluated the control technologies
that are generally available for the ferroalloys production area source
category. We also considered costs and economic impacts in determining
GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is
especially important for the
[[Page 53169]]
well-controlled ferroalloys production area sources because, given
current well-controlled levels, requiring additional controls would
result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for
modest incremental improvement in control for this area source
category. We explain below in detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emission Limit
All of the known area source electrometallurgical operations are
equipped with either fabric filters or wet scrubbers to control PM
emissions. Major source ferroalloy producers also utilize similar PM
controls on EAF. Most of these control devices and their associated
furnaces or other reaction vessels have been in operation for many
years and are custom-designed and -built. In addition, the majority of
EAF in this industry are controlled with large, positive pressure
fabric filters because of the large volume of air that is used to
capture the primary (and typically tapping emissions) from the open
furnaces that are the predominate EAF-type in the U.S. In other cases,
negative pressure fabric filters are used to control PM emissions from
the smaller specialty ferroalloy operations and/or tapping emissions,
because lower airflow rates are needed to capture these emissions. One
existing facility that has a sealed EAF uses a scrubber as the primary
means of emission control. We reviewed the existing permit limits to
evaluate whether the control devices exhibit a similar level of control
and determined that they do. (See technical memorandum in the docket
for more details on EAF permit requirements and estimated PM
emissions).
Based on the existing operating permit requirements for EAF at
ferroalloys production facilities, we found a variety of formats and
units, e.g., percent opacity, allowable PM or PM10 emission
rates (pounds per hour, tpy, or pound per megawatt-hour), and outlet
concentrations (grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). However,
as discussed below, there are technical, cost, and implementation
issues associated with demonstrating compliance with a PM numerical
emission limit such that it does not constitute GACT for this source
category.
A traditional approach to demonstrating compliance with a numerical
emissions limit is to conduct a PM emissions performance test and then
monitor parameters of the control device that indicate whether the
control device is operating at least as well as it was during the test.
This approach is particularly effective if there are conditions that
can produce variable outlet emissions levels. However, fabric filters
that are commonly used at ferroalloy production operations are
essentially constant concentration devices. This means that fabric
filters are very effective (i.e., 99 percent or more), at removing PM
of all particle sizes when properly designed and operated. The
variability of the uncontrolled pollutant loading has very little
effect on the concentration of PM in the exhaust of the device (see
document at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/mkb/documents/ff-pulse.pdf).
Based on an evaluation of existing permit limits in this industry, we
believe that a fabric filter control device would need to achieve an
outlet concentration of less than 0.01 gr/dscf to ensure that the
control device is well operated and maintained.
We have concerns about the economic effect of PM emissions testing
for smaller facilities. The typical EPA Method 5 PM emissions test on a
stack costs between $3,000 and $10,000. A positive pressure fabric
filter device typical of those used at the bulk ferroalloys producers
does not have a stack of the type for which Method 5 is designed.
Instead, these control devices emit essentially straight from the bags
to the atmosphere through multiple stub stacks or a long roof vent.
Conducting representative emissions testing on such devices requires a
modified approach, which we have described in EPA Method 5D. The cost
of conducting a test with Method 5D is driven by the design and size of
the fabric filter outlet. Method 5D tests on fabric filters will cost
from 3 to 10 times more than a Method 5 test on a stack. The $10,000 to
over $40,000 cost per test per control device become a significant
economic burden for these area sources.
Given these control device characteristics, we considered whether
an opacity or VE standard would be GACT for this industry. There is a
correlation between PM concentration and opacity in the fabric filter
outlet stream, and studies have shown that particulate concentrations
are approximately zero at an opacity of zero.\3\ For example, a test at
a wet cement kiln with a fabric filter showed that when outlet
concentrations were less than 0.009 gr/dscf, opacity was less than 2
percent. This opacity is low enough that it would probably be observed
as zero under most conditions. This in turn would result in a very low
incidence of VE during any observation period. A search of permits
found several examples of venturi scrubbers also being subject to zero
VE tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Study of Benefits of Opacity Monitors Applied to Portland
Cement Kilns. Prepared by Ronald Meyers, U.S. EPA, May 15, 1991, pp.
3-1, 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we propose a very low (e.g., 3 percent accumulation of
VE during the observation period) VE limit as GACT. As described above,
data support a conclusion that a 3 percent accumulation or less VE
limit will provide assurance that the control device is properly
designed and operated. Further, the cost of VE testing (less than $125
for Method 22) is significantly less than the cost of PM emissions
testing. It is also less than the cost of conducting a Method 9 test
(approximately $2,000 for a contractor to conduct the test), which is
why we did not select an opacity limit as GACT. A rule that specifies a
very low VE limit can afford to include more frequent testing than one
that has a PM emissions limit that may require only an initial test or
at best a test only every several years.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
In addition to control requirements, maintaining capture efficiency
is also important in determining GACT. All of the ferroalloys
production electrometallurgical operations are equipped with capture
systems. We lack empirical data on their actual performance; however,
there is precedent for establishing a VE limit from the EAF (NSPS) or
furnace building (major source NESHAP, 20 percent opacity) as a
surrogate for performance of the capture systems. Establishing a 20
percent opacity limit is common in State regulations (including
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia) that address
foundries, smelters, EAF, and other combustion sources. For example,
Michigan rule 336.1358 for roof monitor VE at steel manufacturing
facilities from electric arc furnaces and blast furnaces states:
Rule 358. (1) A person shall not cause or permit to be
discharged to the outer air, at a steel manufacturing facility, from
a roof monitor source of emission of an electric arc furnace, or a
blast furnace, a visible emission with a density of more than 20%
opacity.
Therefore, we have determined that a 20 percent furnace building (e.g.,
shop) limit is GACT for this source category.
Existing permits and regulations also tend to provide an upper
bound opacity limit to account for variation in building operations
that could result in fugitive emissions during the Method 9 observation
period. These upper limits range from 27 percent (Michigan
[[Page 53170]]
permits for similar sources (foundries)) to 60 percent (major source
ferroalloys NESHAP, see 40 CFR 63.1653(a)). The existing title V permit
for a ferrosilicon producer allows a single 6-minute average not to
exceed 40 percent during the Method 9 observation period. For this
proposed area source rule, we propose to establish an upper limit
opacity of 40 percent, limited to a single 6-minute average opacity
determination.
In addition to establishing an upper limit, we considered whether
upset or malfunction conditions such as blowing taps, poling, and
oxygen lancing of the tap hole should be excluded from the observation
period. For example, blowing taps are a malfunction and occur when the
pressure in the furnace is not balanced. Similarly, both oxygen lancing
and poling are considered to be ``failures of the process to operate in
a normal or usual manner'', as described in the March 1976 EPA document
``Supplemental Information on Standards of Performance or Ferroalloy
Production Facilities''. We determined that the General Provisions
requirements (40 CFR 63.6(e)) to develop and operate according to a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan would adequately address these
and other types of malfunctions that might occur during the VE
observation period. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to
provide such exclusions in this proposed rule.
E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and
recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed
rule. These provisions are based, in part, on requirements that have
been applied to several industries in other rulemakings and an
understanding of how control devices perform and can be effectively
monitored. In selecting these requirements, we identified the
information necessary to ensure emissions controls are maintained and
operated properly on a continuing basis. We also evaluated more
enhanced monitoring requirements, such as the use of bag leak detection
systems, which were required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX for new
sources. We believe the proposed requirements will assure compliance
without posing a significant additional burden for facilities that must
implement them.
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Equipment Standards
We are proposing that compliance with the VE limit would be
established through an initial and then semiannual observation of VE
using EPA Method 22. Method 22 results record the accumulation of time
that any VE is observed. We are proposing a 60-minute observation
period to ensure that observations occur during representative
conditions. We are seeking comment on whether a different observation
period might be appropriate.
Monitoring would consist of a daily VE observation. As described
above, properly operated and maintained fabric filters and scrubbers
should normally operate with no VE at the outlet. If any VE are
observed, a possible problem is indicated and a Method 22 test must be
conducted within 24 hours. If the Method 22 test shows that the control
device emissions are above the 3 percent limit, the source would be
required to report an exceedance. This compliance format will encourage
sources to correct control device operational problems as soon as
possible.
For new sources equipped with fabric filters, we are proposing use
of bag leak detection systems for monitoring. Bag leak detection
systems are typical requirements for new sources (e.g., new sources
subject to the major source NESHAP are required to install them) and
represent state-of-the art continuous compliance by providing early
notice of leaking bags. These systems can be incorporated into the
design and operation for new sources and would not require retrofitting
or duplicative monitoring as would be the case if they were applied to
existing sources. Existing sources also might opt to install bag leak
detection systems to monitor performance. Sources using bag leak
detection systems would not be subject to the daily VE requirements.
Instead, a system alarm would trigger a VE observation within 1 hour.
If any VE are observed, the source would be required to conduct a
Method 22 test within 24 hours. Sources desiring to install a PM
emissions monitoring system (e.g., PM continuous emissions monitoring
system) or other monitoring method can request the Administrator's
approval of such a plan on a case-by-case basis under the authority of
the part 63 General Provisions (Sec. 63.8(f)(4)(i)).
We are proposing that new sealed EAF sources with wet scrubbers
install, maintain and operate a CPMS to monitor pressure drop and
scrubber liquid flow rate. These systems represent state-of-the-art
continuous compliance and can be designed into the unit at
installation. Existing sources would be allowed to adopt CPMS as well.
Similar to bag leak detection system monitoring, the CPMS would be used
to provide an indication that the wet scrubber is operating properly
instead of a required daily check of VE. We are proposing that if the
3-hour average pressure drop or scrubber water flow rate is below the
minimum levels that indicate normal operation of the control device,
the source would be required to conduct visual monitoring of the outlet
stack(s) within 1 hour. Manufacturer's specifications will be used to
provide the values for normal operation. If the visual monitoring
reveals the presence of any VE, the source must conduct a Method 22
test within 24 hours.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
Compliance with an opacity limit for fugitive emissions is commonly
demonstrated using a Method 9 test. Therefore, we are proposing that
initial compliance must be demonstrated using a certified Method 9
observer to perform this test. We recognize that not all facilities
have a certified observer on staff, and we are proposing that sources
would have the option of monitoring VE using Method 22 for the
subsequent semi-annual compliance demonstration. The test is successful
if no VE are observed for 90 percent of the readings over the furnace
cycle (tap to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE are observed
greater than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60
minutes, whichever is more, then the facility must conduct a Method 9
test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the
Method 22 test.
We are proposing this compliance alternative because we are trying
to reduce the potential compliance burden on sources. To the extent
that sources have certified Method 9 observers already on staff for
other reasons, they might choose to continue to demonstrate semiannual
compliance with Method 9 observation. Other sources might choose to
hire a contractor to conduct both the initial Method 9 and the
subsequent observations rather than devote in-house resources. However,
we have assumed that some sources would choose to hire a contractor to
do the initial compliance observation, but might want to conduct the
semiannual observations using in-house staff if they could avoid the
cost of keeping a certified Method 9 reader on staff. The Method 22
alternative allows the use of this potentially more economical test,
but a Method 9 test would be required in the event that the VE observed
using Method 22 exceed 10 percent of the time in the observation
period.
[[Page 53171]]
F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V
permitting requirements?
We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for
affected facilities in the ferroalloys production area source category
for the reasons described below.
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320,
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title
V permits (70 FR 75326).
In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category,
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category.
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption
from title V for a particular source category.
In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25,
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemption from title V would
not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. Our
rationale for this decision follows here.
In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in this proposed NESHAP
for the ferroalloys production area source category. Title V requires
periodic monitoring to ensure compliance. This proposed standard would
provide for monitoring in the form of VE observations and opacity
testing that would assure compliance with the requirements of this
proposed rule. This proposed NESHAP would also require the preparation
of an annual compliance certification report and submission of this
report if there are any deviations during the year, which will identify
for the agency implementing this rule those facilities with compliance
issues, in the same way as a title V permit. Records would be required
to ensure that the compliance requirements are followed and any needed
corrective actions are taken, including such records as results of the
visual emissions and opacity tests and the resulting corrective actions
such as replacing a torn fabric filter bag. Therefore, this proposed
rule contains monitoring sufficient to assure compliance with the
requirements of this proposed rule.
We also considered the extent to which title V could potentially
enhance compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule
through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the
various title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including
requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an
annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any affected
ferroalloys production facility, this proposed NESHAP would require an
initial notification and an initial and annual notification of
compliance status. This proposed NESHAP would further require affected
facilities to maintain records showing compliance with the required
standards and compliance requirements. This proposed NESHAP also would
require sources to comply with the requirements in the part 63 General
Provision for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, reports, and
records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3); see Table 1 of this proposed rule. When a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction report must be submitted, it must
consist of a letter containing the name, title, and signature of the
owner or operator or other responsible official who is certifying its
accuracy. The information that would be required in the notifications,
reports, and records is similar to the information that would be
provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
We believe the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in this proposed rule are sufficient to assure compliance
with the requirements of this proposed rule. Therefore, we conclude
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the
compliance requirements we are proposing for this area source category.
For the second factor, we must determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency.
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA has
estimated that the average annual cost of obtaining and complying with
a title V permit is $9,500 per source.\4\ See Information Collection
Request (ICR) for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, April 2007, EPA
ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not have specific estimates for the
burdens and costs of permitting the
[[Page 53172]]
ferroalloys production area sources; however, there are certain
activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities
are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading
and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining
and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up
questions from permitting authorities after the application is
submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records;
preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more
frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as
defined by the State, which may include a combination of written,
verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information,
preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification;
preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as
needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In
addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources
obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand
and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70
provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as
well as the relative burdens of each activity. Also, for a more
comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence,
burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6,
and 70.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This value is higher than the permitting cost estimate
discussed in other recent area source proposal packages because it
is based on an updated analysis of the reporting burden. However,
this value is based on an understanding that most of the title V
permits that are currently in development are renewals. A new title
V permit would likely have a higher average cost of development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the second factor for the three existing ferroalloys
production facilities that do not currently have title V permits (two
of whom are small businesses), we examined the potential cost
implications for the source category. At a cost of $9,500 per facility
to obtain and maintain a title V permit, the cost of permits would
exceed the estimated total annualized cost of complying with the
standards (approximately $6,100 per facility). Thus, we believe that
the second factor supports the proposed title V exemption for
ferroalloys production facilities.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant
burden on the sources that would be required to obtain a title V
permit. We also believe in considering the first factor that, while
title V might impose additional requirements, the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed NESHAP would
assure compliance with the standards imposed in the NESHAP. In
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor discussed below, we
find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs of
compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for gains in
compliance is low, we propose that title V permitting is not justified
for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor supports the
proposed title V exemption for ferroalloys production area sources.
The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. Seven of the 10
existing facilities already have title V permits because of their
criteria pollutant emissions (primarily sulfur dioxide). These sources
would continue to maintain their title V permits, which would be
modified to include the NESHAP requirements, once it is promulgated.
For those three sources that currently lack title V permits, all have
State construction and/or operating permits that already require
controls and compliance assurance similar to this NESHAP. We also note
that EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA
sections 112, 113 and 114. We further note that small business
assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist
area sources that have been exempted from title V permitting. Also,
States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach,
and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not
required by statute. These additional programs would supplement and
enhance the success of compliance with this area source NESHAP. We
believe that the statutory requirements for implementation and
enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA, combined
with the additional assistance programs, would be sufficient to assure
compliance with this area source NESHAP without relying on title V
permitting.
In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption
Rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart E.
In light of all the information presented here, we believe that
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are
sufficient to assure compliance with the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP
without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the four factors for
this area source category strongly supports the proposed finding that
title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title V might add additional
compliance requirements if imposed, we believe that there would not be
significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the NESHAP
because the requirements in this proposed rule are specifically
designed to assure compliance with the emission standards established
in the rule.
We further maintain that the potential economic costs of compliance
with title V would impose a significant burden on the sources that
would be newly required to obtain title V permits. In addition, these
high relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely
to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were
required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP.
Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily
burdensome'' for the ferroalloys production area source category.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section
502(a), whether exempting the ferroalloy production area source
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the ferroalloys
production area source category from title V requirements would not
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The
title V permit program
[[Page 53173]]
does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on
sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be
followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with
applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one
for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements
in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area
sources.
Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve
understanding of these requirements and to help sources achieve
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the
requirements applicable to these area sources. We also have no reason
to think that new sources would be substantially different from the
existing sources. Finally, 7 of the 10 existing sources already have
title V permits and any incremental environmental benefit would only
result from imposing title V requirements on the remaining sources,
which are already covered by State construction and/or operating
permits. Based on this analysis, we believe that title V exemptions for
ferroalloys production area sources would not adversely affect public
health, welfare, or the environment for all of the reasons previously
explained.
For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the
ferroalloys production area source categories from title V permitting
requirements.
VI. Summary of Impacts of These Proposed Standards
Affected sources are well-controlled and our proposed GACT
determination reflects such controls. Compared to the early 1990s when
we evaluated this industry as part of the development of the major
source rule, we believe that sources have improved their level of
control and reduced emissions due to State permitting requirements or
actions taken to improve efficiency and/or reduce costs. For example,
sources have reported improved capture of tapping emissions, improved
process controls that minimize upset conditions, and improvements in
fabric filter technology such as installation of Goretex[supreg] bags.
We estimate that the only impact associated with this proposed rule is
the compliance requirements (monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and
testing) which is estimated to be approximately $6,100 per facility.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2303.01.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the
CAA (42 U.S.C 7414). All information other than emissions data
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40
CFR part 2, subpart B.
This proposed NESHAP would require ferroalloys production area
sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of
Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the
General Provisions (subpart A). Records would be required to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity and VE requirements. The owner
or operator of a ferroalloys production facility also is subject to
notification and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of
the General Provisions (subpart A), although we are proposing that
annual compliance reports are sufficient instead of semiannual reports.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 819 labor
hours per year at a labor cost of $61,122 or approximately $6,100 per
facility. The average annual reporting burden is 26 hours per response,
with approximately 3 responses per facility for 10 respondents. There
are no capital and operating and maintenance costs associated with the
proposed rule requirements for existing sources. Burden is defined at 5
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 EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
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, EPA has established a public docket for
this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA
and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule
for where to submit comments to 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. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after September 15, 2008, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October
15, 2008. 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 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
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750 employees for NAICS
331112 and 331419 and less than 1,000 employees for NAICS 325188); (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-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on
[[Page 53174]]
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is estimated
to impact 10 area source ferroalloys production facilities that are
currently operating. We estimate that five of these facilities may be
small entities. We have determined that small entity compliance costs,
as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be
less than 0.02 percent. The costs are so small that the impact is not
expected to be significant. Although this proposed rule contains
requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new area
sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout
the ferroalloys production industry. The standards also require only
the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and
verify compliance. These standards were developed based on information
obtained from small businesses in our surveys, consultation with small
business representatives on the State and national level, and industry
representatives that are affiliated with small businesses.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. The average cost per facility to comply with this proposed rule's
monitoring and compliance requirements is approximately $6,100 for the
10 existing facilities. This proposed action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 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. This proposed
rule contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes
no obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them
of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts
on them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.''
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. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, 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 action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs 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 EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore,
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS.
However, we identified no such standards, and none were brought to our
attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 9
and 22 in this proposed rule.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
Under Sec. 63.7(f) and Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.
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
[[Page 53175]]
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this 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 without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule will establish national standards
for the ferroalloys production area source category.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 9, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 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.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYYY to read as follows:
Subpart YYYYYY--Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under
Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production
Facilities
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
63.11524 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11525 What are my compliance dates?
Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements
63.11526 What are the standards for new and existing ferroalloys
production facilities?
63.11527 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing
sources?
63.11528 What are the performance test and compliance requirements
for new and existing sources?
63.11529 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
Other Requirements and Information
63.11530 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my facility?
63.11531 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11532 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11533-63.11543 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63--
Applicability of General Provisions
Subpart YYYYYY--Revision of Source Category List for Standards
Under Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources:
Ferroalloys Production Facilities
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.11524 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a
ferroalloys production facility that is an area source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions. A ferroalloys production facility
manufactures silicon metal, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium using the
aluminum reduction process, ferrovanadium, ferromolybdenum, calcium
silicon, silicomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron,
high-carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard ferromanganese,
silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, calcium carbide or other
ferroalloy products using electrometallurgical operations including
electric arc furnaces (EAFs) or other reaction vessels.
(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each existing and new
electrometallurgical operation affected source as defined in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) An electrometallurgical operation affected source is existing
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the EAF or other
reaction vessel on or before September 15, 2008.
(2) An electrometallurgical operation affected source is new if you
commenced construction or reconstruction of the EAF other reaction
vessel after September 15, 2008.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.11525 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no
later than 180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register.
(b) If you start up a new affected source on or before the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later
than the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
(c) If you start up a new affected source after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup
of your affected source.
Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.11526 What are the standards for new and existing ferroalloys
production facilities?
(a) You must not discharge to the atmosphere visible emissions (VE)
from the control device that exceed 3 percent of accumulated
occurrences in a 60-minute observation period.
(b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive PM emissions
from the furnace building containing the electrometallurgical
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed
40 percent.
Sec. 63.11527 What are the monitoring requirements for new and
existing sources?
(a) EAF Equipped with Fabric Filters.
(1) You must conduct daily visual monitoring of the monovent or
fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE.
(2) If the daily visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE,
you must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test
following the requirements of Sec. 63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of
determining the presence of any VE.
(3) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each
fabric filter as an alternative to the monitoring requirements in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If you own or operate a new affected
source, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection
system for each fabric filter according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(vii) of this section. Such source
is not subject
[[Page 53176]]
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(i) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of PM at concentrations of 10 milligrams per
actual 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 and the owner or operator shall continuously
record the output from the bag leak detection system using a strip
chart recorder, data logger, or other means.
(iii) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound
when an increase in relative PM loadings is detected over the alarm set
point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and the alarm
must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant
personnel.
(iv) The initial adjustment of the system must, at 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. If the system is equipped with an alarm delay time
feature, you also must adjust the alarm delay time.
(v) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time,
except that, once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the
bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects including
temperature and humidity.
(vi) For fabric filters that are discharged to the atmosphere
through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed
downstream of the fabric filter and upstream of any wet scrubber.
(vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(4) When operating a bag leak detection system, if an alarm sounds,
conduct visual monitoring of the monovent or fabric filter outlet
stack(s) as required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 1 hour.
If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you must
conduct a Method 22 test following the requirements of Sec.
63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of determining the presence of any VE.
(5) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain each bag leak
detection system according to the plan at all times. Each plan must
address all of the items identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through
(a)(5)(v) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality
assurance procedures.
(iv) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored.
(b) EAF Equipped with Wet Scrubbers.
(1) You must conduct daily visual monitoring of the wet scrubber
outlet stack(s) for any VE.
(2) If the daily visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE,
you must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test
following the requirements of Sec. 63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of
determining the presence of any VE.
(3) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may
install, operate and maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS) to measure and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate as an alternative to the monitoring
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you own
or operate a new sealed EAF affected source, you must install, operate,
and maintain a CPMS for each wet scrubber. Such source is not subject
to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(4) When operating a CPMS, if the 3-hour average pressure drop or
scrubber water flow rate is below the minimum levels that indicate
normal operation of the control device, conduct visual monitoring of
the outlet stack(s) as required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section
within 1 hour. Manufacturer's specifications for pressure drop and
liquid flow rate will be used to determine normal operations. If the
visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you must conduct a
Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test following the
requirements of Sec. 63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of determining the
presence of any VE.
Sec. 63.11528 What are the performance test and compliance
requirements for new and existing sources?
(a) Initial Compliance Demonstration Deadlines. You must conduct an
initial Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test following the
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section of each existing
electrometallurgical operation control device and an initial Method 9
observation following the requirements of paragraph(c)(1) of this
section from the furnace building due to electrometallurgical
operations no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date.
For any new electrometallurgical operation control device, you must
conduct an initial Method 22 test following the requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 15 days of startup of the
control device.
(b) Visible Emissions Limit Compliance Demonstration.
(1) You must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60)
test to determine that VE from the control device do not exceed the
emission standard specified in Sec. 63.11526(a). For a fabric filter,
conduct the test for at least 60 minutes at the fabric filter monovent
or outlet stack(s), as applicable. For a wet scrubber, conduct the test
for at least 60 minutes at the outlet stack(s).
(2) You must conduct a semiannual Method 22 test using the
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) Furnace Building Opacity.
(1) You must conduct an opacity test for fugitive emissions from
the furnace building according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(h) and
Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60). The test must be conducted
for at least 60 minutes and shall include tapping the furnace or
reaction vessel. The observation must be focused on the part of the
building where electrometallurgical operation fugitive emissions are
most likely to be observed.
(2) Conduct subsequent Method 9 tests no less frequently than every
6 months and each time you make a process change likely to increase
fugitive emissions.
(3) As an alternative to the Method 9 performance test, you may
monitor VE using Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) for
subsequent semi-annual compliance demonstrations. The Method 22 test is
successful if no VE are observed for 90 percent of the readings over
the furnace cycle (tap to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE
are observed greater than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle
or 60 minutes, whichever is more, then the facility must conduct
another test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days
after the Method 22 test using Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part
60) as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
[[Page 53177]]
Sec. 63.11529 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements?
(a) Initial Notification. You must submit the Initial Notification
required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions no later than
120 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. The Initial Notification must include the information
specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iv).
(b) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a
Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with Sec. 63.9(h) of
the General Provisions before the close of business on the 30th day
following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. This
notification must include the following:
(1) The results of Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test
for VE as required by Sec. 63.11528(a);
(2) If you have installed a bag leak detection system,
documentation that the system satisfies the design requirements
specified in Sec. 63.11527(a)(3) and that you have prepared a site-
specific monitoring plan that meets the requirements specified in Sec.
63.11527(a)(5);
(3) The results of the Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60)
test for building opacity as required by Sec. 63.11528(a).
(c) Annual Compliance Certification. If you own or operate an
affected source, you must submit an annual certification of compliance
according to paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
(1) The results of any daily visual monitoring events required by
Sec. 63.11527 (a)(1) and (b)(1), alarm-based visual monitoring at
sources equipped with bag leak detection systems as required by Sec.
63.11527 (a)(4), or readings outside of the operating range at sources
using CPMS on wet scrubbers required by Sec. 63.11527 (b)(4).
(2) The results of the follow up Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR
part 60) tests that are required if VE are observed during the daily
visual monitoring, alarm-based visual monitoring, or out-of-range
operating readings as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) The results of the Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60)
or Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60) tests required by Sec.
63.11528(b) and (c), respectively.
(4) If you operate a bag leak detection system for a fabric filter
or a CPMS for a wet scrubber, submit annual reports according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.10(e) and include summary information on the
number, duration, and cause (including unknown cause, if applicable)
for monitor downtime incidents (other than downtime associated with
zero and span or other calibration checks, if applicable).
(d) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(2) of this section.
(1) As required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of
each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart and
all documentation supporting any Initial Notification, Notification of
Compliance Status, and annual compliance certifications that you
submitted.
(2) You must keep the records of all daily visual, Method 22
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60), and Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR
part 60) monitoring data required by Sec. 63.11527 and the information
identified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(v).
(i) The date, place, and time of the monitoring event;
(ii) Person conducting the monitoring;
(iii) Technique or method used;
(iv) Operating conditions during the activity; and
(v) Results, including the date, time, and duration of the period
from the time the monitoring indicated a problem (e.g., VE) to the time
that monitoring indicated proper operation.
(e) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(f) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
(g) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each recorded action according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You may
keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.11530 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my
facility?
Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
Sec. 63.11531 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to
find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated
to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' under is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is
defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.11532 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec. 63.2,
and in this section.
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative PM (i.e., dust) loadings in the
exhaust of a fabric filter 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, electrodynamic, light
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously
monitor relative PM loadings.
Capture system means the collection of components used to capture
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.
Charging means introducing materials to an EAF or other reaction
vessel, which may consist of, but are not limited to, ores, slag,
carbonaceous material, and/or limestone.
Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
remove PM from the effluent gas stream generated by an EAF furnace or
other reaction vessel.
[[Page 53178]]
Electric arc furnace means any furnace wherein electrical energy is
converted to heat energy by transmission of current between electrodes
partially submerged in the furnace charge.
Electrometallurgical operations means the use of electric and
electrolytic processes to purify metals or reduce metallic compounds to
metals.
Fugitive emissions means any pollutant released to the atmosphere
that is not discharged through a ventilation system that is
specifically designed to capture pollutants at the source, convey them
through ductwork, and exhausts them from a control device. Fugitive
emissions include pollutants released to the atmosphere through
windows, doors, vents, or other building openings. Fugitive emissions
also include pollutants released to the atmosphere through other
general building ventilation or exhaust systems not specifically
designed to capture pollutants at the source.
Sealed EAF means a furnace equipped with the cover with seals
around the electrodes and outer edges of the cover to eliminate air
being drawn in under the cover.
Tapping means the removal of product from the EAF or other reaction
vessel under normal operating conditions, such as removal of metal
under normal pressure and movement by gravity down the spout into the
ladle.
Sec. 63.11533-63.11543 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63
As required in Sec. 63.11530, you must meet each requirement in
the following table that applies to you.
Table 1--To Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1 \1\...................... Applicability.
63.2.......................... Definitions.
63.3.......................... Units and abbreviations.
63.4.......................... Prohibited activities.
63.5.......................... Construction/reconstruction.
63.6.......................... Compliance with standards and
maintenance.
63.8.......................... Monitoring.
63.9.......................... Notification.
63.10......................... Recordkeeping and reporting.
63.12......................... State authority and delegations.
63.13......................... Addresses of State air pollution control
agencies and EPA regional offices.
63.14......................... Incorporation by reference.
63.15......................... Availability of information and
confidentiality.
63.16......................... Performance track provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 63.11524(d), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'' exempts
affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating
permits.
[FR Doc. E8-21509 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P