National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6345-7]

RIN 2060-AF29

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for ferroalloys production:

ferromanganese and silicomanganese. This rule was proposed under the

title of ``national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for

ferroalloys production.'' The EPA changed the title of the final rule

to reflect the specific ferroalloy produced (ferromanganese and

silicomanganese) at the only existing source to be regulated. The EPA

also has deleted the proposed applicability to ferrochromium production

with this action and withdrawn the proposed rule for ferronickel

production facilities.

The EPA has identified ferromanganese and silicomanganese

facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions

of manganese. Manganese can adversely affect human health. The effects

of chronic human exposure to environmental levels of manganese through

inhalation include subtle but not insignificant effects on the central

nervous system. These effects, reported in workers exposed to

manganese, include slow visual reaction time, loss of eye-hand

coordination, and imprecise hand movements caused by small tremors. The

NESHAP requires affected sources to meet emission standards that

reflect the application of maximum achievable control technology

(MACT).

DATES: Effective Date. The final rule is effective May 20, 1999.

Judicial Review. Under Clean Air Act section 307(b), judicial

review of this nationally applicable final action is available only by

the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of publication of this

rule. Under section 307(b)(2), the regulations that are the subject of

this action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by EPA in reliance on them.

ADDRESSES: Docket. All information considered by the EPA in developing

this rulemaking, including public comments on the proposed rule and

other information developed by the EPA in addressing those comments

since proposal, is located in Public Docket No. A-92-59 at the

following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

(6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460. The docket is located at the above address in

Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from

8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Materials related to

this rulemaking are available upon request from the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548 or 7549. The

FAX number for the Center is (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Metals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919)

541-1512; facsimile (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address

``[email protected]'.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

This action regulates entities that are industrial facilities

producing ferromanganese or silicomanganese. Regulated categories and

entities include those sources listed in the following primary Standard

Industrial Classification code: 3313, Electrometallurgical Products,

Except Steel.

This description provides a guide for readers regarding entities

regulated by this final action. It lists the types of entities that the

EPA is aware of that would be regulated. To determine whether a

facility is regulated, the owner or operator should examine the

applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1650 of the rule. At this time, the

EPA knows of only one facility (the Elkem Metals Company plant in

Marietta, Ohio) that is subject to the final rule. Direct questions

regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity

should be directed to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section or the relevant permitting authority.

Electronic Access

This document, the regulatory text, and other background

information are available in Docket No. A-92-59, by request from the

EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES),

or through the EPA web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

Preamble Outline

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. What is the statutory and regulatory authority for the final

rule?

B. What are the benefits and costs of the final rule?

C. How did the public participate in developing the rule?

II. Summary of Final Rule

III. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule

A. Should the EPA finalize the proposed ferronickel rule?

B. Does the final rule regulate ferrochromium production?

C. Is the format for the proposed furnace standards appropriate?

D. Should the EPA set separate standards for each furnace?

E. Should the EPA change its technical approach for selecting

the numerical emissions standards for submerged arc furnaces?

F. What are the final standards for existing furnaces?

G. What are the final standards for new or reconstructed

furnaces?

H. What are the final standards for new or reconstructed metal

oxygen reduction processes?

I. How is the scrubber pressure drop operating parameter value

to be determined?

J. What are the final monitoring requirements for baghouses?

K. How were performance testing issues raised in the public

comments resolved?

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Executive Order 12875

D. Executive Order 13084

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risk Under Executive Order 13045

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory and Regulatory Authority for the Final Rule?

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires that the EPA

promulgate regulations to control HAP emissions

[[Page 27451]]

from major and area sources. The control of HAP is achieved through

promulgation of emission standards under section 112(d) and (f) and

operational and work practice standards under section 112(h) for

categories of sources that emit HAP.

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,

7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

B. What Are the Benefits and Costs of the Final Rule?

The final rule is expected to apply to only one facility, the Elkem

Metals Company plant in Marietta, Ohio (Elkem). The following

discussion of environmental, energy, and economic impacts is limited to

this facility. No new facilities are anticipated.

The EPA believes that the final standards will have the primary

effect of codifying existing control equipment and practices.

Therefore, no additional emission control equipment would be required

to comply with the final standards, and no significant emission

reduction or other environmental impacts are anticipated to result from

this rulemaking.

Cost and economic impacts are expected to be minimal. The only

costs associated with the final standards are those required to perform

compliance assurance activities such as performance testing,

monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. However, these costs are

minor compared to costs already incurred by the facility in meeting its

permit obligations for criteria pollutants. Section IV.F. of this

preamble addresses the burden associated with recordkeeping and

reporting.

C. How Did the Public Participate in Developing the Rule?

Prior to proposal, the EPA met with industry representatives and

State regulatory authorities several times to discuss the data and

information used to develop the proposed standards. In addition, these

and other potential stakeholders, including equipment vendors and

environmental groups, had opportunity to comment on the proposed

standards.

The proposed standards were published in the Federal Register on

August 4, 1998 (63 FR 41508). The preamble to the proposed standards

discussed the availability of technical support documents, which

described in detail the information gathered during the standards

development process. Public comments were solicited at proposal.

The EPA provided interested persons the opportunity for oral

presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed

standards in a public hearing. However, no member of the public

requested to speak at a hearing, so none was held.

The original public comment period ended on October 5, 1998.

However, at the request of the only affected facility, the EPA extended

the comment period to November 4, 1998 (63 FR 54646). During the

comment period, the EPA received four comment letters on the proposed

standards. In the post-proposal period, the EPA talked with commenters

and other stakeholders to clarify comments and to assist in the EPA's

analysis of the comments. Records of these contacts are found in the

final rulemaking docket. All of the comments have been carefully

considered, and, where appropriate, changes have been made in the final

standards.

In a separate action, the EPA proposed supplemental requirements

(64 FR 7149) on February 12, 1999, to modify the use of bag leak

detection systems in rules proposed for the source categories of

ferroalloys production, mineral wool production, primary lead smelting,

and wool fiberglass manufacturing. The public comment period on the

supplemental requirements ended on March 15, 1999, and four letters

were received. The EPA considered these comments in preparing the final

ferroalloys regulation.

II. Summary of Final Rule

The NESHAP will apply to new and existing ferroalloy production

facilities that manufacture ferromanganese and silicomanganese and are

major sources of HAP emissions or are co-located at major sources of

HAP emissions. The following HAP emission sources at a ferroalloy

production facility will be affected by the rule:

Submerged arc furnaces

Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process

Crushing and screening operations

Fugitive dust sources.

The rule contains emission standards that limit particulate matter

emissions from existing and new or reconstructed emission sources. The

limits for the submerged arc furnaces depend on the product produced

and furnace design. The rule also sets limits for the air pollution

control devices associated with the MOR process and crushing and

screening operations. The following table summarizes the emission

standards, by process.

Emission Standards

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicable

New or reconstructed or Affected source particulate matter

existing source emission standards

------------------------------------------------------------------------

New or reconstructed........ Submerged arc 1. 0.23 kg/hr/MW

furnace (primary (0.51 lb/hr/MW), or

and tapping).

2. 35 mg/dscm (0.015

gr/dscf).

Existing.................... Open submerged arc 1. 16.3 kg/hr (35.9

furnace (primary lb/hr) when

and tapping). producing

silicomanganese.

2. 6.4 kg/hr (14.0

lb/hr) when

producing

ferromanganese.

Existing.................... Semi-sealed 11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/

submerged arc hr).

furnace (primary,

tapping, and vent

stacks).

New, reconstructed, or MOR process......... 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/

existing. dscf).

New or reconstructed........ Individual equipment 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/

associated with the dscf).

crushing and

screening operation.

Existing.................... Individual equipment 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/

associated with the dscf).

crushing and

screening operation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final standard establishes an opacity limit on the shop

buildings housing one or more of the submerged arc furnaces. The shop

building opacity limit addresses furnace process fugitive emissions

that escape capture by the furnace hood and ventilation equipment.

[[Page 27452]]

The final standards impose a duty on the owner or operator to

prepare and operate according to a fugitive dust control plan that

describes the measures that will be put in place to control fugitive

dust sources. This duty to operate will be incorporated into the

facility's operating permit issued by the designated permitting

authority under 40 CFR part 70.

Proper maintenance of emission sources and air pollution control

devices to minimize HAP emissions is an essential component of the

final standards. In addition to satisfying the maintenance requirements

imposed by the part 63 General Provisions, owners and operators must

develop and implement a written maintenance plan for each air pollution

control device. The procedures specified in the maintenance plan shall

include a preventive maintenance schedule that is consistent with good

air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.

Finally, the owner or operator must also perform monthly

inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of

the furnace capture systems.

The rule also contains detailed compliance provisions that

establish compliance dates, as well as provisions for performance

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.

III. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule

Following is a discussion of the significant comments received on

the proposed rule and the resulting changes in the final rule. The

document, ``Technical Document for Promulgation of Standards:

Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese NESHAP Comment and Response

Summary'' is available in the docket and contains a detailed summary of

all of the comments and responses. This document is also available on

the EPA's web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg) and from the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning

of this notice.

In addition to changes resulting from the consideration of

significant comments, the EPA made several clarifying and formatting

changes to the final regulation. For example, the compliance

demonstration section was restructured to clarify requirements and

improve its readability. The requirements for fugitive dust control

measures were condensed to essential requirements. None of these

changes were substantive.

A. Should the EPA Finalize the Proposed Ferronickel Rule?

When the proposed rule was published in August 1998, the only

existing facility in the United States producing ferronickel (Glenbrook

Nickel Company) had suspended operations. Since then, the company has

said they will permanently close the facility. The EPA has decided to

exercise its authority to withdraw the proposed rule because there is

no major source currently operating or expected to begin operating that

would emit the HAP associated with ferronickel production. Should a new

major source of ferronickel production commence operation after

promulgation, the EPA will evaluate at that time how and whether to set

a MACT standard.

B. Does the Final Rule Regulate Ferrochromium Production?

The EPA included ferrochromium production at proposal because of

provisions contained in Elkem's State operating permit which provides

for the possibility of converting one or more furnaces to ferrochromium

production.

The commenters argued that using the same limits for ferrochromium

production as those established for ferromanganese or silicomanganese

is technically unjustified. Ferrochromium production operates at much

higher furnace loads and temperatures and, consequently, has a higher

emission potential than other alloys. Upon reexamination, the EPA

agrees that it should not assume that limits developed for

ferromanganese or silicomanganese production are appropriate for

ferrochromium production.

In deciding whether to withdraw ferrochromium production from the

rule, the EPA considered the likelihood that an affected source would

convert an existing furnace to produce ferrochromium. A primary

consideration was the recent closure of the only domestic producer of

ferrochromium due to poor market conditions and price competition from

imports. The EPA thinks it unlikely that an affected source would start

producing ferrochromium under these conditions. Therefore, the EPA has

withdrawn ferrochromium production from the final rule. Should an

affected source convert to ferrochromium production or a new source

commence operation after promulgation, the EPA will evaluate at that

time how and whether to set MACT standards for ferrochromium

production.

C. Is the Format for the Proposed Furnace Standards Appropriate?

One commenter disagreed with the proposed format of the furnace

standards, which is in units of ``kilograms per hour per megawatt (kg/

hr/MW) (pounds per hour per megawatt [lb/hr/MW]).'' The commenter

agreed that production is a function of power consumption, but stated

that existing data show emissions from furnaces are not solely a

function of furnace load. Instead, several other factors affect

emissions. For example, when furnace operations are ``rough,'' steps to

decrease the load may result in increased emissions. Furthermore, the

variability of furnace operations and emissions is demonstrated in the

statistical variability of the stack test data.

In considering this comment, the EPA reviewed the data supplied by

the commenter and conducted a linear regression analysis of the

emission test data for furnaces #1 and #12 to evaluate the strength of

the correlation between power input and scrubber emissions. The

calculated correlation coefficients were 0.03 and 0.08, far from the

perfect correlation indicated by a value of one. These results clearly

show that there is no significant correlation between emissions and

power input. Therefore, the EPA has changed the format of the standard

for existing furnaces to a straight mass rate basis, kilograms per hour

(kg/hr) (pounds per hour [lb/hr]).

D. Should the EPA Set Separate Standards for Each Furnace?

One commenter asked EPA to set separate standards for furnaces #1

and #12, because the products and operating conditions differ. High

carbon ferromanganese is made from a blend of coke and ore, plus some

recycled materials. Under ideal conditions, the operation is relatively

quiet with only light flaming and fuming at the top of the furnace. In

contrast, silicomanganese is produced from a variety of slags, scrap

products, metallics, low grade ores, and cokes. Silicomanganese

operates at a higher power load, has hotter and more open top

conditions, and emits considerably more fume. Based on a statistical

analysis, the commenter claimed that there is a statistically

significant difference in mean emission levels between the two

furnaces.

Based on a thorough review of the data submitted by the commenter,

the EPA agrees the data demonstrate substantially lower emissions from

furnace #12 than from furnace #1. Although both furnaces are of the

same

[[Page 27453]]

open design, furnace #1 typically produces silicomanganese, while

furnace #12 produces ferromanganese. This difference, combined with the

change in format of the standard, leads the EPA to establish separate

standards for each furnace.

E. Should the EPA Change Its Technical Approach for Selecting the

Numerical Emission Standards for Submerged Arc Furnaces?

As described below, the EPA reevaluated the data base used to

select the numerical emission standards for submerged arc furnaces.

However, the EPA maintained its overall technical approach of setting

the limits based on the performance achieved by the individual

furnaces.

Use of upper prediction limits. Commenters disagreed with EPA's

technical approach to evaluating test data for use in setting MACT.

They proposed that EPA should set emission standards that account for

the natural variability of the operations. In particular, the EPA

should use prediction limits to calculate an upper limit on the

observations to be expected during future performance tests. The

commenters evaluated the false positive rates (FPR) expected from the

proposed standards and compared the effect on the FPR to the EPA

standard and the existing Ohio permit emission limits. The FPR, or

significance level of a statistical test, is the probability of finding

an exceedance when, in fact, there has been no systematic change in the

process generating the observations. The commenter distinguished

between the per-comparison FPR (the chance of one or more exceedances

at any single monitoring location) and the facility-wide FPR (the

chance of one or more exceedances at the whole facility.) The commenter

calculated FPR well in excess of the desired rates (at least for

furnaces #1 and #18), resulting in approximately a 41 percent or 51

percent probability of an exceedance at one or more monitoring

locations during each event.

The EPA disagrees with the commenter's proposed approach to setting

the MACT standards for furnace primary and tapping emissions. Instead,

the appropriate way to set these standards is to rely on the results of

performance testing, which in turn establish compliance criteria in the

form of emission limits. These compliance criteria establish an

expectation for the operation and maintenance parameters needed to

ensure that the source continues to meet the required emission limits.

Subsequent performance tests are a measure of the owner or operator's

ability to operate and maintain the affected air pollution control

device and associated emission sources such that the emission limit is

maintained. The required maintenance and monitoring of the control

device and associated parameters contribute to assurances that

standards are met between the required performance tests.

The sources cited by the commenter justifying statistical

techniques to establish FPR (or upper prediction limits) are based on

frequent monitoring of numerous events. However, the data base

supporting selection of the MACT standards, while considered relatively

extensive from a MACT standard-setting perspective, is limited to a

handful of annual events. The commenter's proposed methodology would

``penalize'' the much smaller MACT data base, because it would take a

much larger sample size to achieve the suggested proposed FPR. A

mitigating factor to the relatively small sample size of the MACT

approach is based on the fact that source testing is a relatively

infrequent, but planned, occurrence. Prior to conducting the test, the

source should take steps to ensure maximum performance of the control

device, so long as ``representative'' operating conditions are

maintained. By taking these steps, the owner or operator is expected to

exert significant control over the outcome of the test.

The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the

standards should be set such that exceedances at any point in the

facility are avoided. The intent of setting individual standards is to

ensure that each emission source and its associated air pollution

control device are operated and maintained so that the emission

standard is met.

The above language does not prevent EPA from using statistical and

other relevant information to verify the validity or reasonableness of

standards it may set. As discussed in section III.F., the EPA

considered the possibility of excessive exceedances in establishing the

final emission limits.

Data excluded from the analysis. One commenter said EPA both

incorrectly excluded certain test data from its analyses and included

other data. As suggested by the commenter, the EPA reviewed the data

that were included in the analysis and the basis for the exclusion of

any data points. The EPA also performed a quality assurance check of

the data set. In a few cases, the EPA identified discrepancies in the

emissions data submitted by the commenter. Where indicated, these data

were corrected. The final data set used by EPA is in the comment

summary and response document referenced at the beginning of section

III.

As a first step in reanalyzing the data, the EPA considered whether

there were any statistical outliers in the data set. The EPA identified

the April 1997 test on the furnace #1 scrubber and run 1 of the

November 1992 test on furnace #12 as statistical outliers using

procedures in American Society for Testing and Materials Designation E

178-94, Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations.

Consistent with the approach recommended by the commenter, these data

were excluded from further consideration.

The EPA also excluded the November 1994 test on the furnace #18

vent stacks, because every run exceeded the State emission limit for

the entire furnace. In addition, the statistical analysis identified

these results as outliers.

F. What Are the Final Standards for Existing Furnaces?

One commenter suggested the following alternatives to EPA's

proposed emission limits for existing furnaces:

Revise emission limits based on a parametric data

analysis.

Replace limits with equipment standards or work practice

requirements.

Use existing State emission limits.

Parametric data analysis. The commenter recommended that EPA

compute the required emission standards using the 99-percent upper

prediction limits based on the available emissions test data and

suggested numerical limits. With the change in format, the specific

limits suggested by the commenter are no longer relevant. The EPA also

has decided to issue separate regulations for furnaces #1 and #12.

However, the EPA did consider comments regarding the overall approach

used to establish emission limits.

As discussed in section III.E., the EPA does not believe that using

statistical analyses to set MACT standards is appropriate. Instead, in

cases where there are ample emissions tests data on specific air

pollution control devices, as in this case, the EPA has historically

set emission limits based on the highest valid data point recorded

under representative and normal operating conditions. This approach is

consistent with the approach taken at proposal.

The performance test data consist of compliance tests for

particulate matter standards that were conducted for the State of Ohio

over a 6-year period. The final data set, adjusted for outliers and

out-of-compliance tests, includes six tests of the furnace #1 scrubber,

seven

[[Page 27454]]

tests of the furnace #1 baghouse, seven tests of the furnace #12

scrubber, six tests of the furnace #18 scrubber, and four tests of the

furnace #18 vent stacks.

The MACT for this industry (and source) is the level of performance

achieved by the existing control equipment. In order to set the

emission limit, the EPA considered the highest valid test results

obtained for each furnace. Then, the EPA adjusted these results upward

slightly (approximately 7.5 percent) to account for measurement error

and other variabilities inherent in the test procedure. Next, the EPA

compared these results to the existing State permit limits and the 90-

percent upper prediction limit, as indicators of the source's ability

to achieve the final adjusted results.

For furnaces #1 and #12, the analysis shows that the adjusted test

results reflect these furnaces' ability to meet the limits on an on-

going basis. Coincidentally, these limits also are comparable to the

existing State permit limits. Based on this analysis, the EPA decided

to set the emission limits for furnace #1 at 16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/hr)

and for furnace #18 at 11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/hr). This approach results

in numerical standards that are consistent with the available data and

minimizes the disruption of existing permit conditions.

The adjusted data for furnace #12 reflect this furnace's ability to

meet the limit on an on-going basis. In this case, however, the

existing permit limit does not coincide with the available test data.

Based on this analysis, the EPA has decided to finalize the emission

limit for furnace #12 at 6.4 kg/hr (14.0 lb/hr). The data support this

limit, which is achievable with the existing control device.

Existing Ohio permit limits. As an alternative to establishing

different emission limits, one commenter said EPA should consider

Ohio's use of a process weight rate approach to establishing emission

limits. Two commenters noted that Elkem has developed control equipment

and technology over the years to comply with the Ohio EPA allowable

emission limits. Considering the variability of furnace operations,

EPA's proposal to reduce these allowable emissions would position Elkem

to potentially fail compliance tests in the future.

The EPA considered these limits in evaluating the reasonableness of

the final standards. Where the State limits coincided with the limits

suggested by EPA's analysis of the test data, they were considered in

setting the level of the final standards. However, where the limits did

not coincide, EPA set the final standards based on analysis of the test

data alone.

Equipment or work practice standard. Two commenters argued that

since EPA already accepts the Elkem existing control devices as

representative of the MACT floor and because there are no other

existing facilities, there is no reason to specify emission limits for

existing Elkem operations. One commenter stated that EPA should

establish equipment standards or work practice standards in place of

further numerical emission limits.

Equipment or work practice standards are not appropriate in this

case, because the Act precludes the establishment of non-numerical

emission standards when the EPA has data and test methods on which to

base and enforce a numerical limit. Specifically, section 112(h) says

the Administrator can promulgate a design, equipment, work practice,

operational standards, or combination thereof, only if it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. ``Not feasible''

means that the source cannot meet either of the following criteria:

The HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed

and constructed to emit or capture the HAP or the requirement for such

a conveyance would be inconsistent with existing law.

Emissions from the source cannot be measured practicably

due to technological or economic limitations.

Given that Elkem already complies with emission standards on the

furnaces and that it is possible to test them, the EPA must issue

emission standards.

G. What Are the Final Standards for New or Reconstructed Furnaces?

Based on the following discussion, the EPA added an alternative

standard of 35 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), 0.15

grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), to the final rule based on

the expected use of baghouse technology on any new or reconstructed

open furnaces. The EPA also retained the proposed standard of 0.23 kg/

hr/MW (0.51 lb/hr/MW) based on the new source performance standards

(NSPS) limit.

One commenter said the MACT requirements for new and reconstructed

facilities should be more stringent than proposed due to the levels of

particulate matter control technology available today. The commenter

noted that baghouses have been applied in a wide range of industrial

process applications, some of which are similar to ferromanganese and

silicomanganese production, with the actual achievable particulate

matter and opacity levels well below the proposed levels.

Other commenters said adopting the NSPS limit for new or

reconstructed furnaces is not appropriate for the NESHAP. They said

because no one has built an NSPS furnace producing ferromanganese,

silicomanganese, or ferrochromium since the NSPS were promulgated,

there is no technological basis to either demonstrate or dispute the

level of the NSPS.

One commenter added that the NSPS emission limits may not be

achievable for a new or reconstructed furnace, because the limits are

over 25 years old and were based on the assumption that sealed furnaces

would be the norm in the ferromanganese smelting industry. However,

because of safety issues, the industry now believes that open furnaces

represent the technology of choice. The commenter stated that a

baghouse would be required to meet the new source standard for a new

open furnace.

The commenter also noted that the format of the NSPS, which assumes

a correlation between furnace load and emissions, is inconsistent with

the data showing a lack of correlation between the two factors.

The NSPS format, kg/hr/MW (lb/hr/MW), offers a significant

advantage for new sources, because it can be applied to a range of

furnace sizes. In contrast, the NESHAP format, kg/hr (lb/hr), would

result in a production cap on new furnaces, because this format makes

no allowance for differences in production capacity. While this is

acceptable in the case of known, existing furnaces, it is not

acceptable for new furnaces. Because the NSPS will apply to new or

reconstructed furnaces in any case, and to provide needed flexibility

in the NESHAP, the final rule will retain as an option the NSPS format

for emission standards.

In addition, recognizing that new or reconstructed open furnaces

would likely be controlled with baghouse technology and to provide

additional flexibility, the EPA added an alternate concentration

standard based on expected levels of baghouse performance. The

alternate limit, 35 mg/dscm (0.15 gr/dscf), is based on the maximum

level of performance achieved by baghouses tested in 1993 and 1994 on

open ferroalloy furnaces producing a variety of products. This level is

also consistent with baghouse performance data on the #1 furnace

tapping baghouse at Elkem. Because baghouses are characteristically

constant outlet devices, this level of performance should be achievable

with ferromanganese and silicomanganese production.

[[Page 27455]]

H. What Are the Final Standards for New or Reconstructed Metal Oxygen

Reduction Processes?

The proposed limit was based on the premise that the NSPS limit for

basic oxygen furnaces (BOF) was a reasonable surrogate for a new or

reconstructed MOR process. Upon reexamination, the EPA decided that the

technology transfer basis for the proposed limit was inappropriate

given the differences in the MOR process and its emissions potential

compared to the BOF process and its emission potential. Therefore, the

final standard will be set at 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf), which is

consistent with the allowable concentration for existing sources.

The process differences were documented by a commenter who noted

that while both processes remove carbon from a molten metal by

oxidizing it with oxygen and forming carbon monoxide gas, there are

distinct differences in the chemistry between manganese in the MOR

process and iron in the BOF process. The commenter noted that the main

differences are the higher operating temperature of the MOR, the higher

volatility of manganese, and the higher carbon content of the manganese

metal being treated. According to the commenter, these differences

result in an estimated 10 times more fume generation during the MOR

process compared to a BOF process. Therefore, baghouse emission

reduction performance for an MOR process would likely be different than

that for a BOF process.

I. How Is the Scrubber Pressure Drop Operating Parameter Value To Be

Determined?

When a scrubber is used, the proposed rule required the owner or

operator to establish an operating parameter value based on pressure

drop to ensure ongoing compliance with the required emission limit. The

commenter requested that EPA allow more flexibility in establishing the

parameter value. In particular, the commenter requested that the source

be allowed to establish the limit based on the average pressure drop

obtained during any single complying run in any complying emission

test. The EPA agrees there should be more flexibility in how the source

sets the operating parameter value during a complying emission test.

Therefore, the final rule contains a requirement that the operating

parameter monitoring value will be set based on the lowest average

pressure drop on any individual complying run in the three runs

constituting any compliant test.

J. What Are the Final Monitoring Requirements for Baghouses?

One commenter requested changes in the frequency and intent of the

requirements to ensure proper operation and maintenance of baghouses.

The EPA clarified the requirements where needed.

One commenter also questioned the need to install bag leak

detection systems on baghouses controlling new or reconstructed

furnaces given the other monitoring requirements already in place. The

EPA believes that baghouse leak detection represents state-of-the-art

compliance assurance for baghouses, and plans to implement it in all

new source MACT standards, where it is applicable, and, in most cases,

to existing source standards as well.

In a separate action, (64 FR 7149, February 12, 1999) the EPA

proposed supplemental requirements to modify the use of bag leak

detection systems in rules proposed for the source categories of

ferroalloys production, mineral wool production, primary lead smelting,

and wool fiberglass manufacturing. The overall goal of the requirements

was to add an enforceable operating limit if the alarm on the bag leak

detection system sounds for more than 5 percent of the total operating

time in each 6-month period. Adding this requirement would provide

greater assurance that the baghouse would be properly operated and

maintained, and that the emission limit would be met. The supplemental

notice also proposed that owners and operators would be required to

continuously record bag leak detection system output to ensure that

data necessary to assess compliance with the newly proposed operating

limit for bag leak detection system alarms would be available. In the

absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to

determine whether the operating limit is being met. The output records

would also provide data necessary to assess the magnitude of the output

level above the alarm set point, and would assist owners and operators

in properly operating and maintaining the baghouse and in diagnosing

baghouse upsets.

The EPA requested public comment on these requirements as part of

the supplemental notice. The comments and EPA's responses, are

described in the Technical Document for Promulgation of Standards.

There were no comments resulting in significant changes to the proposed

requirements. Therefore, with this final rule, the EPA is finalizing

the operational limits for bag leak detection systems. In addition, the

EPA has also added definitions and compliance, monitoring, reporting,

and recordkeeping requirements to clarify and implement the operational

standards. These are not substantive additions and are consistent with

language in the other rules affected by the supplemental notice.

K. How Were Performance Testing Issues Raised in the Public Comments

Resolved?

Commenters raised several issues regarding testing-related terms

and requirements. The EPA has clarified these in the final rule. In

particular, the EPA clarified the definition of tapping period and

resolved an inconsistency in the sampling time requirements. The EPA

also revised the rule to require sources to include a tapping period,

or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, in a minimum of two test

runs. This change, reduced from a requirement to include a tapping

period in each of three runs, is consistent with the source's existing

permit conditions and with how previous performance data were obtained.

One commenter objected to the use of Method 5D for positive

pressure baghouses that are not equipped with outlet stacks. They

stated that this method requires cutting off the flow of air through

the baghouse, thereby creating a fire hazard. They suggested that

visual emission observations beyond the ridge vent/roof monitor will

adequately demonstrate compliance with emissions limits for this type

of baghouse.

As stated in the proposal preamble, the EPA proposed changes to

Method 5D to address safety and other practicality issues (62 FR 45369,

August 27, 1997). In particular, the amendments would revise the outlet

volumetric flow rate calculation procedure to be used in those cases

where the gas velocity at the baghouse outlet is too low to be measured

accurately. The change will allow for the calculation of outlet gas

flow rate based on the difference between the baghouse gas inlet and

outlet temperatures and a direct measurement of the gas inlet flow

rate. The EPA expects the final amendments to be published in the

Federal Register by mid-summer of this year, well before performance

testing under the rule would need to be conducted. A copy of the

proposed amendments is available on the Emission Measurement Center

(EMC) home page (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc) by choosing ``methods,''

then ``proposed,'' then ``EPA Methods (New EMMC Format).''

[[Page 27456]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

This final rulemaking action is subject to section 307(d) of the

Act. Accordingly, the EPA has established a docket (No. A-91-71), which

consists of an organized and complete file of all information submitted

to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA in the development of this

action. The docket includes all documents cited by the EPA in this

preamble. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow

interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process, and (2) to

serve as the record in case of judicial review. The docket is available

for public inspection at EPA's Air Docket, which is listed under the

ADDRESSES section of this notice.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA

must submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review

significant regulatory actions. The Executive Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that OMB determines is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Because the final rule will only affect one facility, the projected

nationwide economic impacts are estimated to be far less than $100

million. Furthermore, because the final rule results in the

codification of existing controls and practices, no significant adverse

effects to the facilities are anticipated. Under Executive Order 12866,

this action is not a significant regulatory action, and is, therefore,

not subject to review by OMB.

C. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. The rule will, however, cause these entities to implement the

rule by incorporating it into permits and enforcing it upon delegation.

They will collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resource

burden of implementing the rule. Comments were solicited from State

partners and considered in the rule development process. No written

comments were received on the proposed rule from any State, local, and

tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of

Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section

of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to

provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory

policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own

or operate an affected source. Accordingly, the requirements of section

3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year.

Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input

from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.

Because this rule does not include a Federal mandate and is

estimated to result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments or the private sector of significantly less than $100

million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly,

most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. In addition,

because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan

with regard to small governments. Therefore, the requirements of the

UMRA do not apply to this action.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

business, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule affects only one source and that source

is not a small business.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB has approved the information collection requirements

contained in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has

[[Page 27457]]

assigned OMB control number 2060-0391.

The information collected will be used by Agency enforcement

personnel to perform the following tasks:

Identify sources subject to the standard

Ensure that MACT is being properly applied

Ensure that emission control devices are being properly

operated and maintained on a continuous basis to reduce HAP emissions

from furnaces and process fugitive sources

Ensure that fugitive dust controls are being fully

implemented.

Owners or operators must comply with the information collection

requirements in the rule. The EPA developed this rule under the

authority of section 112(d) of the Act, which requires EPA to regulate

emissions of 188 HAP listed in section 112(b).

The total 3-year monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden

for this collection is estimated at 2,236 labor hours at a total cost

of $62,283 for the single existing affected facility. This estimate

includes a one-time performance test and report; subsequent performance

tests and reports for some sources; semiannual reports when the

procedures in a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan were not

followed; quarterly and semiannual excess emissions reports;

maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. There are no

separate capital/startup costs associated with the proposed rules.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to conduct the following activities:

Review instructions.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and

systems for the purpose of responding to the information collection.

Adjust existing ways to comply with any previously

applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to respond to a collection of information.

Search existing data sources.

Complete and review the collection of information.

Transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The EPA

is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR

control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the

information requirements contained in this final rule. This amendment

updates the table to list the information requirements being

promulgated today as the NESHAP for ferromanganese and silicomanganese

production.

The EPA will continue to present OMB control numbers in a

consolidated table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the

Agency's regulations, and in each CFR volume containing EPA

regulations. The table lists the section numbers with reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This

listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in

the CFR satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320.

H. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risk Under Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies

to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''

as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the

environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe

may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory

action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental

health or safety aspects of the planned rule on children, and explain

why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based on

technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary

consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards

are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,

sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards

bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary

consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and

the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal

agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations

when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This action does not involve the promulgation of any new technical

standards. It does, however, incorporate by reference existing

technical standards. Incorporated are longstanding EPA reference test

methods and procedures for demonstrating compliance with particulate

matter standards and opacity standards, specifically EPA test methods 1

through 5 and 9, as codified under 40 CFR 60, appendix A. Consequently,

the Agency searched for voluntary consensus standards that might be

applicable. The search was conducted through the National Standards

System Network (NSSN), an automated service provided by the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI) for identifying available national

and international standards. The search identified no applicable

standards. The EPA did not receive any public comments identifying

other possible technical standards. Therefore, the EPA will use the

government-unique technical standards cited above for determining

compliance.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, generally provided that before a rule may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy

of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller

General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing

this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

[[Page 27458]]

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Ferromanganese and silicomanganese production, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 13, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,

1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,

300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,

300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,

9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding an entry in numerical

order under the indicated heading to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMB control

40 CFR citation No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories \3\

* * * * *

63.1620-63.1679............................................ 2060-0391

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the

applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,

which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

PART 63--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart XXX to read as follows:

Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese

Sec.

63.1620-63.1649 [Reserved].

63.1650 Applicability and compliance dates.

63.1651 Definitions.

63.1652 Emission standards.

63.1653 Opacity standards.

63.1654 Operational and work practice standards.

63.1655 Maintenance requirements.

63.1656 Performance testing, test methods, and compliance

demonstrations.

63.1657 Monitoring requirements.

63.1658 Notification requirements.

63.1659 Reporting requirements.

63.1660 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.1661 Delegation of authorities.

63.1662-63.1679 [Reserved].

Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and

Silicomanganese

Secs. 63.1620-63.1649 [Reserved]

Sec. 63.1650 Applicability and compliance dates.

(a) This subpart applies to 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.

(b) The following sources at a ferromanganese and silicomanganese

production facility are subject to this subpart:

(1) Submerged arc furnaces.

(2) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process.

(3) Crushing and screening operations.

(4) Fugitive dust sources.

(c) A new affected source is one for which construction or

reconstruction commenced after August 4, 1998.

(d) The following table specifies which provisions of subpart A of

this part apply to owners and operators of ferromanganese and

silicomanganese production facilities subject to this subpart:

General Provisions Applicability to Subpart XXX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference, Subpart A General Applies to Subpart XXX,

Provisions 63.1620-63.1679 Comment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.1-63.5............................ Yes....................

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

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

63.7(h)(7)........................... No..................... Sec. 63.6(h)(7), use of continuous opacity

monitoring system, not applicable.

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

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

63.9................................. Yes.................... Notification of performance test results changed

to a 30-day notification period.

63.10................................ Yes.................... Allow changes in dates by which periodic reports

are submitted by mutual agreement between the

owner or operator and the State to occur any

time after the source's compliance date.

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

emission limits.

63.12-63.15.......................... Yes....................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(e) Compliance dates. (1) Each owner or operator of an existing

affected source must comply with the requirements of this subpart no

later than May 21, 2001.

(2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected

source that commences construction or reconstruction after August 4,

1998, must comply with the requirements of this subpart by May 20, 1999

or upon startup of operations, whichever is later.

Sec. 63.1651 Definitions.

Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (Act), in

subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:

Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of

continuously

[[Page 27459]]

monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a

baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A bag

leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument

that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance,

or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter

loadings.

Capture system means the equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,

dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport particulate matter

generated by an affected submerged arc furnace.

Casting means the period of time from when molten ferroalloy falls

from the furnace tapping runner into the ladle until pouring into molds

is completed. This includes the following operations: ladle filling,

pouring alloy from one ladle to another, slag separation, slag removal,

and ladle transfer by crane, truck, or other conveyance.

Crushing and screening equipment means the crushers, grinders,

mills, screens and conveying systems used to crush, size, and prepare

for packing manganese-containing materials, including raw materials,

intermediate products, and final products.

Fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which

manganese-bearing particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to

wind or mechanical inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust

sources include plant roadways, yard areas, and outdoor material

storage and transfer operations.

Furnace power input means the resistive electrical power

consumption of a submerged arc furnace, expressed as megawatts (MW).

Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably

preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process

equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.

Failures caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are

not malfunctions.

Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process means the reduction of the

carbon content of ferromanganese through the use of oxygen.

Open submerged arc furnace means an electric submerged arc furnace

that is equipped with a canopy hood above the furnace to collect

primary emissions.

Operating time means the period of time in hours that the affected

source is in operation beginning at a startup and ending at the next

shutdown.

Plant roadway means any area at a ferromanganese and

silicomanganese production facility that is subject to plant mobile

equipment, such as fork lifts, front end loaders, or trucks, carrying

manganese-bearing materials. Excluded from this definition are employee

and visitor parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by

plant mobile equipment.

Primary emissions means gases and emissions collected by hoods and

ductwork located above an open furnace or under the cover of a semi-

closed or sealed furnace.

Sealed submerged arc furnace means an electric submerged arc

furnace equipped with a total enclosure or cover from which primary

emissions are evacuated directly.

Semi-closed submerged arc furnace means an electric submerged arc

furnace equipped with a partially sealed cover over the furnace. This

cover is equipped with openings to allow penetration of the electrodes

into the furnace. Mix is introduced into the furnace around the

electrode holes forming a partial seal between the electrodes and the

cover. Furnace emissions generated under the cover are ducted to an

emission control device. Emissions that escape the cover are collected

and vented through stacks directly to the atmosphere.

Shop means the building which houses one or more submerged arc

furnaces.

Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source for

any purpose.

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source for

any purpose.

Submerged 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. The furnace may

be of an open, semi-sealed, or sealed design.

Tapping emissions means a source of air pollutant emissions that

occur during the process of removing the molten product from the

furnace.

Tapping period means the time from when a tap hole is opened until

the time a tap hole is closed.

Sec. 63.1652 Emission standards.

(a) New and reconstructed submerged arc furnaces. No owner or

operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any new

or reconstructed submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including primary

and tapping) containing particulate matter in excess of one of the

following:

(1) 0.23 kilograms per hour per megawatt (kg/hr/MW) (0.51 pounds

per hour per megawatt [lb/hr/MW]), or

(2) 35 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) (0.015

grains per dry standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]).

(b) Existing open submerged arc furnaces. No owner or operator

shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any existing open

submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including primary and tapping)

containing particulate matter in excess of one of the following:

(1) 16.3 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (35.9 pounds per hour [lb/hr])

when producing silicomanganese, or

(2) 6.4 kg/hr (14.0 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese.

(c) Existing semi-sealed submerged arc furnaces. No owner or

operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any

existing semi-sealed submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including

primary, tapping, and vent stacks) containing particulate matter in

excess of 11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese.

(d) MOR process. No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged

into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed, or existing MOR

process exhaust gases containing particulate matter in excess of 69 mg/

dscm (0.03 gr/dscf).

(e) Crushing and screening equipment. (1) New and reconstructed

equipment. No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any new or reconstructed piece of equipment associated

with crushing and screening exhaust gases containing particulate matter

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

(2) Existing equipment. No owner or operator shall cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere from any existing piece of equipment

associated with crushing and screening exhaust gases containing

particulate matter in excess of 69 (mg/dscm) (0.03 gr/dscf).

Sec. 63.1653 Opacity standards.

No owner or operator shall cause emissions exiting from a shop due

solely to operations of any affected submerged arc furnace, to exceed

20 percent opacity for more than one 6-minute period during any

performance test, with the following exceptions:

(a) Visible particulate emissions from a shop due solely to

operation of a semi-closed submerged arc furnace, may exceed 20 percent

opacity, measured as a 6-minute average, one time during any

performance test, so long as the emissions never exceed 60 percent

opacity, measured as a 6-minute average.

(b) Blowing taps, poling and oxygen lancing of the tap hole;

burndowns associated with electrode measurements; and maintenance

activities associated with submerged arc furnaces and casting

operations are

[[Page 27460]]

exempt from the opacity standards specified in this section.

Sec. 63.1654 Operational and work practice standards.

(a) Fugitive dust sources. (1) Each owner or operator of an

affected ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility must

prepare, and at all times operate according to, a fugitive dust control

plan that describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to

control fugitive dust emissions from the individual fugitive dust

sources at the facility.

(2) The owner or operator must submit a copy of the fugitive dust

control plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the

applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in

Sec. 63.1650(e). The requirement for the owner or operator to operate

the facility according to a written fugitive dust control plan must be

incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued by

the designated permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.

(3) The owner or operator may use existing manuals that describe

the measures in place to control fugitive dust sources required as part

of a State implementation plan or other federally enforceable

requirement for particulate matter to satisfy the requirements of

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. The owner

or operator of a new or reconstructed submerged arc furnace must

install and continuously operate a bag leak detection system if the

furnace's primary and/or tapping emissions are ducted to a negative

pressure baghouse or to a positive pressure baghouse equipped with a

stack. The owner or operator must maintain and operate each baghouse

such that the following conditions are met:

(1) The alarm on the system does not sound for more than 5 percent

of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting period.

(2) A record is made of the date and time of each alarm and

procedures to determine the cause of the alarm are initiated within 1

hour of the alarm according to the plan for corrective action required

under Sec. 63.1657(a)(7).

Sec. 63.1655 Maintenance requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of an affected source must comply with

the requirements of Sec. 63.6(e) of subpart A.

(b)(1) The owner or operator must develop and implement a written

maintenance plan for each air pollution control device associated with

submerged arc furnaces, metal oxygen refining processes, and crushing

and screening operations subject to the provisions of this part. The

owner or operator must keep the maintenance plan on record and

available for the Administrator's inspection for the life of the air

pollution control device or until the affected source is no longer

subject to the provisions of this part.

(2) To satisfy the requirement to develop maintenance plans, the

owner or operator may use the affected source's standard operating

procedures (SOP) manual or other plan, provided the alternative plan

meets the requirements of this paragraph and is made available for

inspection when requested by the Administrator.

(c) The procedures specified in the maintenance plan must include a

preventive maintenance schedule that is consistent with good air

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions and, for

baghouses, ensure that the requirements specified in Sec. 63.1657(a)

are met.

(d) The owner or operator must perform monthly inspections of the

equipment that is important to the performance of the furnace capture

system. This inspection must include an examination of the physical

condition of the equipment, suitable for detecting holes in ductwork or

hoods, flow constrictions in ductwork due to dents or accumulated dust,

and operational status of flow rate controllers (pressure sensors,

dampers, damper switches, etc.). Any deficiencies must be recorded and

proper maintenance and repairs performed.

Sec. 63.1656 Performance testing, test methods, and compliance

demonstrations.

(a) Performance testing. (1) All performance tests must be

conducted according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 of subpart A.

(2) Each performance test must consist of three separate and

complete runs using the applicable test methods.

(3) Each run must be conducted under conditions that are

representative of normal process operations.

(4) Performance tests conducted on air pollution control devices

serving submerged arc furnaces must be conducted such that at least one

tapping period, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, whichever

is less, is included in at least two of the three runs. The sampling

time for each run must be at least as long as three times the average

tapping period of the tested furnace, but no less than 60 minutes.

(5) The sample volume for each run must be at least 0.9 dscm (30

dscf).

(b) Test methods. The following test methods in Appendix A of part

60 of this chapter must be used to determine compliance with the

emission standards.

(1) Method 1 to select the sampling port location and the number of

traverse points.

(2) Method 2 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack

gas.

(3) Method 3 to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack

gas.

(4) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.

(5) Method 5 to determine the particulate matter concentration of

the stack gas for negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure

baghouses with stacks.

(6) Method 5D to determine particulate matter concentration and

volumetric flow rate of the stack gas for positive pressure baghouses

without stacks.

(7) Method 9 to determine opacity.

(8) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative

measurement methods approved by the Administrator following the

procedures described in Sec. 63.7(f) of subpart A.

(c) Compliance demonstration with the emission standards. (1) The

owner or operator must conduct an initial performance test for air

pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec. 63.1652(a)

through (e) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission

standards.

(2) The owner or operator must conduct annual performance tests for

the air pollution control devices and vent stacks associated with the

submerged arc furnaces, with the exception of any air pollution control

devices that serve tapping emissions combined with non-furnace

emissions, such as the MOR process or equipment associated with

crushing and screening. Also excluded are air pollution control devices

that serve dedicated non-furnace emissions, such as the MOR process or

equipment associated with crushing and screening. The results of these

annual tests will be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission

standards in Sec. 63.1652(a) through (e), as applicable.

(3) Following development, and approval, if required, of the site-

specific test plan, the owner or operator must conduct a performance

test for each air pollution control device or vent stack to measure

particulate matter and determine compliance with the applicable

standard.

(i) An owner or operator of sources subject to the particulate

matter concentration standards in Sec. 63.1652(a)(2), (d), or (e), must

determine compliance as follows:

[[Page 27461]]

(A) Determine the particulate matter concentration using Method 5

or 5D, as applicable.

(B) Compliance is demonstrated if the average concentration for the

three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed the

standard.

(ii) An owner or operator of sources subject to the particulate

mass rate standards in Sec. 63.1652(b) or (c) must determine compliance

as follows:

(A) Determine the particulate matter concentration and volumetric

flow rate using Method 5 or 5D, as applicable.

(B) Compute the mass rate (EM) of particulate matter for

each run using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY99.000

Where:

EM = mass rate of particulate matter, kg/hr (lb/hr).

N = total number of exhaust streams at which emissions are quantified.

Csi = concentration of particulate matter from exhaust

stream ``i'', mg/dscm (gr/dscf).

Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust

stream ``i'', dscm/hr (dscf/hr)

K = conversion factor, 1 x 106 mg/kg (7,000 gr/lb).

(C) Compliance is demonstrated if the average of the mass rates for

the three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed the

standard.

(iii) An owner or operator of sources subject to the particulate

matter process-weighted rate standard in Sec. 63.1652(a)(1) must

determine compliance as follows:

(A) Determine particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow

rate using Method 5 or 5D, as applicable.

(B) Compute the process-weighted mass rate (EP) of

particulate matter for each run using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY99.001

Where:

EP = process-weighted mass rate of particulate matter, kg/

hr/MW (lb/hr/MW).

N = total number of exhaust streams at which emissions are quantified.

Csi = concentration of particulate matter from exhaust

stream ``i'', mg/dscm (gr/dscf)

Qsdi = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust

stream ``i'', dscm/hr (dscf/hr)

P = Average furnace power input, MW

K = conversion factor, 1 x 106 mg/kg (7,000 gr/lb).

(C) Compliance is demonstrated if the average process-weighted mass

rate for the three runs comprising the performance test does not exceed

the standard.

(4) If a venturi scrubber is used to comply with the emission

standards, the owner or operator must establish as a site-specific

operating parameter the lowest average pressure drop on any individual

complying run in the three runs constituting any compliant test. The

pressure drop must be monitored at least every 5 minutes during the

test and hourly averages recorded.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) The owner or operator may augment the data obtained under

paragraph (a)(4) of this section by conducting multiple performance

tests to establish a range of compliant operating parameter values. The

lowest value of this range would be selected as the operating parameter

monitoring value. The use of historic compliance data may be used to

establish the compliant operating parameter value if the previous

values were recorded during performance tests using the same test

methods specified in this subpart and established as required in

paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(d) Compliance demonstration with opacity standards.

(1)(i) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.1653 must conduct

initial opacity observations of the shop building to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable opacity standards according to

Sec. 63.6(h)(5), which addresses the conduct of opacity or visible

emission observations.

(ii) In conducting the opacity observations of the shop building,

the observer must limit his or her field of view to the area of the

shop building roof monitor that corresponds to the placement of the

affected submerged arc furnaces.

(iii) The owner or operator must conduct the opacity observations

according to EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for a minimum

of 60 minutes.

(2)(i) When demonstrating initial compliance with the shop building

opacity standard, as required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the

owner or operator must simultaneously establish parameter values for

one of the following: the control system fan motor amperes and all

capture system damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate to the

air pollution control device and all capture system damper positions,

or volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood that

comprises the capture system.

(ii) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator to

reestablish these parameters whenever he or she can demonstrate to the

Administrator's satisfaction that the submerged arc furnace operating

conditions upon which the parameters were previously established are no

longer applicable. The values of these parameters determined during the

most recent demonstration of compliance must be maintained at the

appropriate level for each applicable period.

(3) The owner or operator must demonstrate continuing compliance

with the opacity standards by following the monitoring requirements

specified in Sec. 63.1657(c) and the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements specified in Secs. 63.1659(b)(4) and 63.1660(b).

(e) Compliance demonstration with the operational and work practice

standards.

(1) Fugitive dust sources. Failure to have a fugitive dust control

plan or failure to report deviations from the plan and take necessary

corrective action would be a violation of the general duty to ensure

that fugitive dust sources are operated and maintained in a manner

consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing

emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of subpart A.

(2) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. The owner

or operator demonstrates compliance with the bag leak detection system

requirements by submitting reports as required by Sec. 63.1659(b)(5)

showing that the alarm on the system does not sound for more than 5

percent of the total operating time in a 6-month period. Calculate the

percentage of total operating time the alarm on the bag leak detection

system sounds as follows:

(i) Do not include alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of

the bag leak detection system in the calculation.

(ii) Do not include alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, and

malfunction in the calculation if the condition is described in the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the owner or operator

follows all the procedures in the plan defined for this condition.

(iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm where the owner or

operator initiates procedures to determine the cause within 1 hour of

the alarm.

(iv) Count the actual time it takes the owner or operator to

initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm for each alarm

where the owner or operator does not initiate procedures to determine

the cause within 1 hour of the alarm.

[[Page 27462]]

(v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak

detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the

total operating time multiplied by 100.

Sec. 63.1657 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Baghouses. (1) For the baghouses serving the submerged arc

furnaces, the metal oxygen refining process, and crushing and screening

operations, the owner or operator must observe on a daily basis for the

presence of any visible emissions.

(2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, the

owner or operator must conduct the following activities:

(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell, or

across the baghouse if it is not possible to monitor each cell

individually, to ensure the pressure drop is within the normal

operating range identified in the baghouse maintenance plan.

(ii) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers

through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper

functioning of removal mechanisms.

(iii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.

(iv) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to

ensure proper operation.

(v) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning

through visual inspection or equivalent means.

(vi) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and

shaker-type baghouses to ensure that the bags are not kinked (kneed or

bent) or laying on their sides. Such checks are not required for

shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.

(vii) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the

baghouse structure through visual inspection of the baghouse interior

for air leaks.

(viii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup,

and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or

equivalent means.

(3) In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed submerged arc furnace must install and continuously

operate a bag leak detection system if the furnace primary and/or

tapping emissions are ducted to a negative pressure baghouse or to a

positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack. The bag leak

detection system must meet the following requirements:

(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at

concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains

per actual cubic foot) or less.

(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of

relative particulate matter loadings, and the owner or operator must

continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system.

(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm

system that will sound when an increase in relative particulate

loadings is detected over a preset level. The alarm must be located

where it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.

(iv) Each bag leak detection system that works based on the

triboelectric effect must be installed, calibrated, operated, and

maintained consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-

454/R-98-015). Other bag leak detection systems must be installed,

calibrated, and maintained consistent with the manufacturer's written

specifications and recommendations.

(v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum,

consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the

sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and

establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.

(vi) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator must not

adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or

alarm delay time, except as detailed in the maintenance plan required

under Sec. 63.1655(b). In no event must the sensitivity be increased by

more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day

period unless a responsible official certifies the baghouse has been

inspected and found to be in good operating condition.

(vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(4) As part of the maintenance plan required by Sec. 63.1655(b),

the owner or operator must develop and implement corrective action

procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak detection system

alarm (for baghouses equipped with such a system), the observation of

visible emissions from the baghouse, or the indication through the

periodic baghouse system inspections that the system is not operating

properly. The owner or operator must initiate corrective action as soon

as practicable after the occurrence of the observation or event

indicating a problem.

(5) The corrective action plan must include procedures used to

determine the cause of an alarm or other indications of problems as

well as actions to minimize emissions. These actions may include the

following:

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or

filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in

emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise

repairing the control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise

repairing the bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter

emissions.

(6) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under

the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section would be a violation

of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air

pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per

Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i) of subpart A.

(b) Venturi scrubbers. (1) The owner or operator must monitor the

pressure drop across the venturi at least every 5 minutes and record

the average hourly pressure drop. Measurement of an average hourly

pressure drop less than the pressure drop operating parameter limit

established during a successful compliance demonstration would be a

violation of the applicable emission standard, unless the excursion in

the pressure drop is due to a malfunction.

(2) As part of the maintenance plan required by Sec. 63.1655(b),

the owner or operator must develop and implement corrective action

procedures to be followed in the case of a violation of the pressure

drop requirement. The owner or operator must initiate corrective action

as soon as practicable after the excursion.

(3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is a violation of the

general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution

control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).

(c) Shop opacity. The owner or operator subject to the opacity

standards in Sec. 63.1653 must comply with one of the monitoring

options in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section. The

selected option must be consistent with

[[Page 27463]]

that selected during the initial performance test described in

Sec. 63.1656(d)(2). Alternatively, the owner or operator may use the

provisions of Sec. 63.8(f) to request approval to use an alternative

monitoring method.

(1) The owner or operator must check and record the control system

fan motor amperes and capture system damper positions once per shift.

(2) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate

through each separately ducted hood.

(3) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, and maintain a

monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at

the inlet of the air pollution control device and must check and record

the capture system damper positions once per shift.

(4) The flow rate monitoring devices must meet the following

requirements:

(i) Be installed in an appropriate location in the exhaust duct

such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result.

(ii) Have an accuracy 10 percent over its normal

operating range and be calibrated according to the manufacturer's

instructions.

(5) The Administrator may require the owner or operator to

demonstrate the accuracy of the monitoring device(s) relative to

Methods 1 and 2 of appendix A of part 60 of this chapter.

(6) Failure to maintain the appropriate capture system parameters

(fan motor amperes, flow rate, and/or damper positions) establishes the

need to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the

monitoring excursion in order to minimize excess emissions.

(7) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under

the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section is a violation of the

general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air pollution

control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).

Sec. 63.1658 Notification requirements.

(a) As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A, unless otherwise

specified in this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the

following written notifications to the Administrator:

(1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently

becomes subject to the requirements of the standard must provide

notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by

Sec. 63.9(b)(1).

(2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2), the owner or operator of an

affected source that has an initial startup before the effective date

of the standard must notify the Administrator that the source is

subject to the requirements of the standard. The notification must be

submitted no later than 120 calendar days after May 20, 1999 (or within

120 calendar days after the source becomes subject to this standard)

and must contain the information specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i)

through (b)(2)(v).

(3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3), the owner or operator of a new

or reconstructed affected source, or a source that has been

reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an initial

startup after the effective date and for which an application for

approval of construction or reconstruction is not required under

Sec. 63.5(d), must notify the Administrator in writing that the source

is subject to the standards no later than 120 days after initial

startup. The notification must contain the information specified in

Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v), delivered or postmarked with the

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

(4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4), the owner or operator of a new

or reconstructed major affected source that has an initial startup

after the effective date of this standard and for which an application

for approval of construction or reconstruction is required under

Sec. 63.5(d) must provide the information specified in

Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v).

(5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5), the owner or operator who,

after the effective date of this standard, intends to construct a new

affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this

standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected

source subject to this standard, must notify the Administrator, in

writing, of the intended construction or reconstruction.

(b) Request for extension of compliance. As required by

Sec. 63.9(c), if the owner or operator of an affected source cannot

comply with this standard by the applicable compliance date for that

source, or if the owner or operator has installed BACT or technology to

meet LAER consistent with Sec. 63.6(i)(5), he or she may submit to the

Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) a request

for an extension of compliance as specified in Sec. 63.6(i)(4) through

(i)(6).

(c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance

requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d), an owner or operator of a

new source that is subject to special compliance requirements as

specified in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) must notify the Administrator

of his or her compliance obligations no later than the notification

dates established in Sec. 63.9(b) for new sources that are not subject

to the special provisions.

(d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e),

the owner or operator of an affected source must notify the

Administrator in writing of his or her intention to conduct a

performance test at least 30 calendar days before the performance test

is scheduled to begin to allow the Administrator to review and approve

the site-specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c) and to have an

observer present during the test.

(e) Notification of opacity and visible emission observations. As

required by Sec. 63.9(f), the owner or operator of an affected source

must notify the Administrator in writing of the anticipated date for

conducting the opacity or visible emission observations specified in

Sec. 63.6(h)(5). The notification must be submitted with the

notification of the performance test date, as specified in paragraph

(d) of this section, or if visibility or other conditions prevent the

opacity or visible emission observations from being conducted

concurrently with the initial performance test required under

Sec. 63.7, the owner or operator must deliver or postmark the

notification not less than 30 days before the opacity or visible

emission observations are scheduled to take place.

(f) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an

affected source must submit a notification of compliance status as

required by Sec. 63.9(h). The notification must be sent before the

close of business on the 60th day following completion of the relevant

compliance demonstration.

Sec. 63.1659 Reporting requirements.

(a) General reporting requirements. The owner or operator of a

ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility must comply with

all of the reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10 of subpart A, unless

otherwise specified in this subpart.

(1) Frequency of reports. As provided by Sec. 63.10(a)(5), if the

owner or operator is required to submit periodic reports to a State on

an established time line, he or she may change the dates by which

periodic reports submitted under this part may be submitted (without

changing the frequency of reporting) to be consistent with the State's

schedule by mutual agreement between the owner or operator and the

State. This provision may be applied at any point after the source's

compliance date.

(2) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by

Sec. 63.10(d)(2), the owner or operator of an affected source must

report the results of the initial

[[Page 27464]]

performance test as part of the notification of compliance status

required in Sec. 63.1658(f).

(3) [Reserved]

(4) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. (i) As

required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i), if actions taken by an owner or

operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction of an affected

source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction) are

consistent with the procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan, the owner or operator must state such information in

a semiannual report. The report, to be certified by the owner or

operator or other responsible official, must be submitted semiannually

and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each

calendar half; and

(ii) Any time an action taken by an owner or operator during a

startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator must comply with

all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

(b) Specific reporting requirements. In addition to the information

required under Sec. 63.10, reports required under paragraph (a) of this

section must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(5) of this section. As allowed by Sec. 63.10(a)(3), if any

State requires a report that contains all of the information required

in a report listed in this section, an owner or operator may send the

Administrator a copy of the report sent to the State to satisfy the

requirements of this section for that report.

(1) Air pollution control devices. The owner or operator must

submit reports that summarize the records maintained as part of the

practices described in the maintenance plan for air pollution control

devices required under Sec. 63.1655(b), including an explanation of the

periods when the procedures were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(2) Venturi scrubbers. In addition to the information required to

be submitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the owner or operator

must submit reports that identify the periods when the average hourly

pressure drop of venturi scrubbers used to control particulate

emissions dropped below the levels established in Sec. 63.1656(c)(4),

and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.

(3) Fugitive dust. The owner or operator must submit reports that

explain the periods when the procedures outlined in the fugitive dust

control plan pursuant to Sec. 63.1654(a) were not followed and the

corrective actions taken.

(4) Capture system. The owner or operator must submit reports that

summarize the monitoring parameter excursions measured pursuant to

Sec. 63.1657(c) and the corrective actions taken.

(5) Bag leak detection system. The owner or operator must submit

reports including the following information:

(i) Records of all alarms.

(ii) Description of the actions taken following each bag leak

detection system alarm.

(iii) Calculation of the percent of time the alarm on the bag leak

detection system sounded during the reporting period.

(6) Frequency of reports. (i) The owner or operator must submit

reports pursuant to Sec. 63.10(e)(3) that are associated with excess

emissions events such as the excursion of the scrubber pressure drop

limit per paragraph (b)(2) of this section. These reports are to be

submitted on a quarterly basis, unless the owner or operator can

satisfy the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) to reduce the frequency to

a semiannual basis.

(ii) All other reports specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(5) of this section must be submitted semiannually.

Sec. 63.1660 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping requirements. (1) The owner or operator

of a ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facility must comply

with all of the recordkeeping requirements under Sec. 63.10.

(2) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2), the owner or operator must

maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of:

(i) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment and control devices);

(ii) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the source

or air pollution control equipment;

(iii) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control

equipment;

(iv) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning

process and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual

manner of operation) when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;

(v) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (including corrective

actions) are consistent with the procedures specified in such plan.

This information can be recorded in a checklist or similar form (see

Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v));

(vi) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance

with the standard and to support data that the source is required to

report, including, but not limited to, performance test measurements

(including initial and any subsequent performance tests) and

measurements as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the

initial test or subsequent tests;

(vii) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;

(viii) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from

recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f), any

information demonstrating whether a source is meeting the requirements

for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements;

(ix) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the

initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h), a copy of the full request

and the Administrator's approval or disapproval;

(x) All documentation supporting initial notifications and

notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9; and

(xi) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(3), records of any applicability

determination, including supporting analyses.

(b) Specific recordkeeping requirements. (1) In addition to the

general records required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or

operator must maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record

of:

(i) Records of pressure drop across the venturi if a venturi

scrubber is used.

(ii) Records of manufacturer certification that monitoring devices

are accurate to within 5 percent (unless otherwise specified in this

subpart) and of calibrations performed at the manufacturer's

recommended frequency, or at a frequency consistent with good

engineering practice, or as experience dictates.

(iii) Records of bag leak detection system output.

(iv) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak

detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the

cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an

explanation of the actions taken, and the date and time the alarm was

corrected.

[[Page 27465]]

(v) Copy of the written maintenance plan for each air pollution

control device.

(vi) Copy of the fugitive dust control plan.

(vii) Records of each maintenance inspection and repair,

replacement, or other corrective action.

(2) All records for the most recent 2 years of operation must be

maintained on site. Records for the previous 3 years may be maintained

off site.

Sec. 63.1661 Delegation of authorities.

In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State

under subpart E of this part, the Administrator retains no authorities.

Secs. 63.1662--63.1679 [Reserved].

[FR Doc. 99-12584 Filed 5-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P