National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 5401-5409 [2017-00156]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the modifications described in section
304(c)(3)(B)) less than five percent (by
vote and value) of the stock of (or a
partnership interest in) each member of
the expanded affiliated group.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Applicability date. Except as
otherwise provided in this paragraph (i),
this section applies to domestic entity
acquisitions completed on or after
September 22, 2014. Paragraph (d)(2) of
this section applies to domestic entity
acquisitions completed on or after
January 13, 2017, and paragraph (d)(1)
of this section applies to domestic entity
acquisitions completed on or after
November 19, 2015. Paragraph (g) of this
section applies to domestic entity
acquisitions completed on or after April
4, 2016. However, for domestic entity
acquisitions completed on or after
September 22, 2014, and before
November 19, 2015, taxpayers may elect
to apply paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
For domestic entity acquisitions
completed on or after September 22,
2014, and before January 13, 2017,
taxpayers may elect to apply paragraph
(d)(2) of this section or § 1.7874–
10T(d)(2) as contained in the Internal
Revenue Bulletin (IRB) 2016–20 (see
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2016-20_IRB/
ar05.html). In addition, for domestic
entity acquisitions completed on or after
September 22, 2014, and before April 4,
2016, taxpayers may elect to determine
NOCDs consistently on the basis of
taxable years, in lieu of 12-month
periods, in a manner consistent with the
principles of this section. See paragraph
(h)(5) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Par. 8. Section 1.7874–12T is
amended by revising the introductory
text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.7874–12T
§§ 1.7874–1, 1.7874–6T, 1.7874–7T, 1.7874–
9T, and 1.7874–10T [Amended]
Par. 9. For each provision listed in the
table below, removing the language in
the ‘‘Remove’’ column and adding in its
place the language in the ‘‘Add’’
column:
■
Remove
§ 1.7874–1(c)(1), second sentence .........................................................
§ 1.7874–1(c)(1), second sentence .........................................................
§ 1.7874–6T(g), Example 4(iii), first sentence ........................................
§ 1.7874–7T(b)(1), first sentence ............................................................
§ 1.7874–7T(c)(1) ....................................................................................
§ 1.7874–7T(f)(1)(i) ..................................................................................
§ 1.7874–7T(f)(2), introductory text .........................................................
§ 1.7874–7T(f)(3)(i) ..................................................................................
§ 1.7874–7T(f)(3)(ii) .................................................................................
§ 1.7874–7T(g), Example 1(i), penultimate sentence .............................
§ 1.7874–7T(g), Example 1(ii), first sentence .........................................
§ 1.7874–7T(g), Example 1(ii), first sentence .........................................
§ 1.7874–7T(g), Example 2(i), last sentence ..........................................
§ 1.7874–7T(g), Example 2(ii), first sentence .........................................
§ 1.7874–7T(g), Example 3(i), penultimate sentence .............................
§ 1.7874–9T(e)(3), introductory text ........................................................
§ 1.7874–10T(d)(1), introductory text ......................................................
§ 1.7874–10T(f)(3)(iii)(B) .........................................................................
§ 1.7874–4T ...................................
§ 1.7874–4T(h) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(i)(7) ...........................
§ 1.7874–4T(b) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(b) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(i)(7) ...........................
§ 1.7874–4T(b) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(b) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(b) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(i)(7) ...........................
§ 1.7874–4T(c) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(b) ...............................
§ 1.7874–4T(i)(7) ...........................
§§ 1.7874–4T(b) and .....................
§ 1.7874–4T(i)(7) ...........................
§ 1.7874–4T ...................................
§§ 1.7874–4T(b) and .....................
§§ 1.7874–4T and ..........................
Final rule; notice of final action
on reconsideration.
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2017–00643 Filed 1–13–17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895; 9958–01–OAR]
RIN 2060–AS90
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys
Production
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
This action sets forth the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) final decision on the issues for
which it announced reconsideration on
July 12, 2016, that pertain to certain
aspects of the June 30, 2015, final
amendments for the Ferroalloys
Production source category regulated
under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The
EPA is amending the rule to allow
existing facilities with positive pressure
baghouses to perform visible emissions
monitoring twice daily as an alternative
to installing and operating bag leak
detection systems (BLDS) to ensure the
baghouses are operating properly. In
addition, this final action explains that
EPA is maintaining the requirement that
facilities must use a digital camera
opacity technique (DCOT) method to
demonstrate compliance with opacity
limits. However, this final action revises
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Definitions (temporary).
(a) Definitions. Except as otherwise
provided, the following definitions
apply for purposes of this section and
§§ 1.367(b)–4T, 1.956–2T, 1.7701(l)–4T,
1.7874–2, 1.7874–2T, 1.7874–4, 1.7874–
5, and 1.7874–6T through 1.7874–11T.
*
*
*
*
*
Provision
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: December 6, 2016.
Mark J. Mazur
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
5401
Add
§ 1.7874–4
§ 1.7874–4(h)
§ 1.7874–4(i)(2)
§ 1.7874–4(b)
§ 1.7874–4(b)
§ 1.7874–4(i)(2)
§ 1.7874–4(b)
§ 1.7874–4(b)
§ 1.7874–4(b)
§ 1.7874–4(i)(2)
§ 1.7874–4(c)
§ 1.7874–4(b)
§ 1.7874–4(i)(2)
§§ 1.7874–4(b) and
§ 1.7874–4(i)(2)
§ 1.7874–4
§§ 1.7874–4(b) and
§§ 1.7874–4 and
the rule such that it references the
recently updated version of the DCOT
method. In this action, the EPA also
explains that no changes are being made
regarding the rule provision that
requires quarterly polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) emission testing for
furnaces producing ferromanganese
(FeMn) with an opportunity for facilities
to request decreased compliance test
frequency from their permitting
authority after the first year.
Furthermore, in this action, the EPA is
denying the request for reconsideration
of the PAH emission limits for both
FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn)
production furnaces.
This final action is effective on
January 18, 2017. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in the rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of January 18,
2017.
DATES:
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
5402
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895. All
documents are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room
3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20004. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
Phil
Mulrine, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243–02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
5289; fax number: (919) 541–3207;
email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Organization of this Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How do I obtain a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues
Reconsidered
A. Alternative Monitoring for Existing
Positive Pressure Baghouses
B. DCOT Compliance Demonstration and
Revised DCOT Test Method
C. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces
Producing FeMn
IV. Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of
FeMn and SiMn PAH Emission Limits
V. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the energy impacts?
C. What are the compliance costs?
D. What are the economic and employment
impacts?
E. What are the benefits of the final
standards?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY
THIS FINAL ACTION
NESHAP and source
category
NAICS a code
Ferroalloys Production ..........
331112
a North
American
Industry
Classification
System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding
entities likely to be affected by the final
action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXX (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Ferroalloys Production). If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this final action to a particular entity,
consult either the air permitting
authority for the entity or your EPA
Regional representative as listed in 40
CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).
B. How do I obtain a copy of this
document and other related
information?
The docket number for this final
action regarding the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart XXX) is Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0895.
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this
document will also be available on the
World Wide Web (WWW). Following
signature, a copy of this document will
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
be posted at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/
ferromanganese-and-silicomanganeseproduction-national-emission.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by March 20, 2017.
Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final
rule may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review.’’ This
section also provides a mechanism for
the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the
person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the Administrator that it
was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration
should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
EPA WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information
The EPA published a final residual
risk and technology review (RTR) rule
for the Ferroalloys Production source
category in the Federal Register on June
30, 2015 (80 FR 37366), which included,
among other things, the following:
• Revisions to the emission limits for
particulate matter (PM) from stacks for
the electric arc furnaces, metal oxygen
refining (MOR) processes, and crushing
and screening operations to minimize
PM emissions from these units;
• Emission limits for four previously
unregulated hazardous air pollutants
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen
chloride, mercury, and PAH;
• Requirements to capture process
fugitive emissions using effective,
enhanced local capture, and duct the
captured emissions to control devices;
• An average opacity limit of 8
percent during a full furnace cycle and
a maximum opacity limit of 20 percent
for any two consecutive 6-minute
periods to ensure effective capture and
control of process fugitive emissions;
• A requirement to conduct opacity
observations using the DCOT at least
once per week for a full furnace cycle
for each operating furnace and each
MOR operation for at least 26 weeks.
After 26 weeks, if all tests are
compliant, facilities can decrease to
monthly opacity observations;
• A requirement to use BLDS to
monitor PM emissions from all furnace
baghouses; and
• A requirement to conduct periodic
performance testing to demonstrate
compliance with the stack emission
limits for the various HAP, including a
requirement to conduct PAH
performance testing every 3 months for
furnaces producing FeMn with the
opportunity to reduce to annual testing
after the first year.
Following promulgation of the final
rule, the EPA received two petitions for
reconsideration of several provisions of
the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(7)(B). The EPA received a
petition dated August 25, 2015, from
Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and a
petition dated August 28, 2015, from
Felman Production LLC (Felman). In the
petition submitted by Eramet, the
company requested the EPA reconsider
the following issues: (1) The
requirement to conduct PAH
performance testing every 3 months for
furnaces producing FeMn; (2) the
requirement to demonstrate compliance
weekly with shop building opacity
limits using the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) DCOT
test method; and (3) the PAH emission
limits for existing furnaces producing
FeMn and SiMn. In addition, Eramet
requested a stay of 90 days from the
effective date of the final amendments
pending completion of the
reconsideration proceeding. In the
petition submitted by Felman, the
company stated that it supported and
adopted the petition submitted by
Eramet and requested reconsideration of
the requirement to use BLDS to monitor
emissions from positive pressure
baghouses. Copies of the petitions are
provided in the docket (see EPA Docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895).
On November 5, 2015, the EPA sent
letters to the petitioners granting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
reconsideration of two issues: The PAH
testing compliance frequency issue
raised by Eramet and the use of BLDS
on positive pressure baghouses raised
by Felman. In those letters, the EPA said
it was still reviewing the other issues
and intended to take final action on
those when it took final action on BLDS
and PAH testing frequency. The agency
also stated in the letters that a proposed
Federal Register notice would be issued
initiating the reconsideration process for
the issues that the EPA is granting
reconsideration. The EPA published the
proposed notice of reconsideration in
the Federal Register on July 12, 2016
(81 FR 45089).
In addition to the two requirements
mentioned above (i.e., PAH testing
frequency for furnaces producing FeMn
and the use of BLDS to monitor PM
emissions from positive pressure
baghouses), the EPA also granted
reconsideration of a third issue in the
reconsideration proposal notice (81 FR
45089): the requirement to use DCOT in
accordance with ASTM D7520–13 to
demonstrate compliance with shop
building opacity standards. However,
for each of these three requirements,
after further analyses, evaluation, and
consideration, we explained in the
reconsideration proposal notice that we
continued to believe these requirements
were appropriate. Therefore, we did not
propose any changes to these
requirements. Instead, we provided
further discussion and explanation as to
why we believed it was appropriate to
maintain these requirements in the rule,
provided additional technical
information to the record, and requested
comment on the three requirements for
which the EPA granted reconsideration.
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues
Reconsidered
After reviewing and considering all
the public comments received in
response to the reconsideration
proposal, the EPA has decided to amend
the baghouse monitoring requirements
to allow existing facilities with positive
pressure baghouses to perform visible
emissions monitoring twice daily using
Method 22 as an alternative to using
BLDS. In addition, although EPA is
maintaining the requirement to use
DCOT to demonstrate compliance with
the opacity standards, this final action
amends the references to the ASTM
DCOT test method in the opacity
monitoring requirements to the recently
updated version of the method (ASTM
D7520–16). The EPA is also maintaining
the quarterly PAH emission testing
requirement for furnaces producing
FeMn with an opportunity for facilities
to request decreased compliance test
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5403
frequency from their permitting
authority after the first year. Each of
these issues is discussed in more detail
in this section of the preamble.
A. Alternative Monitoring for Existing
Positive Pressure Baghouses
In their petition for reconsideration,
one petitioner (Felman) objected to the
EPA’s requirement to use BLDS for
positive pressure baghouses. The
petitioner pointed out that the EPA’s
own guidance 1 indicates that BLDS are
not appropriate for use on a positive
pressure baghouse, given the different
configurations of these types of units.
The petitioner commented that although
the EPA stated that it had knowledge of
BLDS in operation on positive pressure
baghouses, the EPA did not provide any
specific examples. In addition, the
petitioner claimed the EPA had not
evaluated the costs associated with the
application of BLDS on positive
pressure baghouses but instead simply
estimated the cost to be comparable
with BLDS for negative pressure
baghouses.
In their comments on the
reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089),
the petitioner stated that the EPA’s
supporting documents did not provide
any examples of BLDS in operation on
positive pressure baghouses comparable
to those used at the petitioner’s facility,
which are low airflow and use naturaldraft openings instead of stacks. The
petitioner provided cost quotes from
vendors of $1.1 million to install the
BLDS and make the necessary structural
improvements (including a catwalk
system) to support the operation of the
BLDS.
In light of the petitioner’s assertions,
we re-evaluated the BLDS requirement
for positive pressure baghouses. While
we maintain that BLDS can be installed
and operated on positive pressure
baghouses, we agree that, due to their
particular circumstances, it would be
difficult to retrofit this facility based on
the specific design of their positive
pressure baghouses. Furthermore, we
agree that installing BLDS and the
associated infrastructure would not be
cost effective. In our analysis for the
proposal, we estimated the capital cost
of installing BLDS on the three positive
pressure baghouses to be $269,100, with
annualized costs of $219,000. However,
we did not include any additional costs
for structural improvements to support
BLDS on these baghouses. The
petitioner provided a cost estimate of
1 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–015,
September 1997.
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
5404
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
$870,000 for structural improvements to
install BLDS on their three baghouses.
Given this additional information, we
now estimate the capital costs would be
about $1.1 million, and annualized costs
would be $330,000. Because of the
structural modifications needed to
install BLDS, the higher annualized
costs and the potential technical issues
on this particular control configuration
at Felman, it would be unreasonable to
require BLDS as the sole method for
monitoring positive pressure baghouses
in this rule. Nevertheless, we believe the
baghouses need to be monitored on a
regular basis to ensure they are
operating as intended and that there are
no tears or holes in the bags. Therefore,
we have revised the rule to allow for an
alternative monitoring method to the
BLDS requirement for positive pressure
baghouses used to control emissions
from an electric arc furnace. We are
allowing twice daily visual monitoring
of the outlet of each furnace baghouse
using Method 22 for evidence of any
visible emissions indicating abnormal
operations as an alternative to BLDS.
We believe this revision will reduce the
cost burden associated with monitoring
the positive pressure baghouses used to
control emissions from the furnaces and
avoid possible technical issues, but still
provide assurance that the baghouses
are functioning correctly and controlling
metal HAP emissions from the furnaces.
More details are available in the
Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Reconsideration of the
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP Final
Rule in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. DCOT Compliance Demonstration
and Revised DCOT Test Method
In the June 30, 2015, final rule (80 FR
37366), we finalized opacity standards
for process fugitive emissions from the
furnace buildings and required the use
of DCOT and the ASTM D7520–13 test
method to demonstrate compliance with
the opacity standards. In their petitions
for reconsideration, Eramet and Felman
objected to the use of DCOT in lieu of
EPA Method 9 and stated that the EPA
did not propose DCOT as the only
method for demonstrating compliance
with the opacity standards. The
petitioners argued that DCOT was an
unproven substitute for EPA Method 9
to measure opacity from emission
sources and that variability in plume
location and orientation at the ferroalloy
production buildings would make
DCOT infeasible at their facilities. The
petitioners also noted that the ASTM
test method only applies to stack
openings of 7 feet in diameter or less
and that DCOT is only provided by one
vendor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
In their comments on the
reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089),
several commenters objected to the use
of DCOT as the sole method for opacity
compliance and stated that the EPA
should allow the option of using EPA
Method 9. The commenters argue that
DCOT is limited to stationary point
sources and not fugitive emissions, and
they pointed out that the supporting
data for DCOT are all from studies
performed on stationary point sources
and not long, open vent sources such as
those at the Eramet facility. A few
commenters had concerns with the
timeliness of the opacity determinations
and the accuracy of the results. The
commenters were also concerned that
there is currently only one vendor of
DCOT and that the EPA should not
choose vendors for an entire industry.
On the other hand, a few commenters
were supportive of the use of the DCOT.
In the opinion of one commenter, DCOT
is comparable to Method 9 observations,
on all shapes, sizes, types of sources,
and that DCOT is configurable with all
types of cameras to tailor the
implementation at the shop/building
level to support cost-effective and
efficient observations.
Another commenter explained that
strong monitoring, testing and
compliance measures are an essential
part of the emission standards, and that
the use of these measures also increases
the incentive for sources to comply with
the standards. The commenter states
that EPA’s requirement for DCOT is
consistent with and an important way to
implement EPA’s ‘‘next generation
compliance.’’ The commenter notes that
the EPA’s next generation compliance
policy includes, among other things, the
following: (1) Use and promotion of
advanced emissions/pollutant detection
technology so that regulated entities, the
government, and the public can more
easily see pollutant discharges,
environmental conditions, and
noncompliance; (2) expanded
transparency by making information
more accessible to the public; and (3)
development and use of innovative
enforcement approaches (e.g., data
analytics and targeting) to achieve more
widespread compliance.
Other comments and responses on
DCOT can be found in the Summary of
Public Comments and Responses on
Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP Final Rule in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Based on the information provided by
the petitioners and the commenters, we
re-evaluated the DCOT opacity
monitoring requirement and determined
that DCOT is still an appropriate
method for determining opacity from
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the shop buildings for this source
category.
As explained in the initial proposal
(76 FR 72508), supplemental proposal
(79 FR 60238), and in the 2015 final rule
(80 FR 37366), process fugitive
emissions from the shop buildings are a
significant source of risk from the
production of ferroalloys. In each of
these three actions, we concluded risks
were unacceptable, largely driven by
process fugitive emissions of air toxics
metals.
To reduce risks to acceptable levels
and protect the public with an ample
margin of safety, in the initial proposal,
we proposed facilities would need to
install and operate full building
enclosures to capture and control
fugitive emissions. In response to the
initial proposal, industry commented
that full building enclosure requirement
would be very costly and difficult to
implement, and suggested an alternative
approach using localized capture
equipment to reduce fugitive emissions
from the shop buildings. Modeling of
the localized capture approach
indicated that similar reductions in risk
could be achieved, making this option
more feasible and at significantly lower
cost than full building enclosure. Based
on these modeling results and
consideration of costs and feasibility,
we proposed the localized capture
approach to significantly reduce fugitive
emissions from the shop buildings in
the supplemental proposal (79 FR
60238), and finalized this approach in
the 2015 final rule (80 FR 37366).
Specifically, the final rule requires
facilities to install, maintain and operate
a system designed to effectively capture
and control process fugitive emissions.
Furthermore, for this rule, opacity
standards are the main compliance
approach to ensure the process fugitive
emissions are effectively captured and
controlled on a continuous basis, and
that the public is protected with ample
margin of safety. Since process fugitive
emissions were the main contributor to
the unacceptable risks at baseline, and
since opacity is the main tool to ensure
these process fugitive emissions are
effectively captured and controlled and
that the public is protected with an
ample margin of safety, we finalized
requirements for the use of DCOT to
demonstrate compliance with the
opacity standard in the June 30, 2015,
final rule (80 FR 37366).
The DCOT provides a photographic
record of each of the opacity readings.
In addition, the photographs are
evaluated by a third party and the
opacity is determined by the degree the
plume reduces the transmitted light and
obscures the background. While we
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
believe, based on validation studies,
that EPA Method 9 and DCOT provide
comparable opacity results, the DCOT
provides better documentation,
including a permanent re-analyzable
photographic record of the opacity
determinations, which we believe will
be beneficial to both the industry and
the public. There is an advantage of
having better documentation in this
specific case where fugitive emissions
are driving the risk from the Ferroalloys
Production source category. In addition,
we disagree with the commenters
assertion that this methodology will not
work with this source category. Fugitive
emissions from this source category are
emitted through roof vents at the top of
the furnace buildings. Currently, the
facilities in this source category use EPA
Method 9 to measure opacity from the
roof vents. The EPA Method 9 opacity
method has procedures and
requirements for determining opacity
from roof vents and rectangular outlets,
which are the same procedures and
requirements used in the DCOT test
method (ASTM D7520–16). Because the
same procedures and requirements are
used to measure opacity from roof vents
from both these methods, we believe
that opacity can be measured from this
source category using the DCOT test
method. Therefore, we are maintaining
the requirement in the final rule that
facilities in this source category must
use the ASTM DCOT methodology to
demonstrate compliance with the
opacity standards and we are denying
the petitioners’ request to allow EPA
Method 9 as an alternative method for
determining compliance. However, we
are revising the final rule language to
replace the ASTM D7520–13 Standard
Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor
Ambient Atmosphere with the latest
revision of the method, ASTM D7520–
16. The ASTM D7520–13 method was
revised by removing the stack diameter
scope limitation along with editorial
corrections in April 2016. We believe
that this change will address the
commenter’s concerns specifically with
the 7 foot stack diameter scope
limitation in the ASTM D7520–13
method because the updated ASTM
D7520–16 method has removed that
limitation. However, fugitive emissions
from this source category are not
emitted from stacks with a diameter
greater than 7 feet, but from roof vents.
Therefore, we do not believe that the 7foot diameter limitation prevented us
from requiring the use of the ASTM
method for measuring opacity using
DCOT. As stated earlier in this section,
the ASTM D7520–16 method provides
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
the same approach for determining
opacity from nontraditional point
sources such as roof vents as would EPA
Method 9.
C. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces
Producing FeMn
In the reconsideration proposal (81 FR
45089), the EPA also reconsidered the
requirement for furnaces producing
FeMn to conduct PAH performance
testing every 3 months with an option
following the first year, to do annual
performance testing. The petitioner
stated that the PAH testing frequency for
furnaces producing FeMn in the
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238)
was every 5 years and that the quarterly
testing requirement was added in the
final rule. The petitioner also noted that
the change in PAH testing frequency
represents an increase in compliance
costs of $75,000 in the first year of
implementation and an increase of
$475,000 in compliance costs over the
first 5 years (assuming the facility is not
granted reduced frequency of testing
after the first year), in comparison to the
supplemental proposal PAH testing
requirement. The petitioner also argued
that if the EPA believes that the PAH
emissions dataset is inadequate to
establish a representative and reliable
MACT floor, the proper solution is to
collect additional data pursuant to CAA
section 114(a), rather than collecting
data through compliance tests. We
granted reconsideration on this issue to
provide an opportunity for public
comment on the PAH testing frequency
for furnaces producing FeMn. A
summary of the comments received on
this issue and the responses are
provided in the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses on
Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP Final Rule
available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
As we stated in the reconsideration
proposal (81 FR 45089), we received
additional PAH test data just 3 weeks
prior to the signature of the
supplemental proposal (which we were
not able to include in our analyses in
time for signature of the supplemental
proposal) and yet more data during the
comment period for the supplemental
proposal. This new data showed PAH
emissions from furnaces producing
FeMn were over 12 times higher in
concentration than previous test reports
submitted by the petitioner. As we
explained in the reconsideration
proposal, this data thus demonstrates
that PAH emissions from furnaces
producing FeMn are highly variable.
Moreover, PAH emissions are a major
source of cancer risks from these
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5405
furnaces. In the risk assessment
performed for the supplemental
proposal (79 FR 60238), we estimated
the maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk posed by actual emissions from the
ferroalloys production facilities was 20in-1 million, with PAH contributing 49
percent of the cancer risk.
Testing frequency is part of
verification that the limit is met. Stack
testing is an important tool used to
determine a facility’s compliance with
both initial and on-going compliance
with the CAA requirements. A highly
variable set of measurements on which
the limit is based leads to us to want
more certainty about the source’s
compliance with the limit, and such
certainty can be provided by more
frequent testing. Because of the
variability of the PAH emissions during
FeMn production, we believe that the
quarterly testing is appropriate for
ensuring compliance with the emission
limit and protecting human health.
Furthermore, as we explained in the
final rule and the reconsideration
proposal, we believe the quarterly
testing, along with the collection of
process information that a facility may
choose to collect voluntarily, could
provide data that would help facilities
learn what factors or conditions are
contributing to the quantity and
variation of PAH emissions. For
example, we believe the collection and
analyses of information about the
amounts and types of input materials,
types of electrodes used, electrode
consumption rates, furnace temperature,
and other furnace, process, or product
information may help facilities
understand what factors are associated
with the higher PAH emissions and
could provide insight regarding how to
limit these emissions. Furthermore, as
we described in the preamble of the
final rule (80 FR 37383), if a facility
decides to apply for a decreased
frequency of performance testing from
their permit authority, the type of
information described above could be
helpful input for such an application.
For these reasons, the quarterly
performance testing with an opportunity
after the first year for facilities to request
from their permitting authority a
decreased frequency to annual
performance testing is appropriate for
ensuring compliance with the PAH
emission limit and protecting human
health. The option for decreased
performance testing also provides an
incentive for the facilities to achieve
compliance with the PAH standards.
Therefore, we are not making any
changes to the PAH testing frequency
for furnaces producing FeMn.
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
5406
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Denial of Petition for
Reconsideration of FeMn and SiMn
PAH Emission Limits
In the final rule, the EPA set PAH
limits of 0.130 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) for
furnaces producing SiMn and 12 mg/
dscm for furnaces producing FeMn.
Both petitioners requested
reconsideration of these emission limits
and asserted that they did not have an
opportunity to comment on the limits.
The petitioners were concerned that
achieving these PAH emission limits
may require additional controls. The
petitioners also argued with how the
PAH emission limits were calculated.
The petitioners claimed that the EPA
used a normal data distribution to
determine the upper prediction limit
(UPL), but the data sets have lognormal
distributions. The petitioners further
claim that had the EPA used a
lognormal distribution, it would have
resulted in higher emission limits. In
addition, one petitioner argued that EPA
should not have excluded a 3-hour
single test run.
As stated in the preamble for the final
rule (80 FR 37366), the PAH emission
limits were re-evaluated in the final rule
to include PAH test data that were
received just prior to publication of the
supplemental proposal and during the
comment period for the supplemental
proposal. The expanded PAH test data
set was analyzed using the same
statistical procedures from the EPA’s
UPL memorandum used to calculate the
PAH emissions limits in the
supplemental proposal. Using the
statistical procedures from this
memorandum (which describes the
EPA’s established procedures for
calculating MACT floor limits), the PAH
data sets were determined to have a
normal distribution. Therefore, the UPL
equation for calculating the 99-percent
UPL was used to determine the PAH
emission limit. The EPA had already
provided adequate notice of the
analyses and application of the UPL in
the memorandum in the supplemental
proposal (79 FR 60238). With regard to
the 3-hour single test run the petitioner
referred to in their reconsideration
petition, we determined there were
quality assurance and control issues
with the laboratory analysis, and
therefore did not include these data in
the UPL analysis. The results of every
valid 3-run test provided by the
industry were below the final PAH
limits for both FeMn and SiMn
production. Therefore, we believe both
facilities should be able to comply with
these limits without the need for
additional add-on controls.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
Furthermore, EPA calculated the limits
using well established EPA policy and
procedures. At the time the EPA
published the supplemental proposal
(79 FR 60238, October 6, 2014), the EPA
made the existing PAH emissions data
and the methodologies used to calculate
the limits available for public comment.
The limits in the final rule were a
logical outgrowth of the limits in the
supplemental proposal as EPA made no
changes to the methodology used to
calculate the limits and simply
recalculated the limits after the addition
of the newly available data with the
previously received data. Therefore, we
have decided to deny reconsideration of
the PAH emission limits for both FeMn
and SiMn production furnaces. More
details are available in the Summary of
Public Comments and Responses on
Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP Final Rule in the
docket for this rulemaking.
V. Impacts Associated With This Final
Rule
We project that this rule will result in
no significant changes in costs, emission
reductions or benefits. Even though
there are changes to the costs, these
changes are small relative to the overall
costs and benefits of the 2015 final rule.
However, the costs for monitoring
baghouses will be lower than the costs
in the final rule due to the additional
option provided in this action to use
visible emissions monitoring to monitor
positive pressure baghouses as an
alternative to installing and operating a
BLDS.
A. What are the air impacts?
Even though we have allowed for an
alternative monitoring method to the
BLDS requirement for positive pressure
baghouses, we believe that this change
will result in no additional emissions
from the baghouses used to control
emissions from the furnace.
Accordingly, we believe that the final
rule will not result in significant
changes in emissions of any of the
regulated pollutants.
B. What are the energy impacts?
The changes to the final rule are
anticipated to have minimal effect on
the supply, distribution or use of
energy. As previously stated, we are
allowing for an alternative monitoring
method to the BLDS requirement for
positive pressure baghouses controlling
emissions from the furnace. By allowing
this alternative, we anticipate slightly
lower energy usage by the one facility
that uses this type of baghouse.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. What are the compliance costs?
We believe there will be no significant
change in compliance costs as a result
of the changes to the final rule.
However, as mentioned above, we
anticipate that one facility will have
moderately lower compliance costs due
to allowing an alternative monitoring
method for positive pressure baghouses.
We anticipate that the alternative
monitoring method will have an annual
cost of $38,000, whereas the annual
operating cost for a BLDS was estimated
to be $219,000. Overall, we anticipate
the Ferroalloys Production source
category will not incur significant
compliance costs or savings as a result
of the changes to the final rule.
D. What are the economic and
employment impacts?
We believe that there will be a slight
economic benefit to one of the facilities
due to allowing an alternative
monitoring method for positive pressure
baghouses. In the reconsideration
proposal, we estimated the capital cost
for the installation of BLDS for each
facility would be $269,100 and
annualized costs would be $219,000.
For this final action, based on
information received from the company,
we now estimate capital costs for the
BLDS for Felman would be $1.1 million
with annualized costs of $330,000. We
believe allowing an alternative
monitoring method for positive pressure
baghouses in this final action will
reduce the cost of complying with the
final rule for this facility. However, we
believe this final action will not have
any impacts on the price of electricity,
employment or labor markets or the U.S.
economy.
E. What are the benefits of the final
standards?
We do not anticipate any emission
changes, and therefore there are no
direct monetized benefits or disbenefits
associated with the changes to this final
rule.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0676. This action adds an
alternative monitoring requirement and
a revised test method, but does not
make revisions to the reporting
requirements in the final rule.
Therefore, this action does not change
the information collection requirements
previously finalized and, as a result,
does not impose any additional burden
on industry.
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The health risk assessments
completed for the final rule are
presented in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source
Category in Support of the 2015 Final
Rule document, which is available in
the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0895–0281), and are
discussed in Section V.G of the
preamble for the final rule (80 FR
37366).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This final action will
not impose any requirements on small
entities. The agency has determined that
neither of the companies affected by this
action is considered to be a small entity.
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys
production facilities that are owned or
operated by tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical
standards. The EPA decided to use
ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere,’’ for measuring opacity
from the shop buildings. The ASTM
D7520–16 is a method to assess opacity
whereby a Digital Still Camera is used
to capture a set of digital images of a
plume against a contrasting background.
Each image is analyzed with software
that determines plume opacity by
comparing a user defined portion of the
plume image where opacity is being
measured in comparison to the
background providing the contrasting
values. The Analysis Software is used to
average the opacities from the series of
digital images taken of the plume over
a fixed period of time. The software is
also used to archive the image set
utilized for each opacity determination
including the portion of each image
selected by the operator. Each DCOT
vendor shall provide training for
operators of their DCOT system. The
training shall include the content of the
‘‘Principles of Visual Emissions
Measurements and Procedures to
Evaluate those Emissions Using the
Digital Camera Optical Technique
(DCOT)’’ and a description of how to
operate that specific DCOT system that
passed smoke school. This standard is
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
9 and is available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959.
See https://www.astm.org/.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5407
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment because it only
provides an alternative monitoring
provision and revised test method that
will not affect the emission standards
that were finalized on June 30, 2015.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 28, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency is amending title 40, chapter I,
part 63 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) as follows:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(96)
through (h)(104) as (h)(97) through
(h)(105), respectively; and
■ b. Adding new paragraph (h)(96).
■
■
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(96) ASTM D7520–16, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere, approved April 1, 2016,
IBR approved for §§ 63.1625(b).
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
5408
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart XXX—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Ferroalloys Production:
Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese
3. Section 63.1625 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(9)
introductory text, (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii), and
(b)(9)(v); and
■ b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)
through (iv).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 63.1625 What are the performance test
and compliance requirements for new,
reconstructed, and existing facilities?
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(9) ASTM D7520–16 to determine
opacity (incorporated by reference, see
§ 63.14) with the following conditions:
(i) During the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) certification
procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of
ASTM D7520–16, you or the DCOT
vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue
sky, trees and mixed backgrounds
(clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) You must have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or
other frequency quality checks to ensure
the equipment is within manufacturing
specifications as outlined in Section 8.1
of ASTM D7520–16.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Use of this method does not
provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor’s hardware or
software. The onus to maintain and
verify the certification and/or training of
the DCOT camera, software and operator
in accordance with ASTM D7520–16
and these requirements is on the
facility, DCOT operator and DCOT
vendor.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) You must conduct the opacity
observations according to ASTM
D7520–16 (incorporated by reference,
see § 63.14), for a period that includes
at least one complete furnace process
cycle for each furnace.
(iii) For a shop building that contains
more than one furnace, you must
conduct the opacity observations
according to ASTM D7520–16 for a
period that includes one tapping period
from each furnace located in the shop
building.
(iv) You must conduct the opacity
observations according to ASTM
D7520–16 for a 1-hour period that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
includes at least one pouring for each
MOR located in the shop building.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 63.1626 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text and (c)(1);
■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (d)
through (o) as paragraphs (e) through
(p), respectively;
■ c. Adding new paragraph (d);
■ d. Republishing the heading of
redesignated paragraph (e), and revising
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3) introductory
text, (e)(4) introductory text, and
(e)(4)(ii);
■ e. Revising redesignated paragraph (h)
introductory text;
■ f. Revising redesignated paragraph (j)
introductory text;
■ g. Revising redesignated paragraph (k)
introductory text; and
■ h. Revising redesignated paragraph (p)
introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 63.1626 What monitoring requirements
must I meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) For an existing positive pressure
baghouse used to control emissions
from an electric arc furnace that is not
equipped with a bag leak detection
system, you must specify in the
standard operating procedures manual
for inspections and routine
maintenance, at a minimum, the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must visually inspect the
outlet of each baghouse using Method
22 on a twice daily basis (at least 4
hours apart) for evidence of any visible
emissions indicating abnormal
operations and must initiate corrective
actions within 1 hour of any visible
emissions that indicates abnormal
operation. Corrective actions shall
include, at a minimum, isolating,
shutting down and conducting an
internal inspection of the baghouse
compartment that is the source of the
visible emissions that indicate abnormal
operations.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) For all other non-furnace
baghouses that are not equipped with
bag leak detection or CEMS, the
procedures that you specify in the
standard operating procedures manual
for inspections and routine maintenance
must, at a minimum, include the
requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) You must observe the baghouse
outlet on a daily basis for the presence
of any visible emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) In addition to the daily visible
emissions observation, you must
conduct the following activities:
(i) Weekly confirmation that dust is
being removed from hoppers through
visual inspection, or equivalent means
of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(ii) Daily check of compressed air
supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(iii) An appropriate methodology for
monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure
proper operation.
(iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning
mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent
means.
(v) Quarterly visual check of bag
tension on reverse air and shaker-type
baghouses to ensure that the bags are
not kinked (kneed or bent) or lying on
their sides. Such checks are not required
for shaker-type baghouses using selftensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(vi) Quarterly confirmation of the
physical integrity of the baghouse
structure through visual inspection of
the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for
wear, material buildup and corrosion
through visual inspection, vibration
detectors, or equivalent means.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Bag leak detection system. (1) For
each baghouse used to control emissions
from an electric arc furnace, you must
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak
detection system according to
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this
section, unless a system meeting the
requirements of paragraph (p) of this
section, for a CEMS and continuous
emissions rate monitoring system, is
installed for monitoring the
concentration of particulate matter, or
an existing positive pressure baghouse
used to control emissions from an
electric arc furnaces that is subject to
paragraph (c) of this section. You may
choose to install, operate, and maintain
a bag leak detection system for any other
baghouse in operation at the facility
according to paragraphs (e)(2) through
(4) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Each bag leak detection system
must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)
through (viii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) You must include in the standard
operating procedures manual required
by paragraph (a) of this section a
corrective action plan that specifies the
procedures to be followed in the case of
a bag leak detection system alarm. The
corrective action plan must include, at
a minimum, the procedures that you
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
will use to determine and record the
time and cause of the alarm as well as
the corrective actions taken to minimize
emissions as specified in paragraphs
(e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The cause of the alarm must be
alleviated by taking the necessary
corrective action(s) that may include,
but not be limited to, those listed in
paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) through (F) of
this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Shop building opacity. In order to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the opacity standards in § 63.1623,
you must comply with the requirements
§ 63.1625(d)(1) and one of the
monitoring options in paragraphs (h)(1)
or (2) of this section. The selected
option must be consistent with that
selected during the initial performance
test described in § 63.1625(d)(2).
Alternatively, you may use the
provisions of § 63.8(f) to request
approval to use an alternative
monitoring method.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Requirements for sources using
CMS. If you demonstrate compliance
with any applicable emissions limit
through use of a continuous monitoring
system (CMS), where a CMS includes a
continuous parameter monitoring
system (CPMS) as well as a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS),
you must develop a site-specific
monitoring plan and submit this sitespecific monitoring plan, if requested, at
least 60 days before your initial
performance evaluation (where
applicable) of your CMS. Your sitespecific monitoring plan must address
the monitoring system design, data
collection and the quality assurance and
quality control elements outlined in this
paragraph and in § 63.8(d). You must
install, operate and maintain each CMS
according to the procedures in your
approved site-specific monitoring plan.
Using the process described in
§ 63.8(f)(4), you may request approval of
monitoring system quality assurance
and quality control procedures
alternative to those specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (6) of this
section in your site-specific monitoring
plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) If you have an operating limit that
requires the use of a CPMS, you must
install, operate and maintain each
continuous parameter monitoring
system according to the procedures in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (7) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
(p) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you
are using a CEMS to measure particulate
matter emissions to meet requirements
of this subpart, you must install, certify,
operate and maintain the particulate
matter CEMS as specified in paragraphs
(p)(1) through (4) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 63.1656 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(7) introductory
text, (b)(7)(i) and (ii), and (b)(7)(v) to
read as follows:
§ 63.1656 Performance testing, test
methods, and compliance demonstrations.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(7) Method 9 of appendix A–4 of 40
CFR part 60 to determine opacity.
ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of
a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere’’ may be used (incorporated
by reference, see § 63.14) with the
following conditions:
(i) During the digital camera opacity
technique (DCOT) certification
procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of
ASTM D7520–16, the owner or operator
or the DCOT vendor must present the
plumes in front of various backgrounds
of color and contrast representing
conditions anticipated during field use
such as blue sky, trees and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse
tree stand).
(ii) The owner or operator must also
have standard operating procedures in
place including daily or other frequency
quality checks to ensure the equipment
is within manufacturing specifications
as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM
D7520–16.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Use of this approved alternative
does not provide or imply a certification
or validation of any vendor’s hardware
or software. The onus to maintain and
verify the certification and/or training of
the DCOT camera, software and operator
in accordance with ASTM D7520–16
and these requirements is on the
facility, DCOT operator and DCOT
vendor.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–00156 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0829; FRL–9956–85]
Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
5409
Final rule.
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of acequinocyl in
or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. Interregional Project Number
4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
January 18, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before March 20, 2017, and must
be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0829, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5401-5409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00156]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895; 9958-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS90
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Ferroalloys Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action sets forth the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) final decision on the issues for which it announced
reconsideration on July 12, 2016, that pertain to certain aspects of
the June 30, 2015, final amendments for the Ferroalloys Production
source category regulated under national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is amending the rule to
allow existing facilities with positive pressure baghouses to perform
visible emissions monitoring twice daily as an alternative to
installing and operating bag leak detection systems (BLDS) to ensure
the baghouses are operating properly. In addition, this final action
explains that EPA is maintaining the requirement that facilities must
use a digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) method to demonstrate
compliance with opacity limits. However, this final action revises the
rule such that it references the recently updated version of the DCOT
method. In this action, the EPA also explains that no changes are being
made regarding the rule provision that requires quarterly polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) emission testing for furnaces producing
ferromanganese (FeMn) with an opportunity for facilities to request
decreased compliance test frequency from their permitting authority
after the first year. Furthermore, in this action, the EPA is denying
the request for reconsideration of the PAH emission limits for both
FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn) production furnaces.
DATES: This final action is effective on January 18, 2017. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 18,
2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID
[[Page 5402]]
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. All documents are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5289; fax number:
(919) 541-3207; email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of this Document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
A. Alternative Monitoring for Existing Positive Pressure
Baghouses
B. DCOT Compliance Demonstration and Revised DCOT Test Method
C. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn
IV. Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of FeMn and SiMn PAH
Emission Limits
V. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule
A. What are the air impacts?
B. What are the energy impacts?
C. What are the compliance costs?
D. What are the economic and employment impacts?
E. What are the benefits of the final standards?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \a\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroalloys Production................................. 331112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys
Production). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this final action to a particular entity, consult either the air
permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).
B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
The docket number for this final action regarding the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX) is Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0895.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this document will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW).
Following signature, a copy of this document will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/ferromanganese-and-silicomanganese-production-national-emission.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by March 20, 2017. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ``[i]f the
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that
it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for
public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s)
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and
the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office,
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information
The EPA published a final residual risk and technology review (RTR)
rule for the Ferroalloys Production source category in the Federal
Register on June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37366), which included, among other
things, the following:
Revisions to the emission limits for particulate matter
(PM) from stacks for the electric arc furnaces, metal oxygen refining
(MOR) processes, and crushing and screening operations to minimize PM
emissions from these units;
Emission limits for four previously unregulated hazardous
air pollutants
[[Page 5403]]
(HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, mercury, and PAH;
Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using
effective, enhanced local capture, and duct the captured emissions to
control devices;
An average opacity limit of 8 percent during a full
furnace cycle and a maximum opacity limit of 20 percent for any two
consecutive 6-minute periods to ensure effective capture and control of
process fugitive emissions;
A requirement to conduct opacity observations using the
DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating
furnace and each MOR operation for at least 26 weeks. After 26 weeks,
if all tests are compliant, facilities can decrease to monthly opacity
observations;
A requirement to use BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all
furnace baghouses; and
A requirement to conduct periodic performance testing to
demonstrate compliance with the stack emission limits for the various
HAP, including a requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3
months for furnaces producing FeMn with the opportunity to reduce to
annual testing after the first year.
Following promulgation of the final rule, the EPA received two
petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the NESHAP
pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA received a petition dated
August 25, 2015, from Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and a petition
dated August 28, 2015, from Felman Production LLC (Felman). In the
petition submitted by Eramet, the company requested the EPA reconsider
the following issues: (1) The requirement to conduct PAH performance
testing every 3 months for furnaces producing FeMn; (2) the requirement
to demonstrate compliance weekly with shop building opacity limits
using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) DCOT test
method; and (3) the PAH emission limits for existing furnaces producing
FeMn and SiMn. In addition, Eramet requested a stay of 90 days from the
effective date of the final amendments pending completion of the
reconsideration proceeding. In the petition submitted by Felman, the
company stated that it supported and adopted the petition submitted by
Eramet and requested reconsideration of the requirement to use BLDS to
monitor emissions from positive pressure baghouses. Copies of the
petitions are provided in the docket (see EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895).
On November 5, 2015, the EPA sent letters to the petitioners
granting reconsideration of two issues: The PAH testing compliance
frequency issue raised by Eramet and the use of BLDS on positive
pressure baghouses raised by Felman. In those letters, the EPA said it
was still reviewing the other issues and intended to take final action
on those when it took final action on BLDS and PAH testing frequency.
The agency also stated in the letters that a proposed Federal Register
notice would be issued initiating the reconsideration process for the
issues that the EPA is granting reconsideration. The EPA published the
proposed notice of reconsideration in the Federal Register on July 12,
2016 (81 FR 45089).
In addition to the two requirements mentioned above (i.e., PAH
testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn and the use of BLDS to
monitor PM emissions from positive pressure baghouses), the EPA also
granted reconsideration of a third issue in the reconsideration
proposal notice (81 FR 45089): the requirement to use DCOT in
accordance with ASTM D7520-13 to demonstrate compliance with shop
building opacity standards. However, for each of these three
requirements, after further analyses, evaluation, and consideration, we
explained in the reconsideration proposal notice that we continued to
believe these requirements were appropriate. Therefore, we did not
propose any changes to these requirements. Instead, we provided further
discussion and explanation as to why we believed it was appropriate to
maintain these requirements in the rule, provided additional technical
information to the record, and requested comment on the three
requirements for which the EPA granted reconsideration.
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
After reviewing and considering all the public comments received in
response to the reconsideration proposal, the EPA has decided to amend
the baghouse monitoring requirements to allow existing facilities with
positive pressure baghouses to perform visible emissions monitoring
twice daily using Method 22 as an alternative to using BLDS. In
addition, although EPA is maintaining the requirement to use DCOT to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards, this final action
amends the references to the ASTM DCOT test method in the opacity
monitoring requirements to the recently updated version of the method
(ASTM D7520-16). The EPA is also maintaining the quarterly PAH emission
testing requirement for furnaces producing FeMn with an opportunity for
facilities to request decreased compliance test frequency from their
permitting authority after the first year. Each of these issues is
discussed in more detail in this section of the preamble.
A. Alternative Monitoring for Existing Positive Pressure Baghouses
In their petition for reconsideration, one petitioner (Felman)
objected to the EPA's requirement to use BLDS for positive pressure
baghouses. The petitioner pointed out that the EPA's own guidance \1\
indicates that BLDS are not appropriate for use on a positive pressure
baghouse, given the different configurations of these types of units.
The petitioner commented that although the EPA stated that it had
knowledge of BLDS in operation on positive pressure baghouses, the EPA
did not provide any specific examples. In addition, the petitioner
claimed the EPA had not evaluated the costs associated with the
application of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses but instead simply
estimated the cost to be comparable with BLDS for negative pressure
baghouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015,
September 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their comments on the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089),
the petitioner stated that the EPA's supporting documents did not
provide any examples of BLDS in operation on positive pressure
baghouses comparable to those used at the petitioner's facility, which
are low airflow and use natural-draft openings instead of stacks. The
petitioner provided cost quotes from vendors of $1.1 million to install
the BLDS and make the necessary structural improvements (including a
catwalk system) to support the operation of the BLDS.
In light of the petitioner's assertions, we re-evaluated the BLDS
requirement for positive pressure baghouses. While we maintain that
BLDS can be installed and operated on positive pressure baghouses, we
agree that, due to their particular circumstances, it would be
difficult to retrofit this facility based on the specific design of
their positive pressure baghouses. Furthermore, we agree that
installing BLDS and the associated infrastructure would not be cost
effective. In our analysis for the proposal, we estimated the capital
cost of installing BLDS on the three positive pressure baghouses to be
$269,100, with annualized costs of $219,000. However, we did not
include any additional costs for structural improvements to support
BLDS on these baghouses. The petitioner provided a cost estimate of
[[Page 5404]]
$870,000 for structural improvements to install BLDS on their three
baghouses. Given this additional information, we now estimate the
capital costs would be about $1.1 million, and annualized costs would
be $330,000. Because of the structural modifications needed to install
BLDS, the higher annualized costs and the potential technical issues on
this particular control configuration at Felman, it would be
unreasonable to require BLDS as the sole method for monitoring positive
pressure baghouses in this rule. Nevertheless, we believe the baghouses
need to be monitored on a regular basis to ensure they are operating as
intended and that there are no tears or holes in the bags. Therefore,
we have revised the rule to allow for an alternative monitoring method
to the BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses used to control
emissions from an electric arc furnace. We are allowing twice daily
visual monitoring of the outlet of each furnace baghouse using Method
22 for evidence of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operations
as an alternative to BLDS. We believe this revision will reduce the
cost burden associated with monitoring the positive pressure baghouses
used to control emissions from the furnaces and avoid possible
technical issues, but still provide assurance that the baghouses are
functioning correctly and controlling metal HAP emissions from the
furnaces. More details are available in the Summary of Public Comments
and Responses on Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP
Final Rule in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. DCOT Compliance Demonstration and Revised DCOT Test Method
In the June 30, 2015, final rule (80 FR 37366), we finalized
opacity standards for process fugitive emissions from the furnace
buildings and required the use of DCOT and the ASTM D7520-13 test
method to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards. In their
petitions for reconsideration, Eramet and Felman objected to the use of
DCOT in lieu of EPA Method 9 and stated that the EPA did not propose
DCOT as the only method for demonstrating compliance with the opacity
standards. The petitioners argued that DCOT was an unproven substitute
for EPA Method 9 to measure opacity from emission sources and that
variability in plume location and orientation at the ferroalloy
production buildings would make DCOT infeasible at their facilities.
The petitioners also noted that the ASTM test method only applies to
stack openings of 7 feet in diameter or less and that DCOT is only
provided by one vendor.
In their comments on the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089),
several commenters objected to the use of DCOT as the sole method for
opacity compliance and stated that the EPA should allow the option of
using EPA Method 9. The commenters argue that DCOT is limited to
stationary point sources and not fugitive emissions, and they pointed
out that the supporting data for DCOT are all from studies performed on
stationary point sources and not long, open vent sources such as those
at the Eramet facility. A few commenters had concerns with the
timeliness of the opacity determinations and the accuracy of the
results. The commenters were also concerned that there is currently
only one vendor of DCOT and that the EPA should not choose vendors for
an entire industry.
On the other hand, a few commenters were supportive of the use of
the DCOT. In the opinion of one commenter, DCOT is comparable to Method
9 observations, on all shapes, sizes, types of sources, and that DCOT
is configurable with all types of cameras to tailor the implementation
at the shop/building level to support cost-effective and efficient
observations.
Another commenter explained that strong monitoring, testing and
compliance measures are an essential part of the emission standards,
and that the use of these measures also increases the incentive for
sources to comply with the standards. The commenter states that EPA's
requirement for DCOT is consistent with and an important way to
implement EPA's ``next generation compliance.'' The commenter notes
that the EPA's next generation compliance policy includes, among other
things, the following: (1) Use and promotion of advanced emissions/
pollutant detection technology so that regulated entities, the
government, and the public can more easily see pollutant discharges,
environmental conditions, and noncompliance; (2) expanded transparency
by making information more accessible to the public; and (3)
development and use of innovative enforcement approaches (e.g., data
analytics and targeting) to achieve more widespread compliance.
Other comments and responses on DCOT can be found in the Summary of
Public Comments and Responses on Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys
Production NESHAP Final Rule in the docket for this rulemaking.
Based on the information provided by the petitioners and the
commenters, we re-evaluated the DCOT opacity monitoring requirement and
determined that DCOT is still an appropriate method for determining
opacity from the shop buildings for this source category.
As explained in the initial proposal (76 FR 72508), supplemental
proposal (79 FR 60238), and in the 2015 final rule (80 FR 37366),
process fugitive emissions from the shop buildings are a significant
source of risk from the production of ferroalloys. In each of these
three actions, we concluded risks were unacceptable, largely driven by
process fugitive emissions of air toxics metals.
To reduce risks to acceptable levels and protect the public with an
ample margin of safety, in the initial proposal, we proposed facilities
would need to install and operate full building enclosures to capture
and control fugitive emissions. In response to the initial proposal,
industry commented that full building enclosure requirement would be
very costly and difficult to implement, and suggested an alternative
approach using localized capture equipment to reduce fugitive emissions
from the shop buildings. Modeling of the localized capture approach
indicated that similar reductions in risk could be achieved, making
this option more feasible and at significantly lower cost than full
building enclosure. Based on these modeling results and consideration
of costs and feasibility, we proposed the localized capture approach to
significantly reduce fugitive emissions from the shop buildings in the
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238), and finalized this approach in the
2015 final rule (80 FR 37366). Specifically, the final rule requires
facilities to install, maintain and operate a system designed to
effectively capture and control process fugitive emissions.
Furthermore, for this rule, opacity standards are the main compliance
approach to ensure the process fugitive emissions are effectively
captured and controlled on a continuous basis, and that the public is
protected with ample margin of safety. Since process fugitive emissions
were the main contributor to the unacceptable risks at baseline, and
since opacity is the main tool to ensure these process fugitive
emissions are effectively captured and controlled and that the public
is protected with an ample margin of safety, we finalized requirements
for the use of DCOT to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standard
in the June 30, 2015, final rule (80 FR 37366).
The DCOT provides a photographic record of each of the opacity
readings. In addition, the photographs are evaluated by a third party
and the opacity is determined by the degree the plume reduces the
transmitted light and obscures the background. While we
[[Page 5405]]
believe, based on validation studies, that EPA Method 9 and DCOT
provide comparable opacity results, the DCOT provides better
documentation, including a permanent re-analyzable photographic record
of the opacity determinations, which we believe will be beneficial to
both the industry and the public. There is an advantage of having
better documentation in this specific case where fugitive emissions are
driving the risk from the Ferroalloys Production source category. In
addition, we disagree with the commenters assertion that this
methodology will not work with this source category. Fugitive emissions
from this source category are emitted through roof vents at the top of
the furnace buildings. Currently, the facilities in this source
category use EPA Method 9 to measure opacity from the roof vents. The
EPA Method 9 opacity method has procedures and requirements for
determining opacity from roof vents and rectangular outlets, which are
the same procedures and requirements used in the DCOT test method (ASTM
D7520-16). Because the same procedures and requirements are used to
measure opacity from roof vents from both these methods, we believe
that opacity can be measured from this source category using the DCOT
test method. Therefore, we are maintaining the requirement in the final
rule that facilities in this source category must use the ASTM DCOT
methodology to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards and we
are denying the petitioners' request to allow EPA Method 9 as an
alternative method for determining compliance. However, we are revising
the final rule language to replace the ASTM D7520-13 Standard Test
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient
Atmosphere with the latest revision of the method, ASTM D7520-16. The
ASTM D7520-13 method was revised by removing the stack diameter scope
limitation along with editorial corrections in April 2016. We believe
that this change will address the commenter's concerns specifically
with the 7 foot stack diameter scope limitation in the ASTM D7520-13
method because the updated ASTM D7520-16 method has removed that
limitation. However, fugitive emissions from this source category are
not emitted from stacks with a diameter greater than 7 feet, but from
roof vents. Therefore, we do not believe that the 7-foot diameter
limitation prevented us from requiring the use of the ASTM method for
measuring opacity using DCOT. As stated earlier in this section, the
ASTM D7520-16 method provides the same approach for determining opacity
from nontraditional point sources such as roof vents as would EPA
Method 9.
C. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn
In the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089), the EPA also
reconsidered the requirement for furnaces producing FeMn to conduct PAH
performance testing every 3 months with an option following the first
year, to do annual performance testing. The petitioner stated that the
PAH testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn in the supplemental
proposal (79 FR 60238) was every 5 years and that the quarterly testing
requirement was added in the final rule. The petitioner also noted that
the change in PAH testing frequency represents an increase in
compliance costs of $75,000 in the first year of implementation and an
increase of $475,000 in compliance costs over the first 5 years
(assuming the facility is not granted reduced frequency of testing
after the first year), in comparison to the supplemental proposal PAH
testing requirement. The petitioner also argued that if the EPA
believes that the PAH emissions dataset is inadequate to establish a
representative and reliable MACT floor, the proper solution is to
collect additional data pursuant to CAA section 114(a), rather than
collecting data through compliance tests. We granted reconsideration on
this issue to provide an opportunity for public comment on the PAH
testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn. A summary of the
comments received on this issue and the responses are provided in the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Reconsideration of the
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP Final Rule available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
As we stated in the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089), we
received additional PAH test data just 3 weeks prior to the signature
of the supplemental proposal (which we were not able to include in our
analyses in time for signature of the supplemental proposal) and yet
more data during the comment period for the supplemental proposal. This
new data showed PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn were over 12
times higher in concentration than previous test reports submitted by
the petitioner. As we explained in the reconsideration proposal, this
data thus demonstrates that PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn
are highly variable. Moreover, PAH emissions are a major source of
cancer risks from these furnaces. In the risk assessment performed for
the supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238), we estimated the maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by actual emissions from the
ferroalloys production facilities was 20-in-1 million, with PAH
contributing 49 percent of the cancer risk.
Testing frequency is part of verification that the limit is met.
Stack testing is an important tool used to determine a facility's
compliance with both initial and on-going compliance with the CAA
requirements. A highly variable set of measurements on which the limit
is based leads to us to want more certainty about the source's
compliance with the limit, and such certainty can be provided by more
frequent testing. Because of the variability of the PAH emissions
during FeMn production, we believe that the quarterly testing is
appropriate for ensuring compliance with the emission limit and
protecting human health.
Furthermore, as we explained in the final rule and the
reconsideration proposal, we believe the quarterly testing, along with
the collection of process information that a facility may choose to
collect voluntarily, could provide data that would help facilities
learn what factors or conditions are contributing to the quantity and
variation of PAH emissions. For example, we believe the collection and
analyses of information about the amounts and types of input materials,
types of electrodes used, electrode consumption rates, furnace
temperature, and other furnace, process, or product information may
help facilities understand what factors are associated with the higher
PAH emissions and could provide insight regarding how to limit these
emissions. Furthermore, as we described in the preamble of the final
rule (80 FR 37383), if a facility decides to apply for a decreased
frequency of performance testing from their permit authority, the type
of information described above could be helpful input for such an
application. For these reasons, the quarterly performance testing with
an opportunity after the first year for facilities to request from
their permitting authority a decreased frequency to annual performance
testing is appropriate for ensuring compliance with the PAH emission
limit and protecting human health. The option for decreased performance
testing also provides an incentive for the facilities to achieve
compliance with the PAH standards. Therefore, we are not making any
changes to the PAH testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn.
[[Page 5406]]
IV. Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of FeMn and SiMn PAH
Emission Limits
In the final rule, the EPA set PAH limits of 0.130 milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) for furnaces producing SiMn and 12
mg/dscm for furnaces producing FeMn. Both petitioners requested
reconsideration of these emission limits and asserted that they did not
have an opportunity to comment on the limits. The petitioners were
concerned that achieving these PAH emission limits may require
additional controls. The petitioners also argued with how the PAH
emission limits were calculated. The petitioners claimed that the EPA
used a normal data distribution to determine the upper prediction limit
(UPL), but the data sets have lognormal distributions. The petitioners
further claim that had the EPA used a lognormal distribution, it would
have resulted in higher emission limits. In addition, one petitioner
argued that EPA should not have excluded a 3-hour single test run.
As stated in the preamble for the final rule (80 FR 37366), the PAH
emission limits were re-evaluated in the final rule to include PAH test
data that were received just prior to publication of the supplemental
proposal and during the comment period for the supplemental proposal.
The expanded PAH test data set was analyzed using the same statistical
procedures from the EPA's UPL memorandum used to calculate the PAH
emissions limits in the supplemental proposal. Using the statistical
procedures from this memorandum (which describes the EPA's established
procedures for calculating MACT floor limits), the PAH data sets were
determined to have a normal distribution. Therefore, the UPL equation
for calculating the 99-percent UPL was used to determine the PAH
emission limit. The EPA had already provided adequate notice of the
analyses and application of the UPL in the memorandum in the
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238). With regard to the 3-hour single
test run the petitioner referred to in their reconsideration petition,
we determined there were quality assurance and control issues with the
laboratory analysis, and therefore did not include these data in the
UPL analysis. The results of every valid 3-run test provided by the
industry were below the final PAH limits for both FeMn and SiMn
production. Therefore, we believe both facilities should be able to
comply with these limits without the need for additional add-on
controls. Furthermore, EPA calculated the limits using well established
EPA policy and procedures. At the time the EPA published the
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 2014), the EPA made the
existing PAH emissions data and the methodologies used to calculate the
limits available for public comment. The limits in the final rule were
a logical outgrowth of the limits in the supplemental proposal as EPA
made no changes to the methodology used to calculate the limits and
simply recalculated the limits after the addition of the newly
available data with the previously received data. Therefore, we have
decided to deny reconsideration of the PAH emission limits for both
FeMn and SiMn production furnaces. More details are available in the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Reconsideration of the
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP Final Rule in the docket for this
rulemaking.
V. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule
We project that this rule will result in no significant changes in
costs, emission reductions or benefits. Even though there are changes
to the costs, these changes are small relative to the overall costs and
benefits of the 2015 final rule. However, the costs for monitoring
baghouses will be lower than the costs in the final rule due to the
additional option provided in this action to use visible emissions
monitoring to monitor positive pressure baghouses as an alternative to
installing and operating a BLDS.
A. What are the air impacts?
Even though we have allowed for an alternative monitoring method to
the BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses, we believe that
this change will result in no additional emissions from the baghouses
used to control emissions from the furnace. Accordingly, we believe
that the final rule will not result in significant changes in emissions
of any of the regulated pollutants.
B. What are the energy impacts?
The changes to the final rule are anticipated to have minimal
effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. As previously
stated, we are allowing for an alternative monitoring method to the
BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses controlling emissions
from the furnace. By allowing this alternative, we anticipate slightly
lower energy usage by the one facility that uses this type of baghouse.
C. What are the compliance costs?
We believe there will be no significant change in compliance costs
as a result of the changes to the final rule. However, as mentioned
above, we anticipate that one facility will have moderately lower
compliance costs due to allowing an alternative monitoring method for
positive pressure baghouses. We anticipate that the alternative
monitoring method will have an annual cost of $38,000, whereas the
annual operating cost for a BLDS was estimated to be $219,000. Overall,
we anticipate the Ferroalloys Production source category will not incur
significant compliance costs or savings as a result of the changes to
the final rule.
D. What are the economic and employment impacts?
We believe that there will be a slight economic benefit to one of
the facilities due to allowing an alternative monitoring method for
positive pressure baghouses. In the reconsideration proposal, we
estimated the capital cost for the installation of BLDS for each
facility would be $269,100 and annualized costs would be $219,000. For
this final action, based on information received from the company, we
now estimate capital costs for the BLDS for Felman would be $1.1
million with annualized costs of $330,000. We believe allowing an
alternative monitoring method for positive pressure baghouses in this
final action will reduce the cost of complying with the final rule for
this facility. However, we believe this final action will not have any
impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets or the
U.S. economy.
E. What are the benefits of the final standards?
We do not anticipate any emission changes, and therefore there are
no direct monetized benefits or disbenefits associated with the changes
to this final rule.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
[[Page 5407]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0676. This action adds an alternative monitoring
requirement and a revised test method, but does not make revisions to
the reporting requirements in the final rule. Therefore, this action
does not change the information collection requirements previously
finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on
industry.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
final action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
agency has determined that neither of the companies affected by this
action is considered to be a small entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys production facilities
that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The health risk assessments completed for the final rule are
presented in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source
Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule document, which is available
in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0281), and are
discussed in Section V.G of the preamble for the final rule (80 FR
37366).
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA decided to use
ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a
Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,'' for measuring opacity from
the shop buildings. The ASTM D7520-16 is a method to assess opacity
whereby a Digital Still Camera is used to capture a set of digital
images of a plume against a contrasting background. Each image is
analyzed with software that determines plume opacity by comparing a
user defined portion of the plume image where opacity is being measured
in comparison to the background providing the contrasting values. The
Analysis Software is used to average the opacities from the series of
digital images taken of the plume over a fixed period of time. The
software is also used to archive the image set utilized for each
opacity determination including the portion of each image selected by
the operator. Each DCOT vendor shall provide training for operators of
their DCOT system. The training shall include the content of the
``Principles of Visual Emissions Measurements and Procedures to
Evaluate those Emissions Using the Digital Camera Optical Technique
(DCOT)'' and a description of how to operate that specific DCOT system
that passed smoke school. This standard is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 9 and is available from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment because it only provides an alternative
monitoring provision and revised test method that will not affect the
emission standards that were finalized on June 30, 2015.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 28, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(96) through (h)(104) as (h)(97) through
(h)(105), respectively; and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (h)(96).
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(96) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1625(b).
* * * * *
[[Page 5408]]
Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and
Silicomanganese
0
3. Section 63.1625 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(9) introductory text, (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii),
and (b)(9)(v); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) through (iv).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1625 What are the performance test and compliance
requirements for new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) ASTM D7520-16 to determine opacity (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14) with the following conditions:
(i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated
during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed backgrounds (clouds
and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) You must have standard operating procedures in place including
daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is
within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM
D7520-16.
* * * * *
(v) Use of this method does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and these
requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM
D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), for a period
that includes at least one complete furnace process cycle for each
furnace.
(iii) For a shop building that contains more than one furnace, you
must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM D7520-16 for a
period that includes one tapping period from each furnace located in
the shop building.
(iv) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM
D7520-16 for a 1-hour period that includes at least one pouring for
each MOR located in the shop building.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1626 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (o) as paragraphs (e) through
(p), respectively;
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d);
0
d. Republishing the heading of redesignated paragraph (e), and revising
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3) introductory text, (e)(4) introductory text,
and (e)(4)(ii);
0
e. Revising redesignated paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
f. Revising redesignated paragraph (j) introductory text;
0
g. Revising redesignated paragraph (k) introductory text; and
0
h. Revising redesignated paragraph (p) introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1626 What monitoring requirements must I meet?
* * * * *
(c) For an existing positive pressure baghouse used to control
emissions from an electric arc furnace that is not equipped with a bag
leak detection system, you must specify in the standard operating
procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance, at a
minimum, the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must visually inspect the outlet of each baghouse using
Method 22 on a twice daily basis (at least 4 hours apart) for evidence
of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operations and must
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of any visible emissions that
indicates abnormal operation. Corrective actions shall include, at a
minimum, isolating, shutting down and conducting an internal inspection
of the baghouse compartment that is the source of the visible emissions
that indicate abnormal operations.
* * * * *
(d) For all other non-furnace baghouses that are not equipped with
bag leak detection or CEMS, the procedures that you specify in the
standard operating procedures manual for inspections and routine
maintenance must, at a minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must observe the baghouse outlet on a daily basis for the
presence of any visible emissions.
(2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, you
must conduct the following activities:
(i) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(ii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(iii) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper
functioning through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(v) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that the bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. Such checks are not required for shaker-
type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
(vi) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the
baghouse structure through visual inspection of the baghouse interior
for air leaks.
(vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup and
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent
means.
* * * * *
(e) Bag leak detection system. (1) For each baghouse used to
control emissions from an electric arc furnace, you must install,
operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section, unless a system meeting
the requirements of paragraph (p) of this section, for a CEMS and
continuous emissions rate monitoring system, is installed for
monitoring the concentration of particulate matter, or an existing
positive pressure baghouse used to control emissions from an electric
arc furnaces that is subject to paragraph (c) of this section. You may
choose to install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system
for any other baghouse in operation at the facility according to
paragraphs (e)(2) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual
required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that
specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a
minimum, the procedures that you
[[Page 5409]]
will use to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm as
well as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as specified
in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to,
those listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section.
* * * * *
(h) Shop building opacity. In order to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the opacity standards in Sec. 63.1623, you must comply
with the requirements Sec. 63.1625(d)(1) and one of the monitoring
options in paragraphs (h)(1) or (2) of this section. The selected
option must be consistent with that selected during the initial
performance test described in Sec. 63.1625(d)(2). Alternatively, you
may use the provisions of Sec. 63.8(f) to request approval to use an
alternative monitoring method.
* * * * *
(j) Requirements for sources using CMS. If you demonstrate
compliance with any applicable emissions limit through use of a
continuous monitoring system (CMS), where a CMS includes a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as well as a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring
plan and submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at
least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation (where
applicable) of your CMS. Your site-specific monitoring plan must
address the monitoring system design, data collection and the quality
assurance and quality control elements outlined in this paragraph and
in Sec. 63.8(d). You must install, operate and maintain each CMS
according to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring
plan. Using the process described in Sec. 63.8(f)(4), you may request
approval of monitoring system quality assurance and quality control
procedures alternative to those specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through
(6) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan.
* * * * *
(k) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CPMS,
you must install, operate and maintain each continuous parameter
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (k)(1)
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(p) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you are using a CEMS to measure
particulate matter emissions to meet requirements of this subpart, you
must install, certify, operate and maintain the particulate matter CEMS
as specified in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1656 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(7)
introductory text, (b)(7)(i) and (ii), and (b)(7)(v) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1656 Performance testing, test methods, and compliance
demonstrations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
opacity. ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' may be used
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) with the following
conditions:
(i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
* * * * *
(v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and
these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-00156 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P