Citation: 41 Fed. Reg. 18498 1976

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Fri Feb 12 13:54:36 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

18498

Title 40-Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 609-31PART 60-STANDARDS OF PERFORM-

ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCESFrroalloy Production Faciities

On October 21, 1974 (39 FR 37470),under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,as amended, the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) proposed standards ofperformance for new and modified fer-roalloy production facilities. Interestedpersons participated in the rulemakingby submitting comments to EPA. Thecomments have been carefully consid-ered, and where determined by the Ad-ministrator to be appropriate, changeshave been made to the regulations aspromulgated.

The standards limit emissions of par-ticulate matter and carbon monoxidefrom ferroalloy 'electric submerged arcfurnaces. The purpose of the standards isto require effective capture and controlof emissions from the furnace and tap-ping station by application of best sys-tems of emission reduction. For ferro-alloy furnaces the best system of emis-sion reduction for particulate matter isa well-designed hood in combinationwith a fabric filter collector or venturiscrubber. For some alloys the best systemis an electrostatic precipitator precededby wet gas conditioning or a venturiscrubber. The standard for carbon mon-oxide requires only that the gas stream beflared or combusted in some othermanner.

The environmental impact of thesestandards is beneficial since the increasein emissions due to growth of the in-dustry will be minimized. Also, the stand-ards will remove the incentive for plantsto locate in areas with less stringentregulations.

Upon evaluation of the costs asso-clited with the standards and their eco-nomic impact, EPA concluded that thecosts are reasonable and should not barentry into the market or expansion offacilities. In addition, the standards willrequire at most a minimal increase inpower consumption over that required tocomply with the restrictions of mostState regulations.

SUMMARY OF REGULATIONThe promulgated standards limit par-

ticulate matter and carbon monoxideemissions from the electric submergedarc furnace and limit particulate matteremissions from dust-handling equip-ment. Emissions of particulate matterfrom tle control device are limited toless than 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 lb/MW-,hr) for furnaces producing high-siliconalloys (in general) and to less than 0.23kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr) for fur-neces producing chrome and manganesealloys. For both product groups, emis-sions from the control device must beless than 15 percent opacity. The regu-lation requires that the collection hoodscapture all emissions generated withinthe furnace and capture all tapping emis-sions for at least 60 percent of the tap-

RULES AND -REGULATIONS

ping time. The concentration of carbonmonoxide in any gas stream dischargedto the atmosphere must be less than 20volume percent. Emissions from dust-handling equipment may not equal or ex-ceed 10 percent opacity. Any owner oroperator of a facility subject to this regu-lation must continuously monitor volu-metric flow rates through the collectionsystem and must continuously monitorthe opacity of'emissions from the controldevice.

SMMARY OF COMIENS'

Eighteen comment letters were re-ceived on the proposed standards of per-formance. Copies of the comment lettersand a report which contains a summaryof the issues and EPA's responses areavailable for public inspection and copy-

,ing at the U.S. Environmental Protec-tibn Agency, Public Information Refer-ence Unit (EPA Library), Room 2922,401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.Copies of -the report also may be ob-tained upon written request from theEPA Public Information Center (PM-215), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,D.C. 20460 (specify-Supplemental In-formation on Standards of Performancefor Ferroalloy Production Facilities). Inaddition to the summary of the issuesand EPA's responses, the report containsa reevaluation of the opacity standardin light of revisions to Reference Method9 which were published in the-FEDERALREGISTER November 12, 1974 (39 FR39872).

The bases for the proposed standardsare presented in "Background Informa-tion for Standards of Performante: Elec-tric Submerged Arc Furnaces for Pro-duction of Ferroalloys" (EPA 450/2-74--018a, b). Copies of this document areavailable on request from the EmissionStandards and Engineering Division,Environmental Protection Agency, Re-search Triangle Park, North Carolina27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.SIGNIFICANT CO IENTS AND CHANGES TO

THE PROPOSED REGULATION

Most of the comment letters containedmultiple comments. The more significantcomments and the differences betweenthe proposed and the final regulationsare discussed below. In addition to thediscussed changes, several paragraphswere reworded and some sections werereorganized.

(1) Mass standard. Several commen-ters questioned the representatives of thedata used to demonstrate the achievabil-ity of the 0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr) standard proposed for facilities pro-ducing chrome and manganese alloys.Specifically, the commenters were con-cerned that sampling onlya limited num-

-ber of compartments or control devicesserving a furnace, nonisokinetic sam-pling of some facilities, and the proce-dures used to datermine the total gasvolume flow from open fabric filter col-lectors would bias the data low. For thesereasons, the commenters argued that thestandard should be 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99lb/MW-hr) for all alloys. As additionalsupport for their position, they claimedthat control equipment vendors will not

guarantee that their equipment willachieve 0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MV-

r).Because of these comments, EPA

thoroughly reevaluated the bases for thetwo mass standards of performance andconcluded that the standards are achiev-able by best systems of emission reduc-tion. For open ferroalloy electric sub-merged arc furnaces, the best system ofemission reduction is a well-designedcanopy hood that minimizes the volumeof induced air and a well-designed andproperly operated fabric filter collectoror high-energy venturi scrubber. In afew cases, an electrostatic precipitatorpreceded by a venturl scrubber or wetgas conditioning is a best system, InEPA's opinion, revising the standard up-ward to 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 lb/MW-hr)would allow installation of systems otherthan the best. Therefore, the promul-gated standard of performance for fur-naces producing chrome and manganesealloys is 0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr). The standard for furnaces produc-ing the specified high-silicon alloys is0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 lb/MW-hr). Therationale for establishing' the standardsat these levels Is summarized below.

The reevaluation of the data bases forthe standards showed that the emissiontest procedures used did not significantlybias the results. Therefore, contrary tothe commenter's concerns, the proce-dures did not result in emission limita-tions lower than those achievable by bestsystems of emission reduction. The de-viations and assumptions made In thetest procedures were based on considera-tionof the particle size of the emissions,an evaluation of the performance of thecontrol systems, and factors affecting theinduction of air into open fabric filtercollectors.

EPA tests, and allows testing of, a rep-resentative number of stacks or compart-ments in a control device because sub-sections of a well-designed and properlyoperating control device will performequivalently. Evaluation of the controlsystem and the condition of the controldevice by EPA engineers at the time ofthe emission test showed that sectionsnot tested were of equivalent design andin operating condition equivalent to orbetter than the tested sections. Thus, theperformance of the non-tested portionsof the control device are considered to beequivalent to or better than the per-formance of the sections emission tested,In addition, the particle size of emissionsfrom well-controlled ferroalloy furnaceswas investigated by EPA and was foundto consist of particles of less than twomicrometers aerodynamic diameter forall alloys. The mass and, ,hence, inertiaof these particles are negligible; there-fore, they follow the motion of the gasstream. For emissions of this size distri-bution, concentrations determined by.nonsokinetic sampling would not be sig-nificantly different than those measuredby isokinetic sampling.

EPA determined the total gas volumeflow rate from the open fabric filter col-lectors by measuring the inlet volumeflow rate and the volume of air Inducedinto the collector. The inlet gas volumes

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 87-TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

to the collectors were measured duringeach-run of each test; but the volumeof air induced into the collector was de-termined once during the emission test.The total gas volume flow from the col-lector was calculated as the sum of theinlet gas volume and the induced air vol-ume. Although the procedures used werenot ideal, the reported gas volumes areconsidered to be reasonably representa-tive of the total gas volumes from thefacility. This conclusion is based on thefact that the quantity of air idducedaround the bags in an open collector isprimarily dependent on the open areaand the temperature of the inlet gasstream and the ambient air. Therefore,equivalent air volumes are drawn into thecollector under similar meteorologicaland Inlet gas conditions. During the pe-riods of emission testing at the facilities,meteorological conditions were uniformand the volume of induced air was- ex-pected to be constant. Consequently,

-measurement of the induced air volumeonce during the emission test was ex-pected to be sufficient for calculating thetotal gas volume flow from the collector.

Since conducting the test in question,EPA has gained additional experienceand has concluded that in general it ispreferable to measure the total gas vol-ume flow during each run of a perform-ance test. This conclusion, however,does not invalidate the use of the testdata obtained by the less optimum pro-cedure of a single determination of in-duced air volume. EPA evaluated pos-sible variations in the amount of air in-duced into the collector by performingenthalpy balances using reported tem-perature data. The induced air volumeswere calculated assuming adiabatic mix-ing (no heat transfer by inlet gases tocollector) and, hence, are conservativelyhigh estimates. The calculated inducedair volumes- did differ -from the singlemeasured values; however, the effect onthe mass emission rate for the collectorswas not significant. EPA, therefore; con-cluded that the use of single measure-ments of the induced air volume did notaffect the level of the standards.

Another issue of concern to com-menters is the reluctance of controlequipment vendors to guarantee reduc-tion of emissions to less than 0.23 kg/IM4W-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr). It is EPA'sopinion -that. this reluctance does notdemonstrate the unachievability of thestandard. The vendors' reluctance toguarantee this level is not surprising con-sidering the variables which are beyond'their control Specifically, they rarelyhave any control over the design of thefume collection systems for the furnaceand tapping station. Fabric filter collec-tors tend to control the concentration ofparticiulate matter in the effluent. Themass rate of emissions from the collec-tor is determined by the total volumetricflow rate from the control device, whichIs-not determined by vendors.' Further,because of limited experience with emis--sion testing to evaluate the performanceof open fabric filter collectors, vendorscannot effectively evaluate the perform-ance of these systems over the guarantae

period. For vendors, establishment of theperformance guarantee level is also com-plicated by the fact that the performanceof the collector Is contingent upon Itsbeing properly operated and maintained.

Standards of performance are neces-sarily based on data from a limitednumber of best-controlled facilities andon engineering judgments regardingperformance of the control systems. Forthis reason, there is a possibility of ar-riving at different conclusions regardingthe performance capabilities of thesesystems. Consequently, the question ofvendors' reluctance to guarantee theirequipment to achieve 0.23 kg/MW-hr(0.51 lb/MW-br) was considered alongwith the results of additional recentemission tests on fabric filter collectors.Recognizing that the data base for thestandards was limited and that a num-ber of well-controlled facilities hadstarted operation since completion of theoriginal study, EPA obtained additionaldata to better evaluate the performanceof emission control systems of interest.Under the authority of section 114 ofthe Clean Air Act, EPA requested copiesof all emission data for well-controlledfurnaces operated by 10 ferroalloy pro-ducers. Data were received for five well-controlled facilities. In general, thesefacilities had close fitting water cooledcanopy hoods, and tapping fumes werecollected and sent to the control devicealong with the furnace emissions.

The emission data submitted by theindustry show that properly operatingcompartments of open fabric filter col-lectors have effluent concentrations ofless than 0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf).For these recently constructed facilities,the reported mass emission rates wereless than 0.12 kg/MW-hr (0.24 lb/Mw-hr) for 15 MW capacity silicon metalfurnaces. Evaluation of possible errorsIn the data and uncertainties in the testprocedures showed that emissions mayhave been as high as 0.20 kg/MV-hr(0.45 lb/MW-hr) In some cases. Theseemission rates were achieved by designof the collection hood to mnimize thequantity of induced air. The data sub-mitted'by the industry showed that gasvolumes from well-hooded large siconmetal furnaces can be reduced to 50 per-cent of the volumes from typically hood-ed large silicon furnaces. Based on thedata obtained from the industry, a largewell-hooded and well-controlled siliconmetal furnace Is expected to have anemission rate of less than 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 lb/MW-hr). -

In EPA's. study of the ferroalloy in-dustry, It was determined that emissionsfrom production of high-silicon alloyswould be more difficult to control thanchrome and manganese emissions dueto the finer size distribution of the par-ticles and, significantly larger gas, vol-umes from the furnace. Comparison ofthe gas volumes reported by the industryfrom silicon metal production with gasvolumes from typically hooded furnace3producing chrome and manganese alloysshows that the original conclusion Isstill valid. Due td" the lower gas volumes

associated with their production, a low-er mass emission rate is still expected forchrome and manganese alloys. In addi-tion. EPA emission tests in the originalstudy on a number of tightly hoodedopen furnaces demonstrated emissionscan be controlled to less than 0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr). Emisonswere reduced to these levels by controlof induced air volumes and by use of awell-designed and properly operatedfabric filter collector or venturi scrub-ber.

Just before promulgation of thestandards, members of the I-FerroalloyAssociation informed EPA that futuresupplies of chrome and manganese oreswill be finer and more friable than thosein use during development of the stand-ard. The Industry representativesclaimed that use of finer ores will affectfurnace operations and prevent new fur-naces from complying with the 0.23 kg;MW-lw- (0.51 lb/MW-hr) standard. Al-though the representatives submittedstatements concerning the effect of finerores on furnace operating conditions, nodata were provided to show the effect ofore size on emissions. EPA evaluated thematerial submitted and concluded thatfurnace operating problems associatedwith use of fine ores can be controlled byoperation and maintenance procedures.With proper operation of the furnace, useof finer ores should not affect the achiev-ability of the standard, and relaxationof the 0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr)standard is not justified. This evaluationis discussed in detail in Chapter II of thesupplemental information document. Ifand when factual information is pre-sented to EPA which clearly demon-strates that use of finer chrome andmanganese ores does prevent a properlyoperated new furnace, which is equippedwith the best demonstrated system ofemission reduction (con~ldering costs),from meeting the 0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51lb/MW-hr) standard. EPA will propose arevision to the standard. The best systemof emission reduction (considering costs)is considered to be a well-designed col-lection hood n combination with a well-designed fabric filter collector or high-energy venturi scrubber.

The emission data obtained by EPAand the data provided by the industryshow that the standards of performancefor both product groups are achievableand the required control systenr clearlyis adequately demonstrated. The ques-tion of the achievability of and the va-lidity of the data basis for both the 023kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr) and 0.45kg/MW-hr (0.99 lb/MW-hr) standardsIs discussed in more detail in Chapter irof the supplemental information doc-ment

(2) Control deafe opacity standard.On November 12, 1974 (39 FR 39872).after proposal of the standards for fer-roalloy facilities. Method 9 was revised torequire that compliance with opacitystandards be determined by averagingrsets of 24 consecutive observations takerat 15-second intervals (six-minute ay-erages). The proposed opacity standardwhich limited emissions from the control

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 87-TUESDAY, ?,AY 4, 1976

19499

18500

device to less than 20 percent has beenrevised In the regulation promulgatedherein to require that emissions be lessthan 15 percent opacity in order to retainthe intended level-of control.

(3) Control system capture yequire-ments. Ten commenters criticized fumecapture requirements for the furnace andtapping station control systems on twobasic points. The arguments were: (1)EPA lacks the statutory authority tore'gulate emissions within the building,and (2) the standards are not technical-ly feasible at all times.

EPA has -the statutory authority un-der section 111 of the Act to regulate anynew stationary source which "emits ormay emit any air pollutant." EPA doesnot agree with the opinion of the com-menters that section 111 of the Act ex-pressly or implicitly limits the Agency toregulation only of pollutants which areemitted directly into the atmosphere.Particulate matter emissions escapingcapture by the furnace control systemultimately will be discharged to the at-mosphere outside of the shop; therefore,they may be regulated under section 111of the Act. Standards which regulatepollutants at the point of emission insidethe building allow assessment of the con-trol system without interference fromnonregulated sources located in the samebuilding. In addition, by requiring evalu-ation of emissions before their dilution,the standards will result in better con-trol of the furnace emissions and willregulate affected ferroalloy facilitiesmore uniformly than would standardslimiting emissions from the shop.

EPA believes the standards on the fur-nace and tapping station collectionhoods are achievable because the stand-ards are based on observations of normaloperations at well-controlled facilities.The commenters who argued that thestandards are not technically feasible atall times cited examples of abnormal op-erations which would preclude achiev-ng the standards. For example, severalcommenters cited the fact that violentreactions due to imbalances in the alloychemistry occasionally can generate moreemissions than the hood was designed tocapture. If the capture system is well-designed, well-maintained, and properlyoperated, only failures of the process tooperate in the normal or usual mannerwould cause the capacity of the system tobe exceeded. Such operating periods aremalfunctions, and, therefore, compliancewith the standards of performancewould not be determined during theseperiods. Performance tests under 40 CPR60.8(c) are conducted only during rep-resentative conditions, and periods olstart-up, shutdown, and malfunctionEare not considered representative condi-tions.

I

Five commenters discussed other op.erating conditions which they believedwould preclude a source from complyingwith the tapping station standard. Theseconditions included blowing taps, periodof poling the taphole, and periods of re-mova of metal and slag from the spoutThe commenters argued Olat blowintaps should be exempted.from the stand.ard and the tapping station standar

RULES AND REGULATIONS

should be replaced with an opacitystandard or emissions from the shop. Thecomments were reviewed and EPA con-cluded that exemption of blowing taps Isjustified. The regulation promulgatedherein exempts blowing taps from thetapping station standard and includes adefinition of blowing tap. EPA believesthat conditions which result in pluggingof the tanhole and metal in the spout aremalfunctions because they are unavold-able failures of the process to operateIn the normal or usual manner. Discus-sions with experts in the ferroalloy in-dustry, revealed that these conditions arenot predictable conditions for which apreventative maintenance or operationprogram could be established. As mal-functions, these periods are not subjectto the standards, and a performance testwould not be conducted during suchperiods. Therefore, the suggested revisionto the standard to exempt these periodsis not necessary because of the existingprovisions of 40 CFR 60.8(c) and 60.11.In EPA's judgment, both the furnace andtapping station standards are achievablef6r all normal process operations at fa-cilities with well-designed, well-main-tained, and pronerly operated emissioncollection systems.

The promulgated regulation retainsthe proposed fume capture requirements,but the regulation has been revised tobe more enforceable than the proposedcapture requirements, which could havebeen enforced only on an infrequentbasis. The regulation .has been reorga-nized to clarify that unlike the opacitystandards, the collection system capturerequirements -(vi~ible emission limita-tlons) are subject to demonstration ofcompliance during thd performance test.To provide a means for routine enforce-ment of the capture requirements, con-tinuous monitoring of the volumetricflow rate(s) through the collection sys-tem is required for each affected fur-nace. An owner or operator may complywith this requirement either by Install-Ing a flow rate monitoring device In anappropriate location In the exhaust ductor by calculating the flow rate throughthe system from fan operating data. Dur-ing the performance, test, the baselineoperating flow rate(s) will be establishedfor the affected electric submerged arcfurnace. The regulation establishes emis-sion capture standards which are appli-cable only during the performance testof the affected facility. At all other times,the operating volumetric flow rate(s)shall be maintained at or greater thanthe established baseline values for thefurnace load. Use of lower volumetricflow rates than the established valuesconstitutes unacceptable operation andmaintenance of the affected facility.These provisions of the promulgatedregulation will ensure-continuous men-itoring of the operations of the emissioncapture system and will simplify enforce-ment of the emission capture- require-ments..The requirements for monitoring volu-

metric flow rates will add negligible ad-ditional costs to the total costs ofcomplying with the standards of per-

I formance. Mow rate monitoring devices

of sufficient accuracy to meet the re-quirements of § 60.265(c) can be Installedfor $600-$4000 depending on the flowprofile of the area being monitored andthe complexity of the monitoring device.A suitable stilp clhirt recorder can beinstalled for less than $600. The alter-native provisions allowing calculation ofthe volumetric flow rate(s) through thecontrol system from continuous monitor-ing of fan operatlins will result in noadditional costs because the industrypresently monitors fan operations.

(4) Monitoring of operations. Thepromulgated regulation requires report-Ing to the Administrator any productchanges that will result in a change Inthe applicable standard of performancefor the affected electric submerged arcfurnace. This requirement is necessarybecause electric submerged arc furnacesmay be converted to production of alloysother than the original design alloys byphysical alterations to the furnace,changes to the electrode spacing,changes in the transformer capacity, andchanges In the materials charged to thefurnace. Thus, the emission rate fromthe electric submerged arc furnace andthe standard of performance (which isdependent on the alloy produced) maychange during the lifetime cf the facil-ity. Conversion of the furnace to pro-duction of alloys with significantly dif-ferent emission rates, such as changesbetween the product groups for the twostandards, may result In the facility ex-ceeding the applicable standard. Conse-quently, the reporting requirement wasadded to ensure continued compliancewith the applicable standards of per-formance. *These reports of productchanges will afford the Administrator anopportunity to determine whether a per-formance test should be conducted andwill simplify enforcement of the regu-lation. As with the requirements appli-cable under the pronosed regulation, theperformance test still must be conductedwhile the electric submerged arc furnaceIs producing the design alloy whose emis-sions are the most dificult to control ofthe product family. Subsequent productchanges within the product family willnot cause the facility to exceed the stand-ard.

(5) Test methods and procedUres. Sec-tion 60.266(d) of the promulgated regu-lation requires the owner or operator todesign and construct the control deviceto allow measurement of emissions andflow rates using'applicable test methodsand procedures. This provision permitsthe use of open pressurized fabric filtercollectors (and other control devices)whose emissions cannot be measured byreference methods currently in AppendixA to this part, if compliance with thepromulgated standard can be demon-strated by an alternative procedure. EPAhas not specified a single test procedurefor emission testing of open pressurizedfabric filter collectors because of thelarge variations In the design of thesecollectors, Test procedures can be de-veloped on a case-by-case basis, however,Provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(b) allow theowner or operator upon approval by theAdministrator to use an "alternatvfw" or

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41,-NO. 87-TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

"equivalent" test procedure to show com-pliance-with the standards. EPA wouldlike to -emphasize that development ofthe "alternative" or "equivalent" testprocedure is the responsibility of anyowner or operator- who jelects <to use acontrol device not amenable to testing byMethod 5 of Appendix A to this part. Theprocedures of an "alternative" testmethod for demonstration of complianceare dependent Z)n specific design featuresand condition of the collector and thecapabilities of the sampling equipment.Consequently, procedures acceptable fordemonstration of compliance will varywith .specific situations. General guid-ance on possible approaches to samplingof emissions from pressurized fabric filtercollectors is provided in Chapter IV ofthe supplemental information document.

Due to the costs of testing, the owneror operator should obtain EPA approvalfor a specific test procedure or othermeans for determining compliance be-fore construction of a new source. Underthe provisions of'§ 60.6, the owner oroperator of a new facility may requestreview of the acceptability of proposedplans for construction and testing of con-trol systems which are not amenable tosampling by Reference Method 5. If anacceptable "alternative" test procedure isnot developed by the owner or operator,then total enclosure of the pressurizedfabric filter collector and testing byMethod 5 is required.

Effective date. In accordance with sec-tion 111 of the Act, these regulationsprescribing standards of performance forferroaloy production facilities are effec-tive May 4, 1976, and apply to electricsubmerged arc furnaces and their asso-ciated dust-handling 'equipment, the

-construction or modiflcation of whichwas commenced after October 21, 1974.(Sacs. 111 and 114 of the Clean Air Act,amended by Sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84Stat. 1678 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6, 185c-9).)

Dated:April 23,1976.RUSSELL E. TRn ,

-Administrator.Part 60 of Chapter I, ,Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amendedas follows: I

1. The table of sections is amended byadding subpart Z as follows:Subpart Z-Standards of Performance for Ferro-

alloy Producton Facil.ties.Sec.60.260 Applicability and designation of

affected facility.60261 Definitions.60.262 Standard for particulate matter.60263 Standard for carbon monoxide.60.264 -Emission monitoring.60.265 Monitoring of operations.60.266 Test methods and procedures.

2. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-part Z as follows:Subpart Z-Standards of Performance for

Ferroalloy Projuction§60.260 Applicability and designation

of affected facility.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plivable to the following affected facili-ties: Electric submerged arc furnaceswhich produce silicon metal, ferrosilicon,

calcium silicon, sillcomanganese zirco-nium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron,high-carbon ferrochrome, aharge chromestandard ferromanganese, silimanga-nese, ferromanganese'sicon, or calciumcarbide; and dust-handling equipment.§ 60.261 Definitions.

As used in this subpar, all terms notdefined herein shall have the meaninggiven them in the Act and in subpart Aof this part.

(a) 'Electric submerged arc furnace"means any furnace wherein electricalenergy is converted to heat energy bytransmission of current between elec-trodes partially submerged in the furnacecharge.

(b) "Furnace charge" means any ma-terial introduced into the electric sub-merged arc furnace and may consist of,but Is not limited to, ores, slag, carbo-naceous material, and limestone.

(c) "Pxoduct change" means anychange in the composition of the furnacecharge that would cause the electric sub-merged. arm furnace to become subjectto a different mass standard applicableunder this subpart.(d) "Slag" means the more or less

completely fused and vitrified matterseparated during the reduction of ametal from its ore.

(e) "Tapping" means the removal ofsag. or product from the electric sub-merged arc furnace under normal op-erating conditions such as removal ofmetal under normal pressure and move-ment by gravity down the spout into theladle.

(f) "Tapping period" means the timeduration from initiation of the processof opening the tap hole until plugging ofthe tap hole is complete.

(g) "Furnace cycle" means the timeperiod from completion of a furnaceproduct tap to the completion of the nextconsecutive product tap.(h) "Tapping station" means that

general area where molten product orslag is removed from the electric sub-merged arc furnace.(i) "Blowing tap" means any tap In

which an evaluation of gas forces or pro-jects Jets of flame or metal sparks be-yond the ladle, runner, or collection hood.(J) "Furnace power Input" means theresistive electrical power consumption ofan electric submerged arc furnace asmeasured in kilowatts.

(k) "Dust-handling equipment" meansany equipment used to handle particu-late matter collected by the air pollutioncontrol device (and located at or nearsuch device) serving any electric sub-merged arc furnace subject to this sub-part.

(1) "Control device" means the airpollution control equipment used to re-move particulate matter generated by anelectric submerged arc furnace from aneffluent gas stream.(m) "Capture system" means the

equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,dampers, etc.) used to capture or trans-plart particulate matter generated by anaffected electric submerged arc furnaceto the control device.

(n) "Standard ferromanganese" meansthat alloy as defined by A.S.T.M. desig-nation A99-6.

(o) "Sllicomanganese" means thatalloy as defined by A.S.TBL designationA483-66.

(p) "Calcium carbide" means materialcontaining 70 to 85 percent calcium car-bide by weight.

(q) "HLgh-carbon ferrochrome'" meansthat alloy as defined by A.S.T.M. desig-nation A101-66 grades HCI through HC6.

(r) "Charge chrome" means that alloycontaining 52 to 70 percent by weightchromium, 5 to 8 percent by weight car-bon, and 3 to 6 percent by weight silicon.

(s) "Silvery iron" means any ferro-silicon, as defined by A.S.T.M. designa-tion 100-69, which contains less than30 percent silicon.

t) "Ferrochrome silicon" means thatalloy as defined by A.S.T.L designitionA482-66.

(u) "Silicomanganese zirconium"means that alloy containing 60 to 65 per-cent by weight silicon, 1.5 to 2.5 percentby weight calcium, 5 to 7 percent byweight zirconium, 0.75 to 1.25 percent byweig-ht aluminum, 5 to 7 percent byweight manganese, and 2 to 4 percent byweight barium.

(v) "Calcium silicon" means thatalloy as defined by A.S.T.M. designationA495-64.

(w) "Ferrosllicon" means that alloy asdefined by A.S.T.M. designation AI00-69grades A, B, C, D, and E which contains50 or more percent by weight silicon.

x) "Silicon metal" means any siliconalloy containing more than 96 percentsilicon by weight.

(y) "Ferromanganese silicon" meansthat alloy containing 63 to 66 percent byweight manganese, 28 to 32 percent byweight silicon, and a maximum of 0.08percent by weght carbon.§ 60.262 Stnndard for particulate mat-

ter.(a) On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedInto the atmosphere from any electricsubmerged arc furnace any gases which:

(1) Exit from a control device and con-tain particulate matter in excess of 0.45kg/RVW-hr (0.99 lb/MW-hr) while sil-con metal, ferrosilicon, calcium silicon,or sillcomanganese zirconium Is beingproduced.

(2) Exit from a control device and con-tain particulate matter In excess of 0.23kg/MW-hr (0.51 lb/MW-hr) while high-carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome,standard ferromanganese, silicomanga-nee, calclum carbide, ferrochrome sili-con, ferromanganese silicon, or silveryiron is being produced.

(3) Exit from a control device and ex-hibit 15 percent opacity or greater.

(4) Edt from an electric submergedarc furnace and escape the capture sys-tem and are visible without the aid ofinstruments. The requirements underthis subparagraph apply only during pe-riods when flow rates are being estab-lished under § 60.265(d).

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 87-TUESDAY, MiAY 4, 1976

18,101

(5) Escape the capture system at the (b) The owner or operator subject totapping 'station and are visible without the provisions of this subpart shall In-the aid of instruments for more than 40 stall, calibrate, maintain; and operate apercent-of each tapping period. There are device to measure and continuously re-no limitations on visible emissions under cord the furnace power'input. The fur-this subparagraph when a blowing tapr nacepower-input may be measured at theoccurs. The requirements under this sub- output or input side of the transformer.paragraph apply only during periods The device must have an accuracy of ±5when flow rates are being established percent over its operating range.under § 60.265(d). (c) The owner or operator subject to-

(b) On and after the date on which the provisions of this subpart shall In-the performance test required to be con- stall, calibrate, and maintain a monitor-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner ing device that continuously measuresor operator subject to the provisions of -and records the volumetric flow ratethis subpart shall- cause to be discharged through each separately ducted hood ofInto the atmosphere from any dust-han- the capture system, except as provideddling equipment any gases which -exhibit under paragraph (e) of this section. The10 percent opacity or greater. owner or operator of an electric sub-

merged arc furnace that is equipped with§ 60.263 Standard for carbon monoxide. a. water cooled cover which is designed

(a) On and after the date on which to contain and prevent escape of thethe performance test required to be con- generated gas and particulate matterducted by § 60.8 Is completed, no owner shall monitor only the volumetric flowor operator subject to the provisions of rate through the capture -system for con-this subpart shall dause to be discharged trol of emissions from the tapping sta-Into the atmosphere from any electric tion. The owner or operator may installsubmerged arc furnace any gases which the monitoring device(s) in any appro-contain, on a dry basis, 20 or greater priate location in the exhaust duct suchvolume percent of carbon monoxide. that reproducible flow rate monitoringCombustion of such gases under condi- will result. The flow rate monitoring de-tions acceptable to the Administrator vice must have an accuracy of ±10 per-constitutes compliance with this section. cent over its normal operating range andAcceptable conditions include, but are must be calibrated according to thenot limited to, flaring of gases or use of manufacturer's instructions. The Ad-gasps as fuel for other'processes. thinistrator may require the owner or

60.264 Emission monitoring, operator to demonstrate the accuracy of§ 6the monitoring device relative to Meth-

(a) The owner or operator subject to ods I and 2 of Appendix A to this part.the provisions of this subpart shall in- Cd) When performance tests are con-stall, calibrate, maintain and operate a ducted under the provisions of § 60.8 ofcontinuous monitoring system for meas- this 'part to demonstrate complianceurement of the opacity of emissions dis- with the standards under §560.262(a)charged into the atmosphere from the (4) and (5), the volumetric flow ratecontrol device(s),. - through each separately ducted hood of

(b) For the purpose of reports re- the capture system must be determinedquired under § 60.7(c), the owner or op- using the monitoring device requirederator shall report as excess emissions under paragraph (c) of this section. Theall six-minute periods in which the as- volumetric flow rates must be determinederage opacity is 15 percent or greater. for furnace power input levels at 50 and

(c) The owner or operator subject to 100 percent of the nominal rated capacitythe provisions of this subpart shall sub- of the electric submerged arc furnace.mit a wrIttezi report, of any product At. all times the electric submerged arcchange to the Administrator. Reports of furnace is operated, the owner or oper-product changes must be postmarked ator shall maintain the volumetric flownot later than-30 days after implemen- rate at or above the appropriate levelstation of the product. change- for that furnace power input level de-

60F(1.265 3Ionitorin.of operations. termined" during the most recent per-62 oonformance test. If emissions due to tap-

(a) The owner or operator of any elec- ping are captured and ducted separatelytric submerged arc furnace subject to the from emissions of the electric submergedprovisions of this subpart shall main- arc furnace, during each tapping periodtain daily records of the following in- the owner or operator shall maintainformation: the exhaust flow rates through the cap-

(1) Product being produced. ture system over the tapping station at(2) Description of constituents of fur- or above the levels established during

nace charge, including the quantity. by the most recent performance test. Oper-weight, ation at lower flow rates may be consid-

(3) Time and duration of each tap- ered by the Administrator to be unac-ping period and the identification of ma- ceptable operation and maintenance ofterial tapped (slag or product.) the affected facility. The owner or oper-

(4) All furnace power input data ob- ator may request that these flow rates betained under paragraph (WY ofthis se-- reestablished by conducting new per-

formance tests under § 60.8 of this part.tion. (e) The owner or operator mayas an

(5 All flow rate data obtained under alternative to, paragraph Cc) of this sec-paragraph Cc) of this section or all fan tion determine the volumetric flow ratemotor power consumption and pressure through each fan of the capture systemdrop data obtained under paragraph (e) from the fan power consumption, pres-of this section. sure drop across the fan and the-fan per-

formance curve. Only data specific to theoperation of the affected electric sub-merged are furnace are acceptable fordemonstration of compliance with therequirements of this paragraph. Theowner or operator shall maintain on filea permanent record of the fan per-formance curve (prepared for a specifictemperature) and shall:

(I) Install, calibrate, maintain, andoperate a device to continuously measureand record the power consumption of thefan motor (measured in kilowatts), and

(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, andoperate a device to continuously meas-ure and record the pressure drop acrossthe fan. The fan power consumption andpressure drop measurements must besynchronled to allow real time compar-isons of the data. The monitoring de-vices must have an accuracy of ±5 per-cent over their normal operating ranges.

(f) The volumetric flow rate througheach fan of the capture system must bedetermined from the fan power con-sumution, fan pressure drop, and fanperformance curve specified under para-graph (e) of this section, during any per-formance test required under § 60.8 ofthis part to demonstrate compliance withthe standards under §§ 60.262(a) (4) and(5). The owner or operator shall deter-mine the volumetric flow rate at a repre-sentative temperature for furnace powerinput levels of 50 and 100 percent of thenominal rated capacity of the electricsubmerged arc furnace. At all times theelectric submerged arc furnace is op-erated, the owner or bperator shall main-tain the fan power consumption and fanpressure drop at levels such that the vol-umetric flow rate is at or above the levelsestablished during the most recent per-formance test for that furnace power in-put level. If emissions due to tapping arecaptured and ducted separately fromemissions of the electric submerged arcfurnace, during each tapping period theowner or operator shall maintain the fanpower consjimption and fan pressuredrop at levels such that the volumetricflow rate is at or above the levels estab-lished during the most recent perform-ance test. Operation at lower flow ratesmay be considered by the Administratorto be unacceptable operation and main-,tenance of the affected facility. The own-er or operator may request that theseflow rates be reestablished by conductingnew performance tests under 5 60.8 otthis part. The Administrator may requirethe owner or operator to verify the fanperformance curve by monitoring neces-sary fan operating parameters and de-termining the gas volume moved relativeto Methods I and 2 of Appendix A to thispart.

g> All monitoring devices requiredunder paragraphs (c) and (e) of thissection are to be checked for calibrationannually In accordance with the proce-dures under § 60.13(b).§ 60.266 Test mcthods and procedures,

(a) Rkeference methods In Appendix Aof this part, except as provided in 5 60.8(b, shall be used to determine compli-ance with the standards prescribed in§ 60.262 and § 60.263 as follows:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 87-TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976

IRULES AND REGULATIONS18502

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(1) Method 5 for the'concentration ofparticulate matter and the associatedmoisture content except that the heatingsystems specified in paragraphs 2.1.2 and2.1.4 of Method 5are not to be used whenthe carbon monoxide content of the gasstream 'exceeds 10 percent by volume,dry basis.

(2) Method 1 for sample and velocitytraverses.

(3) Method 2 for velocity and volumet-ric flow rate. 1

(4) Method 3 for gas analysis, includ-ing carbon monoxide.

(b) For Method 5, the sampling timefor each run is to include an integralnumber of furnace cycles. The samplingtime for each run must be at least 60minutes and the minimum sample vol-ume must be 1.8 dscm (64 dscf) whensampling emissions from open electric.ubmerged arc furnaces with wet scrub-ber control devices, sealed electric sub-merged arc furnaces, or semi-enclosedelectric submerged arc furnaces. Whensampling emissions from other types ofinstallations, the sampling time for eachrun must be at least 200 minutes and theminimum sample volume must be 5.7dscm (200 dscf). Shorter sampling timesor smaller sampling volumes, when ne-cessitated by process variables or otherfactors, may be approved by the Admin-istrator.

(c) During the performance test, theowner or operator siall record the maxi-

mum open hood area (In hoods withsegmented or otherwise moveable side3)under which the process is expected tobe operated and remain in compliancewith all standards. Any future operationof the hooding system with open areas Inexcess of the maximum is not permitted.

(d) The owner or operator shall con-struct the control device so that volu-metric flow rates and particulate matteremissions can be accurately determinedby applicable test methods and proce-dures.

(e) During any performance test re-quired under § 60.8 of this part, theowner or operator shall not allow gaseousdiluents to be added to the el]uent gasstream after the fabric In an open prez-surized fabilc filter collector unless thetotal gas volume flow from the collectoris accurately determined and consideredIn the determination of emi tons.

(f) When compliance with i 90.263-sto be attained by combusting the gasstream in a flare, the location of thesampling site for particulate matter Isto be upstream of the flare.

(g) For each run, particulate matteremissions, expressed In kg/hr (lb/hr),must be determined for each exhauststream at which emissions are quantfiedusing the following equation:

94=0#90

18503

vhere:EZ=Emlz.Ion3 of partIculate matter in

lg4hr (lb/hr).C,= Contentratlon of particulate matter in

kg/drcm (ib/d-ec) =s determined byMethod a.

Q,=VolumctrC flow rate othe eMuent gassream, In dzeem/hr (dslfbr) as dz-termned by Uethcd 2.

(h) For Method 5. particulate matteremizslons from the affected facility, ex-preed in k--/M -hr (b/XMW-hr) mustbe determined for each run using thefollowing equation:

AVP

where:E=Fmasions of particulate from. the af-

focted facilit7, in h1/..hr (Ionum-hr).

7=Total number of exhaust streams atwhich emissions are quantiflel.

EZ=EmLszlon of particulato matter fromeach exhaust stream In kg/r (b/hr). as determLned in para~raph (g)of thI3 S ction.

p=Averao furnace power input duringthe sampling pertod, n meawattsa determined according to 62265(b).

(SEm. 111 and 114 of the Clean Air Act. asamended by cec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-6M4, eaStat. 1678 (42 US.C. 1857c-6, 1857c-9))

[IF Dco.70-22314 FlIed 5-3-76;8:45 arml

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 87-TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976