[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21906-21940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8977]
[[Page 21905]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 21906]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0034; FRL-7554-5]
RIN 2060-AE43
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries. The EPA
has identified iron and steel foundries as a major source of hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) emissions. These standards implement section 112(d)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP
emissions standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT).
The HAP emitted by facilities in the iron and steel foundries
source category include metal and organic compounds. For iron and steel
foundries that produce low alloy metal castings, metal HAP emitted are
primarily lead and manganese with smaller amounts of cadmium, chromium,
and nickel. For iron and steel foundries that produce high alloy metal
or stainless steel castings, metal HAP emissions of chromium and nickel
can be significant. Organic HAP emissions include acetophenone,
benzene, cumene, dibenzofurans, dioxins, formaldehyde, methanol,
naphthalene, phenol, pyrene, toluene, triethylamine, and xylene.
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects, including cancer and chronic or acute disorders of the
respiratory, reproductive, and central nervous systems. When fully
implemented, the final rule will reduce HAP emissions from iron and
steel foundries by over 820 tons per year (tpy).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 2004.
ADDRESSES: The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Cavender, Metals Group (C439-
02), Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-2364, electronic mail (e-mail) address,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS
Category code \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................................... 331511 Iron foundries. Iron and steel plants. Automotive
and large equipment manufacturers.
331512 Steel investment foundries.
331513 Steel foundries (except investment).
Federal government................................ ......... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..................... ......... Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7682 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034 and Docket ID No. A-
2000-56. The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. All items may not be
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials
relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official public
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number. Although not all docket
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of
the publicly available docket materials through EPA Dockets. (See
Docket No. A-2000-56 in the Air Docket).
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final rule is also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the rule will be placed on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. This action constitutes final administrative
action on the proposed NESHAP for iron and steel foundries (67 FR
78274, December 23, 2002). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June
21, 2004. Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with
reasonable specificity during the public comment period may be raised
during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are
[[Page 21907]]
the subject of today's final rule may not be challenged separately in
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Is the Affected Source?
B. What Are the Emissions Limitations?
C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Requirements?
D. What Are the Requirements for Demonstrating Initial and
Continuous Compliance?
E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
F. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental, and Energy
Impacts?
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
A. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Affected Source Designation?
B. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Emissions Limits?
C. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Work Practice Standards?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
VI. Statutory Authority
I. Background
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us (the EPA) to establish
national emission standards for all categories and subcategories of
major sources of HAP and for area sources listed for regulation under
section 112(c). Major sources are those that emit or have the potential
to emit at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination
of HAP. Area sources are stationary sources of HAP that are not major
sources. Additional information on the NESHAP development process can
be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 78274).
We received a total of 83 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP
from trade associations, individual plants, consultants, vendors, State
agencies, environmental groups, and private citizens. We provided a 60-
day comment period and held a public hearing on January 22, 2003 to
provide the opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or
arguments concerning the proposed rule.
Today's final rule reflects our full consideration of all the
comments we received. A detailed response to all the comments is
included in the Background Information Document (BID) for the
Promulgated Standards (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034).
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Is the Affected Source?
The affected source is each new or existing iron and steel foundry
that is a major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source is an
iron and steel foundry for which construction or reconstruction began
after December 23, 2002. An existing affected source is an iron and
steel foundry for which construction or reconstruction began on or
before December 23, 2002. The final rule defines an ``iron and steel
foundry'' as:
A facility or portion of a facility that melts scrap, ingot,
and/or other forms of iron and/or steel and pours the resulting
molten metal into molds to produce final or near final shape
products for introduction into commerce. Research and development
facilities and operations that only produce non-commercial castings
are not included in this definition.
The final rule covers emissions from metal melting furnaces, scrap
preheaters, pouring areas, pouring stations, automated conveyor and
pallet cooling lines that use a sand mold system, automated shakeout
lines that use a sand mold system, and mold and core making lines. The
final rule also covers fugitive emissions from foundry operations.
B. What Are the Emissions Limitations?
The final rule includes emissions limits for metal and organic HAP
as well as operating limits for capture systems and control devices.
Particulate matter (PM) and opacity serve as surrogate measures of
metal HAP emissions; emissions limits for total metal HAP are included
as alternatives to the PM limits. The final rule also includes
emissions limits for volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) and triethylamine
(TEA). Except for the fugitive emissions opacity limit, each of the
emissions limits apply to emissions discharged to the atmosphere
through a conveyance. The term ``conveyance'' means the system of
equipment that is designed to capture pollutants, convey them through
ductwork, and exhaust them using forced ventilation. The opacity limit
for fugitive emissions applies to each building or structure housing
any emissions source at the iron and steel foundry. The emissions
limitations and work practice requirements are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions limit or work practice
Emissions source standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric arc metal melting furnace, 0.005 grains per
electric induction metal melting dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
furnace, or scrap preheater at an of PM; or
existing iron and steel foundry. 0.0004 gr/dscf
of total metal HAP.
Cupola metal melting furnace at an 0.006 gr/dscf of
existing iron and steel foundry. PM; or
0.0005 gr/dscf
of total metal HAP.
Cupola metal melting furnace or 0.002 gr/dscf of
electric arc metal melting furnace PM; or
at a new iron and steel foundry. 0.0002 gr/dscf
of total metal HAP.
Electric induction metal melting 0.001 gr/dscf of
furnace or scrap preheater at a PM; or
new iron and steel foundry. 0.00008 gr/dscf
of total metal HAP.
All metal melting furnaces......... Scrap
certification; or
Scrap selection
and inspection program.
Pouring station at an existing iron 0.010 gr/dscf or
and steel foundry. PM; or
0.0008 gr/dscf
of total metal HAP.
Pouring area or pouring station at 0.002 gr/dscf of
a new iron and steel foundry. PM; or
0.0002 gr/dscf
of total metal HAP.
Fugitive emissions from a building 20 percent
or structure at a new or existing opacity, except for one 6-minute
iron and steel foundry. average per hour that does not
exceed 27 percent opacity.
Cupola metal melting furnace at a 20 parts per
new or existing iron and steel million by volume (ppmv) of VOHAP,
foundry. corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
[[Page 21908]]
Scrap preheater at an existing iron Direct contact
and steel foundry. gas-fired preheater; or
Scrap
certification; or
20 ppmv of
VOHAP.
Scrap preheater at a new iron and 20 ppmv of
steel foundry. VOHAP; or
Scrap
certification.
Automated conveyor and pallet 20 ppmv VOHAP
cooling lines and automated (flow-weighted average).
shakeout lines that use a sand
mold system at a new iron and
steel foundry.
TEA cold box mold and core making 1 ppmv of TEA or
line at a new or existing foundry. 99 percent emissions reduction, as
determined when scrubbing with
fresh acid solution.
Furan warm box mold and core making No methanol in
line at a new or existing foundry. the catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule requires a capture system for those emissions
sources subject to VOHAP or TEA limits. You (the owner or operator)
must establish operating limits for identified capture system parameter
(or parameters) that are appropriate for assessing capture system
performance. At a minimum, the limits must indicate the level of
ventilation draft and damper position settings. You must operate the
capture systems at or above the lowest value or setting established in
the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan.
If you use a wet scrubber to control PM or total metal HAP
emissions from a metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area,
or pouring station, the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water
flow rate must not fall below the minimum levels established during the
initial (or subsequent) performance test. If you use a combustion
device to control VOHAP emissions from a cupola metal melting furnace,
the 15-minute average combustion zone temperature must not fall below
1,300 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Periods when the cupola is off blast
and for 15 minutes after going on blast from an off blast condition are
not included in the 15-minute average. If you use a combustion device
to control VOHAP emissions from a scrap preheater or TEA cold box mold
or core making line, the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature
must not fall below the minimum level established during the initial
(or subsequent) performance test. If you use a wet acid scrubber to
control TEA emissions, the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate
must not fall below the minimum level established during the initial
(or subsequent) performance test and the 3-hour average pH level of the
scrubber blowdown (or the pH level during a production shift) must not
exceed 4.5.
Operating limits do not apply to control devices for automated
conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines that use
a sand mold system at a new iron and steel foundry. The final rule
requires a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for these
emissions sources. However, the final rule includes procedures for
requesting alternative monitoring requirements. To obtain approval of
alternative monitoring requirements, you must submit a monitoring plan
containing information needed to demonstrate continuous compliance
along with performance test results showing compliance with the
emissions limit.
The final rule also includes work practice standards. Facilities
must meet certification requirements for their charge materials or
develop and implement a scrap selection and inspection program to
minimize the amount or organics and HAP metals in furnace charge
materials. The certification option requires the foundry to purchase
and use only certified-metal ingots, pig iron, skittle, or other
materials that do not include post-consumer automotive body scrap,
post-consumer engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead
components, mercury switches, plastics, or organic liquids. The scrap
selection plan option requires scrap specifications, a certification
that the scrap supplier has implemented procedures to remove mercury
switches and lead components from automotive scrap, and visual
inspection procedures to ensure materials meet the specifications.
The owner or operator of an existing iron and steel foundry must
install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the flame
directly contacts the scrap charged. As alternative compliance options,
the owner or operator may meet a 20 ppmv limit for VOHAP emissions or
may charge to a preheater only materials subject to the scrap
certification requirement. The owner or operator of a new iron and
steel foundry must meet the 20 ppmv limit for VOHAP emissions and the
operating limit for combustion devices. As an alternative compliance
option for new scrap preheaters, the owner or operator must meet the
scrap certification requirements.
Plants with a furan warm box mold or core making line at a new or
existing iron and steel foundry must use a binder chemical formulation
that contains no methanol, as listed in the Material Data Safety Sheet.
This requirement applies to the catalyst portion (and not the resin
portion) of the binder system.
C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
All foundries must prepare and follow a written operation and
maintenance (O&M) plan for capture systems and control devices. The
plan must include operating limits for capture systems; requirements
for inspections and repairs; preventative maintenance procedures and
schedules; and procedures for operation of bag leak detection systems
(including corrective action steps to be taken in the event of a bag
leak detection system alarm). The plan also must contain procedures for
igniting gases from mold vents in pouring areas and pouring stations
that use sand mold systems. These procedures may consider the
ignitability of the mold gases, accessibility to the molds, and safety
issues associated with igniting the gases.
The final rule also requires a startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan that meets the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e) of the NESHAP General
Provisions. The plan must include procedures for operating and
maintaining the emissions source during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction and a program of corrective action for malfunctioning
process equipment, air pollution control systems, and monitoring
systems. The final rule requires that the plan also include a
description of the conditions that constitute a shutdown of a cupola
and normal operating conditions following startup of a cupola. The
owner or operator may use the standard operation procedures manual for
the emissions source or other type of plan if it meets EPA's
requirements. For more information on startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plans, see the amendments
[[Page 21909]]
to the NESHAP General Provisions published on May 30, 2003 (68 FR
32586).
D. What Are the Requirements for Demonstrating Initial and Continuous
Compliance?
Emissions Limits
Foundries must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting
performance tests for all emissions sources subject to an emissions
limit. To determine compliance with the metal HAP emissions limits, EPA
Methods 1 through 4, and either Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as
applicable (to measure PM) or Method 29 (to measure total metal HAP)
are required. To determine compliance with the organic HAP limits,
foundries can use EPA Method 18 to measure VOHAP, Method 25 to measure
total gaseous nonmethane organics (TGNMO) as hexane, or Method 25A to
measure total organic compounds (TOC) as hexane. All of these methods
are in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
The performance test requirements for automated conveyor and pallet
cooling lines and automated shakeout lines at new foundries allow you
to either meet the 20 ppmv emissions limit directly using the volatile
organic compound (VOC) CEMS to measure total hydrocarbons (as a
surrogate for VOHAP) or to establish a site-specific VOC limit for the
CEMS that is correlated to the VOHAP emissions limit. The final rule
also includes procedures for computing the flow-weighted average of
multiple exhaust streams from automated conveyor and pallet cooling
lines or automated shakeout lines, and for determining compliance for
combined emissions streams. Procedures for establishing operating
limits for capture systems and control devices, and revising the
limits, if necessary or desired, after the initial performance test are
given in Sec. 63.7733 of the final rule. Previous performance tests
(conducted since December 22, 2002) may be used to establish operating
limits.
Monitoring of capture system and control device operating
parameters is required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits. These requirements include bag leak detection systems
for baghouses and continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) for
capture systems (unless damper positions are fixed) and control
devices. For wet acid scrubbers, the final rule allows plants to
measure the pH every 8 hours during process operations using a pH probe
and meter as an alternative to a pH CPMS. The owner or operator of
automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines
that use a sand mold system at a new iron and steel foundry must
monitor organic HAP emissions using a CEMS unless they apply for
alternative monitoring requirements. Technical specifications, along
with requirements for installation, operation, and maintenance of CPMS
and CEMS, are included in the final rule. Records are required to
document compliance with the monitoring, inspection, and maintenance
requirements for monitoring equipment. The final rule requires
performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the PM (or total metal HAP), VOHAP, and TEA emissions limits and
every 6 months to demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity
limit for fugitive emissions. Subsequent performance tests are not
required for foundries that demonstrate continuous compliance using a
CEMS.
Work Practice Standards
No performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance
with the work practice standards. Foundries must certify that they have
prepared the required plans, have installed a direct flame contact gas-
fired scrap preheater if applicable (or that they will comply by
meeting the 20 ppmv emissions limit or by only preheating scrap that
meets the scrap certification requirements), that they will meet each
applicable work practice requirement, and that they have records
documenting their certification.
Records are required to demonstrate continuous compliance with
compliance certifications or to document conformance with their scrap
inspection and selection plan. Foundries also must keep records of the
chemical composition of all catalyst binder formulations applied in a
furan warm box mold or core making line.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Foundries must certify in their notification of compliance status
that they have prepared the O&M plan and that the plant will operate
equipment according to the plan requirements. Records are required to
demonstrate continuous compliance with other requirements in the O&M
plan for capture systems, control devices, and bag leak detection
system corrective actions. To demonstrate continuous compliance with
the plan for mold vent ignition, foundries must make a compliance
certification in each semiannual report that they have followed the
procedures in their O&M plan.
E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
These requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE (the final rule) shows
each of the requirements in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec. 63.1
through 63.15) and whether they apply.
The major notifications include one-time notifications of
applicability (due no later than 120 days of promulgation), performance
tests (due at least 60 days before each test), performance evaluations,
and compliance status. The notification of compliance status is
required no later than 60 days after the compliance demonstration if a
performance test is required or no later than 30 days after the
compliance demonstration if no performance test is required.
Foundries are required to maintain records that are needed to
document compliance, such as performance test results; copies of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; O&M plan; scrap selection and
inspection plan, and associated corrective action records; monitoring
data; and inspection records. Records of annual usage, chemical
composition, and HAP content are also required for chemical binders and
coating materials. In most cases, records must be kept for 5 years,
with records for the most recent 2 years kept onsite. However, the O&M
plan; scrap selection and inspection plan; and startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan are to be kept onsite and available for inspection for
the life of the affected source (or until the affected source is no
longer subject to the rule requirements.)
All foundries must make semiannual compliance reports of any
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit),
work practice standard, or O&M requirement. If no deviation occurred
and no monitoring systems were out of control, only a summary report is
required. More detailed information is required in the report if a
deviation did occur. An immediate report is required if actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
F. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
Existing iron and steel foundries must comply with most
requirements by April 23, 2007. The final rule requires existing
foundries to comply with the work practice standards in Sec.
63.7700(b)
[[Page 21910]]
or (c), as applicable, by April 22, 2005. New or reconstructed iron and
steel foundries that start up on or before April 22, 2004 must comply
by April 22, 2004. New or reconstructed iron and steel foundries that
start up after April 22, 2004 must comply upon initial startup.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Most iron and steel foundries have had emissions controls in place
for many years similar to those in the final rule. Overall, we expect
the final rule to reduce HAP emissions by more than 820 tpy. The NESHAP
will also reduce PM and VOC emissions by about 2,550 tpy.
Implementation of scrap selection and inspection procedures is expected
to reduce mercury emissions by 1.4 tpy--an 80 percent reduction from
current levels.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total annualized cost of the final rule is estimated at $21
million, including costs for control equipment, compliance tests
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. This cost also includes the
annualized cost of capital and the annual operating and maintenance
costs for supplies, control equipment, monitoring devices, and
recordkeeping media.
The nationwide total capital cost of the final rule is about $188
million. The capital costs associated with the final rule are primarily
due to the costs of installing modular pulse-jet baghouse systems to
control emissions of metal HAP and PM from cupolas currently controlled
using venturi scrubbers. This capital cost is estimated at $175 million
and includes the cost of removing the venturi scrubbers and installing
modular pulse-jet baghouse systems. Based on information provided by
the iron and steel foundry industry, we used a retrofit cost factor of
2.2 (i.e., the cost of installing a baghouse at an existing facility
was estimated to be 2.2 times the cost of installing an identical
baghouse at a new facility). This retrofit cost factor is considerably
higher than the typical retrofit costs suggested by the literature
(typical retrofit cost factors range from 1.2 to 1.5). As the cost of
operating a baghouse is less than the cost of operating a PM wet
scrubber due to lower energy consumption (lower pressure drop) of the
baghouse system and the avoidance of wastewater treatment/disposal
costs, the annual operating and maintenance cost of the final rule is
actually estimated to be less than the cost of operating the current
control equipment for cupolas. Therefore, there will be a net savings
in the annual operating and maintenance costs for baghouses over
venturi scrubbers of $6 million.
The cost impacts also include:
The cost of installing and operating baghouses
on currently uncontrolled electric induction metal melting furnaces;
The cost of installing and operating baghouses
on currently uncontrolled pouring stations;
The cost of installing and operating wet acid
scrubbers for currently uncontrolled TEA cold box mold and core making
lines;
The cost of installing and operating monitoring
equipment (predominantly baghouse leak detection systems) for emissions
sources; and
The cost of electronic and paper recordkeeping
media.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We conducted a detailed assessment of the economic impacts
associated with the final rule. The compliance costs are estimated to
increase the price of iron and steel castings by 0.1 percent with
domestic production declining by 8,400 tons in aggregate. The analysis
also indicates no impact on the market price for foundry coke, which is
used by cupolas in the production of iron castings. Foundry coke
production is projected to decrease by less than 0.1 percent.
Through the market impacts described above, the final rule is
predicted to have distributional impacts across producers and consumers
of iron and steel castings. Consumers would incur $13.2 million of the
overall regulatory burden of the final rule ($21.2 million) because of
higher prices and forgone consumption. Domestic producers of iron and
steel castings are expected to experience profit losses of $9.0 million
due to compliance costs and lower output levels, while foreign
producers may experience profit gains of $1 million associated with the
higher prices. For more information, consult the economic impact
analysis that is available in the docket.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
The final rule will generally provide positive secondary
environmental and energy impacts. Replacing cupola wet scrubber control
systems with baghouses will increase emissions of sulfur oxides by 370
tpy. However, due to the lower energy requirements for operating a
baghouse versus a wet scrubber, which more than offset the energy
requirements of the other new control equipment, the final rule is
projected to result in a net reduction in annual energy consumption of
121,000 megawatt hours per year. This will lead to a reduction in
emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from power plants of
roughly 180 tpy and 370 tpy, respectively. Therefore, the final rule
will have no net impact on emissions of sulfur oxides. There is
uncertainty about the estimates of secondary emission reductions due to
energy savings because we have not conducted a detailed analysis that
identifies the fuel sources used at power plants from which the energy
savings will be realized. Furthermore, the SO2 emission
reduction estimates may be overstated if the national cap on
SO2 emissions is binding. The replacement of wet scrubbers
with baghouses is also responsible for the final rule's estimated 18.1
billion gallons per year reduction in water consumption and waste water
disposal rates. Although baghouses have slightly higher dust collection
efficiencies, the dust is collected in a dry form while PM collected
using a wet scrubber contains significant water even after dewatering
processes. Therefore, the total volume and weight of solids disposed
under the final rule is estimated to be approximately the same as, if
not less than, the current solid waste disposal rates.
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
A. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Affected Source Designation?
Comment: Industry commenters felt the metal casting department
should be separated into two separate affected sources: a melting
department and a casting department. The commenters also suggested that
we clarify that a foundry may contain multiple affected sources of a
single type, such as more than one melting department, which may be
operationally different and physically removed from each other. Some
commenters felt that HAP emissions from melting are insignificant and
suggested that this process either be excluded as an affected source or
listed as a separate source category and then delisted.
Response: We considered splitting the metal casting department into
a melting department and a casting processing department. This further
classification of the affected sources might have been appropriate
because the melting furnaces (melting department) are often separate
from the pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines (casting processing
department). However, most commenters requesting a change in the
[[Page 21911]]
affected source or separate source categories thought that we could
then either de-list melting departments or that the emissions from the
melting department could be excluded from emissions limitations. Even
if the melting department were a separate source category or affected
source, these sources would still be co-located at major source
facilities, and we would still be required to develop MACT standards
for them. Furthermore, we do not consider emissions exceeding 100 tpy
of metal HAP from melting furnaces to be de minimis as suggested by
industry. Consequently, it is necessary and appropriate to establish
MACT standards for these emissions sources.
A secondary rationale for requesting a change in the affected
source was the fear of triggering new source MACT requirements.
However, upon clarification that defining the melting department as a
separate source would not eliminate the requirements to control melting
furnace emissions, these commenters supported a broad definition of the
affected source.
Therefore, in response to these comments, we have written the final
rule to include a broader definition of the affected source (i.e., the
iron and steel foundry). This broad definition eliminates a somewhat
artificial separation of the mold and core making processes, which can
often occur in close proximity, if not in conjunction with the casting
(pouring) operations. This approach also avoids instances where an
existing foundry might make minor equipment changes that might subject
one process or a single piece of equipment subject to the new source
emissions limits. This could occur if the affected source was defined
as each ``metal melting department'' which could be delineated as each
melting furnace at the foundry.
B. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Emissions Limits?
Metal Melting Furnaces
Comment: Most industry commenters opposed the proposed PM limit for
melting furnaces and scrap preheaters, especially at a new affected
source (i.e., the 0.001 gr/dscf). According to the commenters, the
limit cannot be maintained on a continuous basis, will not be
guaranteed by vendors, will result in high costs, will be subject to
measurements errors, and stretches the capability of Method 5 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A). Several commenters stated that the emissions
reductions that would be achieved did not warrant the costs associated
with the PM limits. Five commenters stated that the MACT floor
determination did not adequately account for inherent variability and
operation under the worst foreseeable conditions. Another commenter
stated that it was inappropriate to apply any variablity factor in
establishing the MACT floor emissions limits. One commenter noted that
a limit based on the 95th percentile of performance would suggest that
the unit is out of compliance 5 percent of the time.
Several commenters stated that the EPA should not specify the
control equipment in establishing the new source PM emissions limits,
that the facility EPA used for new source MACT for cupolas was not
representative, or that the more stringent limit was a disincentive to
modernize plants. Two commenters noted that the vendor guarantee for
the facility is 0.0016 gr/dscf (instead of 0.001 gr/dscf as reported by
EPA) because the guarantee was 0.001 in grains per actual cubic feet.
While two equipment vendors stated that they could not guarantee a long
term performance of 0.001 gr/dscf, a representative for control device
vendors stated that the 0.001 gr/dscf PM emissions limit for new
sources is reasonable and appropriate and that a variety of fabric
collector designs can achieve similar results. Most commenters
recommended a limit of 0.005 gr/dscf or 0.0052 gr/dscf (which was
proposed as the limit for certain new operations at integrated iron and
steel plants). One commenter suggested a limit of 0.002 gr/dscf because
baghouses achieving an average outlet PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf
would be out of compliance with a limit of 0.001 gr/dscf about half the
time.
Response: The CAA directs EPA to set limits that are at least as
stringent as the MACT floor. For existing units, the MACT floor is the
average emissions limitation achieved in practice by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing units (for which we have
emissions information). The MACT floor for new sources must not be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source. Consequently, the comments related to
vendor guarantees and high costs are not relevant in establishing the
MACT floor for new and existing sources.
We disagree that the limit will result in significant measurement
errors or that it stretches the capability of Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A). We require a minimum gas volume of 60 dry standard cubic
feet (dscf) to ensure that sufficient PM is collected to evaluate the
compliance of the emissions source with the PM emissions limits. In
addition, the practical quantification limit for Method 5 is a
filterable PM catch of 3 milligrams (mg), which is 0.0463 grains (gr).
At the practical quantification limit of 3 mg of PM collected from 60
dscf of gas, the practical quantification limit of Method 5 as required
in the rule is less than 0.0008 gr/dscf. If less than 3 mg of dust is
collected during a test in which at least 60 dscf of gas are collected,
we have reasonable assurance that the emissions source is in compliance
with a 0.001 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. Without a minimum gas volume
of 60 dscf, we could not confidently establish that an emissions source
meets the 0.001 gr/dscf emissions limit.
As noted by the commenters, the emissions limits must be achieved
at all times, and it is important that the MACT floor limit adequately
account for the normal and unavoidable variability in the process and
in the operation of the control device. The choice of selecting the
90th, 95th, or 99th percentile performance value depends largely on the
adequacy of the data. As there were only 10 to 15 emissions tests for a
given type of unit or source with which to assess the performance and
variability of baghouse control systems, selecting a higher percentile
range is appropriate to reflect additional uncertainty. In response to
comments concerning the potential variability in process and control
system performance and in recognition of the fact that the available
emissions data are from a fairly limited number of short-term tests, we
have re-evaluated the MACT floor determination using the 99th
percentile of performance. This approach is designed to account for the
different sources of variability, including variations in how the
process is operated, changes in control device parameters, and
variability associated with sampling and analysis.
By selecting the 99th percentile, we have sufficiently accounted
for process operation, control device performance, and measurement
variability. The 99th percentile is appropriate in this case because it
accounts for the extreme end of the range of performance that could
occur. Based on this re-evaluation of the MACT floor limits, we have
adjusted the floor for cupolas at existing sources from 0.005 gr/dscf
to 0.006 gr/dscf. We have adjusted the floor for cupola and electric
arc furnaces at new sources from 0.001 gr/dscf to 0.002 gr/dscf. This
new source limit of 0.002 gr/dscf is consistent with the vendor
guarantee when corrected from actual to standard conditions (0.0016 gr/
dscf).
We do not believe that setting a limit at the 95th or 99th
percentile means that the emissions source will be out of
[[Page 21912]]
compliance 5 percent or 1 percent of the time. Through proper operation
and maintenance of the control device and process equipment, the owner
or operator can avoid periods of poor performance. As such, a properly
operated and maintained control device applied to normal process
operations should not experience performance levels that exceed the
limit. In the rare event of an unavoidable failure such as a
malfunction, the owner or operator can continue to demonstrate
compliance by following the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. If the limit is exceed as a result of variability
that can and should be controlled (i.e., a preventable event), then the
event is a deviation.
We understand industry concerns over the representativeness of the
test data for one of the foundries that was mentioned. Fortunately,
emissions test data are available for an equivalent control system that
does not control an additional process which might dilute the
emissions. The performance level for this system is also a PM emissions
limit of 0.002 gr/dscf. Consequently, the limit for new sources is not
dependent only on the source test data from the one facility cited by
the commenters.
Unlike cupolas and electric arc furnaces, the furnace control
system that represents MACT for electric induction furnaces at new
sources is a traditional baghouse, followed by a cartridge filter,
followed by a high energy particulate air filter. The limit for this
system is still 0.001 gr/dscf when evaluated at the 99th percentile.
Therefore, the data clearly support that MACT for electric induction
furnaces at new sources is 0.001 gr/dscf.
In the final rule, we have established emissions limits for the
emissions sources and do not require a specific type of control device.
Foundry owners or operators may use any control measure that will meet
the applicable standard. In trying to understand the differences in the
performance achieved by certain systems, we evaluated and compared
baghouse design, cleaning mechanism, flow rate, temperature, fabric
material, and air-to-cloth ratio for each system as operated during the
emissions source test. Certainly a number of these factors influence
the performance of a fabric filter control system. In evaluating the
performance of the cupola control systems, the horizontally-designed
baghouses exhibited the best performance of the systems tested. The
description regarding these systems was provided primarily to document
why the low outlet PM concentrations observed were real and not the
result of an unknown source testing error. We do not endorse any
specific baghouse design.
Because the affected sources will be required to comply with the
emissions limits at all times, the limits established must account for
the normal and unavoidable variability inherent in the process and in
the control device operation. The emissions rate for a given emissions
source does vary over time, as is demonstrated by the variability seen
between individual test runs and repeat tests. As such, the MACT floor
should not be developed based on the stack test data without accounting
for variability. For each facility for which we have stack test
emissions data, we have estimated the emissions limitation that the
facility can achieve on a continuous basis by applying statistics to
the available emissions data to estimate the emissions rate that
facility can achieve at least 99 percent of the time.
In summary, we have established emissions limits for both new and
existing emissions sources and have not specified the type of control
system that must be used. For cupolas and electric arc furnaces, MACT
for new sources is 0.002 gr/dscf, reflecting the 99th percentile level
of performance of the median unit in the top 12 percent of best-
performing units. The MACT floor for cupolas at existing foundries is
0.006 gr/dscf, reflecting the 99th percentile level of control of the
median unit in the top 12 percent of best-performing units. These
limits reflect our conclusion that the proposed 0.001 gr/dscf limit for
cupolas and electric arc furnaces at new foundries and the 0.005 gr/
dscf limit for cupolas at existing foundries did not adequately account
for the variability expected in the actual performance of the units
that were used to establish the MACT floor for these emissions sources.
The 0.001 gr/dscf limit for electric induction furnaces and the 0.002
gr/dscf emissions limit for cupolas and electric arc furnaces at new
foundries represent emissions limits that the best-performing sources
can and do meet under the most adverse circumstances which can
reasonably be expected to recur.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the final rule include
emissions limits for individual metal HAP. The commenters suggested
that PM is not a good surrogate for lead (which is a semi-volatile
metal) or mercury (which typically has low collection efficiencies in
baghouses) and does not consider the hazard of the emitted pollutants.
In addition, the metal HAP in the PM from some emissions sources
comprise only a small portion of emissions from the emissions source or
the overall foundry and has not been characterized for other emissions
sources.
Response: As described in our MACT floor documentation, metal HAP
emissions reductions tracked well with PM emissions reductions for the
cupola control systems we tested. Reductions in lead emissions also
tracked well with PM emissions reductions. Mercury emissions were a
small component of the total metal HAP emissions, but both control
systems tested by EPA were ineffective in reducing mercury emissions.
Therefore, we do not consider these add-on control devices to be
control technologies for the purpose of reducing mercury emissions. The
only effective method for reducing mercury emissions at iron and steel
foundries is scrap metal selection and inspection to prevent mercury
contamination of the furnace charge. For all other metal HAP emissions
from metal melting furnaces, the test data show that effective PM
emissions control also provides effective metal HAP emissions control.
In addition, PM is a reasonable surrogate for metal HAP emissions
control effectiveness because MACT is a technology-based standard, and
the technologies currently used by foundries that reduce metal HAP
emissions are those specifically designed to control PM. Additionally,
it is clear from our data the greater the PM reductions are for a
specific unit, the greater are the HAP reductions. Thus, we have
concluded that it is appropriate to use PM as a surrogate for HAP
metals because the unit that achieves the greatest level of control of
PM will also achieve the greatest level of control of metal HAP. As
discussed in the following response, we have also developed an
alternative limit for total metal HAP. Finally, to the extent that it
is feasible to reduce metal HAP emissions by means other than operation
of emission control devices, we are requiring such measures.
Specifically, we are requiring a scrap selection and inspection program
to reduce lead and mercury emissions. These requirements combined with
the PM limits accurately reflect the MACT level of control.
Comment: Two commenters oppose the use of PM as a surrogate because
some foundries melt only high quality steel with very low tramp metal
content in the induction furnaces rather than scrap iron. Consequently,
their uncontrolled melting furnaces may have lower HAP emissions than
those from a baghouse on a furnace melting scrap with higher levels of
tramp metals. We also received comments that some foundry operations,
such as dry scrubbing for sulfur dioxide control,
[[Page 21913]]
may result in disproportionately high PM emissions without
correspondingly high metal HAP emissions.
Response: As discussed in our previous response, PM is a good
surrogate for HAP metals other than mercury. However, we recognize that
the metal HAP content of the PM can vary significantly depending on the
type of metal cast. Some foundries may have very low metal HAP
emissions due to very low HAP content in their casting. We also
recognize that it is infeasible for all foundries to use scrap with
very low HAP metal content because of the limited supply of such scrap
and because various levels of certain elements are needed in certain
grades and types of iron and steel casting. Also, when foundries use
scrubbing techniques for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, they may
have unusually high PM emissions without correspondingly high HAP
emissions. Therefore, while PM is a good surrogate with which to judge
the performance of a control system to reduce metal HAP emissions, we
realize that it is only a surrogate and not a direct measure of HAP
emissions, and that in some cases the PM limit may have unwarranted
consequences. For the above reasons, we are establishing alternative
total metal HAP emissions limits that are equivalent to the PM limits.
The alternative metal HAP limits are based on, and are dependent on the
MACT limits for PM.
Having identified the appropriate level of control based on PM
performance, we re-examined our data on metal HAP emissions and
evaluated the metal HAP emissions as a percent of the PM emissions. We
evaluated metal HAP emissions to project the range of metal HAP
emissions as a percent of PM associated with the performance of the
type of control system used by the unit identified as the MACT floor
emissions unit. That is, by normalizing the HAP emissions data by the
PM emissions and aggregating these data for the various emissions
sources being regulated, we calculated a reasonable estimate of the
magnitude and variability of the HAP content as a percent of PM for
these sources. By applying this information to the specific system that
established the MACT floor PM emissions limits for each source type, we
developed a total metal HAP emissions limit for each source type that
is based on the performance of the MACT floor unit. Each total metal
HAP limit is equivalent to the corresponding MACT floor PM emissions
limit. We used this calculation to develop alternative limits for total
metal HAP for melting furnaces and pouring operations.
The basis of this alternative emissions limit is the MACT floor
determination for PM emissions. Because we lack sufficient test data
for metal HAP, we could not otherwise derive a metal HAP emissions
limit without first identifying the MACT floor unit on the basis of its
PM emissions performance. Therefore, we concluded that this total metal
HAP emissions limit is an alternative to the PM emissions limit, and
not an additional MACT floor requirement.
We developed a distribution of the PM emissions for each emissions
source based on the actual performance of the unit identified as the
6th percentile unit and the same 0.4 relative standard deviation used
to determine the MACT floor performance limits. A separate distribution
based on the available metal HAP emissions data was developed to
characterize the total metal HAP content of the emitted PM. Using Monte
Carlo techniques, 5,000 randomizations were generated for each of these
distributions and the projected metal HAP emissions were calculated for
each of the 5,000 randomizations. This is a common statistical approach
for establishing a distribution for a parameter that is dependent on
multiple, variable parameters.
As with the MACT floor determination of PM emissions performance,
we selected the 99th percentile metal HAP concentrations determined
from these distributions. These metal HAP emissions limits were
equivalent to approximately 8 percent of the 99th percentile PM
emissions limit (i.e., the MACT floor PM emissions limit) for each of
the emissions sources. That is, this analysis indicated that the total
metal HAP emissions limit that is equivalent to the MACT floor PM
emissions limit can be calculated by multiplying the PM emissions limit
by 0.08 (i.e., assuming the PM is 8 percent metal HAP). The final metal
HAP emissions limits were rounded to one significant digit in keeping
with the relative accuracy of the assessment.
As the identification of the unit that represents the MACT floor is
solely dependent on the PM emissions performance, these metal HAP
emissions limits do not represent a separate MACT floor that must be
met at all emissions sources, but rather an alternative emissions limit
that is equivalent to the MACT floor PM emissions limit. The
alternative metal HAP emissions limits provide foundry operators with
more flexibility in meeting the metal HAP emissions limits (for
example, by adopting a scrap program that is more stringent than the
MACT requirement, in conjunction with PM emissions controls to further
reduce metal HAP emissions). This alternative also avoids, in some
cases, the need for replacing well-performing venturi wet scrubbers
with high efficiency baghouses to achieve a required PM emissions
reduction when other measures might be used to achieve the desired
metal HAP emissions reduction. The alternative also accommodates
facilities that may have disproportionate PM emissions but low HAP
emissions, as in the case for dry scrubbers used to control sulfur
dioxide.
Comment: More than twenty industry commenters opposed the proposed
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions limit for cupolas (200 ppmv). Several of
these commenters stated that CO data from CEMS and CO monitors show
that the limit cannot be achieved. They explained that the cupola
operation is a dynamic process that is affected by changes in the melt
rate and iron chemistry, which requires the CO combustor to adjust and
seek a new equilibrium; CO concentrations are highly variable even in
the best afterburner systems. The material being melted, coke sources,
and seasonal adjustments also affect CO emissions. One vendor stated
that his company could not guarantee equipment that can meet the 200
ppmv CO emissions limit. The commenters also suggested that the CO
limit is based on the Illinois emissions standard, which was found to
be improperly derived and never enforced.
Five commenters stated that EPA failed to provide sufficient data
that maintaining a CO concentration of 200 ppmv is an effective
surrogate for organic HAP destruction, while two commenters supported
the use of CO as a surrogate for HAP. One commenter asked why VOC was
not used as the surrogate for organic HAP emissions from the cupolas.
Response: The proposed CO emissions limit was based upon the
emissions source test data for CO emissions from cupolas; it was not
based upon the Illinois CO emissions limit. Two of the CO emissions
tests used to develop the 200 ppm CO emissions limit were from
foundries located in New Jersey, where CO CEMS are required. Therefore,
EPA requested CO CEMS emissions data from these foundries to verify the
performance of these systems and to better understand the variability
associated with the process. Data were received from one of these
foundries which supported the assertion that the 200 ppmv limit did not
adequately accommodate the variability in the process operations and
control device performance. Additionally, emissions test data were
[[Page 21914]]
also received from a cupola-afterburner system that measured CO and VOC
(minus methane) emissions concurrently. For the individual runs of this
test, the average outlet CO concentrations were 701, 1470, and 849
ppmv, while the average VOC emissions were 3.4, 4.2 and 5.1 ppmv as
propane. This limited data supports the industry commenters' assertion
that organic HAP emissions (as indicated by VOC emissions) are not well
correlated, although there is a limited range of CO and VOC emissions
considered in this single emissions test.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, CO is an
indicator of good (complete) combustion, but, at some lower level of
CO, further reductions in CO concentrations do not necessarily result
in further reductions of organic HAP. That is, we recognize that CO is
not a perfect surrogate for organic HAP emissions from the best-
performing units, but it is a surrogate for which emissions data were
available and one that provides a reasonable indication of adequate
combustion characteristics. However, based on the comments and the
additional data received, we agree that we do not have sufficient data
to support the establishment of a specific CO concentration limit as a
surrogate for the organic HAP emissions performance of a cupola
afterburner system.
We reviewed the submitted data and other data in the docket for VOC
and organic HAP for the best-controlled cupolas (those using
afterburners). These data are too limited to identify the level of
performance of the best-performing units or to establish a specific
organic HAP or VOC emissions limit. Therefore, we rely on our
experience with the performance of thermal destruction systems such as
these afterburners. This experience clearly indicates that these units
should be able to meet a 98 percent destruction efficiency or an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv (as the chemical emitted), whichever is less
stringent. However, due to safety issues associated with typical
equipment configurations, sampling between the cupola chamber and the
afterburner is impracticable and unsafe. Therefore, we provide only the
20 ppmv exhaust concentration alternative. The limited available data
on organic HAP emissions from cupola afterburners suggest that the 20
ppmv emissions limit is achievable and reflects the level of
performance of the best controlled units, and that the 98 percent
reduction alternative is not needed for this application.
Furthermore, we establish this emissions limit as the sum of all
volatile organic HAP (or VOHAP) emitted, thereby eliminating the need
to select a surrogate. However to provide flexibility in conducting the
performance tests, we are providing compliance alternatives to allow
for demonstration of compliance using test methods to measure TGNMO or
TOC concentrations (in ppmv as hexane). These test method alternatives
will measure both HAP and non-HAP compounds, and will, therefore,
ensure that a unit is meeting an emissions level as stringent or more
stringent than the VOHAP emissions limit. However, these test methods
are cheaper and easier to perform, and therefore, these options may be
desirable for some sources. Hexane was selected for the concentration
equivalency because the primary HAP expected to be emitted are C6
hydrocarbons or higher (e.g., benzene, toluene, and xylenes).
Comment: While one commenter supported the proposed rule
requirement for direct measurement of CO emissions from cupolas using a
CEMS, many industry commenters were opposed. They argued that the final
rule should include an operating limit for the afterburner temperature
measured by a CPMS. According to the commenters, a CO CEMS is not
technically feasible or reliable because of the harsh conditions of the
gas stream, and it is costly while achieving minimal benefit.
Response: We have deleted the requirement for a CO CEMS from the
final rule because the CO limit has been replaced by a limit for VOHAP
emissions. The autoignition temperature of the organic HAP present in
the cupola exhaust stream (primarily benzene, toluene, and xylenes) is
lower than the autoignition temperature of CO, which is 1,300 [deg]F.
Therefore, an adequately designed afterburner operating at a minimum of
1,300 [deg]F will effectively ensure combustion of the organic HAP.
Once a performance test indicates that the cupola afterburner is
sufficiently engineered (in terms of excess air flow, residence time
and mixing) to achieve the required VOHAP emissions limit, then
continuous monitoring of combustion zone temperature will provide
adequate assurance of continuous compliance. Therefore, we require
foundry operators to install and operate a CPMS for combustion zone
temperature, and we require that the 15-minute average combustion zone
temperature must not fall below 1,300 [deg]F. Periods when the cupola
is off blast and for 15 minutes after going on blast from an off blast
condition are not included in the 15-minute average.
Comment: Several industry commenters objected to the proposed VOC
emissions limit for scrap preheaters (20 ppmv as propane or 98 percent
reduction). The commenters contended that the VOC limit based on
afterburning technology does not meet the requirements for determining
the MACT floor because only 4 or 5 of 169 preheaters nationwide (3
percent) currently use afterburners. The commenters stated that there
is no basis for the proposed limit, there are no data indicating the
presence of organic HAP in preheater emissions, and improvements in
direct flame preheaters have made the afterburners an outdated
technology. Commenters also stated the existing units cannot achieve 20
ppmv because of process variability and the likely presence of
uncombusted methane from the preheater, which can contribute
significantly to the VOC concentration, especially when measured as
propane.
Response: Based on the information available at the time the
proposed rule was developed, it appeared that more than 6 percent of
the scrap preheaters were controlled by afterburners. However, we have
confirmed that, as the commenters suggested, one foundry that had
reported using afterburners had subsequently upgraded their material
handling system and installed direct flame preheater systems. With this
change, the median of the top 12 percent of units is no longer a unit
using an afterburner, but a unit using a direct flame preheater.
There are two basic types of preheater designs: direct flame
contact preheaters and hot gas flow preheaters. Direct flame contact
preheaters primarily use gas-fired burners where the flame impinges on
the scrap. The primary heating mechanism for direct flame contact
preheaters is the burner flames contacting the scrap. Hot gas flow
preheaters may use gas-fired burners or electricity to heat air and the
hot air (and combustion gases from the burner, if applicable) is used
to preheat the scrap. In hot gas flow preheaters, the scrap is not
heated by direct contact with a high temperature flame. Preheaters are
used primarily to remove water and organic contaminants that could
cause explosions or other hazards when the scrap is melted in induction
furnaces. Although both types of preheaters are effective for this
purpose, the different preheater designs have different HAP emissions
potentials.
For preheaters generally, we require a scrap selection and
inspection program to limit, to the extent practicable, the amount of
organic HAP precursors (i.e., oils and other organic liquids) entering
[[Page 21915]]
a scrap preheater, and we are establishing a work practice standard to
require either preheaters with direct flame contact or application of
an afterburner. Because the scrap selection and inspection program
cannot completely exclude the potential presence of tramp organic
materials, scrap preheaters are a potential source of organic HAP
emissions. Furthermore, we could not identify specific scrap selection
and inspection programs for these types of scrap materials that would
be more effective than those proposed. Therefore, the primary variable
affecting the organic HAP emissions from scrap preheaters is the
preheater design. Additionally, it is not feasible to capture and
convey emissions from all preheaters at existing foundries because of
certain design and operational constraints, such as preheaters with
moving grates, interferences with overhead moving cranes, and lack of
space. However, preheaters at new foundries can be designed to capture
and convey emissions prior to construction.
Based on an engineering assessment of the scrap preheater designs
and control systems, units that operate with an external combustion
system (afterburner) are expected to be the best performing for organic
HAP emissions. The next most effective control is the use of direct
flame contact preheaters, which have lower organic HAP emissions than
hot gas flow (indirect heating) preheaters because organic contaminants
in the scrap are thermally destroyed by direct contact with the
preheater flame. We ranked scrap preheater systems according to their
projected organic HAP destruction efficiency based on the heating
methods that are used. From this analysis, we identified the MACT floor
unit as one that uses natural gas, direct flame, scrap preheating (used
at well over 12 percent of existing sources). The direct flame contact
provides efficient destruction of organic HAP, and organic HAP control
is improved when combined with the requirements of the scrap selection
and inspection program. Moreover, many of the direct flame contact
preheaters use an open burner design where the burners are directed
onto the scrap, even when the preheater uses a moving grate system
where it is not feasible to collect the emissions through a conveyance.
Therefore, we believe a work practice standard is appropriate, and we
are requiring foundry owners and operators to use direct flame contact
preheaters. However, we are allowing foundries to use a properly
designed and operated afterburner as a compliance option for the
preheater MACT standard because an afterburner on either a direct flame
or indirect flame preheater will result in better control of organic
emissions than the use of direct flame preheating alone. This option is
reflected by an alternative standard of 20 ppmv VOHAP. Furthermore, we
also conclude that afterburners are not a cost-effective ``beyond-the-
floor'' technology for existing preheaters based both on the costs
associated with redesigning the burner configuration to allow capture
and control of the emissions and the small amount of additional
emissions reductions achieved by the additional afterburner control.
The MACT floor for scrap preheaters at new sources, however, is
still based on an afterburner control system. As discussed when
considering the performance limits for cupola afterburners, we believe
that a 20 ppmv emissions limits is still appropriate, but that the 20
ppmv limit should be based on specific VOHAP and should not necessarily
include uncombusted methane emissions.
We have acknowledged that all foundries cannot completely eliminate
organic contaminants from their scrap. However, some foundries use only
scrap that can be certified to be free of the organic contaminants. In
the final rule, we distinguish two general grades of scrap in the scrap
selection and inspection program. Under a certification program,
foundries can certify that they use only certified-metal ingots, pig
iron and similar material that do not contain organic contaminants.
Foundries that use scrap without organic contaminants will not generate
organic HAP emissions from their scrap, regardless of the type of
preheater used. Most foundries that use this type of material are small
production foundries, and most of these are not major sources of HAP
emissions. However, this may be a potentially viable alternative for
some major source foundries as well. Therefore, we provide a compliance
option for scrap preheaters that charge only clean scrap as described
by the certification alternative in the scrap selection and inspection
program. The compliance option for scrap preheaters that charge clean
scrap at new and existing iron and steel foundries is the work practice
of charging only material that has been certified to comply with the
scrap certification alternative in the scrap selection and inspection
program.
In summary, based on comments received and changes in the control
configurations used at the top 12 percent of scrap preheaters, we
revised the organic HAP MACT floor for scrap preheaters. The MACT floor
for scrap preheaters at existing sources is the work practice of using
a gas-fired preheater in which the gas flame directly contacts the
scrap. Alternatively, scrap preheaters at existing sources can meet a
20 ppmv VOHAP emissions limit (with alternatives of measuring TGNMO or
TOC as hexane as a surrogate for VOHAP). MACT for scrap preheaters at
new iron and steel foundries is the 20 ppmv VOHAP emissions limit.
Also, we provide an alternative compliance option for preheaters at new
and existing foundries that charge only clean scrap as described in the
certification alternative of the scrap selection and inspection
program. In this case, owners or operators need only certify that their
preheater heats only scrap as described in the scrap certification
alternative.
Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirement for direct
measurement of VOC emissions from scrap preheaters and pouring,
cooling, and shakeout (PCS) lines. The commenters believed that CEMS
are not practical for scrap preheaters or justifiable (technically or
economically) for PCS lines. Some commenters noted that VOC
measurements for scrap preheaters and PCS lines would be more accurate
with calibration by xylene or toluene rather than propane. One
commenter explained that most HAP emitted from foundries have six
carbons or more. Therefore, the VOC measurement should be calibrated
with toluene or xylene as these would provide a better measure of VOC
emissions than propane.
Response: The point concerning the representativeness of propane to
characterize the HAP emissions is well-taken. Even though a wide
variety of HAP are expected to be emitted from these sources, an
analysis of the available VOHAP emissions data indicate that the
average carbon number for the VOC emitted from these operations is six.
Additionally, the historical documents where EPA has established the 20
ppm VOC emissions limit indicates that it was established by compound
exit concentration rather than by a specified indicator of VOC, such as
propane. Therefore, based on the available data and a review of the
basis for VOC measurements, we have adjusted the organic HAP emissions
limits to either measure VOHAP concentrations directly or to measure
TOC using hexane as the calibration gas (i.e., measure VOC outlet
concentrations as hexane or C6 equivalents) as a surrogate for VOHAP.
These organic HAP emissions limits now apply to cupolas (at new and
existing foundries),
[[Page 21916]]
scrap preheaters (at new foundries and as an alternative at existing
foundries), and automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and
automated shakeout lines that use sand mold systems (at new foundries).
Although a VOC CEMS is technically feasible for these applications,
especially for new foundries, a review of the relative costs associated
with these monitoring requirements compared to the control equipment
costs to achieve the emissions limits does not appear to justify the
requirement to install and operate VOC CEMS for cupola afterburners or
scrap preheaters. Furthermore, for cupolas and scrap preheaters which
use thermal destruction, the combustion zone (or flame) temperature
provides an excellent indicator of on-going control device performance.
Therefore, alternative continuous parameter monitoring requirements for
these emissions sources can be used that will ensure continuous
compliance with the emissions limit without undue additional costs. No
alternative continuous parameter monitoring requirement could be
identified for the cooling and shakeout operations. As the organic HAP
emissions limits only apply to automated conveyor and pallet cooling
lines and automated shakeout lines that use a sand mold system at a new
iron and steel foundry, we maintained the VOC CEMS requirement for
these emissions sources. We provide options to either meet the 20 ppmv
VOHAP limit directly using the VOC CEMS (measuring total hydrocarbons
as hexane) or to develop an equivalent site-specific VOC CEMS emissions
limit based on the results of the VOHAP emissions measured during the
performance test. The VOC CEMS actually measures total hydrocarbons,
which includes non-HAP compounds. As a result, using a VOC CEMS to
directly measure total hydrocarbons may be more stringent than the
site-specific VOC limit correlated to measured VOHAP emissions.
We also included procedures in the final rule that will allow other
monitoring methods to demonstrate compliance with the VOHAP emissions
limit. For example, if you use a carbon adsorption system to control
organic HAP emissions, appropriate monitoring parameters may include
carbon breakthrough by replacing the carbon at specified frequencies.
Other compliance methods, such a pollution prevention (P2) techniques,
also may be used to meet the VOHAP emissions limit. If you use P2
techniques, appropriate monitoring methods may include measuring loss
on ignition or recording the type of binder formulation used, total
chemical usage rate, and/or chemical usage rate per volume of sand. If
through P2 measures you can eliminate all HAP emissions from the
emissions source or you can demonstrate continued HAP emissions
reductions equal to or better than the MACT level of control, you may
be eligible for a P2 compliance alternative under amendments to the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These amendments
were proposed on May 15, 2003 (68 FR 26249).
The procedures in the final rule require that you submit a
monitoring plan that includes a description of the control technique
(or P2 measures), a description of the continuous monitoring system or
method (including appropriate operating parameters to be monitored),
test results demonstrating compliance with the emissions limit,
operating limit(s) if applicable determined according to the test
results, and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish
continuous compliance. If applicable, you also must include operation
and maintenance requirements for the monitor(s).
Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout
Comment: Several commenters requested that we clarify the
applicability of the emissions limits with regard to ``pouring areas''
and ``shakeout.'' In general, large area casting producers requested
that we remove reference in the definition of ``pouring area'' to
maintaining the molds in a stationary position through cooling. One
commenter requested that the definition for ``shakeout'' be revised to
indicate that it is a mechanical operation, typically automated, and
does not include manual operations that dismantle or separate castings
from molds as seen in pouring areas. The change is needed because
otherwise such manual operations may be subject to the requirements for
new lines; however, it is infeasible to capture and control these
operations, especially when they involve large castings in a pouring
area.
Other commenters pointed out that centrifugal and permanent molds
have very low organic content compared to sand molds. The commenters
recommended that these systems be subcategorized and stated that the
MACT floor for pouring, cooling, and shakeout for these operations at
new sources would be no control.
Response: We agree with some of the commenters suggestions for
clarifying definitions. We examined the data and found that no cooling
lines associated with floor or pit molding operations are currently
controlled for organic HAP emissions. Of the three cooling lines that
have end-of-pipe controls, two are automated conveyor lines and one is
a pallet line. One of the foundries that has a carbon adsorption unit
performs both pallet and floor molding; however, only the pallet
cooling line is controlled.
Based on this information and in response to comments, we removed
the proposed rule definition of ``pouring, cooling, and shakeout line''
and adjusted the proposed rule definition of ``pouring area'' to
clarify that it includes floor and pit molding processes. In addition,
the molds in a pouring area do not have to remain stationary for the
duration of mold cooling. We also adjusted the proposed definition of
``pouring station'' to clarify that it means the fixed location to
which molds are brought by an automated conveyor or pallet molding
line. We added a definition for ``automated conveyor and pallet cooling
line'' (i.e., cooling lines associated with pouring stations) and
``floor and pit cooling operation'' (i.e., a cooling operation
associated with a pouring area). We also removed the proposed rule
definition of ``shakeout'' and added a definition for ``automated
shakeout line'' that distinguishes automated shakeout operations from
manual knockout operations. The purpose of these revisions is to
clarify that the 20 ppmv VOHAP limit for a new iron and steel foundry
applies only to automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and to
automated shakeout lines.
As discussed in the BID for the final standards, permanent and
centrifugal molds have significantly lower organic HAP emissions than
green sand molds. Our re-evaluation of new source MACT for organic HAP
demonstrates the need for a subcategorization of permanent and
centrifugal molds for cooling and shakeout. For this reason, we also
adjusted the VOHAP limit for new foundries to apply only to lines
(automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and automated shakeout
lines) that use a sand mold system.
Capture Systems
Comment: Several commenters stated that the requirement of a
minimum face velocity of 200 feet per minute (ft/min) has no underlying
MACT floor basis and that it does not account for variability. Numerous
commenters stated that a blanket requirement of 200 ft/min is not
universally applicable and it is not consistent with good engineering
design. Other commenters stated that the capture requirements creates a
safety hazard, increases energy requirements
[[Page 21917]]
(for building heating and air conditioning), and creates defects in the
castings (especially during pouring).
Several commenters noted that indoor air quality is regulated by
other agencies and stated that when a process is operated in a manner
that limits worker exposure (e.g., so as to comply with standards
established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), then
there is no basis for requiring stricter capture and ventilation
standards. Another commenter noted that adjustments to individual fans
for workers, which were installed for worker comfort, can change air
flow in the surrounding area and impact face velocity, making it
difficult to maintain compliance with the standard. Consequently, the
requirement to maintain a minimum of 200 ft/min face velocity would
require much higher design and operating face velocities in order to
ensure continuous compliance, increasing energy consumption with no
demonstrable environmental benefit.
A few commenters stated that it was technically infeasible to
install close capture hoods on their induction furnaces, pouring
stations, or pouring areas due to process configurations and
accessibility limitations. The only option would be to evacuate the
entire building at huge costs and energy requirements for very limited
HAP emissions reduction.
One commenter noted that their foundry has reduced VOC and HAP
emissions by judicious reductions in capture and collection, and that
the prescriptive ventilation requirement would reduce operator
flexibility and may increase HAP emissions. Another commenter noted
that they had received a patent for controllers that limit air
ventilation at times of lower emissions, which saves heating and energy
costs without impairing air quality.
Most of the commenters recommended that the final rule require that
existing capture systems be operated consistent with good engineering
practices and consistent with the facility's operation and maintenance
plan. Two commenters recommended requiring a best engineering design
based on the ``Industrial Ventilation Manual of Recommended Practice.''
Response: Due to the comments received regarding the capture system
requirements, we have decided to eliminate the 200 ft/min capture
velocity requirement. In the final rule, we require that capture
systems be designed and operated according to accepted engineering
practices, such as the ``Industrial Ventilation Manual of Recommended
Practice.'' Periodic inspection, maintenance, and continuous parametric
monitoring are required to ensure they are properly operated and
maintained on a continuing basis.
Additionally, we agree that there are process configurations and
designs for which capture is infeasible, impractical, and ineffective.
For example, capture systems at some iron and steel foundries would
interfere with the movement of overhead cranes used to move large
molds. Some pouring areas cover several thousand square feet, which
makes capture impractical because of the enormous evacuation rate that
would be needed. Physical constraints and space limitations, such
inadequate clearance between equipment and structural columns, also
pose problems for installing capture systems. For operations that
cannot feasibly be captured, the emissions from the operation are
released into the interior of foundry buildings and may be emitted as
fugitive emissions through roof vents, doors, and other openings. We
specifically require control of such fugitive emissions as described
above.
Opacity Limit
Comment: Several commenters recommended that fugitive emissions
from miscellaneous sources not be included because the control of these
emissions would be costly and will not contribute to a significant
reduction in HAP emissions. These commenters do not believe an opacity
limit for fugitive emissions is necessary or appropriate. One commenter
noted that an opacity limit of 5 percent would be beyond the MACT
floor. The commenter stated that they have two plants regulated under a
single permit that included a 5 percent opacity limit as a condition to
proposed modifications. Modifications have been completed to one of the
plants to meet this limit and modifications are planned at the other
plant (at an investment of $3 to $11 million) to enable them to meet
the permit limit by December 2004.
On the other hand, two commenters stated that EPA needs to set a
limit for fugitive emissions and also develop work practices to control
fugitive emissions. One of the commenters submitted a summary of dust
analysis results surrounding a steel foundry indicated elevated levels
of several HAP, including chromium (total), lead, manganese, and
nickel, near the foundry. The commenter suggested that these elevated
metal HAP emissions are due largely to uncontrolled fugitive emissions
from the foundry.
Response: The CAA directs EPA to establish standards under section
112(d) to reduce emissions of HAP from stationary sources, and
expressly includes fugitive emissions. Our data indicate that there are
significant sources of fugitive HAP emissions at iron and steel
foundries. Fugitive HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries include
un-captured metal fumes from metal melting and pouring operations. The
available emissions data clearly demonstrates that metal fumes from
these sources contain metal HAP including manganese, lead, and other
heavy metals. Additionally, commenters have submitted data regarding
the elevated HAP content in dust surrounding one foundry, and suggested
that fugitive emissions may have contributed to these high HAP
concentrations. In general, it is clear that fugitive emissions
contribute to the overall HAP emissions from foundry operations.
Moreover, such fugitive emissions are often subject to emission
limitations.
Our evaluation indicates that these fugitive emissions have been
effectively regulated by establishing opacity limits. We examined State
regulations for fugitive emissions and found that almost all States
apply an opacity limit for the buildings that house the process
equipment. We ranked the regulations and chose the most stringent
(Michigan's limit of 20 percent with one exception per hour up to 27
percent) because at least 6 percent of the foundries are subject to
this limit. This opacity limit represents the MACT floor for existing
sources and is the primary standard for fugitive emissions.
This opacity limit is indicative of the achievable performance of
these foundries under the most adverse circumstances that can
reasonably be expected to recur. Based on observations of visual
emissions at a number of iron and steel foundries, this opacity limit
can be achieved at well controlled foundries. Furthermore, we know of
no facility that is currently subject to, and able to meet, a more
stringent opacity limit. One commenter appears to be in the process of
trying to meet a 5 percent opacity, but the overall regulated facility
(which consists of two plants) has yet to be able to meet this limit,
and as such, we do not consider the 5 percent opacity limit achieved.
Therefore, we conclude that the MACT floor for fugitive emissions from
new sources is the same as for existing sources (20 percent opacity
except for one 6-minute average per hour not to exceed 27 percent)
because this is the emissions limit required of the best performing
facility, and we believe this
[[Page 21918]]
emissions limit is indicative of the actual emissions limitations
achieved by these facilities under the most adverse circumstances that
can reasonably be expected to recur. The opacity limit applies
specifically to fugitive emissions from the foundry buildings, and
fugitive emissions are defined as all releases to the atmosphere that
are not discharged through a conveyance.
Mold and Core Making
Comment: Several industry representatives commented that the
scrubbers evaluated for MACT appeared to be operating with fresh acid
solution with a pH below 2. However, contractors who recycle used TEA
will not accept material with a pH less than 2. One commenter felt that
recyclers would not accept the scrubber solutions because of the low pH
that would result from the 1 ppmv emissions limit. Commenters also
questioned the technical validity of the 1 ppmv emissions limit,
especially for systems with high inlet TEA concentrations. The
commenters recommended that we adjust the proposed operating limit for
wet acid scrubbers to require operating within manufacturer's
specifications, maintaining the pH at 4.5 or less, and assess
performance in terms of percent removal as specified by the
manufacturer.
Response: The commenters' point regarding the test data being
representative of TEA scrubber performance with fresh acid solution is
well-founded. All of the available TEA scrubber performance data was
generated from tests that used fresh acid solution (pH of 2 or less).
Discussions with control equipment vendors indicate that the scrubbers
are designed to operate at a scrubbing solution pH of 4.5 or lower.
Discussions with foundry operators, as well as the public comments
received, indicate that these foundries replace the scrubbing solution
when the pH reaches either 4.5 or 5, depending on the foundry. As
recycling of the TEA in the scrubbing solution is environmentally
beneficial, we do not want to preclude the recycling of TEA by
establishing a very low pH operating limit during the performance test.
Also, because the performance limits were derived from test data of
systems with fresh acid solution, it is not necessarily appropriate to
require foundries to meet an emissions limit with spent acid solution
(i.e., a pH nearing 4.5) when the data used to establish the
performance limit of the scrubbers were all based on performance with
fresh acid solution (i.e., a pH of 2 or less). From the information
collected regarding the operation of these systems, at least 12 percent
of the units replace the scrubbing solution at a pH of 4.5 or less
(rather than at a pH of 5 or less). No units were identified that
replaced the scrubbing solution at a pH of 4.0 or less. Therefore,
replacing the scrubber solution at a pH of 4.5 or less is
representative of MACT floor operating conditions for these scrubbing
systems at new and existing iron and steel foundries.
The data used to establish the performance of the wet scrubber
systems were also limited in that we have no data for systems with
inlet TEA concentrations greater than 250 ppmv. Based on comments
received from both foundry and TEA scrubber vendor representatives, the
TEA systems are designed to achieve a percent removal of TEA and that
the 1 ppmv limit is not achievable for systems with inlet TEA
concentrations in the 1,000 ppmv range or higher. We believe that these
are valid concerns and that a percent reduction alternative is
warranted for systems with high TEA concentrations. After reviewing the
source test data and the operating parameters associated with the TEA
scrubber at the best-performing sources, we concluded that the MACT
floor performance of the TEA scrubbers is correctly defined as a 99
percent or more TEA removal efficiency or an outlet TEA concentration
of 1 ppmv or less, as determined when the system is operated with fresh
scrubbing media. These emissions limits are consistent with the
available data that establish the MACT floor level of control, and the
operating limits are consistent with the operation of the best-
performing TEA acid scrubbers.
For these reasons, we adjusted the proposed emissions limit to
require the owner or operator to reduce TEA emissions from a TEA cold
box mold or core making line at a new or existing foundry by at least
99 percent or to a level that does not exceed 1 ppmv, as determined
when scrubbing with fresh acid solution. We also adjusted the proposed
operating limit to require that the 3-hour average pH of the scrubber
blowdown not exceed 4.5. We also added compliance provisions to
implement these new requirements. Plants must conduct an initial
performance test to establish that the TEA scrubber is correctly
designed to meet the required emissions limit and to establish the
minimum flow rate of scrubbing media that must be maintained.
Continuous compliance is established by maintaining the scrubber media
flow rate at or above the limit established during the performance test
and maintaining the pH of the scrubbing media at or below a pH of 4.5.
C. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Work Practice Standards?
Scrap Selection and Inspection
Comment: We received about 20 comments from foundries and recyclers
on the proposed work practice standards. Most believed that the
requirements are unnecessary because the emissions limits for organic
HAP already require capture and control. They stated that cupolas are
both designed for and capable of handling some of the restricted
material, such as oily scrap, and a cupola is the most environmentally
acceptable process in which to recycle these materials.
Response: We proposed a single scrap selection and inspection
requirement regardless of the type of melting furnace used. Upon
consideration of the public comments and data submitted regarding used
oil filter recycling, we agree that a cupola, properly controlled with
an afterburner, provides a safe and environmentally beneficial means of
recycling oily scrap. That is, our test data and engineering analyses
indicate that the afterburner will destroy organic compounds resulting
from the melting of oily scrap. Therefore, we have included a specific
provision that allows oily scrap in cupolas as long as it is drained of
free liquids and an afterburner is used that meets specific design and
operating requirements to ensure destruction of organic compounds.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we include additional
specifications or a requirement to ensure that no mercury switches are
included in the scrap. These requirements are needed to reduce mercury
emissions from the furnaces. These commenters provided information on
programs to remove mercury switches from automobile scrap and the
potential reductions in mercury emissions when this scrap is melted.
Other commenters stated that restrictions on HAP metals in scrap were
unnecessary because the melting furnaces have PM controls and are
subject to emissions limits for PM.
Response: Although there are provisions for metal HAP emissions
control for all furnace types, mercury is not well-controlled by these
control systems because of its volatility. We agree with the commenters
that removing mercury switches from automobile scrap is the best
technique to reduce mercury emissions from melting furnaces. We
researched programs currently in place for the removal of mercury
switches. We found that there are some mandatory and voluntary programs
that are being
[[Page 21919]]
implemented by the States to remove mercury switches from end of life
vehicles. However, we could not confirm that the removal of mercury
switches would be part of the floor of a scrap inspection program for
iron and steel foundries because some programs were voluntary and
others affected scrap recyclers rather than foundries. We evaluated the
costs and emissions reductions of mercury switch removal and found that
the removal of mercury switches associated with convenience lighting
was cost effective. The switches are readily accessible, and for
automobiles manufactured in 2001 and earlier, they account for the vast
majority of mercury in automobile components. We estimate that such a
program could achieve annual mercury reductions of 2,800 pounds at an
annual cost of only $3.6 million. This evaluation indicates that it is
a reasonable and cost effective beyond-the-floor alternative.
Consequently, we incorporated requirements into the scrap inspection
program to address the removal of mercury switches from under hoods and
trunks.
We also considered the feasibility of the removal of the small
amount of mercury that may be used in flat panel displays used in
entertainment and navigation systems and in some headlamps. These uses
of mercury comprise only 1 percent of that used in automobiles
historically, such as convenience light switches. The small amount of
mercury, poor accessibility to the mercury, and the costs of removal
indicated that removal of mercury from these small applications was not
a cost effective alternative for beyond the MACT floor.
There are several other efforts underway to reduce the use of
mercury switches in automobiles and to remove them from end of life
vehicles. The U.S. automobile industry has committed to removing
mercury convenience lighting switches from new automobiles. The
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a trade association of car and
light truck manufacturers) reports that the use of mercury in
automobile components has been reduced to 1 percent of the level used
in the 2001 calendar year. Several States and EPA have initiated
programs, such as legislative efforts, pilot projects, and outreach
campaigns to facilitate the removal of mercury switches from automobile
scrap, which is particularly important for vehicles manufactured in
2001 and earlier. These efforts supplement the scrap inspection program
in the final rule and will help to ensure continued reductions in
mercury emissions in the future.
Several commenters also expressed concerns that lead may not
necessarily be well-controlled by these systems depending on the
operating temperatures of the control system. Although the data for the
two cupola control systems that we tested indicated excellent control
of lead emissions, experience with a variety of PM control systems at
other industries (but similar types of emissions) indicate that lead
removal efficiency may be reduced at higher temperatures. In addition,
many plants already limit and inspect for lead components, and many
such components are identifiable in scrap. Our analysis of the
practices currently used by iron and steel foundries indicates that
preventing or removing identifiable lead components in scrap is part of
the MACT floor. Therefore, we have included requirements restricting
lead components in scrap. However, we have eliminated restrictions for
other metal components, such as galvanized parts, both because it is
difficult to distinguish these parts from other scrap metals and
because the metal HAP that might be released during the melting process
are low in volatility and are well controlled by PM control devices
over the range of temperatures that these devices operate.
Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that we write the final
rule to include specifications with restrictions on the amount of free
liquids, grease, oil, and plastic parts; procedures to inspect a
representative number of scrap shipments (e.g., 10 percent), and
procedures to ensure that oily turnings are properly drained of free
liquids. These commenters also stated that the requirement to perform
the inspections at the best vantage point was nebulous and makes
compliance difficult to ensure. One commenter requested that we write
the final rule to exempt any foundry from the scrap inspection and
recordkeeping requirements if they use certified metal ingots that do
not contain HAP.
Response: We reconsidered the practicality and, in some cases, the
vagueness of the proposed scrap inspection program. These commenters
have offered several suggestions that will improve the program, and we
have written the scrap selection and inspection requirements to
incorporate many of these suggestions. For example, we realize it is
impractical and almost impossible to inspect all shipments, so we
require inspection of representative shipments (but not less than 10
percent of the shipments). The undefined best vantage point for
performing the inspections has been revised to a reasonable vantage
point. We also clarified that a continuing scrap inspection program is
not necessary for those foundries that do not use scrap containing the
HAP generating contaminants if they meet compliance certification
requirements for their furnace charge materials. These adjustments and
the resulting requirements are consistent with the practices at the
best-controlled foundries and are representative of the MACT floor.
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA require foundries to
implement the work practice requirements that will reduce mercury
emissions (i.e., scrap selection and inspection program) within 1 year
of the effective date. The commenters pointed out that most foundries
already have these programs in place and no control equipment is needed
that might require more time to install. Implementing these
requirements sooner would result in greater reductions in mercury
emissions especially considering the phase out of mercury switches in
new automobiles.
Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestions and see no
reason why foundries can not implement the scrap selection and
inspection program or certification requirements sooner. While owners
or operators of iron and steel foundries are provided 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule to comply with other requirements, we
are requiring that existing iron and steel foundries comply with the
scrap selection and inspection program in Sec. 63.7700(b) or the
certification requirements in Sec. 63.7700(c) within 1 year of the
effective date of the final rule.
Mold and Core Making
Comment: Several commenters opposed the proposed requirement to
manually light off molds because some molds do not produce gases that
will support combustion, and they would automatically ignite if they
were combustible. It is not practical to inspect each mold vent at high
production foundries, and in some cases, hoods or enclosures make it
impractical and unsafe to manually ignite and inspect vents. Some
commenters stated that the requirements are burdensome and unclear with
respect to how to demonstrate compliance (e.g., how quickly they must
be lit, how long must they burn, and does the requirement depend on
mold size and binder type). Others stated that EPA has not demonstrated
that mold light off represents the MACT floor and presented no data to
show that HAP emissions would be reduced.
[[Page 21920]]
Response: From our observations of foundry operations, ignition of
mold vents was a standard operating procedure, although we recognize
that ignition of mold vent gasses generally occurs spontaneously. In
reviewing the public comments, it is evident that the requirements, as
proposed, had several significant short-comings. For foundries with
mold vents that are not ignitable, there must be a mechanism to
document this fact, they should not be required to try to manually
ignite every mold vent, and it should not be necessary to keep records
of which mold vents did not ignite. In addition, we did not intend to
endanger the safety of the workers through this requirement. Finally,
we did not intend to limit mold light off to only manual means. The use
of natural gas pilot flames in automated cooling lines to light off
mold vents is certainly acceptable; consequently, we adjusted the
requirement to manually ignite the gases.
There is no doubt that mold vent gases contain HAP and that the
ignition of the mold vent gases will reduce the HAP emissions that
occur due to mold off-gassing. Therefore, we have not eliminated
requirements for mold vent light off, but we have significantly revised
the requirements. The final rule incorporates the mold vent ignition
requirements into the O&M plan. The plan must include procedures for
providing an ignition source to mold vents unless the owner or operator
determines the gases either are not ignitable, ignite automatically, or
cannot be ignited due to legitimate accessibility or safety reasons.
Criteria are included for determining ignitability. The final rule
requires that foundries document and maintain records of this
determination.
Coating and Binder Formulations
Comment: We received one comment supporting the proposed
requirement for non-HAP coating formulations. We also received many
comments from industry representatives opposing the total elimination
of HAP. Most of these commenters asked us to allow HAP compounds in
small percentages in coatings when they are needed to achieve the
physical and chemical properties required by the coating
specifications. One commenter explained that there is a small but
specialized need for methanol-based coatings. The methanol-based
coatings are designed for light off in which the flammable components
are consumed so that minimal methanol is released to the environment.
Methanol used as a carrier in the coating could be replaced, but not
methanol used as an active ingredient in the coating. While methanol
has been replaced in many cases by water, methanol in small quantities
is needed in coatings as a biocide or surfactant. Several commenters
suggested that Material Safety Data Sheets be used to satisfy
recordkeeping requirements.
Response: After considering the numerous comments and the technical
details associated with this issue, we concluded that we could not show
that prohibiting methanol in this application would be a cost-effective
beyond-the-floor option. In addition, we cannot show that it is
technically feasible in all cases, considering the specialized use of
methanol in some applications and the unknown effect on the quality of
certain products that must meet coating specifications. For these
reasons, we deleted the proposed requirement for non-HAP coating
formulations from the final rule. Consistent with our intent to have
foundries consider the HAP content and potential HAP emissions from
their coating formulations, we are applying recordkeeping requirements
to HAP used in coatings. These include requirements to record annual
chemical usage rates for each binder system, annual HAP specific usage
rates for each binder system, and total HAP usage rate by the foundry.
These records will identify those systems with the highest HAP usage
rates and make it easier for foundries to focus on opportunities to
reduce the HAP content.
Comment: Several commenters said the no methanol requirements
placed on furan warm box binder systems should be removed because they
were beyond the floor and had not been justified. Also, there is no
assurance that binders without methanol can provide the quality of
castings that is needed. The commenters explained that the catalyst
portion of the binder system is water-based in most current
formulations, but the resin portion of the binder system typically
contains up to 5 percent methanol as a stabilizer for the resin.
Therefore, the no methanol requirement for furan warm box systems
should be clarified to limit the requirement of no methanol only to the
catalyst and should allow up to 5 percent methanol in the resin
material. One commenter recommended that EPA defer all specific binder
reformulation requirements until residual risk standards; this will
allow time to complete testing on low-emitting binder systems. Another
commenter recommended that all specific binder reformulation
requirements be deleted because they limit greener alternatives from
being evaluated.
Response: The proposed no methanol requirement was not based on a
beyond-the-floor analysis; it was based on the fact that over 40
percent of the mold and core making lines using the furan warm box
system (based on responses to a detailed industry survey) had switched
from a methanol-based catalyst. However, it appears that we
mischaracterized the extent to which methanol can be eliminated from
the furan warm box system. The survey responses used to establish the
MACT floor specifically indicated that the conversion was performed
only for the catalyst portion of the binder system. The comments we
received verify that conversion to a no-methanol or water-based
catalyst is technically feasible. Therefore, we revised the requirement
for furan warm box binder systems to indicate that foundries must use a
furan warm box catalyst that does not include methanol as a specific
ingredient as listed in the Material Data Safety Sheet. We also revised
this provision to clarify that the requirement does not apply to the
resin portion of the binder system. Methanol is allowed in the resin
portion of the binder system. The final rule also requires plants to
maintain records of all catalyst binder formulations.
Comment: While one commenter supported the proposed requirement for
naphthalene-depleted solvents in binders for phenolic urethane cold box
or nobake mold or core making lines, several commenters opposed the
requirement. According to these commenters, EPA should delete the
requirement because it is beyond the floor and unjustified. Three
commenters stated that naphthalene-depleted solvents may increase VOC
emissions and that EPA had underestimated the cost. One commenter added
that the proposed requirement would be ineffective because naphthalene-
depleted solvents contain other HAP. The proposed requirement may
require expensive tooling modifications and product testing if cores
are changed, and there is no assurance that binders without naphthalene
will be capable of providing the quality of castings that is needed,
will work at all foundries, or will be available for all major source
foundries. Some commenters recommended that EPA encourage
environmentally friendly resins using New Source Review Clean
Technology concepts and have foundries report on the results. Others
recommended requiring a study or deferring the requirement until the
residual risk is evaluated.
Response: Based on a review of the comments and upon further
analysis, we determined that the requirement for naphthalene-depleted
solvents is not warranted. First, the naphthalene-
[[Page 21921]]
depleted solvent does not provide the same characteristics as the
traditional phenolic urethane base solvent and, therefore, may not
achieve acceptable quality castings in all applications. Second, we
feel we underestimated the cost of the required binder system
substitution by not considering the cost to recertify the castings
through a production parts approval process. Third, we may have
overestimated the amount of HAP emissions reductions that are
achievable by the use of the naphthalene-depleted solvent. Therefore,
we feel that we cannot require that all phenolic urethane binder
systems be converted to a naphthalene-depleted solvent. In addition,
the requirement to convert solvents is not a cost-effective
alternative; consequently, we rejected the use of naphthalene-depleted
solvents as a beyond-the-floor requirement. Therefore, this specific
requirement has been removed from the final rule. With this change,
almost all of the concerns expressed by the commenters have been
addressed.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the binder system
evaluation requirements be deleted. The mold and core binder assessment
is a beyond-the-floor requirement with no economic cost-effectiveness
demonstration, imposes a heavy burden on the foundry, and is written in
a manner subject to interpretation and potential compliance actions.
The MACT floor is mostly no change in formulation. Most of these
commenters state that EPA does not have the authority to require a re-
evaluation every 5 years because MACT standards are to represent a one-
time identification of the technologies currently available.
Response: We felt that foundries routinely evaluated alternative
binder systems to identify systems that might help to reduce costs,
speed production, improve casting quality, and reduce defects.
Primarily, we wanted foundries to include in this process an evaluation
of the potential HAP emissions and factor in these HAP emissions
reductions in the process of selecting an appropriate binder system.
However, as proposed, the requirement was too broad (evaluate all
binder systems) and too vague (what is a reduced-HAP binder system?) to
be practically implemented. As we attempted to craft this requirement
into something that could be reasonably implemented without undue
burden, we still struggled with numerous questions: what is a reduced-
HAP binder system; do we consider emissions only from mold curing or
from both mold making and subsequent releases from cooling and
shakeout; and how do we define what is technically and economically
feasible?
After considering the numerous comments and the technical details
associated with this issue, we concluded that any prescriptive
requirement we developed would not be a cost-effective beyond-the-floor
option. Consistent with our intent to have foundries consider the HAP
content and potential HAP emissions from their binder formulations, we
are requiring foundries to record the annual chemical usage rates for
each binder system employed at the foundry, the annual HAP specific
usage rates for each binder system, and the total annual HAP usage rate
by the foundry. These records will identify those systems with the
highest HAP usage rates and make it easier for foundry owners or
operators to focus on opportunities to reduce HAP content. This
information can also be considered when alternative binder systems are
routinely evaluated for reasons related to production, cost, and
quality. In addition, these data will also help to further address mold
and core making emissions, if necessary, under section 112(f) for
residual risk.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the final rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action
was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements in the final rule are based on
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to NESHAP. The records and reports required by
the final rule are necessary for EPA to: (1) Identify major sources and
new or reconstructed sources subject to the rule, (2) ensure that MACT
is being properly applied, and (3) ensure that the emissions control
devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous
basis. Based on the reported information, EPA can decide which plants,
records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual average public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information over the first three years of the
information collection request (ICR) is estimated to total 22,325 labor
hours per year. This includes 10 responses per year from 98 respondents
for an average of 22.7 hours per response. The total annualized cost
burden to the facility is estimated at $1,626,649, including labor,
capital, and operation and maintenance. The capital cost of monitoring
equipment is estimated at $293,700; the estimated annual cost for
operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment is $133,300.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology
[[Page 21922]]
and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICR
is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in the
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of the final rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) a small business according to the U.S. Small
Business Administration size standards for NAICS codes 331511 (Iron
Foundries), 331512 (Steel Investment Foundries), and 331513 (Steel
Foundries, except Investment) of 500 or fewer employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on SBA size definitions for the affected industries and reported
sales and employment data, we identified 20 of the 63 companies
incurring compliance costs as small businesses. These small businesses
are expected to incur $3.3 million in compliance costs, or 15 percent
of the total industry compliance costs of $21.2 million. The mean
annual compliance cost as a share of sales for small businesses is
estimated at 0.40 percent, and the median is 0.26 percent, with a range
of 0.04 to 1.04 percent. We estimate that one small business may
experience an impact between 1 and 3 percent of sales, but no small
business is expected to experience an impact greater than 3 percent of
sales. No significant impacts on their viability to continue operations
and remain profitable is expected.
Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, we have nonetheless worked
to minimize the impact of the final rule on small entities, consistent
with our obligations under the CAA. We have discussed potential impacts
and opportunities for emissions reductions with company
representatives, and company representatives have also attended
meetings held with industry trade associations to discuss the final
rule. By changing the proposed requirements for capture systems and
revising our initial MACT floor determinations, we have minimized the
final rule impacts on small entities to the maximum extent allowable
under the CAA.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's final rule contains no Federal mandate (under the
regulatory provisions of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments. The EPA has determined that the final rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's final
rule is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has
also determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus,
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
[[Page 21923]]
ensure ``meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that have tribal implications.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own or operate facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control
technology and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the
final rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The final rule uses
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 12, and
18, 25, or 25A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the
NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, and
12. The search and review results have been documented and are placed
in the docket for the final rule.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 17
voluntary consensus standards applicable to the final rule. Three of
the 17 voluntary consensus standards were not available at the time of
promulgation and EPA determined that 14 of these 17 standards were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods. Therefore, EPA is not
adopting these standards in the final rule. The reasons for this
determination are in docket for the final rule.
The following three of the 17 voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of the final rule because they are under
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow
Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1);
ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging
Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ISO/DIS 12039,
``Stationary Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon
Dioxide, and Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A. While we
are not including these standards in today's rule, the EPA will
consider the standards when they are finalized.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA has submitted a report containing the final rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to the publication of the final rule in today's Federal Register. The
final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VI. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
112, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
This rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the
CAA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 29, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart EEEEE to read as follows:
Subpart EEEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.7680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7682 What parts of my foundry does this subpart cover?
63.7683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emissions Limitations
63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?
Work Practice Standards
63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?
[[Page 21924]]
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
General Compliance Requirements
63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Initial Compliance Requirements
63.7730 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
63.7733 What procedures must I use to establish operating limits?
63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions
limitations that apply to me?
63.7735 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.7740 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7741 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
63.7742 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.7743 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
63.7744 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7745 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
63.7747 How do I apply for alternative monitoring requirements for a
continuous emissions monitoring system?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7750 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7752 What records must I keep?
63.7753 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.7760 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7761 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Definitions
63.7765 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
What this Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries. This subpart also
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emissions limitations, work practice standards, and
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.
Sec. 63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron and
steel foundry that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions. Your iron and steel foundry is a major
source of HAP for purposes of this subpart if it emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year
or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year or if
it is located at a facility that emits or has the potential to emit any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.
Sec. 63.7682 What parts of my foundry does this subpart cover?
(a) The affected source is each new or existing iron and steel
foundry.
(b) This subpart covers emissions from metal melting furnaces,
scrap preheaters, pouring areas, pouring stations, automated conveyor
and pallet cooling lines, automated shakeout lines, and mold and core
making lines. This subpart also covers fugitive emissions from foundry
operations.
(c) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source before December 23, 2002.
(d) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or after December 23, 2002. An
affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of
``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.7683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, if you
have an existing affected source, you must comply with each emissions
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later than April 23,
2007. Major source status for existing affected sources must be
determined no later than April 23, 2007.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the work practice standards in Sec. 63.7700(b) or (c), as applicable,
no later than April 22, 2005.
(c) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup
date is on or before April 22, 2004, you must comply with each
emissions limitation, work practice standard, and operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you by April
22, 2004.
(d) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup
date is after April 22, 2004, you must comply with each emissions
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup.
(e) If your iron and steel foundry is an area source that becomes a
major source of HAP, you must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.6(c)(5).
(f) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.7750. Note that several of these notifications must be
submitted before the compliance date for your affected source.
Emissions Limitations
Sec. 63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emissions limit or standard in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (11) of this section that applies to you.
(1) For each electric arc metal melting furnace, electric induction
metal melting furnace, or scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel
foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to the
atmosphere that exceed either the limit for particulate matter (PM) in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or, alternatively the limit for
total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:
(i) 0.005 grains of PM per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), or
(ii) 0.0004 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
(2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total metal
HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section:
(i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM, or
(ii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
(3) For each cupola metal melting furnace or electric arc metal
melting
[[Page 21925]]
furnace at a new iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge
emissions through a conveyance to the atmosphere that exceed either the
limit for PM in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section or, alternatively
the limit for total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section:
(i) 0.002 gr/dscf of PM, or
(ii) 0.0002 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
(4) For each electric induction metal melting furnace or scrap
preheater at a new iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge
emissions through a conveyance to the atmosphere that exceed either the
limit for PM in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section or, alternatively
the limit for total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section:
(i) 0.001 gr/dscf of PM, or
(ii) 0.00008 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
(5) For each pouring station at an existing iron and steel foundry,
you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to the atmosphere
that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this
section or, alternatively the limit for total metal HAP in paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) of this section:
(i) 0.010 gr/dscf of PM, or
(ii) 0.0008 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
(6) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new iron and
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph
(a)(6)(i) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total metal
HAP in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section:
(i) 0.002 gr/dscf of PM, or
(ii) 0.0002 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
(7) For each building or structure housing any emissions source at
the iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge any fugitive
emissions to the atmosphere that exhibit opacity greater than 20
percent (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour
that does not exceed 27 percent opacity.
(8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron
and steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions of volatile organic
hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) through a conveyance to the atmosphere
that exceed 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) corrected to 10
percent oxygen.
(9) As an alternative to the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(e) for a scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry
or in Sec. 63.7700(f) for a scrap preheater at a new iron and steel
foundry, you must not discharge emissions of VOHAP through a conveyance
to the atmosphere that exceed 20 ppmv.
(10) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines
that use a sand mold system or automated shakeout lines that use a sand
mold system at a new iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge
emissions of VOHAP through a conveyance to the atmosphere that exceed a
flow-weighted average of 20 ppmv.
(11) For each triethylamine (TEA) cold box mold or core making line
at a new or existing iron and steel foundry, you must meet either the
emissions limit in paragraph (a)(11)(i) of this section or,
alternatively the emissions standard in paragraph (a)(11)(ii) of this
section:
(i) You must not discharge emissions of TEA through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as determined when scrubbing with
fresh acid solution; or
(ii) You must reduce emissions of TEA from each TEA cold box mold
or core making line by at least 99 percent, as determined when
scrubbing with fresh acid solution.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(5) of this section that applies to you.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture and
collection system for all emissions sources subject to an emissions
limit or standard for VOHAP or TEA in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of
this section.
(i) Each capture and collection system must meet accepted
engineering standards, such as those published by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
(ii) You must operate each capture system at or above the lowest
value or settings established as operating limits in your operation and
maintenance plan.
(2) You must operate each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area, or pouring
station subject to an emissions limit for PM or total metal HAP in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section such that the 3-hour
average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate does not fall below
the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent
performance test.
(3) You must operate each combustion device applied to emissions
from a cupola metal melting furnace subject to the emissions limit for
VOHAP in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, such that the 15-minute
average combustion zone temperature does not fall below 1,300 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Periods when the cupola is off blast and for 15
minutes after going on blast from an off blast condition are not
included in the 15-minute average.
(4) You must operate each combustion device applied to emissions
from a scrap preheater subject to the emissions limit for VOHAP in
paragraph (a)(9) of this section or from a TEA cold box mold or core
making line subject to the emissions limit for TEA in paragraph (a)(11)
of this section, such that the 3-hour average combustion zone
temperature does not fall below the minimum level established during
the initial or subsequent performance test.
(5) You must operate each wet acid scrubber applied to emissions
from a TEA cold box mold or core making line subject to the emissions
limit for TEA in paragraph (a)(11) of this section such that:
(i) The 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate does not fall
below the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent
performance test; and
(ii) The 3-hour average pH of the scrubber blowdown, as measured by
a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), does not exceed 4.5 or
the pH of the scrubber blowdown, as measured once every 8 hours during
process operations, does not exceed 4.5.
(c) If you use a control device other than a baghouse, wet
scrubber, wet acid scrubber, or combustion device, you must prepare and
submit a monitoring plan containing the information listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. The monitoring plan is
subject to approval by the Administrator.
(1) A description of the device;
(2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec. 63.7732
verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of PM,
total metal HAP, VOHAP, or TEA to the levels required by this subpart;
(3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required by Sec.
63.7710(b);
(4) A list of appropriate operating parameters that will be
monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable
emissions limitation(s); and
(5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected
during the performance test.
Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?
(a) You must comply with the certification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section or prepare and implement a plan for the
selection and inspection of scrap according to the requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section.
[[Page 21926]]
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written certification that the foundry purchases and uses only
certified-metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do
not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine
blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, mercury switches,
plastics, or organic liquids.
(c) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written plan for the selection and inspection of iron and steel scrap
to minimize, to the extent practicable, the amount of organics and HAP
metals in the charge materials used by the iron and steel foundry. This
scrap selection and inspection plan is subject to approval by the
Administrator. You must keep a copy of the plan onsite and readily
available to all plant personnel with materials acquisition or
inspection duties. You must provide a copy of the material
specifications to each of your scrap vendors. Each plan must include
the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) A materials acquisition program to limit organic contaminants
according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater, electric arc metal
melting furnace, or electric induction metal melting furnaces,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, plastic parts,
organic liquids, and a program to ensure the scrap materials are
drained of free liquids; or
(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of plastic, and a program to ensure the
scrap materials are drained of free liquids.
(2) A materials acquisition program specifying that the scrap
supplier remove accessible mercury switches from the trunks and hoods
of any automotive bodies contained in the scrap and remove accessible
lead components such as batteries and wheel weights. You must obtain
and maintain onsite a copy of the procedures used by the scrap supplier
for either removing accessible mercury switches or for purchasing
automobile bodies that have had mercury switches removed, as
applicable.
(3) Procedures for visual inspection of a representative portion,
but not less than 10 percent, of all incoming scrap shipments to ensure
the materials meet the specifications.
(i) The inspection procedures must identify the location(s) where
inspections are to be performed for each type of shipment. The selected
location(s) must provide a reasonable vantage point, considering worker
safety, for visual inspection.
(ii) The inspection procedures must include recordkeeping
requirements that document each visual inspection and the results.
(iii) The inspection procedures must include provisions for
rejecting or returning entire or partial scrap shipments that do not
meet specifications and limiting purchases from vendors whose shipments
fail to meet specifications for more than three inspections in one
calender year.
(d) For each furan warm box mold or core making line in a new or
existing iron and steel foundry, you must use a binder chemical
formulation that does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of
the catalyst formulation as determined by the Material Safety Data
Sheet. This requirement does not apply to the resin portion of the
binder system.
(e) For each scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry,
you must meet either the requirement in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this
section. As an alternative to the requirement in paragraph (e)(1) or
(2) of this section, you must meet the VOHAP emissions limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(9).
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater
where the flame directly contacts the scrap charged; or
(2) You must charge only material that is subject to and in
compliance with the scrap certification requirement in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(f) For each scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry, you
must charge only material that is subject to and in compliance with the
scrap certification requirement in paragraph (b) of this section. As an
alternative to this requirement, you must meet the VOHAP emissions
limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(9).
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Sec. 63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and
maintain your iron and steel foundry, including air pollution control
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
levels required by this subpart.
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection
system and control device for an emissions source subject to an
emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a). Your operation and maintenance
plan also must include procedures for igniting gases from mold vents in
pouring areas and pouring stations that use a sand mold system. This
operation and maintenance plan is subject to approval by the
Administrator. Each plan must contain the elements described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors,
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g.,
presence of holes in the ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused
by dents or accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion). The
operation and maintenance plan must also include requirements to repair
the defect or deficiency as soon as practicable.
(2) Operating limits for each capture system for an emissions
source subject to an emissions limit or standard for VOHAP or TEA in
Sec. 63.7690(a)(8) through (11). You must establish the operating
according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) Select operating limit parameters appropriate for the capture
system design that are representative and reliable indicators of the
performance of the capture system. At a minimum, you must use
appropriate operating limit parameters that indicate the level of the
ventilation draft and damper position settings for the capture system
when operating to collect emissions, including revised settings for
seasonal variations. Appropriate operating limit parameters for
ventilation draft include, but are not limited to: volumetric flow rate
through each separately ducted hood, total volumetric flow rate at the
inlet to the control device to which the capture system is vented, fan
motor amperage, or static pressure. Any parameter for damper position
setting may be used that indicates the duct damper position related to
the fully open setting.
(ii) For each operating limit parameter selected in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, designate the value or setting for the
parameter at which the capture system operates during the process
operation. If your operation allows for more than one process to be
operating simultaneously, designate the value or setting for the
parameter at which the capture system operates during each possible
configuration that you may operate (i.e., the operating limits with
[[Page 21927]]
one furnace melting, two melting, as applicable to your plant).
(iii) Include documentation in your plan to support your selection
of the operating limits established for your capture system. This
documentation must include a description of the capture system design,
a description of the capture system operating during production, a
description of each selected operating limit parameter, a rationale for
why you chose the parameter, a description of the method used to
monitor the parameter according to the requirements of Sec.
63.7740(a), and the data used to set the value or setting for the
parameter for each of your process configurations.
(3) Preventative maintenance plan for each control device,
including a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with
the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(4) A site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection
system. For each bag leak detection system that operates on the
triboelectric effect, the monitoring plan must be consistent with the
recommendations contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015). This baghouse monitoring plan is subject to approval by
the Administrator. The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
bag leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring
plan at all times. The plan must address all of the items identified in
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality
assurance procedures.
(iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained including
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored.
(5) Corrective action plan for each baghouse. The plan must include
the requirement that, in the event a bag leak detection system alarm is
triggered, you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause
of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to
correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and
complete the corrective action as soon as practicable. Corrective
actions taken may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Making process changes.
(vii) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(6) Procedures for providing an ignition source to mold vents of
sand mold systems in each pouring area and pouring station unless you
determine the mold vent gases either are not ignitable, ignite
automatically, or cannot be ignited due to accessibility or safety
issues. You must document and maintain records of this determination.
The determination of ignitability, accessibility, and safety may
encompass multiple casting patterns provided the castings utilize
similar sand-to-metal ratios, binder formulations, and coating
materials. The determination of ignitability must be based on
observations of the mold vents within 5 minutes of pouring, and the
flame must be present for at least 15 seconds for the mold vent to be
considered ignited. For the purpose of this determination:
(i) Mold vents that ignite more than 75 percent of the time without
the presence of an auxiliary ignition source are considered to ignite
automatically; and
(ii) Mold vents that do not ignite automatically and cannot be
ignited in the presence of an auxiliary ignition source more than 25
percent of the time are considered to be not ignitable.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emissions limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(b) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your iron and steel foundry in Sec. 63.7683 and the date when
applicable operating limits have been established during the initial
performance test, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and
maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan also must specify what
constitutes a shutdown of a cupola and how to determine that operating
conditions are normal following startup of a cupola.
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7730 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance
test no later than 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is
specified in Sec. 63.7683 for your iron and steel foundry to
demonstrate initial compliance with each emissions limitation in Sec.
63.7690 that applies to you.
(b) For each work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700 and each
operation and maintenance requirement in Sec. 63.7710 that applies to
you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance
test, you must demonstrate initial compliance no later than 30 calendar
days after the compliance date that is specified for your iron and
steel foundry in Sec. 63.7683.
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 23, 2002 and April 22, 2004, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with either the proposed emissions limit or the promulgated
emissions limit no later than October 19, 2004 or no later than 180
calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later,
according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 23, 2002 and April 22, 2004, and you chose to comply with the
proposed emissions limit when demonstrating initial compliance, you
must conduct a second performance test to demonstrate compliance with
the promulgated emissions limit by October 19, 2007 or after startup of
the source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA
emissions limitations in Sec. 63.7690 for your iron and steel foundry
no less frequently than every 5 years. The requirement to conduct
performance tests every 5 years does not apply to an emissions source
for which a
[[Page 21928]]
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is used to demonstrate
continuous compliance.
(b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(7) for your iron
and steel foundry no less frequently than once every 6 months.
Sec. 63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7(e)(1) and the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (h)
of this section.
(b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
PM in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting furnace,
scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the test methods
in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as applicable, to determine the PM
concentration. The PM concentration is determined using only the front-
half (probe rinse and filter) of the PM catch.
(2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of gas during each
PM sampling run. A minimum of three valid test runs are needed to
comprise a performance test.
(3) For cupola metal melting furnaces, sample only during times
when the cupola is on blast.
(4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only when metal is being melted.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only when scrap is being
preheated.
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
total metal HAP in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting
furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) Determine the concentration of total metal HAP according to the
test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 29 to determine the total metal HAP concentration.
(2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of gas during each
total metal HAP sampling run. A minimum of three valid test runs are
needed to comprise a performance test.
(3) For cupola metal melting furnaces, sample only during times
when the cupola is on blast.
(4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only when metal is being melted.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only when scrap is being
preheated.
(d) To determine compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(7) for fugitive emissions from buildings or structures
housing any emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, follow the
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using a certified observer, conduct each opacity test according
to the requirements in EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) and
Sec. 63.6(h)(5).
(2) Conduct each test such that the opacity observations overlap
with the PM performance tests.
(e) To determine compliance with the applicable VOHAP emissions
limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(8) for a cupola metal melting furnace or in
Sec. 63.7690(a)(9) for a scrap preheater, follow the test methods and
procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 18 to determine the VOHAP concentration. Alternatively,
you may use Method 25 to determine the concentration of total gaseous
nonmethane organics (TGNMO) or Method 25A to determine the
concentration of total organic compounds (TOC), using hexane as the
calibration gas.
(2) Determine the average VOHAP, TGNMO, or TOC concentration using
a minimum of three valid test runs. Each test run must include a
minimum of 60 continuous operating minutes.
(3) For a cupola metal melting furnace, correct the measured
concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or TOC for oxygen content in the gas
stream using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.003
Where:
CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv as measured by
Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or the concentration of TGNMO
or TOC in ppmv as hexane as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A; and
[[Page 21929]]
%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream, percent by volume
(dry basis).
(4) For a cupola metal melting furnace, measure the combustion zone
temperature of the combustion device with the CPMS required in Sec.
63.7740(d) during each sampling run in 15-minute intervals. Determine
and record the 15-minute average of the three runs.
(f) Follow the applicable procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(3) of this section to determine compliance with the VOHAP emissions
limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(10) for automated pallet cooling lines or
automated shakeout lines.
(1) Follow these procedures to demonstrate compliance by direct
measurement of total hydrocarbons (a surrogate for VOHAP) using a
volatile organic compound (VOC) CEMS.
(i) Using the VOC CEMS required in Sec. 63.7740(g), measure and
record the concentration of total hydrocarbons (as hexane) for 180
continuous operating minutes. You must measure emissions at the outlet
of the control device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no
control device is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in
Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
(iii) Compute and record the 3-hour average of the monitoring data.
(2) As an alternative to the procedures in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, you may demonstrate compliance with the VOHAP emissions limit
in Sec. 63.7690(a)(10) by establishing a site-specific TOC emissions
limit that is correlated to the VOHAP emissions limit according to the
procedures in paragraph (f)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section.
(i) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) through (vi) of this section.
(ii) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the
number of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(iii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
(iv) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(v) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(vi) Method 18 to determine the VOHAP concentration. Alternatively,
you may use Method 25 to determine the concentration of TGNMO using
hexane as the calibration gas.
(vii) Using the CEMS required in Sec. 63.7740(g), measure and
record the concentration of total hydrocarbons (as hexane) during each
of the Method 18 (or Method 25) sampling runs. You must measure
emissions at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(viii) Calculate the average VOHAP (or TGNMO) concentration for the
source test as the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured
for the individual test runs, and determine the average concentration
of total hydrocarbon (as hexane) as measured by the CEMS during all
test runs.
(ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC emissions limit using Equation
2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.004
Where:
CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of VOHAP for the source
test in ppmv as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or
the average concentration of TGNMO for the source test in ppmv as
hexane as measured by Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and
CCEM = Average concentration of total hydrocarbons in ppmv
as hexane as measured using the CEMS during the source test.
(3) For two or more exhaust streams from one or more automated
conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines, compute
the flow-weighted average concentration of VOHAP emissions for each
combination of exhaust streams using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.005
Where:
Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP or VOC, ppmv (as
hexane);
Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from exhaust stream
``i'', ppmv (as hexane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i,'' in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm).
(g) To determine compliance with the emissions limit or standard in
Sec. 63.7690(a)(11) for a TEA cold box mold or core making line,
follow the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Determine the TEA concentration for each test run according to
the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. If you elect to meet the 99
percent reduction standard, sampling sites must be located both at the
inlet to the control device and at the outlet of the control device
prior to any releases to the atmosphere. If you elect to meet the
concentration limit, the sampling site must be located at the outlet of
the control device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no
control device is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 18 to determine the TEA concentration. The Method 18
sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that either the
TEA concentration in the field sample is at least 5 times the limit of
detection for the analytical method or the test results calculated
using the laboratory's reported analytical detection limit for the
specific field samples are less than \1/5\ of the applicable emissions
limit. The adsorbent tube approach, as described in Method 18, may be
required to achieve the necessary analytical detection limits. The
sampling time must be at least 1 hour in all cases.
(2) Conduct the test as soon as practicable after adding fresh acid
solution and the system has reached normal operating conditions.
(3) If you use a wet acid scrubber that is subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(5)(ii) for pH level, determine the pH of the
scrubber blowdown using the procedures in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (ii)
of this section.
(i) Measure the pH of the scrubber blowdown with the CPMS required
in Sec. 63.7740(f)(2) during each TEA sampling run in intervals of no
more than 15 minutes. Determine and record the 3-hour average; or
[[Page 21930]]
(ii) Measure and record the pH level using the probe and meter
required in Sec. 63.7740(f)(2) once each sampling run. Determine and
record the average pH level for the three runs.
(4) If you are subject to the 99 percent reduction standard,
calculate the mass emissions reduction using Equation 4 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.006
Where:
Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device inlet, kg/
hr; and
Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device outlet,
kg/hr.
(h) To determine compliance with the PM or total metal HAP
emissions limits in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) when one or more
regulated emissions sources are combined with either another regulated
emissions source subject to a different emissions limit or other non-
regulated emissions sources, you may demonstrate compliance using one
of the procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Meet the most stringent applicable emissions limit for the
regulated emissions sources included in the combined emissions stream
for the combined emissions stream.
(2) Use the procedures in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) Determine the volumetric flow rate of the individual regulated
streams for which emissions limits apply.
(ii) Calculate the flow-weighted average emissions limit,
considering only the regulated streams, using Equation 3 of this
section, except Cw is the flow-weighted average emissions
limit for PM or total metal HAP in the exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and
Ci is the concentration of PM or total metal HAP in exhaust
stream ``i'', gr/dscf.
(iii) Meet the calculated flow-weighted average emissions limit for
the regulated emissions sources included in the combined emissions
stream for the combined emissions stream.
(3) Use the procedures in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) Determine the PM or total metal HAP concentration of each of
the regulated streams prior to the combination with other exhaust
streams or control device.
(ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or total metal HAP concentration
of the combined exhaust stream both before and after the control device
and calculate the mass removal efficiency of the control device using
Equation 4 of this section, except Ei is the mass emissions
rate of PM or total metal HAP at the control device inlet, lb/hr and
Eo is the mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at
the control device outlet, lb/hr
(iii) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated
PM or total metal HAP concentration for the regulated emissions source
using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.007
Where:
Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or total metal
HAP) predicted to be released to the atmosphere from the regulated
emissions source, in gr/dscf; and
Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal HAP) in the
uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, in gr/dscf.
Sec. 63.7733 What procedures must I use to establish operating
limits?
(a) For each capture system subject to operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1)(ii), you must establish site-specific operating limits in
your operation and maintenance plan according to the procedures in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Concurrent with applicable emissions and opacity tests, measure
and record values for each of the operating limit parameters in your
capture system operation and maintenance plan according to the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.7740(a).
(2) For any dampers that are manually set and remain at the same
position at all times the capture system is operating, the damper
position must be visually checked and recorded at the beginning and end
of each run.
(3) Review and record the monitoring data. Identify and explain any
times the capture system operated outside the applicable operating
limits.
(b) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you must
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7740(c), measure and record
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in intervals of no more
than 15 minutes during each PM test run.
(2) Compute and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and average
scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the applicable
emissions limit is met.
(c) For each combustion device applied to emissions from a scrap
preheater or TEA cold box mold or core making line subject to the
operating limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(4) for combustion zone temperature,
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7740(e), measure and record
the combustion zone temperature during each sampling run in intervals
of no more than 15 minutes.
(2) Compute and record the 3-hour average combustion zone
temperature for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions
limit is met.
(d) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5), you must establish a site-specific operating limit
for scrubbing liquid flow rate according to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7740(f), measure and record
the scrubbing liquid flow rate during each TEA sampling run in
intervals of no more than 15 minutes.
(2) Compute and record the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow
rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is
met.
(e) You may change the operating limits for a capture system, wet
scrubber, acid wet scrubber, or combustion device if you meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating
limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limitation in Sec. 63.7690.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
[[Page 21931]]
(f) You may use a previous performance test (conducted since
December 22, 2002) to establish an operating limit provided the test
meets the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
(a) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the emissions
limits in Sec. 63.7690(a) if:
(1) For each electric arc metal melting furnace, electric induction
metal melting furnace, or scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel
foundry,
(i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did
not exceed 0.005 gr/dscf; or
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0004 gr/dscf.
(2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and
steel foundry,
(i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did
not exceed 0.006 gr/dscf; or
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/dscf.
(3) For each cupola metal melting furnace or electric arc metal
melting furnace at a new iron and steel foundry,
(i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did
not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf; or
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0002 gr/dscf.
(4) For each electric induction metal melting furnace or scrap
preheater at a new iron and steel foundry,
(i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did
not exceed 0.001 gr/dscf; or
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.00008 gr/dscf.
(5) For each pouring station at an existing iron and steel foundry,
(i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, measured
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did
not exceed 0.010 gr/dscf; or
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0008 gr/dscf.
(6) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new iron and
steel foundry,
(i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, measured
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did
not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf; or
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0002 gr/dscf.
(7) For each building or structure housing any emissions source at
the iron and steel foundry, the opacity of fugitive emissions
discharged to the atmosphere, determined according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent (6-
minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that did not
exceed 27 percent opacity.
(8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron
and steel foundry, the average VOHAP concentration, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(e), did
not exceed 20 ppmv corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
(9) For each scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry
that does not meet the work practice standards in Sec. 63.7700(e)(1)
or (2) and for each scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry
that does not meet the work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(f), the
average VOHAP concentration determined according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(e), did not exceed 20 ppmv.
(10) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines
that use a sand mold system or automated shakeout lines that use a sand
mold system at a new foundry,
(i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(f)(1) or
(2); and
(ii) The 3-hour flow-weighted average VOHAP concentration, measured
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7332(f)(1) or
(2), did not exceed 20 ppmv.
(11) For each TEA cold box mold or core making line in a new or
existing iron and steel foundry, the average TEA concentration,
determined according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(g) did not exceed 1 ppmv or was reduced by 99 percent.
(b) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the operating
limits in Sec. 63.7690(b) if:
(1) For each capture system subject to the operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1)(ii),
(i) You have established appropriate site-specific operating limits
in your operation and maintenance plan according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7710(b); and
(ii) You have a record of the operating parameter data measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7733(a); and
(2) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7733(b).
(3) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(3) for combustion zone temperature, you have a record
of the combustion zone temperature measured during the performance test
in accordance with Sec. 63.7732(e)(4).
(4) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(4) for combustion zone temperature, you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the combustion zone temperature measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7733(c).
(5) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5) for scrubbing liquid flow rate and scrubber
blowdown pH,
(i) You have established appropriate site-specific operating limits
for the scrubbing liquid flow rate and have a record of the scrubbing
liquid flow rate measured during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.7733(d); and
(ii) You have a record of the pH of the scrubbing liquid blowdown
measured during the performance test in accordance with Sec.
63.7732(g)(3).
Sec. 63.7735 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
(a) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the certification
requirement in Sec. 63.7700(b), you have demonstrated initial
compliance if you have certified in your notification of compliance
status
[[Page 21932]]
that: ``At all times, your foundry will purchase and use only certified
metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do not include
post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine blocks, oil
filters, oily turnings, lead components, mercury switches, plastics, or
organic liquids.''
(b) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7700(c) for a scrap inspection and selection plan, you have
demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified in your
notification of compliance status that:
(1) You have submitted a written plan to the Administrator for
approval according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7700(c); and
(2) You will operate at all times according to the plan
requirements.
(c) For each furan warm box mold or core making line in a new or
existing foundry subject to the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(d), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have
certified in your notification of compliance status that:
(1) You will meet the no methanol requirement for the catalyst
portion of each binder chemical formulation; and
(2) You have records documenting your certification of compliance,
such as a material safety data sheet (provided that it contains
appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a
manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet, onsite and available
for inspection.
(d) For each scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry
subject to the work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(e)(1) or (2),
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified in your
notification of compliance status that:
(1) You have installed a gas-fired preheater where the flame
directly contacts the scrap charged, you will operate and maintain each
gas-fired scrap preheater such that the flame directly contacts the
scrap charged, and you have records documenting your certification of
compliance that are onsite and available for inspection; or
(2) You will charge only material that is subject to and in
compliance with the scrap certification requirements in Sec.
63.7700(b) and you have records documenting your certification of
compliance that are onsite and available for inspection.
(e) For each scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry
subject to the work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(f), you have
demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified in your
notification of compliance status that you will charge only material
that is subject to and in compliance with the scrap certification
requirements in Sec. 63.7700(b) and you have records documenting your
certification of compliance that are onsite and available for
inspection.
Sec. 63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have met
the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You have certified in your notification of compliance status
that:
(i) You have submitted the capture system operation and maintenance
plan to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.7710(b); and
(ii) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each capture system
according to the procedures in the plan.
(2) You have certified in your performance test report that the
system operated during the test at the operating limits established in
your operation and maintenance plan.
(b) For each control device subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have
certified in your notification of compliance status that:
(1) You have submitted the control device operation and maintenance
plan to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.7710(b); and
(2) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each control device
according to the procedures in the plan.
(c) For each bag leak detection system, you have demonstrated
initial compliance if you have certified in your notification of
compliance status that:
(1) You have submitted the bag leak detection system monitoring
plan to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.7710(b);
(2) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection
system according to the procedures in the plan; and
(3) You will follow the corrective action procedures for bag leak
detection system alarms according to the requirements in the plan.
(d) For each pouring area and pouring station in a new or existing
foundry, you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified
in your notification of compliance status report that:
(1) You have submitted the mold vent ignition plan to the
Administrator for approval according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7710(b); and
(2) You will follow the procedures for igniting mold vent gases
according to the requirements in the plan.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7740 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7741(a) and the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor the operating
limit parameter, you must at all times monitor the hourly average rate
(e.g., the hourly average actual volumetric flow rate through each
separately ducted hood or the average hourly total volumetric flow rate
at the inlet to the control device).
(2) Dampers that are manually set and remain in the same position
are exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CPMS. If
dampers are not manually set and remain in the same position, you must
make a visual check at least once every 24 hours to verify that each
damper for the capture system is in the same position as during the
initial performance test.
(b) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack that is applied to meet any PM or total
metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must at all times
monitor the relative change in PM loadings using a bag leak detection
system according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7741(b) and conduct
inspections at their specified frequencies according to the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
(2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this
[[Page 21933]]
check for shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded)
devices.
(7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
(c) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2), you must at all times monitor the 3-hour average
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate using CPMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7741(c).
(d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(3), you must at all times monitor the 15-minute
average combustion zone temperature using a CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(d).
(e) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(4), you must at all times monitor the 3-hour average
combustion zone temperature using CPMS according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7741(d).
(f) For each wet acid scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5),
(1) You must at all times monitor the 3-hour average scrubbing
liquid flow rate using CPMS according to the requirements of Sec.
63.7741(e)(1); and
(2) You must at all times monitor the 3-hour average pH of the
scrubber blowdown using CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7741(e)(2) or measure and record the pH of the scrubber blowdown
once per production cycle using a pH probe and meter according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7741(e)(3).
(g) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and
automated shakeout lines at a new iron and steel foundry subject to the
VOHAP emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(10), you must at all times
monitor the 3-hour average VOHAP concentration using a CEMS according
to the requirements of Sec. 63.7741(g).
Sec. 63.7741 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor an operating
limit parameter for a capture system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow
and that reduces swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flow rate.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least
semiannually.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(2) If you use a pressure measurement device to monitor the
operating limit parameter for a capture system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and
external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
(iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(3) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(b) You must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection
system according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7)
of this section.
(1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less.
(2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using
electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data
logger).
(3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm
set point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and the
alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate
plant personnel.
(4) The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity
(range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the
alarm set points and the alarm delay time (if applicable).
(5) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time
without approval from the Administrator. Except, once per quarter, you
may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account
for seasonable effects including temperature and humidity according to
the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan required by Sec.
63.7710(b).
(6) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
(7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(c) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2), you must install and maintain CPMS to measure and record
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate according to the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For each CPMS for pressure drop you must:
(i) Locate the pressure sensor in or as close as possible to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure
drop and that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration,
and internal and external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
(iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
[[Page 21934]]
(vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(2) For each CPMS for scrubber liquid flow rate, you must:
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream
disturbances.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flow rate.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(3) or (4), you must install and maintain a CPMS to
measure and record the combustion zone temperature according to the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2[deg]C or 0.75 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2[deg]C or 2 percent of the temperature
value, whichever is larger.
(4) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(5) If you use a chart recorder, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20[deg]F.
(6) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor
validation check, in which a second or redundant temperature sensor
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading
within 16.7[deg]C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(7) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range, or install a new temperature sensor.
(8) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(e) For each wet acid scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5), you must:
(1) Install and maintain CPMS to measure and record the scrubbing
liquid flow rate according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section; and
(2) Install and maintain CPMS to measure and record the pH of the
scrubber blowdown according to the requirements in paragraph (e)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pH and that minimizes or eliminates
internal and external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.1 pH
or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of
the pH range.
(iii) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration
monthly using a manual pH gauge.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(3) As an alternative to the CPMS required in paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, you may use a pH probe to extract a sample for analysis
by a pH meter that meets the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) The pH meter must have a range of at least 1 to 5 or more;
(ii) The pH meter must have a accuracy of 0.1; and
(iii) The pH meter must have a resolution of at least 0.1 pH.
(f) You must operate each CPMS used to meet the requirements of
this subpart according to the requirements specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of three of
the required four data points to constitute a valid hour of data.
(2) Each CPMS must have valid hourly data for 100 percent of every
averaging period.
(3) Each CPMS must determine and record the hourly average of all
recorded readings and the 3-hour average of all recorded readings.
(g) For each automated conveyor and pallet cooling line and
automated shakeout line at a new iron and steel foundry subject to the
VOHAP emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(10), you must install,
operate, and maintain a CEMS to measure and record the concentration of
VOHAP emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to
Performance Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.8 and Performance
Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(3) You must operate each CEMS according to the requirements
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
(ii) You must reduce CEMS data as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
(iii) Each CEMS must determine and record the 3-hour average
emissions using all the hourly averages collected for periods during
which the CEMS is not out-of-control.
(iv) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
Sec. 63.7742 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) any time a source of emissions is operating.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emissions
or operating levels or to fulfill a minimum data availability
requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during
all other periods in assessing compliance.
(c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
Sec. 63.7743 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the
applicable conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (12) of this
section:
[[Page 21935]]
(1) For each electric arc metal melting furnace, electric induction
metal melting furnace, or scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel
foundry,
(i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream
at or below 0.005 gr/dscf; or
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0004 gr/dscf.
(2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and
steel foundry,
(i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream
at or below 0.006 gr/dscf; or
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf.
(3) For each cupola metal melting furnace or electric arc metal
melting furnace at new iron and steel foundry, (i) Maintaining the
average PM concentration in the exhaust stream at or below 0.002 gr/
dscf; or
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0002 gr/dscf.
(4) For each electric induction metal melting furnace or scrap
preheater at a new iron and steel foundry,
(i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream
at or below 0.001 gr/dscf; or
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.00008 gr/dscf.
(5) For each pouring station at an existing iron and steel foundry,
(i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream
at or below 0.010 gr/dscf; or
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0008 gr/dscf.
(6) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new iron and
steel foundry,
(i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream
at or below 0.002 gr/dscf; or
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0002 gr/dscf.
(7) For each building or structure housing any emissions source at
the iron and steel foundry, maintaining the opacity of any fugitive
emissions discharged to the atmosphere at or below 20 percent opacity
(6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does
not exceed 27 percent opacity.
(8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron
and steel foundry, maintaining the average VOHAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 20 ppmv corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
(9) For each scrap preheater at an existing new iron and steel
foundry that does not comply with the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(e)(1) or (2) and for each scrap preheater at a new iron and
steel foundry that does not comply with the work practice standard in
Sec. 63.7700(f), maintaining the average VOHAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 20 ppmv.
(10) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines or
automated shakeout lines that use a sand mold system at a new iron and
steel foundry,
(i) Maintaining the 3-hour flow-weighted average VOHAP
concentration in the exhaust stream at or below 20 ppmv;
(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(g) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(g) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(11) For each TEA cold box mold or core making line at a new or
existing iron and steel foundry, maintaining a 99 percent reduction in
the VOHAP concentration in the exhaust stream or maintaining the
average VOHAP concentration in the exhaust stream at or below 1 ppmv.
(12) Conducting subsequent performance tests at least every 5 years
for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit for PM, total
metal HAP, VOHAP, or TEA in Sec. 63.7690(a) and subsequent performance
tests at least every 6 months for each building or structure subject to
the opacity limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(7).
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each capture
system subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(1) by meeting
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Operating the capture system at or above the lowest values or
settings established for the operating limits in your operation and
maintenance plan; and
(2) Monitoring the capture system according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7740(a) and collecting, reducing, and recording the monitoring
data for each of the operating limit parameters according to the
applicable requirements in this subpart.
(c) For each baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system,
(1) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated
corrective action, the corrective action taken, and the date on which
corrective action was completed; and
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7740(b)(1) through (8) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(d) For each wet scrubber that is subject to the operating limits
in Sec. 63.7690(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 3-hour average pressure drop and 3-hour average
scrubber water flow rate at levels no lower than those established
during the initial or subsequent performance test;
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(c) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate according to the requirements of Sec.
63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(e) For each combustion device that is subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 15-minute average combustion zone temperature
at a level no lower than 1,300[deg]F;
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(d) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for combustion zone
temperature according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7741(f) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(f) For each combustion device that is subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature at a
level no lower that established during the initial or subsequent
performance test;
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(d) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for combustion zone
temperature according to the
[[Page 21936]]
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(f) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(g) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate at a
level no lower than the level established during the initial or
subsequent performance test;
(2) Maintaining the 3-hour average pH of the scrubber blowdown at a
level no higher than 4.5 (if measured by a CPMS) or maintaining the pH
level of the scrubber blowdown during each production shift no higher
than 4.5;
(3) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(e) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(4) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubbing liquid
flow rate and scrubber blowdown pH according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements. If the pH level of the scrubber
blowdown is measured by a probe and meter, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by maintaining records that document the date,
time, and results of each sample taken for each production shift.
Sec. 63.7744 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
(a) You must maintain records that document continuous compliance
with the certification requirements in Sec. 63.7700(b) or with the
procedures in your scrap selection and inspection plan required in
Sec. 63.7700(c). Your records documenting compliance with the scrap
selection and inspection plan must include a copy (kept onsite) of the
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had
mercury switches removed, as applicable.
(b) You must keep records of the chemical composition of all
catalyst binder formulations applied in each furan warm box mold or
core making line at a new or existing iron and steel foundry to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements in Sec.
63.7700(d).
(c) For a scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry,
you must operate and maintain each gas-fired preheater such that the
flame directly contacts the scrap charged to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the requirement Sec. 63.7700(e)(1). If you choose to
meet the work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(e)(2), you must keep
records to document that the scrap preheater charges only material that
is subject to and in compliance with the scrap certification
requirements in Sec. 63.7700(b).
(d) For a scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry, you must
keep records to document that each scrap preheater charges only
material that is subject to and in compliance with the scrap
certification requirements in Sec. 63.7700(b) to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the requirement in Sec. 63.7700(f).
Sec. 63.7745 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system and control device for an emissions
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance
requirements of Sec. 63.7710 by:
(1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems and initiating
corrective action according to Sec. 63.7710(b)(1) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements;
(2) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device
according to the preventive maintenance plan required by Sec.
63.7710(b)(3) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements;
(3) Operating and maintaining each bag leak detection system
according to the site-specific monitoring plan required by Sec.
63.7710(b)(4) and recording all information needed to demonstrate
conformance with these requirements;
(4) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak
detection system alarm according to the corrective action plan required
by Sec. 63.7710(b)(5) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(5) Igniting gases from mold vents according to the procedures in
the plan required by Sec. 63.7710(b)(6). (Any instance where you fail
to follow the procedures is a deviation that must be included in your
semiannual compliance report.)
(b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and
maintenance plans required by Sec. 63.7710(b) onsite and available for
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the
iron and steel foundry or until the iron and steel foundry is no longer
subject to the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emissions limitation in Sec. 63.7690 (including each
operating limit) that applies to you. This requirement includes periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each
instance in which you did not meet each work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700 and each operation and maintenance requirement of Sec. 63.7710
that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emissions
limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance
requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7751.
(b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(1) Consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Sec. 63.7747 How do I apply for alternative monitoring requirements
for a continuous emissions monitoring system?
(a) You may request an alternative monitoring method to demonstrate
compliance with the VOHAP emissions limits in Sec. 63.7690(a)(10) for
automated pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines at a new
iron and steel foundry according to the procedures in this section.
(b) You can request approval to use an alternative monitoring
method in the notification of construction or reconstruction for new
sources, or at any time.
(c) You must submit a monitoring plan that includes a description
of the control technique or pollution prevention technique, a
description of the continuous monitoring system or method including
appropriate operating
[[Page 21937]]
parameters that will be monitored, test results demonstrating
compliance with the emissions limit, operating limit(s) (if applicable)
determined according to the test results, and the frequency of
measuring and recording to establish continuous compliance. If
applicable, you must also include operation and maintenance
requirements for the monitors.
(d) The monitoring plan is subject to approval by the
Administrator. Use of the alternative monitoring method must not begin
until approval is granted by the Administrator.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7750 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications required by Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e); 63.8(f)(4) and (6);
63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your iron and
steel foundry before April 22, 2004, you must submit your initial
notification no later than August 20, 2004.
(c) If you start up your new iron and steel foundry on or after
April 22, 2004, you must submit your initial notification no later than
120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required by Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of
compliance status according to the requirements of Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to the requirement specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your iron and steel foundry
by Sec. 63.7683 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date
comes first after the compliance date that is specified for your iron
and steel foundry.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your
first compliance report is due.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each iron and steel foundry that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section and, as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took action consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from any emissions limitations
(including operating limit), work practice standards, or operation and
maintenance requirements, a statement that there were no deviations
from the emissions limitations, work practice standards, or operation
and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or CEMS) was out-of-control as specified by
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which
the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(7) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) that occurs at an iron and steel foundry for which you
are not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or CEMS)
to comply with an emissions limitation or work practice standard
required in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(7)(i)
and (ii) of this section. This requirement includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The total operating time of each emissions source during the
reporting period.
(ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause) as applicable and the corrective action
taken.
(8) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an iron and
steel foundry where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or CEMS) to comply with the emissions limitation or
work practice standard in this subpart, you must include the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section. This requirement includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.
63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting
[[Page 21938]]
period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and unknown causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source
operating time during the reporting period.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report according to the requirements of Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an iron and steel foundry pursuant to 40 CFR part
70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this
subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a
compliance report for an iron and steel foundry along with, or as part
of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all the required information concerning deviations from
any emissions limitation or operation and maintenance requirement in
this subpart, submission of the compliance report satisfies any
obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring
report. However, submission of a compliance report does not otherwise
affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit
requirements for an iron and steel foundry to your permitting
authority.
Sec. 63.7752 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section:
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you
submitted, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(4) Records of the annual quantity of each chemical binder or
coating material used to make molds and cores, the Material Data Safety
Sheet or other documentation that provides the chemical composition of
each component, and the annual quantity of HAP used at the foundry.
(b) You must keep the following records for each CEMS.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(3) Request for alternatives to relative accuracy tests for CEMS as
required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(c) You must keep the records required by Sec. Sec. 63.7743,
63.7744, and 63.7745 to show continuous compliance with each emissions
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement that applies to you.
Sec. 63.7753 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,
report, or record according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
You can keep the records for the previous 3 years offsite.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7760 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.7761 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has
delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office
to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to non-opacity emissions limitations
in Sec. 63.7690 and work practice standards in Sec. 63.7700 under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Definitions
Sec. 63.7765 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA),
in Sec. 63.2, and in this section.
Automated conveyor and pallet cooling line means any dedicated
conveyor line or area used for cooling molds received from pouring
stations.
Automated shakeout line means any mechanical process unit designed
for and dedicated to separating a casting from a mold. These mechanical
processes include, but are not limited to, shaker decks, rotary
separators, and high-frequency vibration units. Automated shakeout
lines do not include manual processes for separating a casting from a
mold, such as personnel using a hammer, chisel, pick ax, sledge hammer,
or jackhammer.
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection
[[Page 21939]]
system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on
triboelectric, electrodynamic, light scattering, light transmittance,
or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter
loadings.
Binder chemical means a component of a system of chemicals used to
bind sand together into molds, mold sections, and cores through
chemical reaction as opposed to pressure.
Capture system means the collection of components used to capture
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then
convey the captured gas stream to a control device or to the
atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the
following components as applicable to a given capture system design:
duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, and fans.
Cold box mold or core making line means a mold or core making line
in which the formed aggregate is hardened by catalysis with a gas.
Combustion device means an afterburner, thermal incinerator, or
scrap preheater.
Conveyance means the system of equipment that is designed to
capture pollutants at the source, convey them through ductwork, and
exhaust them using forced ventilation. A conveyance may, but does not
necessarily include, control equipment designed to reduce emissions of
the pollutants. Emissions that are released through windows, vents, or
other general building ventilation or exhaust systems are not
considered to be discharged through a conveyance.
Cooling means the process of molten metal solidification within the
mold and subsequent temperature reduction prior to shakeout.
Cupola means a vertical cylindrical shaft furnace that uses coke
and forms of iron and steel such as scrap and foundry returns as the
primary charge components and melts the iron and steel through
combustion of the coke by a forced upward flow of heated air.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an
owner or operator of such an affected source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including operating limits), work practice standard, or operation and
maintenance requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any iron and steel foundry
required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation (including operating
limits) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Electric arc furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron and
steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted through resistance
heating by an electric current flowing through the arcs formed between
the electrodes and the surface of the metal and also flowing through
the metal between the arc paths.
Electric induction furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron
and steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted though
resistance heating by an electric current that is induced in the metal
by passing an alternating current through a coil surrounding the metal
charge or surrounding a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the
vessel.
Emissions limitation means any emissions limit or operating limit.
Exhaust stream means gases emitted from a process through a
conveyance as defined in this subpart.
Fresh acid solution means a sulfuric acid solution used for the
control of triethylamine emissions that has a pH of 2.0 or less.
Fugitive emissions means any pollutant released to the atmosphere
that is not discharged through a conveyance as defined in this subpart.
Furan warm box mold or core making line means a mold or core making
line in which the binder chemical system used is that system commonly
designated as a furan warm box system by the foundry industry.
Hazardous air pollutant means any substance on the list originally
established in 112(b)(1) of the CAA and subsequently amended as
published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Iron and steel foundry means a facility or portion of a facility
that melts scrap, ingot, and/or other forms of iron and/or steel and
pours the resulting molten metal into molds to produce final or near
final shape products for introduction into commerce. Research and
development facilities and operations that only produce non-commercial
castings are not included in this definition.
Metal melting furnace means a cupola, electric arc furnace, or
electric induction furnace that converts scrap, foundry returns, and/or
other solid forms of iron and/or steel to a liquid state. This
definition does not include a holding furnace, an argon oxygen
decarburization vessel, or ladle that receives molten metal from a
metal melting furnace, to which metal ingots or other material may be
added to adjust the metal chemistry.
Mold or core making line means the collection of equipment that is
used to mix an aggregate of sand and binder chemicals, form the
aggregate into final shape, and harden the formed aggregate. This
definition does not include a line for making green sand molds or
cores.
Mold vent means an intentional opening in a mold through which
gases containing pyrolysis products of organic mold and core
constituents produced by contact with or proximity to molten metal
normally escape the mold during and after metal pouring.
Pouring area means an area, generally associated with floor and pit
molding operations, in which molten metal is brought to each individual
mold. Pouring areas include all pouring operations that do not meet the
definition of a pouring station.
Pouring station means the fixed location to which molds are brought
in a continuous or semicontinuous manner to receive molten metal, after
which the molds are moved to a cooling area.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.
63.2.
Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate moisture and other volatile
impurities or tramp materials by direct flame heating or similar means
of heating.
Scrubber blowdown means liquor or slurry discharged from a wet
scrubber that is either removed as a waste stream or processed to
remove impurities or adjust its composition or pH before being returned
to the scrubber.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.
[[Page 21940]]
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
[As stated in Sec. 63.7760, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Subject EEEEE? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................. Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.2................................. Definitions............ Yes....................
63.3................................. Units and abbreviations Yes....................
63.4................................. Prohibited activities.. Yes....................
63.5................................. Construction/ Yes....................
reconstruction.
63.6(a)-(g).......................... Compliance with Yes....................
standards and
maintenance
requirements.
63.6(h).............................. Opacity and visible Yes....................
emissions standards.
63.6(i)-(j).......................... Compliance extension Yes....................
and Presidential
compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2).................... Applicability and No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
performance test dates. applicability and
performance test
dates.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h).................. Performance testing Yes....................
requirements.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring requirements Yes.................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
(c)(3), (c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e), requirements for
(f)(1)-(f)(6), (g)(1)-(g)(4). alternative monitoring
systems.
63.8(a)(4)........................... Additional monitoring No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
requirements for require flares.
control devices in
Sec. 63.11.
63.8(c)(4)........................... Continuous monitoring No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
system (CMS) requirements for
requirements. operation of CMS and
CEMS.
63.8(c)(5)........................... Continuous opacity No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
monitoring system require COMS.
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
63.8(g)(5)........................... Data reduction......... No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
data reduction
requirements.
63.9................................. Notification Yes....................
requirements.
63.10(a)-(b), (c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)- Recordkeeping and Yes.................... Additional records for
(15), (d)(1)-(2), (e)(1)-(2), (f). reporting requirements. CMS in Sec.
63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(15) apply only to
CEMS.
63.10(c)(7)-(8)...................... Records of excess No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
emissions and records requirements.
parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS.
63.10(d)(3).......................... Reporting opacity or Yes....................
visible emissions
observations.
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess emissions No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
reports. reporting
requirements.
63.10(e)(4).......................... Reporting COMS data.... No..................... Subpart EEEEE data does
not require COMS.
63.11................................ Control device No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
requirements. require flares.
63.12................................ State authority and Yes....................
delegations.
63.13-63.15.......................... Addresses of State air Yes....................
pollution control
agencies and EPA
regional offices.
Incorporation by
reference.
Availability of
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the
Federal Register on September 5, 2003.
[FR Doc. 04-8977 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P