[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 179 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52984-53011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17972]
[[Page 52983]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries Area Sources; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52984]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-8466-7]
RIN 2060-AM36
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries Area Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel
foundries). The proposed requirements for the two area source
categories are combined in one subpart. The proposed rule establishes
different requirements for foundries based on size. Small iron and
steel foundries would be required to comply with pollution prevention
management practices for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury
switches, and binder formulations. Large iron and steel foundries would
be required to comply with the same pollution prevention management
practices as small foundries in addition to emissions limitations for
melting furnaces and foundry operations. EPA is also co-proposing two
alternatives. One alternative would set a higher size threshold for
large foundries. The second alternative proposes that all iron and
steel foundries comply with the pollution prevention management
practices for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and
binder formulations. The proposed standards reflect the generally
achievable control technology and/or management practices for each
subcategory.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2007, unless
a public hearing is requested by September 27, 2007. If a hearing is
requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by
November 1, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before
October 17, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0359, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0359. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the NESHAP for Iron and Steel
Foundries Area Sources Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for This Proposed Rule
A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
B. What area source categories are affected by the proposed
NESHAP?
C. What are the processes and emissions sources at iron and
steel foundries?
III. Summary of This Proposed Rule
A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution
prevention management practices?
C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?
D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did EPA subcategorize iron and steel foundries?
B. What is the performance of control technologies for metal
melting furnaces?
C. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP
from small iron and steel foundries?
D. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP
from large iron and steel foundries?
E. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for organic HAP
from iron and steel foundries?
F. How did EPA select the proposed compliance requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of This Proposed Rule
[[Page 52985]]
VI. Proposed Exemption From Title V Permit Requirements
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
proposed action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... 331511........... Iron foundries. Iron
and steel plants.
Automotive and large
equipment
manufacturers.
331512........... Steel investment
foundries.
331513........... Steel foundries
(except investment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.10880 of subpart ZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources). If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of
subpart A (General Provisions).
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this
proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. When would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing
concerning this proposed rule by September 27, 2007, we will hold a
public hearing on October 2, 2007. If you are interested in attending
the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to
verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it
will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
II. Background Information for This Proposed Rule
A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are
listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a
stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 air toxics that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban
areas, and section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to regulate the area source
categories that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the 30
``listed'' air toxics. We implement these requirements through the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A
primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in
cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
We added iron foundries and steel foundries to the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR
43113). The inclusion of these two source categories to the section
112(c)(3) area source category list is based on EPA's use of 1990 as
the baseline year for that listing. Both of these source categories
were listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source
emissions for the following ``urban'' HAP: Compounds of chromium, lead,
manganese, and nickel.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on the definition of generally available control
technology (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the legislation
(Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which indicates GACT
means:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
[[Page 52986]]
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories that may have few
establishments and many small businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances,
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies
and practices could be considered generally available for the area
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and
economic impacts of available control technologies and management
practices on that category.
Iron and steel foundries may emit small quantities of mercury
compounds, dioxins, and HAP organics from furnaces that melt scrap
containing tramp materials such as mercury switches and chlorinated
plastics. Organic HAP emissions also result from the use of binder and
coating formulations that contain HAP components. As a result, we are
proposing pollution prevention management practices for the control of
HAP (organics, metal compounds, and mercury) in the charge materials
used by iron and steel foundries. Another pollution prevention
management practice would require the use of non-methanol binder
formulations in certain applications. We are also proposing that
foundries keep a record of the annual quantity and composition of each
HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds
and cores. These records may assist area source foundry owners or
operators in their pursuit of pollution prevention opportunities.
We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 10
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by
December 15, 2007 (Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). Other rulemakings will include
standards for the remaining source categories.
B. What area source categories are affected by the proposed NESHAP?
The Iron Foundries area source category includes any facility
engaged in the production of final shape castings from grades of iron.
The Steel Foundries area source category includes any facility engaged
in producing final shape steel castings by the melting, alloying, and
molding of pig iron and steel scrap. The proposed area source NESHAP
combines the requirements for both area source categories into one rule
because the processes are similar and many foundries produce both iron
and steel castings.
The U.S. Census Bureau industry statistics indicate that there were
1,015 ferrous foundries operating in the U.S. in 2002. In 1998, we
conducted a detailed survey of all known iron and steel foundries and
received responses from approximately 600 foundries. This list of 600
foundries was updated in 2006 based on information received from the
industry trade organization and through direct contact with foundry
owners and operators; numerous foundries closed between 1998 and 2006.
Based on this information, we have detailed, process-specific
information on approximately 510 iron and steel foundries that are
currently operating in the United States. Approximately 80 of these
facilities are major sources subject to the NESHAP for Iron and Steel
Foundries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. We have identified a total
of 427 iron and steel foundries that are area sources and for which we
have detailed data.
Based on a comparison of the Census Bureaus statistics, the
detailed industry survey responses, and the trends in the iron and
steel foundry industry, we estimate that there may be up to 300
additional iron and steel foundries operating in the United States for
which we do not have information regarding their process operations. We
expect that the vast majority of these foundries are small operations
with melt production less than 10,000 tpy.
Based on the updated industry database, area source iron and steel
foundries are located in 43 of the contiguous 48 States; 27 of these
States have at least 5 iron and steel foundries. The States that have
the greatest number of area source iron and steel foundries include
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and California; each of these States has
more than 30 iron and steel foundries. A few of the States have
regulations for particulate matter (PM) that impact iron and steel
foundry operations. The State and local regulations often have a
sliding scale that allows small melting capacity furnaces to have much
higher PM emission per ton of metal melted than larger furnaces.
C. What are the processes and emissions sources at iron and steel
foundries?
Iron and steel foundries manufacture castings by pouring molten
iron or steel melted in a furnace into a mold of a desired shape. The
primary processing units of interest at iron and steel foundries,
because of their potential to generate metal HAP emissions, are metal
melting furnaces. HAP metal compounds may also be emitted from a
variety of ancillary sources at the foundry such as metal inoculation,
pouring, and grinding stations. Iron and steel foundries may also
release organic HAP from cooling and shakeout lines, mold and core
making lines, and mold and core coating lines, depending on the type of
molding system and chemical binders used.
There are three primary types of furnaces used to melt scrap metal
at iron and steel foundries--cupolas, electric arc furnaces (EAF), and
electric induction furnaces (EIF). Cupolas are used exclusively to
produce molten iron; EAF are used predominately to produce molten
steel, but are used at a few iron and steel foundries to produce molten
iron. EIF are used to produce either molten iron or molten steel.
Cupolas and EAF typically have larger melting capacities than EIF; the
vast majority of area source iron and steel foundries use EIF.
Cupolas are continuous blast furnaces. Almost all emissions from a
cupola are contained in the flow of air exiting the stack of the
furnace, which contains PM and organic compounds in addition to carbon
monoxide (CO). The metal HAP in PM emissions from cupolas are primarily
compounds of lead and manganese, with other HAP such as compounds of
cadmium, chromium, mercury, and nickel present in lesser amounts. These
HAP originate as impurities or trace elements in the scrap metal fed to
the furnace. Most cupolas control PM emissions by dedicated baghouses
or wet scrubbers.
EAF and EIF metal melting furnaces operate in batch mode; an
operating cycle consisting of charging, melting, backcharging (in some
cases), and tapping. PM emissions from EAF and EIF contain similar HAP
metal compounds as cupola furnaces, but may also contain significant
amounts of compounds of chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel
alloy castings are produced. Emissions from EIF are often uncontrolled,
but baghouses, cyclones, and wet scrubbers are used to control PM
emissions from EIF at
[[Page 52987]]
certain iron and steel foundries. PM emissions from EAF are typically
controlled by baghouses.
Other potential emission sources of HAP metals at iron and steel
foundries include inoculation, pouring, and grinding stations. The
total quantity of metal HAP emitted from these sources is small in
comparison with the emissions from the metal melting furnaces. Capture
and control of inoculation and pouring emissions are difficult due to
the need to access the molten metal during these operations.
Consequently, inoculation and pouring emissions are typically fugitive
emission sources within the foundry. Metal grinding typically generates
coarse PM emissions, which are often captured and controlled to improve
the workplace environment. This coarse PM does not pose a significant
air emission source, as these particles do not generally transport from
the foundry building.
The majority of organic HAP emissions from iron and steel foundry
operations are organic HAP contained in either chemical binder or
coating formulations that may partially evaporate or are otherwise
emitted during the chemical application process. Organic HAP are also
generated by incomplete combustion of organic material in the mold and
core sand, such as binder chemicals and seacoal, when molten metal
comes into contact with organic materials.
III. Summary of This Proposed Rule
This section presents a summary of the requirements of this
proposed rule and proposed regulatory alternatives. Additional details
and the rationale for the proposed requirements are provided in section
IV of this preamble.
A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
The NESHAP would apply to each new and existing iron and steel
foundry that is an area source. The compliance dates for existing area
source standards would depend on whether the foundry is determined to
be small or large. We are proposing to define a ``small iron and steel
foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt
production of 10,000 tons or less. An iron and steel foundry that has
an annual metal melt production greater than 10,000 tons would be
classified as a large foundry.
Each foundry would determine its initial classification as a small
or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008. All
foundries would be required to comply with the pollution prevention
management practices for metallic scrap, removal of mercury switches,
and binder formulations no later than 1 year after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A large foundry
would be required to comply with applicable emissions limitations and
operation and maintenance requirements no later than 2 years after
initial classification.\1\ The owner or operator of a new area source
foundry would be required to comply with the rule requirements by the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register or upon
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If additional time is needed to install controls, the owner
or operator of an existing source can, pursuant to 40 CFR
63.6(i)(4), request from the permitting authority up to a 1-year
extension of the compliance date. See CAA section 112(i)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the initial classification, a small foundry that exceeds the
10,000 ton annual production threshold during the preceding calendar
year must notify the Administrator and comply with the applicable
requirements for a large foundry within 2 years. For example, if a
small foundry produces more than 10,000 tons of melted metal from
January 1 through December 31, 2009, that foundry would be required to
comply with the requirements for a large foundry by January 2012. If a
facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small foundry
becomes a large foundry), that facility must meet the applicable
requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years, even if its
annual production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. After 3
years, the foundry may reclassify the facility as a small foundry
provided the annual production for the preceding calendar year was
10,000 tons of melted metal or less. A large foundry that becomes small
must notify the Administrator and comply with the applicable
requirements for small foundries immediately. If a large foundry
becomes small and then its production exceeds 10,000 for a subsequent
calendar year, the foundry must notify the Administrator and comply
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately.
We are also co-proposing an alternative plant size threshold that
would define a ``small iron and steel foundry'' as an iron and steel
foundry that has an annual metal melt production of 15,000 tons or
less. An iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt
production greater than 15,000 tons would be classified as a large
foundry. The proposed rule requirements under this alternative plant
size threshold would not differ from the proposed rule requirements
described above.
B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution prevention
management practices?
1. Metallic Scrap
The proposed material specification requirements are based on
pollution prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials
from metallic scrap before melting. All foundries would prepare and
operate according to written material specifications for one of two
equivalent compliance options.
One compliance option would require foundries to prepare and
operate pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase
and use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials
that do not include metallic scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine
blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, chlorinated
plastics, or free liquids. The term ``free liquids'' is defined as
material that fails the paint filter test by EPA Method 9095B
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) in EPA Publication SW-
846, ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods''.
The second compliance option would require foundries to prepare and
operate pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase
and use of scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of
organics and HAP metals in the charge materials used by the foundry.
For scrap charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace that is
not equipped with an afterburner, the materials specifications must
include requirements for metal scrap to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic parts, accessible
lead-containing components, and free liquids. For scrap charged to a
cupola metal melting furnace that is equipped with an afterburner, the
material specifications must include requirements for metal scrap to be
depleted (to the extent practicable) of chlorinated plastics,
accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids.
Either material specification option will achieve a similar HAP
reduction impact. Foundries may have certain scrap subject to one
option and other scrap subject to another option provided the metallic
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
2. Mercury Switch Removal
The proposed standards for mercury are based on pollution
prevention and require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from
motor vehicles
[[Page 52988]]
either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle scrap only
from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved program for the
removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the alternative requirements
described below. Foundries participating in an approved program must
maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting the
scrap provider's participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program. A proposed equivalent compliance option is for the
foundry to prepare and operate pursuant to an EPA-approved site-
specific plan that includes specifications to the scrap provider that
mercury switches must be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an
efficiency comparable to that of the EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program (see below). An equivalent compliance option is
provided for facilities that do not use motor vehicle scrap that
contains mercury switches.
We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose
to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers
who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has
been approved by the Administrator. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch
Recovery Program (NVMSRP) \2\ would be an approved program under this
proposed standard. Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a
compliance option would have to assume all of the responsibilities for
steelmakers as described in the Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For details see: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm. In
particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foundries could also obtain scrap from scrap providers
participating in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or
operator would have to submit a request to the Administrator for
approval to comply by purchasing scrap from scrap providers that are
participating in another switch removal program and demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the program meets the following
specified criteria: (1) There is an outreach program that informs
automobile dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and
provides training and guidance on switch removal, (2) the program has a
goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches,
and (3) the program sponsor must submit annual progress reports on the
number of switches removed and the estimated number of motor vehicle
bodies processed (from which a percentage of switches removed is easily
derivable).
Facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers
that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal
program would have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in
conformance with a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury
switches, and the plan must include provisions for obtaining assurance
from scrap providers that mercury switches have been removed. The plan
would be submitted to the Administrator for approval and would
demonstrate how the facility will comply with specific requirements
that include: (1) A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and
scrap providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from
which mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the
proper disposal of the mercury switches, (2) provisions for obtaining
assurance from scrap providers that motor vehicle scrap provided to the
facility meets the scrap specifications, (3) provisions for periodic
inspection, site visits, or other means of corroboration to ensure that
scrap providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4)
provisions for taking corrective actions if needed, and (5) requiring
each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an estimate of the number
of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle scrap sent to the
facility during the previous year and the basis for the estimate. The
Administrator would be able to request documentation or additional
information from the owner or operator at any time. The site-specific
plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of
the mercury switches. All documented and verifiable mercury-containing
components removed from motor vehicle scrap would count towards the 80
percent goal.
An equivalent compliance option would be provided for foundries
that do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury. The
option would require the facility to certify that the only materials
they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for
their specialty alloy content, such as chromium in certain exhaust
systems, and these materials are known not to contain mercury.
Records would be required to document conformance with the material
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury
switches. Each foundry would be required to submit semiannual reports
that clearly identify any deviation from the scrap management
requirements. These reports can be submitted as part of the semiannual
reports required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions.
3. Binder Formulations
For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line, new
and existing foundries would be required to use a binder chemical
formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the
catalyst formulation. This requirement would not apply to the resin
portion of the binder system. This proposed rule includes recordkeeping
requirements to document conformance with this requirement.
C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?
This proposed rule requires small iron and steel foundries to
comply with the pollution prevention management practices for metallic
scrap, mercury switches, and binder formulations described above. The
owner or operator would be required to submit an initial notification
of applicability no later than 120 calendar days after the final rule
is published in the Federal Register (or within 120 days after the
foundry becomes subject to the standard; see 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)). The
foundry would also be required to submit an initial written
notification to the Administrator that identifies their facility as a
small (or large) foundry; this notification would be due no later than
1 year after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. Subsequent notifications would be required within 30 days for
a change in process or operations that reclassifies the status of the
facility and its compliance obligations. A small foundry would also be
required to submit a notification of compliance status according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). The notification of compliance status would include
certifications of compliance for the pollution prevention management
practices. This proposed rule also requires small foundries to keep
records of monthly metal melt production and report any deviation from
the pollution prevention management practices in the semiannual report
required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions.
We are also proposing to require small foundries to keep a record
of the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical
binder or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records
must be copies of
[[Page 52989]]
purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other documentation
that provide information on binder materials. The purpose of this
requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and use nonHAP
binder and coating materials wherever feasible.
D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?
This proposed NESHAP requires large iron and steel foundries to
comply with the pollution prevention management practices described in
section III.B of this preamble. In addition, large iron and steel
foundries would be required to operate capture and collection systems
for metal melting furnaces and comply with emissions limitations,
operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. We are also co-proposing an alternative under
which we would not subcategorize between large and small foundries.
Under this alternative, all foundries would be required to comply with
the pollution prevention management practices described in section
III.B of this preamble, but no foundries would be subject to the
requirements described in section III.D of this preamble, such as the
requirements for capture and collection systems, emissions limitations,
and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
1. Emissions Limitations
Large foundries would be required to comply with emissions limits
for metal melting furnaces. A metal melting furnace includes cupolas,
EAF, EIF, or other similar devices (excluding holding furnaces, argon
oxygen decarburization vessels, or ladles that receive molten metal
from a metal melting furnace, to which metal ingots or other materials
may be added to adjust the metal chemistry). The proposed emissions
limits for metal melting furnaces are:
0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal melted (lb/ton of PM) or
0.06 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal melted (lb/ton of total
metal HAP) for each metal melting furnace at an existing iron and steel
foundry.
0.1 lb/ton of PM or 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP for
each metal melting furnace at a new iron and steel foundry.
The owner or operator of a foundry may choose to comply with these
emissions limits utilizing emissions averaging as specified in this
proposed rule so that the production-weighted average emissions from
all metal melting furnaces at the foundry for any calendar month meet
the applicable emissions limit.
Operating parameter limits would apply to the control device
applied to emissions from a metal melting furnace. For a wet scrubber,
a foundry would maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the
initial or subsequent performance test. For an electrostatic
precipitator, a foundry would maintain the voltage and secondary
current (or total power input) to the control device at or above the
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
For a baghouse, a foundry would maintain the pressure drop across each
baghouse cell within the range established during the initial or
subsequent performance test.
The proposed NESHAP also includes a fugitive emissions opacity
limit of 20 percent for each building or structure housing iron and
steel foundry operations. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive
emissions opacity limit would include all process equipment and
practices used to produce metal castings for shipment including mold or
core making and coating; scrap handling and preheating; metal melting
and inoculation; pouring, cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding
and other metal finishing operations; and sand handling.
2. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
The owner or operator would be required to prepare and operate by
an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for each control device used to
comply with the standards. Any other O&M, preventative maintenance, or
similar plan which satisfies the specified requirements could be used
to comply with the requirements for an O&M plan.
3. Monitoring Requirements
We are proposing that large iron and steel foundries install and
operate continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to measure and
record operating parameters of wet scrubbers used to comply with PM or
total metal HAP emissions limit. For electrostatic precipitators, the
owner or operator may measure and record the voltage and secondary
current (or total power input) using a CPMS or manually record the
parameter(s) at least once a shift. For baghouses, the owner or
operator of an existing foundry would conduct periodic baghouse
inspections and manually check and record the pressure drop across each
baghouse cell at least once a day or measure and record the pressure
drop using a CPMS. All CPMS would be operated and maintained according
to the O&M plan.
As an alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an
existing area source can use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit. Bag
leak detection systems are required for positive or negative pressure
baghouses at a new area source foundry. If a bag leak detection system
is used, the owner or operator must prepare and operate pursuant to a
monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system; specific
requirements for the plan are included in this proposed rule. For
additional information on bag leak detection systems that operate on
the triboelectric effect, see ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication number PB98164676.
This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the capture system are also required. The owner or
operator must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system
before the next scheduled inspection and record the results of each
inspection and the date of any repair.
If a large foundry complies with the emissions limits for furnaces
using emissions averaging, the proposed NESHAP requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. The facility
would determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this proposed
rule. The owner or operator would maintain records of the monthly
calculations and report any exceedance in the semiannual report.
4. Performance Tests
We propose that each large foundry conduct a performance test to
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM or total metal HAP emissions
limit and the opacity limit for fugitive emissions within 180 days of
promulgation and submit the results in the notification of compliance
status. In lieu of conducting an initial performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP limit
for metal melting furnaces, the owner or operator of an existing
foundry would be allowed to submit the results of a previous
performance test provided the test was conducted within the last 5
years using the methods and procedures specified
[[Page 52990]]
in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the
test, or the test results reliably demonstrate compliance despite
process changes. If the owner or operator does not have a previous
performance test that meets the rule requirements, a test must be
conducted within 180 days of the compliance date. Performance tests
would be required for all new area source foundries. Subsequent tests
for furnaces would be required every 5 years and each time an operating
limit is changed or a process change occurs that is likely to increase
metal HAP emissions from the furnace. Provisions are included in this
proposed rule for determining compliance with PM or total metal HAP
emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal melted format and for
establishing control device operating parameter limits. This proposed
rule also includes requirements to perform visual opacity testing every
6 months. This proposed rule describes the methods and requirements for
these semiannual opacity observations.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator would be required to submit an initial
notification that identifies the facility as a large (or small)
foundry. In addition, the owner or operator would be required to comply
with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which are identified in Table 3 of this proposed rule. The
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e). In
addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, all foundries would
be required to maintain records to document conformance with the
pollution prevention management practice emissions standards for
metallic scrap, mercury switch removal, and binder formulations as well
as to maintain records of annual melt production and corrective
action(s). Large foundries must also prepare and operate according to
the O&M plan and record monthly compliance calculations for metal
melting furnaces that comply using emissions averaging, if applicable.
The owner or operator would submit semiannual reports that provide
summary information on excursions or exceedances (including the
corrective action taken), monitor downtime incidents, and deviations
from management practices or O&M requirements according to the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.10.
We are also proposing to require all foundries to keep a record of
the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical
binder or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records
must be copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or
other documentation that provide information on binder materials. The
purpose of this requirement, among other things, is to encourage
foundries to investigate and use nonHAP binder and coating materials
wherever feasible.
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did EPA subcategorize iron and steel foundries?
As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions
and control technologies that would warrant subcategorization. Under
section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes,
types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in
establishing such standards * * *''. In our review of the available
data, we observed significant differences between iron and steel
foundries based on the total melt production capacities of the foundry.
For example, foundries with melt production quantities of 10,000 tpy or
less represented over 70 percent of the facilities, but only 25 percent
of the nationwide emissions. Small foundries are much more likely to
use EIF; 77 percent of all area source EIF are at foundries with
production of 10,000 tpy or less. On the other hand, only 37 percent of
the cupolas and 28 percent of the EAF at area sources are at foundries
with production of 10,000 tpy or less. Based on these differences, we
determined that subcategorization of iron and steel foundries by size
was justified.
We evaluated the impacts of requiring all metal melting furnaces to
operate with either a wet scrubber or baghouse control system. Under
this scenario, foundries with melt capacities of 10,000 tpy or less
incurred 74 percent of the annualized control costs and represented
over 99 percent of the foundries with annualized costs that exceeded 3
percent of sales; however, these foundries represented only 31 percent
of the air emission reductions. We also evaluated the relative
proportion of costs and emission reductions at size thresholds of
5,000, 15,000, and 20,000 tpy melting capacity. At lower capacity
thresholds, the control costs for foundries above the threshold
increased significantly while the emission reductions increased only
slightly. At higher capacity thresholds, the control costs for
foundries above the threshold decreased but the emissions reductions
also decreased significantly. Detailed information about the costs and
emission reductions at these other size thresholds is available in the
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359). In light of the relative emissions
reductions and costs for various thresholds, we determined that a
10,000 tpy facility-wide melting capacity was the appropriate threshold
for subcategorizing large and small foundries.
Consequently, we are proposing to subcategorize the iron and steel
foundry industry into ``small'' and ``large'' foundries. A ``small iron
and steel foundry'' would be defined as an iron and steel foundry that
has an annual melt production of 10,000 tpy or less. A ``large iron and
steel foundry'' would be defined as an iron and steel foundry that has
an annual melt production greater than 10,000 tpy. It should be noted
that this designation of small and large foundries is in no way related
to the definition of ``small entity'' under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. Furthermore, the term ``large'' is relative; large area source
foundries may be quite small compared to foundries that are subject to
the major source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE).
In light of limits on our information about costs, HAP emissions
reductions, and foundry operations, EPA is evaluating whether, and how,
to subcategorize the source categories, and what GACT is for the source
categories or subcategories. Therefore, EPA is co-proposing two
alternatives along with the 10,000 tpy threshold for large foundries.
Under the first alternative, the threshold for large foundries would be
set at 15,000 tpy. Under the second alternative, there would be no
subcategorization, and all sources would be required to comply with the
pollution prevention management practices described in section III.B of
this preamble.
We also evaluated the different types of furnaces and are
considering subcategorization based on furnace type. As the different
types of melting furnaces operate differently and have their own
emission characteristics, subcategorization by the type of furnace
would also be justified. We subcategorized by furnace type when we
promulgated the major source Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63 subpart EEEEE). EAF and cupolas tend to be used at the larger
foundries, whereas EIF are prevalent at the smaller foundries.
Additionally, EAF and
[[Page 52991]]
cupolas tend to have higher melting capacities than EIF, especially at
the larger foundries. For example, 88 percent of all cupolas and EAF at
foundries with melt production greater than 10,000 tpy have metal
melting capacities of 4 tons per hour (tph) or greater, whereas only 36
percent of EIF at these large foundries have metal melting capacity of
4 tph or greater. Based on the abundance of very small EIF melting
furnaces, even at large foundries, we are also considering
subcategorizing the EIF metal melting furnaces into ``low capacity
EIF'' and ``high capacity EIF.'' High capacity EIF would be subject to
requirements similar to the large foundry requirements in section III.D
of this preamble, and low capacity EIF would be treated similarly to
small foundries under this proposal. The threshold for classification
as a high capacity EIF would be 4 or 5 tph.
We request comment, along with supporting documentation, on these
and other possible alternative subcategories based on plant size or
furnace type. Supporting documentation must be provided in sufficient
detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness
of the data. We specifically request comment on the appropriateness of
using a 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 tpy melting capacity as the
plant size threshold for subcategorization. We also request comment on
subcategorizing the melting furnaces by furnace type and size.
Specifically, we request comment along with supporting documentation on
subcategorizing EIF into low and high capacity furnaces using either a
4 or 5 tph melting capacity threshold. Based on the comments received,
we may elect to subcategorize between large and small iron and steel
foundries, between furnaces using alternative size thresholds, a
combination of foundry size and furnace type, or we may elect not to
subcategorize at all.
B. What is the performance of control technologies for metal melting
furnaces?
Facility-specific and process-specific data were available for iron
and steel foundries from a survey of the industry conducted in 1998. A
total of 595 survey responses were originally received; the responses
included the types of process units used at each foundry, the type of
control device used for each process, and key design parameters of the
processes and control systems. These data were updated based on
additional data collected through direct facility contacts and through
information provided by the industry trade organizations. After
updating the data base, we have detailed information for 427 iron and
steel foundries that are currently operating and that are area sources
(i.e., that are not subject to the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, which applies to major sources).
Although this data base likely does not include every foundry in the
United States, it includes a significant majority of the foundries,
especially those foundries with melt production quantities of 5,000 tpy
or more, and we believe it is reasonably representative of the
industry's current practices and controls.
In addition to the process design information, we requested
foundries that had conducted emissions tests on their foundry processes
and/or control systems to submit the source test results and supporting
information. Performance data were available for over 70 furnaces.
Although most of these data are for larger (often major source) iron
and steel foundries, these data provide a reasonable basis for
assessing the performance of various control approaches for metal
melting furnaces.
Metal HAP compounds from iron and steel foundries are emitted
primarily from metal melting furnaces. These metal HAP compounds are
released as filterable PM emissions, and conventional PM control
systems can be used to significantly reduce the metal HAP emissions
from iron and steel foundries. Fabric filters (baghouses or cartridge
filters) and wet scrubbers are the predominant technologies used to
control PM from metal melting furnaces. Fabric filter systems generally
achieve higher PM emissions reductions than wet scrubbers, as applied
in the iron and steel foundry industry. Fabric filter systems generally
achieve 98 to 99.9 percent control efficiency. PM wet scrubbers as used
in the iron and steel foundry industry are typically venturi-type wet
scrubbers that achieve a PM reduction efficiency of 85 to 95 percent.
Electrostatic precipitators and cyclone separators are also used at
some iron and steel foundry operations to control metal melting furnace
emissions. We have test data for only one ESP; its performance is
comparable to the performance of wet scrubbers. Cyclone separators are
used in limited applications, primarily for EIF; emission reduction
efficiencies of cyclone separators are expected to be between 40 and 70
percent.
Our review of the emissions test data for metal melting furnaces
showed that although the different types of melting furnaces have
widely different uncontrolled emissions, the controlled emissions from
the different types of metal melting furnaces were consistent between
the different types of furnaces when expressed in terms of pounds of PM
emitted per ton of metal charged (lb/ton). After considering the
control technologies in use at area source foundries, we considered
setting an emission limit at 0.8 or 0.3 lb/ton of PM (see section IV.D
of this preamble for our analysis of these emission limit options). The
0.8 lb/ton of PM limit is based on the performance of a well-designed
and operated wet scrubber system at area source iron and steel
foundries, taking into account process and control system variability.
The 0.3 lb/ton of PM limit is based on the performance of a reasonably-
designed and operated fabric filter control system at area source iron
and steel foundries, taking into account process and control system
variability. For new sources, we also considered a PM emission limit of
0.1 lb/ton based on the performance of the best fabric filter control
systems at existing large area source iron and steel foundries, taking
into account process and control system variability.
In addition to these control options that are based on add-on
control systems, we identified scrap management practices as a
potential means of reducing HAP emissions from the metal melting
furnaces. This is a pollution prevention measure that can either be
applied in conjunction with add-on controls or be applied when no add-
on controls are used. By reducing the amount of tramp metals and other
materials in the scrap feed to the furnace, emissions of both metal HAP
compounds and organic HAP can be reduced. However, it should be noted
that the emissions reductions achievable by implementing scrap
management as the primary HAP reduction activity are not as great as
when applied in conjunction with add-on controls.
C. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP from small
iron and steel foundries?
Based on the considerations of what constitutes GACT as described
in section II.A of this preamble, we identified and evaluated three
emissions control options for small iron and steel foundries. Option 1
is the use of scrap management practices alone. Option 2 is the use of
a management system that includes scrap management practices and
developing and implementing operation and maintenance plans, and
meeting building opacity limits. Thus, Option 2 is aimed at reducing
emissions of ancillary sources at the iron and steel foundry in
addition to the metal melting furnaces. Option 3 is the enhanced
management system in conjunction with
[[Page 52992]]
a PM emissions limit of 0.8 lb/ton for the metal melting furnaces.
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the impacts of these candidate
control options for iron and steel foundries having a production
capacity of 10,000 tpy or less.
Table 1.--National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Foundries With Annual Melt Production of
10,000 tpy or Less \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness ($/ton Number of
Total Total Emissions PM) foundries
Option capital annual reduction, ----------------------------- impacted
cost, $ cost, $/yr (tons PM/ greater than
(millions) (millions) yr) Overall Incremental 3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Impacts in terms of metal HAP emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... ........... 0.19 0.75 250,000 .............. 0
2........................... ........... 0.50 1.35 370,000 520,000 8
3........................... 135 29.3 22.6 1,300,000 1,400,000 148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness ($/ton Number of
Total Total Emission mental HAO) foundaries
Option capital annual reductions, ----------------------------- impacted
cost, $ cost, $/yr (tons metal greater than
(millions) (millions) HAP/year) Overall Incremental 3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Impacts in terms of PM emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... ........... 0.19 16 12,000 .............. 0
2........................... ........... 0.50 36 14,000 16,000 8
3........................... 135 29.3 480 61,000 65,000 148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are in 2005 dollars.
The results for Option 3, as presented in Table 1 of this preamble,
indicate that add-on controls are not cost-effective and impose undue
economic burden for the small iron and steel foundry subcategory. While
the cost-effectiveness values for the two management practice options
are similar, eight foundries (all of which are small entities) have
cost impacts greater than 3 percent of their revenue under Option 2.
Although not presented in Table 1 of this preamble, the management
practices represented by Option 2 also impose compliance costs that are
between 1 and 3 percent of sales for an additional 13 iron and steel
foundries, whereas the scrap management practices represented by Option
1 do not result in any impacts that exceed 1 percent of revenue.
Furthermore, the PM emitted from the ancillary sources has lower
content of HAP metal compounds than the PM associated with the metal
melting furnaces. Therefore, the management practices in Option 2 are
relatively less effective at reducing emissions of HAP metal compounds
as compared to Option 1. The additional emissions reductions achieved
by the management system under Option 2 do not justify the additional
costs and economic burden. Therefore, we are proposing GACT for
emissions of metal HAP compounds from small area source foundries is
scrap management practices. See section III.B of this preamble for a
summary of proposed scrap management practices.
D. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP from large
iron and steel foundries?
1. Existing Sources
Based on the considerations of what constitutes GACT as described
in section II.A of this preamble, we identified and evaluated four
control options for existing large iron and steel foundries. Option 1
is the use of a management system that includes scrap management
practices, developing and implementing operation and maintenance plans
and start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plans, and meeting building
opacity limits. Option 2 is the management system in conjunction with a
PM emissions limit of 0.8 lb/ton for the metal melting furnaces. Option
3 is the management practices in conjunction with a PM emissions limit
of 0.3 lb/ton. Table 2 of this preamble presents the national impacts
of control options for existing large iron and steel foundries with a
production capacity greater than 10,000 tpy.
[[Page 52993]]
Table 2.--National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Foundries With Annual Melt Production
Greater Than 10,000 tpy \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness ($/ton Number of
Total Total Emissions PM) foundries
Option capital annual reduction, ----------------------------- impacted
cost, $ cost, $/yr (tons PM/ greater than
(millions) (millions) yr) Overall Incremental 3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Impacts in terms of metal HAP emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... ........... 0.90 3.7 240,000 .............. 0
2........................... 47 10.3 34 300,000 310,000 1
3........................... 91 15.5 43 360,000 580,000 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness ($/ton Number of
Total Total Emissions metal HAP) foundries
Option capital annual reduction, ----------------------------- impacted
cost, $ cost, $/yr (tons metal greater than
(millions) (millions) HAP/yr) Overall Incremental 3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Impacts in terms of PM emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................... ........... 0.90 88 10,000 .............. 0
2........................... 47 10.3 1,060 9,700 9,700 1
3........................... 91 15.5 1,210 12,800 35,000 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are in 2005 U.S. dollars.
As seen in Table 2 of this preamble, none of the control options
evaluated for the large iron and steel foundry subcategory resulted in
a substantial number of foundries with economic impacts exceeding 3
percent of revenues. The management practices represented in Option 1
are cost-effective for large iron and steel foundries; however, Option
1 effects minimal emissions reductions. Option 2 (an emissions limit of
0.8 lb/ton) has similar cost-effectiveness as Option 1, but achieves
much greater emissions reductions, primarily by requiring controls on
previously uncontrolled furnaces. The incremental cost-effectiveness
when going from Option 2 to Option 3 is poor, indicating that it is not
cost-effective to require existing large iron and steel foundries to
achieve a 0.3 lb/ton or lower PM emission limit. This poor incremental
cost-effectiveness results because a significant percentage of
foundries would have to retrofit their existing control system under
Option 3, and the cost-effectiveness of this retrofit is very poor.
Consequently, when subcategorizing foundries by production thresholds,
we are proposing Option 2 (management systems and PM emissions limit of
0.8 lb/ton) as GACT for existing large iron and steel foundries.
2. New Sources
The available emissions data for existing large area source iron
and steel foundries were reviewed. The best-performing metal melting
controls for this subcategory were all baghouses, regardless of furnace
type. For each type of metal melting furnace, the best-performing
baghouse control systems achieved a PM emission limitation of 0.1 lb/
ton. Therefore, when subcategorizing foundries by production
thresholds, we are proposing that GACT is a PM emission limit of 0.1
lb/ton for new large iron and steel foundries.
E. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for organic HAP from
iron and steel foundries?
Iron and steel foundries were not specifically listed under the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy for any organic HAP. However, iron
and steel foundries have the potential to emit organic HAP from a
variety of sources at the facility, including the metal melting
furnace; pouring, cooling, and shake-out lines; mold and core making,
and mold and core coating. Reductions in the organic content of binder
systems, for example, can reduce emissions from both mold and core
making as well as from pouring, cooling, and shake-out.
We reviewed pollution prevention measures applicable to reduce
organic HAP. Preventing pollution before it is generated is
environmentally sound and preferable to controlling emissions after
they are created. Low emitting binders and other pollution prevention
technologies have demonstrated reductions in organic HAP emissions.
However, there is no pollution prevention technology that is
universally applicable for all iron and steel foundries due to the vast
variety of casting production requirements encountered by the industry.
Each technology must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
This proposed area source rule provides an opportunity for EPA to
promote pollution prevention. We identified several pollution
prevention measures which are feasible and appropriate for this
industry. For example, the proposed scrap management program can also
reduce emissions of organic HAP by ensuring that the scrap is depleted
of chlorinated plastics at all times and that the scrap is depleted, to
the extent practicable, of post-consumer oil filters and other oily
material unless an adequate organic control system is used (e.g., an
afterburner on a cupola). Additionally, we identified an alternative
furfuryl alcohol warm box catalyst system that does not contain
methanol. This alternative catalyst formulation requires no equipment
re-tooling and provides performance comparable to the methanol-
containing formulation. Therefore, we are proposing that GACT for iron
and steel foundries include the organic-related provisions in the scrap
management program for all iron and steel foundries and the use of a
furfuryl
[[Page 52994]]
alcohol warm box catalyst system that does not contain methanol for
foundries that use a furfuryl alcohol warm box binder system.
EPA encourages the area source foundries to learn about and
investigate pollution prevention (P2) methods and technologies that may
reduce or eliminate organic HAP emissions, while maintaining their
quality, productivity, and competitiveness. Therefore, as part of this
proposed rule, EPA is also requiring foundries to keep copies of
purchasing records, Material Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation
that provides information on liquid or solid binder materials. Among
other things, these records may assist area source foundry owners or
operators in their pursuit of cost-effective pollution prevention
opportunities.
F. How did EPA select the proposed compliance requirements?
We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and
recordkeeping requirements needed to ensure compliance with the rule
requirements. These provisions include scaled-down versions of
requirements that have been applied to several industries, including
larger iron and steel foundries that are subject to the standards for
major sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. In selecting these
requirements, we identified the minimum information necessary to ensure
emissions controls are maintained and operated properly on a continuing
basis (Option 1). We also evaluated more enhanced monitoring
requirements, such as the use of bag leak detection systems, that were
required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE (Option 2). The enhanced
monitoring requirements under Option 2 increased by three the number of
foundries impacted greater than 1 percent of revenue and caused one
additional small business foundry to have compliance costs that exceed
3 percent of revenue. In light of the additional burdens that enhanced
monitoring would pose for small foundries, we are not proposing
enhanced monitoring requirements. The selected monitoring option
ensures compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule without
posing a significant additional burden for foundries that must
implement them.
We are allowing up to 1 year for all existing area source foundries
to comply with the pollution prevention management practices and up to
2 years after initial classification for large foundries to comply with
the emissions limitations, and operation and maintenance requirements.
If a small foundry exceeds the annual metal melt production threshold
for a large foundry for the first time, the foundry would be required
to submit a notification of reclassification within 30 days and comply
with the requirements for large iron and steel foundries within 2
years. A facility that is classified as a large foundry must comply
with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years before
reclassifying the facility as a small facility, even if the annual
production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. All foundries would
be required to provide written notification to the Administrator of a
change in compliance status.
Because of the uncertainty in the emissions control status of
existing facilities, we are proposing that each foundry conduct a
performance test for each metal melting furnace (or group of all metal
melting furnaces) subject to the PM or total metal HAP emissions limit
and each building or structure subject to the opacity limit for
fugitive emissions. Existing foundries may choose to use the results of
a previous performance test that demonstrates compliance with the
applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limit for a metal melting
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces instead of conducting a
new test, provided the previous test meets the rule requirements. This
proposed rule requires the owner or operator to provide written
notification of the intent to use the previous test data, including (if
applicable) information demonstrating that the test data is
representative of current operations and processes. This notification
would be submitted no later than 60 days after the compliance date for
an existing foundry in order that the foundry could still conduct a
test within 180 days of the compliance date if the regulatory agency
determines a new test is needed. Subsequent performance tests would be
required every 5 years and each time the foundry changed an operating
limit or made a process change likely to increase metal HAP emissions.
We are proposing subsequent tests because the proposed monitoring
requirements do not provide a direct measurement of emissions.
We are proposing opacity observations every 6 months to demonstrate
compliance with the fugitive emissions limit. We evaluated alternative
requirements, including equipment inspection and visible emission
observations. These alternatives were not well correlated with the 20
percent building opacity emissions limit, and were therefore rejected.
We request comment on alternative compliance requirements for the
building opacity limit and the appropriate frequency of these
observations. Alternatives to Method 9 observations must indicate how
the suggested alternative can be related to the 20 percent opacity
limit.
The proposed NESHAP allows CPMS for the control devices. We are
proposing to require bag leak detection systems for baghouses used at
new area sources; these are typical monitoring requirements at
facilities of the size and complexity of iron and steel foundries area
sources. Inspection and repair requirements are also proposed to ensure
proper operation and maintenance of capture systems.
We are also proposing to apply the notification, testing,
monitoring, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the part 63 General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A). The General Provisions are necessary for effective application of
the standard for existing and new area sources. In the notification of
compliance status required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), the owner or operator
would certify that specified equipment has been installed and is
operating for each regulated emissions source, the facility has
complied with specific equipment standards and management practices,
written plans have been prepared, and whether the plant is certifying
compliance with emissions limits based on a previous performance test.
Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports must be submitted
as required by 40 CFR 63.6, and semiannual reports must be submitted as
required by 40 CFR 63.10. The proposed NESHAP also includes
recordkeeping requirements to supplement the requirements in 40 CFR
63.10. These records are needed for EPA to determine compliance with
specific rule requirements. The testing, monitoring, notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are necessary and sufficient
to ensure compliance with the proposed requirements for existing and
new area sources.
V. Summary of Impacts of This Proposed Rule
We estimate that the proposed standard (10,000 tpy production
capacity threshold) will reduce emissions of HAP metal compounds by 35
tpy and will reduce PM emissions by 1,074 tpy from the baseline.
Additionally, the proposed standard is expected to reduce emissions of
organic HAP by 32 tpy. The total capital cost of the proposed standard
is estimated at $47 million. The annual operating, maintenance,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs of the proposed standard
are estimated at
[[Page 52995]]
$6.1 million per year. The total annualized cost of the proposed
standard, including the annualized cost of capital equipment, is
estimated at $10.5 million. Under the co-proposed alternative that sets
a higher size threshold for large foundries, the estimated emission
reductions from baseline are 29 tpy of metal HAP, 32 tpy of organic
HAP, and 905 tpy of PM; the total capital cost of this alternative is
estimated at $34 million and the total annualized cost of this
alternative, including the annualized cost of capital equipment, is
estimated at $7.9 million. Under the co-proposed alternative that does
not subcategorize large foundries, the estimated emission reductions
from baseline are 3.4 tpy of metal HAP, 32 tpy of organic HAP, and 64
tpy of PM; there are no capital costs under this alternative and the
total annualized cost is estimated at $1.0 million. Additional
information on our impact estimates on the sources is available in the
docket. (See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359.)
The proposed standard is estimated to impact a total of 427 area
source iron and steel foundries. When subcategorizing foundries by
production thresholds, we estimate that 96 to 124 of these foundries
will be large iron and steel foundries and 303 to 331 foundries will be
small iron and steel foundries (depending on the production threshold).
Approximately 45 percent of the large iron and steel foundries are
owned by small entities whereas 85 percent of the small iron and steel
foundries are owned by small entities.
The secondary impacts would include solid waste generated as a
result of the PM emissions collected and energy impacts associated with
operation of control devices. At a 10,000 tpy production capacity
threshold, we estimate that 1,110 tpy of solid waste would be generated
and an additional 4,490 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy
would be consumed each year as a result of the proposed standard. Under
the co-proposed alternative that sets a higher size threshold for large
foundries, we estimate that 930 tpy of solid waste would be generated
and an additional 3,680 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy
would be consumed each year. Under the co-proposed alternative that
does not subcategorize large foundries, there are no secondary impacts.
VI. Proposed Exemption From Title V Permit Requirements
Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or
'' on the area source category. In December 2005, in a national
rulemaking, EPA interpreted the term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in
CAA section 502 and developed a four-factor test for determining
whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular source
category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR
75320, December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a
particular source category include: (1) Whether title V would result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area
source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would
impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the
burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the sources may have in
obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3)
whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category
would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in
compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4)
whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that
are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source
category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326).
In discussing the above factors in the Exemption Rule, we explained
that we considered on ``a case-by-case'' basis the extent to which one
or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given
source category, and then we assessed whether considered together those
factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be
`unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, consistent with section
502(a) of the CAA. See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we
explained that not all of the four factors must weigh in favor of
exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome
for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be
considered in combination, and EPA determines whether the factors,
taken together, support an exemption from title V for a particular
source category. In the Exemption Rule, EPA also indicated that,
consistent with the guidance provided by the legislative history of
section 502(a), EPA would consider whether exempting the area source
category would adversely affect public health, welfare or the
environment in deciding whether to exempt an area source category. See
70 FR 15254-15255.
We applied the four-factor test to determine whether title V is
unnecessarily burdensome on the Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries area
source categories. Starting with the first factor, which is to
determine whether permits would result in significant improvements to
the compliance requirements for the area source categories, we compared
the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
title V permitting rules (40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR 71.6) to those
requirements in the proposed NESHAP. As noted above (see section III of
this preamble), this proposed rule establishes different monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for small and large
foundries.
Specifically, this proposed rule requires all foundries to comply
with the pollution prevention management practices for metallic scrap,
mercury switches, and binder formulations. All foundries would be
required to keep records of information that demonstrate compliance
with the management practices for metallic scrap and mercury switch
removal requirements. Records to document the use of binder chemical
formulations that do contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the
catalyst formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box or core making
line may be the Material Data Safety Sheet (provided it contains
appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a
manufacturer's HAP data sheet. We are proposing that the area source
facilities keep records of the annual quantity and composition of each
HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds
and cores. This proposed rule also requires all foundries to keep
monthly production records to document annual metal melt production.
In addition to the pollution prevention management practices, large
foundries would be required to comply with emissions limits, control
device parameter operating limits, monitoring requirements, and
operating and maintenance requirements. A CPMS would be required to
measure and record operating parameters for a wet scrubber every 15
minutes and determine and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and
water flow rate. If an electrostatic precipitator is used, the owner or
operator would be required to measure the hourly average voltage and
secondary current (or total power input)
[[Page 52996]]
using a CPMS or check and record the secondary current (or total power
input) at least once a shift. For a baghouse, this proposed rule
requires a CPMS to measure and record the baghouse pressure drop across
each cell using a CPMS or by checking the pressure drop once a day and
recording the results. Foundries would also make periodic inspections
of each baghouse and record the results of each inspection.
Alternatively, the owner or operator of an existing foundry may install
and operate bag leak detection systems. Bag leak detection systems
would be required for any new foundry. Large foundries would be
required to make monthly inspections of capture systems. Performance
tests for furnaces would be required every 5 years and every 6 months
for fugitive emissions from buildings and structures housing foundry
operations; the results would be reported in the next semiannual
report. The proposed NESHAP also requires foundries to prepare and
follow an operation and maintenance plan that identifies monitoring
procedures and schedules. If a facility elected to use emissions
averaging to demonstrate compliance, the foundry would be required to
demonstrate compliance once each calendar month by calculating the
weighted average emissions for the group of all metal melting furnaces
at the foundry using an equation in the rule. This proposed rule
requires records of the monthly calculations. This proposed rule,
therefore, contains both continuous and noncontinuous monitoring
requirements, which constitute periodic monitoring that will assure
compliance with the proposed rule.
We also considered the extent to which title V could enhance
compliance through additional recordkeeping or reporting, including
title V requirements in 40 CFR 70.6 and 40 CFR 71.6 for a semiannual
report, deviation reports, and an annual compliance certification. All
foundries would be required to record specific information to
demonstrate conformance with the pollution prevention management
practices and keep records of monthly production data. All foundries
also would be required to submit a notification that classifies the
facility as a small foundry or a large foundry and to submit subsequent
notifications for any change in classification.
Small foundries would be required to submit an initial notice of
applicability and a notification of compliance status. Records would be
required to demonstrate conformance with the pollution prevention
management standards for metallic scrap, mercury switches, and binder
formulations. Small foundries also would be required to report any
deviation from the pollution prevention management practices in the
semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10.
In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general
provisions, large foundries would be required to keep records to
demonstrate conformance with the pollution prevention management
standards for metallic scrap, mercury switches, and binder
formulations; operation and maintenance plans; capture system
inspections and repairs; control device monitoring and inspections;
emissions averaging (if applicable); bag leak detection system settings
and alarms (if applicable); and corrective actions. The semiannual
report submitted by large foundries would include summary information
on the number, duration, and cause of excursions or exceedances and the
corrective action taken, on monitor downtime incidents, and deviations
from pollution prevention management practices or operation and
maintenance requirements. The proposed NESHAP requires large foundries
to comply with applicable notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)
including requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans,
reports, and records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3); see Table 3 of this proposed
rule. When a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report must be
submitted, it must consist of a letter containing the name, title, and
signature of the owner or operator or other responsible official who is
certifying its accuracy. The information in the reports required for
area source foundries (both large and small) is similar to the
information that must be provided in the semiannual reports required
under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
This proposed rule does not require an annual compliance
certification report, which is a requirement of a title V permit. See
40 CFR 70.5(c)(9)(iii) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(5)(i). EPA believes that the
annual certification reporting requirement is not necessary because the
initial compliance certifications, recordkeeping requirements, and
semiannual reports are adequate to determine compliance for new or
existing sources.
The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
proposed NESHAP for the Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries area source
categories are substantially equivalent to such requirements under
title V. Therefore, we conclude that title V would not result in
significant improvements to the compliance requirements we are
proposing for these area source categories.
We evaluated factor two to determine whether title V permitting
would impose a significant burden on the area source categories and
whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the source
may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting
any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that
do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated that the
average annual cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit
was $7,700 per year per source, including fees, or $38,000 per source
for a (5-year) permit period. See Information Collection Request (ICR)
for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 2000, EPA ICR Number
1587.05. There are certain activities associated with the part 70 and
71 rules that are mandatory and impose burdens on the source. They
include reading and understanding permit program guidance and
regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms;
answering follow-up questions from permitting authorities after the
application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit;
collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-
month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation
reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of
written, verbal, and other communications methods; collecting
information, preparing, and submitting the annual compliance
certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5
years; and, as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit
revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many
sources obtain the contractual services of professional scientists and
engineers (consultants) to help them understand and meet the permitting
program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides information on the
overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each
activity described here. Also, for a more comprehensive list of
requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see
the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7.
In considering the second factor for the 427 existing iron and
steel foundries (319 of which are owned by small entities), we examined
the potential economic implications for the source category. At a cost
of $38,000 per source, the cost to the area source
[[Page 52997]]
category would be about $16.2 million. The cost of permits for this
area source category would exceed the estimated total annualized cost
of the standards ($10.5 million). Although our economic analysis of the
impacts of this proposed rule on small entities does not include the
cost of title V permitting, we believe that such additional costs would
result in adverse impacts for many small entities and perhaps on the
industry as a whole. We believe an additional cost of $38,000 would
create a significant risk of closure for approximately 110 foundries,
nearly all of which are owned by small entities, as the $38,000 cost of
title V permitting alone would exceed 3 percent of revenues for these
foundries. We also looked at the economic resources of facilities in
this source category. While some facilities are large, sophisticated
operations with expertise in regulatory and permitting requirements,
the majority of facilities in this area source category are small
entities which may not have this expertise. Due to the sheer number of
facilities, we suspect that the cost impact could be aggravated by
difficulties in obtaining assistance from overburdened permitting
authorities.
The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance
likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second
factor that the economic and non-economic costs of compliance with
title V would impose a significant burden on approximately 110 area
source iron and steel foundries. In addition, we do not think the costs
for the existing or new sources would lead to any gains in compliance
within the category. As discussed above for factor one, we determined
that the compliance requirements of this NESHAP are substantially
equivalent to the requirements of title V. Furthermore, as discussed
below for factor four, there are adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance
with the NESHAP. We conclude, therefore, that the costs of title V are
not justified for the existing and new sources in this category.
The fourth factor we considered is whether there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with this NESHAP without relying on title V permits. We
believe that the State programs are sufficient to assure compliance
with these NESHAP. We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce
these NESHAP at any time under CAA sections 112, 113 and 114.
We conclude that title V permitting is ``unnecessary'' to assure
compliance with this proposed NESHAP because the statutory requirements
for implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP by the delegated
States and EPA are sufficient to assure compliance without title V
permits. We also note that small business assistance programs required
by CAA section 507 may be used to assist area sources that have been
exempted from title V permitting. In addition, States and EPA often
conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, and education
programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by
statute. These additional programs can be used to supplement and
enhance the success of compliance with this area source NESHAP. In
light of all of the above, we conclude that there are implementation
and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure
compliance with the NESHAP without relying on title V permitting.
In applying this factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted,
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to ensure
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. We do not have similar data available
for this proposed rule, but we have no reason to think that States will
be less diligent in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact,
States must have adequate programs to enforce the HAP regulations and
provide assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will
delegate the program. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. In light of the
above, we conclude that there are implementation and enforcement
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the
final rule without relying on title V permitting.
Considering the factors in combination supports our proposed
finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome on these area source
categories. We conclude that title V would not result in significant
improvements to the compliance requirements applicable to these area
source categories and that there are adequate implementation and
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. We
also conclude that the cost of title V permitting would be burdensome;
we also find that the cost is not justified because there would be
little to no potential gains in compliance within the category if title
V was required. Thus, we conclude that title V permitting is
``unnecessarily burdensome'' for the iron foundries and steel foundries
area source categories.
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome'', EPA also considered,
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of CAA
section 502(a), whether exempting these area source categories from
title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or
the environment. We see no reason to believe that exemption of this
area source category from title V requirements would adversely affect
public health, welfare, or the environment because these national
standards would achieve a significant reduction in HAP and other
emissions that would improve public health, welfare, and the
environment. For the foregoing reasons, we propose to exempt iron
foundries and steel foundries area source categories from title V
permitting requirements.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may ``raise
novel legal or policy issues.'' Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information requirements in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2267.01
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule
are based on the requirements in EPA's National Program for Mercury
Switch Removal (a voluntary agreement with participating industries)
and the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are
mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA (42
[[Page 52998]]
U.S.C. 7414). All information (other than emissions data) submitted to
EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
2, subpart B.
All foundries would be required to submit an initial notification
that classifies their facility as a small or large foundry and a
subsequent notification for any change in classification. All foundries
also would be required to maintain monthly production data to support
their classification as a large or small foundry.
The proposed NESHAP requires small area source foundries to submit
an initial notification of applicability and a notification of
compliance status according to the requirements in the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). Small area source foundries
also report any deviation from the pollution prevention management
standards in the semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the
general provisions. Large area source foundries would be required to
prepare and follow an O&M plan, conduct initial performance tests and
follow-up tests every 5 years, monitor control device operating
parameters, conduct opacity tests every 6 months for fugitive
emissions, inspect and repair capture systems, and keep records to
document compliance with the rule requirements. The owner or operator
of an existing affected source would be allowed to certify compliance
with the emissions limits based on the results of prior performance
tests that meet the rule requirements; the owner or operator would be
required to provide advance notification of the intent to use a prior
performance test instead of conducting a new test. If compliance with
the emissions limits for metal melting furnaces is demonstrated through
emissions averaging, the owner or operator would be required to
demonstrate compliance for each calendar month using a calculation
procedure in the rule. The owner or operator of a large iron and steel
foundry would be subject to all requirements in the General Provisions
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including the requirements in 40 CFR
63.6(e) for startup, shutdown, and malfunction records and reports and
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10. The
semiannual report would include summary information on excursions or
exceedances, monitor downtime incidents, and deviations from management
practices and operation and maintenance requirements.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 5,990 labor hours per
year at a cost of $418,295 for the 427 area sources, with annualized
capital costs of $8,490 and no O&M costs. No new area sources are
estimated during the next 3 years. These estimates represent the
maximum burden that would be imposed by the proposed standards (based
on a subcategorization using a production capacity threshold of 10,000
tpy for the definition of ``small iron and steel foundry''). Because
this proposal represents estimates of the maximum burden, we did not
estimate the ICR burden associated with the co-proposed standards for
this proposed rule.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes 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 be able 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 numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0897. Submit
any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rules to EPA and OMB.
See ``Addresses'' section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after September 17, 2007, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October
17, 2007. This final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS
codes 331511, 331512, and 331513); (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 the proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed
rule is estimated to impact a total of 427 area source iron and steel
foundries; 319 of these foundries are small entities. We estimate that
124 of these foundries would be large iron and steel foundries (metal
melt production greater than 10,000 tpy), and 303 foundries would be
small iron and steel foundries (metal melt production of 10,000 tpy or
less). Approximately 45 percent of the large iron and steel foundries
are owned by small entities whereas 85 percent of the small iron and
steel foundries are owned by small entities. Our analysis shows that
small entity compliance costs, as assessed by the foundry's cost-to-
sales ratio, are expected to range from 0.01 to 3.5 percent. The
analysis also shows that of the 60 foundries owned by small entities
subject to the requirements for large foundries (i.e., exceeding 10,000
tpy melt production), only one small entity may incur economic impacts
exceeding 3 percent
[[Page 52999]]
of its revenue; see Table 2 of this preamble.
This proposed rule minimizes the impact on small entities by
applying special provisions for small foundries that melt low
quantities of metal (less than 10,000 tpy). Small iron and steel
foundries would be required to prepare and follow pollution prevention
management practices for metallic scrap and binder formulations, submit
one-time notifications, monitor their metal melting rate on a monthly
basis, report deviations if they occur, and keep certain records.
Although this proposed rule contains requirements for new area sources,
we are not specifically aware of any new area sources being constructed
now or planned in the next 3 years, and consequently, we did not
estimate any impacts for new sources.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.
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 the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 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 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 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.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. This proposed rule is not expected to
impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This proposed rule contains no requirements that apply to
such governments, and impose no obligations upon them. Therefore, this
proposed rule is not subject to 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.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would
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, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 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, 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.
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. This proposed rule is not
subject to the Executive Order because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
[[Page 53000]]
Distribution, or Use'' (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. We have concluded that this proposed
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because energy
requirements would not be significantly impacted by the additional
pollution controls or other equipment that are required by this
proposed rule.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rule involves technical standards. The proposal cites
the following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3,
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 9, and 29 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
and EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' in ``Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA
Publication SW-846 (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14).
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to the EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5B, 5D, 5F, 9, 29, or 9095B. The search
and review results are in the docket for this rule.
One VCS was identified as applicable to this proposed rule. The
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,''
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) is cited in this proposed
rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide,
and CO content of the exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 13 other
VCS. EPA determined that these 13 standards identified for measuring
emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in
this proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods
for the purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend
to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for the
determinations for the 13 methods are discussed in a memorandum in the
docket for this proposed rule.
For the methods required or referenced by this proposed rule, a
source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods
or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under 40 CFR 63.7(f)
and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the general provisions. EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS and to
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The nationwide standards would reduce HAP emissions
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 6, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(1) and
(k)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii),
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3),
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2),
63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii)
and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), Table
5 to subpart DDDDD of this part, and Table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this
part.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' dated November
2004 and in Update III, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.7700(b) and
63.7765 of subpart EEEEE of this part and Sec. Sec. 63.10885(a)(1) and
63.10906 of subpart ZZZZZ of this part.
* * * * *
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZZ to read as follows:
Subpart ZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec.
63.10880 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.10881 What are my compliance dates?
63.10882 How does this subpart apply to small iron and steel
foundries and large iron and steel foundries?
Pollution Prevention Management Practices
63.10885 What are my management practices for metallic scrap and
mercury switches?
63.10886 What are my management practices for binder formulations?
[[Page 53001]]
Requirements for Small Iron and Steel Foundries
63.10890 What are my management practices and compliance
requirements?
Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
63.10895 What are my standards and management practices?
63.10896 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
63.10897 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.10898 What are my performance test requirements?
63.10899 What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
63.10900 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Other Requirements and Information
63.10905 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.10906 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Performance Test Requirements
for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Establishment of Operating
Limits for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Large Iron and Steel Foundries
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Compliance Certifications for
Large Iron and Steel Foundries
Subpart ZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.10880 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron
and steel foundry that is an area source of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each iron and steel foundry.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source before September 17, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or after September 17, 2007.
(c) On and after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, if your iron and steel foundry becomes a major source
as defined in Sec. 63.2, you must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part
63, subpart EEEEE.
(d) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
(e) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3(a).
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with
the provisions of this subpart.
(f) You must determine the initial applicability of the
requirements of this subpart to a small foundry or a large foundry
based on your facility's metal melt production for calendar year 2008.
If the metal melt production for calendar year 2008 is 10,000 tons or
less, your area source is a small foundry. If your metal melt
production for calendar year 2008 is greater than 10,000 tons, your
area source is a large foundry. You must submit a written notification
to the Administrator that identifies your area source as a small
foundry or a large foundry no later than 1 year after the date the
final rule is published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 63.10881 What are my compliance dates?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by
the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, not later
than 1 year after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register for the pollution prevention management practices in
Sec. Sec. 63.10885 and 63.10886.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, not later
than 2 years after the date of your large foundry's notification of the
initial determination required in Sec. 63.10880(f) for the standards
and management practices in Sec. 63.10895.
(b) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup
date is on or before the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with the provisions of
this subpart not later than the date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register.
(c) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the
initial startup date is after the date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register, you must achieve compliance with the
provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(d) Following the initial determination for a small foundry or
large foundry required in Sec. 63.10880(f),
(1) If the annual metal melt production of your small foundry
exceeds 10,000 tons during the preceding calendar year, you must notify
the Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) If your small foundry has never been classified as a large
foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no
later than 2 years after the date of your foundry's notification that
the annual production exceeded 10,000 tons.
(ii) If your small foundry had previously been classified as a
large foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a large
foundry no later than the date of your foundry's most recent
notification that the annual production exceeded 10,000 tons.
(2) If your facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or
your small foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), you must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years
before reclassifying your facility as a small foundry, even if your
annual production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. After 3
years, you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided
your annual production for the preceding calendar year was 10,000 tons
of melted metal or less. If you reclassify your large foundry as a
small foundry, you must comply with the requirements for a small
foundry no later than the date you notify the Administrator of the
reclassification.
Sec. 63.10882 How does this subpart apply to small iron and steel
foundries and large iron and steel foundries?
(a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that is
a small iron and steel foundry as defined in Sec. 63.10906, you must
comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.10890. The requirements in
Sec. 63.10890 include the pollution prevention management practices in
Sec. Sec. 63.10885 and 63.10886.
(b) If you own or operate a large iron and steel foundry as defined
in Sec. 63.10906, you must comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.10895 through 63.10900. The requirements in Sec. 63.10895 include
the pollution prevention management practices in Sec. Sec. 63.10885
and 63.10886.
[[Page 53002]]
Pollution Prevention Management Practices
Sec. 63.10885 What are my management practices for metallic scrap and
mercury switches?
(a) Metallic scrap management program. For each segregated metallic
scrap storage area, bin or pile, you must comply with the materials
acquisition requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
You must keep a copy of the material specifications onsite and readily
available to all personnel with material acquisition duties, and
provide a copy to each of your scrap vendors. You may have certain
scrap subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and other scrap
subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section at your facility provided
the metallic scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
(1) Restricted metallic scrap. You must prepare and operate at all
times according to written material specifications for the purchase and
use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do
not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine
blocks, post-consumer oil filters, oily turnings, lead components,
chlorinated plastics, or free liquids. For the purpose of this subpart,
``free liquids'' is defined as material that fails the paint filter
test by EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test'' (Revision 2,
November 2004), as published in EPA Publication SW-846 ``Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'' (incorporated
by reference--see Sec. 63.14). The requirements of this paragraph
(a)(1) do not apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags or other
internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace.
(2) General iron and steel scrap. You must prepare and operate at
all times according to written material specifications for the purchase
and use of only iron and steel scrap that has been depleted (to the
extent practicable) of organics and HAP metals in the charge materials
used by the iron and steel foundry. The materials specifications must
include at minimum the information specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace
that is not equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap materials must
be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of used oil
filters, chlorinated plastic parts, accessible lead-containing
components (such as batteries and wheel weights), and free liquids.
(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is
equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap materials must be depleted
(to the extent practicable) of the presence of chlorinated plastics,
accessible lead-containing components (such as batteries and wheel
weights), and free liquids.
(b) Mercury requirements. For each scrap provider, contract, or
shipment, you must procure all motor vehicle scrap pursuant to one of
the alternatives in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. You
may have one scrap provider, contract, or shipment subject to one
alternative and others subject to another alternative.
(1) Site-specific plan for mercury switches. You must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) You must include a requirement in your scrap specifications for
removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap.
(ii) You must prepare and operate according to a plan demonstrating
how your facility will implement the scrap specification in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section for removal of mercury switches. You must
submit the plan to the Administrator for approval. The Administrator
may change the approval status of the plan upon 90-days written notice
based upon the semiannual report or other information. The plan must
include:
(A) A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap
providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which
mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper
disposal of the mercury switches removed as required by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
(B) Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specification;
(C) Provisions for periodic inspection, site visits, or other means
of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury
switches in motor vehicle scrap and that they are properly disposing of
the mercury switches removed, including the minimum frequency such
means of corroboration will be implemented; and
(D) Provisions for taking corrective actions if needed, based on
the results of procedures implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of
this section.
(iii) You must require each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide
an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor
vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and the
basis for the estimate. The Administrator may request documentation or
additional information at any time.
(iv) You must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80
percent of the mercury switches. Although a site-specific plan approved
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may require only the removal of
convenience light switch mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all
documented and verifiable mercury-containing components removed from
motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake systems,
security systems, active ride control, and other applications) when
evaluating progress towards the 80 percent goal.
(v) You must submit semiannual progress reports to the
Administrator that provide the number of mercury switches removed or
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the number of
vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches
recovered, and certification that the recovered mercury switches were
recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities. The Administrator may change the
approval status of a site-specific plan following 90-days notice based
on the progress reports or other information.
(2) Alternative for approved mercury programs. You must certify in
your notification of compliance status that you participate in and
purchase motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate
in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by
the Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) There is an outreach program that informs the dismantlers of
the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and
guidance for removing mercury switches;
(ii) The program has a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent
of mercury switches. Although a program approved under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section may require only the removal of convenience light
switch mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all documented and
verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle
scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems,
active ride control, and other applications) when evaluating progress
towards the 80 percent goal; and
(iii) The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the
Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the
number of mercury switches removed or the
[[Page 53003]]
weight of mercury recovered from the switches, the number of vehicles
processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered,
and certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
RCRA-permitted facilities. The Administrator may change the approval
status of a program following 90-days notice based on the progress
report or other information.
(3) Alternative for specialty metal scrap. You must certify in your
notification of compliance status that the only materials from motor
vehicles in the scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy
(including, but not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other
alloys) content (such as certain exhaust systems) and, based on the
nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, that the type of scrap
is not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.
Sec. 63.10886 What are my management practices for binder
formulations?
For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line at a
new or existing iron and steel foundry, you must use a binder chemical
formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the
catalyst formulation. This requirement does not apply to the resin
portion of the binder system.
Requirements for Small Iron and Steel Foundries
Sec. 63.10890 What are my management practices and compliance
requirements?
(a) You must comply with the pollution prevention management
practices for metallic scrap and mercury switches in Sec. 63.10885 and
binder formulations in Sec. 63.10886.
(b) You must submit an initial notification of applicability
according to Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
(c) You must submit a notification of compliance status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(1)(i). You must send the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th day after the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.10881. The
notification must include the following compliance certifications, as
applicable:
(1) ``This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written
material specifications for metallic scrap according to Sec.
63.10885(a)(1)'' and/or ``This facility has prepared, and will operate
by, written material specifications for general iron and steel scrap
according to Sec. 63.10885(a)(2).''
(2) ``This facility has prepared, and will operate by, written
material specifications for the removal of mercury switches and a site-
specific plan implementing the material specifications according to
Sec. 63.10890(b)(1)'' and/or ``This facility participates in and
purchases motor vehicles scrap only from scrap providers who
participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has been
approved by the Administrator according Sec. 63.10890(b)(2)'' and/or
``This facility complies with the alternative requirements in Sec.
63.10890(b)(3) for specialty metal scrap and will recover only
materials from motor vehicles for their specialty alloy content that
are not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.'' No mercury
switch certification is required if your facility does not purchase any
motor vehicles scrap.
(3) ``This facility complies with the no methanol requirement for
the catalyst portion of each binder chemical formulation for a furfuryl
alcohol warm box mold or core making line according to Sec.
63.10886.''
(d) You must maintain records of the information specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (7) of this section according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(1) Records supporting your initial notification of applicability
and your notification of compliance status according to Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) Records of your written materials specifications according to
Sec. 63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in Sec. 63.10885(a)(1) or
general scrap in Sec. 63.10885(a)(2).
(3) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury switch removal in Sec. 63.10885(b)(1), you must:
(i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed,
the number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent of
mercury switches recovered; and
(ii) Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and
properly managed, the number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the
recovered mercury switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities.
The semiannual reports must include certification that you have
conducted inspections, site visits, or taken other means of
corroboration as required under Sec. 63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must
identify which alternative in paragraph Sec. 63.10885(b) applies to
each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You may include this
information in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (d) of
this section.
(4) If you are subject to the alternative for approved mercury
programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must maintain
records identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap
provider's participation in an approved mercury switch removal program.
(5) Records to document use of binder chemical formulation that
does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst
formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line
as required by Sec. 63.10886. These records must be the Material
Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate information),
a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer's hazardous air
pollutant data sheet.
(6) Records of the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-
containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds and
cores. These records must be copies of purchasing records, Material
Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provide information on
the binder or coating materials used.
(7) Records of metal melt production for each calendar year.
(e) You must submit semiannual reports to the Administrator
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e). The report must
clearly identify any deviation from the pollution prevention management
practices in Sec. Sec. 63.10885 or 63.10886 and the corrective action
taken.
(f) Beginning January 1, 2010, if the annual metal melt production
for your small foundry exceeds 10,000 tons during the preceding year,
you must submit a notification of foundry reclassification to the
Administrator within 30 days and you must comply with the requirements
for large foundries by the applicable dates in Sec. 63.10881(d)(1)(i)
or (d)(1)(ii).
(g) You must comply with the following requirements of General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A): Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.5;
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), and (e)(1); Sec. 63.9; Sec. 63.10(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (f); and Sec. Sec.
63.13 through 63.16.
Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
Sec. 63.10895 What are my standards and management practices?
(a) You must operate a capture and collection system for each metal
melting furnace at a new or existing iron and steel foundry. Each
capture and
[[Page 53004]]
collection system must meet accepted engineering standards, such as
those published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists.
(b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions from any
metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that
exceed the applicable limit in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For an existing iron and steel foundry, 0.8 pounds of
particulate matter (PM) per ton of metal charged (lb/ton of PM) or 0.06
pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged (lb/ton of total
metal HAP).
(2) For a new iron and steel foundry, 0.1 lb/ton of PM or 0.008 lb/
ton of total metal HAP.
(c) If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry,
you must comply with each control device parameter operating limit in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section that applies to you.
(1) For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace, you must maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial or subsequent performance test.
(2) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace, you must maintain the voltage and secondary
current (or total power input) to the control device at or above the
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
(3) For each baghouse applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace that is subject to the monitoring and inspection requirements
in Sec. 63.10897(c), you must maintain the pressure drop across each
baghouse cell within the range established during the initial or
subsequent performance test.
(d) If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry,
you must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive emissions from a
building or structure housing any iron and steel foundry operations
that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute average).
(e) You must comply with the pollution prevention management
practices in Sec. Sec. 63.10885 and 63.10886.
Sec. 63.10896 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) You must prepare and follow a written operation and maintenance
(O&M) plan for each control device used to comply with the requirements
of this subpart. You must maintain a copy of the O&M plan at the
facility and make it available for review upon request. At a minimum,
each plan must contain the following information:
(1) General facility and contact information;
(2) Positions responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and
repairing emissions control devices which are used to comply with this
subpart;
(3) Description of items, equipment, and conditions that will be
inspected, including an inspection schedule for the items, equipment,
and conditions. For baghouses, the O&M plan must include:
(i) If the baghouse is subject to the monitoring requirements in
Sec. 63.10897(c), information on how the baghouse system will be
operated and maintained, including monitoring of pressure drop across
baghouse cells and frequency of visual inspections of the baghouse
interior and baghouse components such as dust removal and bag cleaning
mechanisms and fans; or
(ii) If the baghouse is subject to the monitoring requirements in
Sec. 63.10897(d), the site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak
detection system required in Sec. 63.10897(d)(2).
(4) Identity and estimated quantity of the replacement parts that
will be maintained in inventory; and
(5) Procedures for operating and maintaining a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications.
(b) You may use any other O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar
plan which addresses the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) through (5)
of this section to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for an
O&M plan.
Sec. 63.10897 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace, you must use a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
to measure and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate.
(b) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace, you must measure and record the hourly average
voltage and secondary current (or total power input) using a CPMS or
check and record the voltage and secondary current (or total power
input) at least once a shift.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
comply with the monitoring and inspection requirements in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (8) of this section for each baghouse applied to
emissions from a metal melting furnace. You must record the date and
results of each inspection.
(1) Measure and record the pressure drop across each baghouse cell
each day.
(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 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.
(d) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each
negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse as an
alternative to the baghouse monitoring and inspection requirements in
paragraph (c) of this section. If you own or operate a new affected
source, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection
system for each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse. You must install, operate, and maintain each bag leak
detection system according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) 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 (0.00044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using
a strip chart recorder, data logger, or other means.
(iii) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound
when an increase in relative particulate loadings
[[Page 53005]]
is detected over the alarm set point established in the operation and
maintenance plan, and the alarm must be located such that it can be
heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(iv) The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity
(range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the
alarm set points. If the system is equipped with an alarm delay time
feature, you also must adjust the alarm delay time.
(v) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time.
Except, 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 monitoring
plan required by paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(vi) For negative pressure baghouses, 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.
(vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(2) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag
leak detection system to be incorporated in your O&M plan. You must
operate and maintain each bag leak detection system according to the
plan at all times. Each plan must address all of the items identified
in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality
assurance procedures.
(iv) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system including a
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored.
(vi) Procedures for determining what corrective actions are
necessary in the event of a bag leak detection alarm as required in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(3) In the event that 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 corrective action as soon as practicable, but no later than 10
calendar days from the date of the alarm. You must record the date and
time of each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
correction action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Inspecting the bag house 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 department.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(e) You must make 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). You
must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system before the
next scheduled inspection. You must record the date and results of each
inspection and the date of repair of any defect or deficiency.
(f) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS or other
measurement device according to your O&M plan. You must record all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(g) In the event of an exceedance of an established emissions
limitation (including operating limit), you must restore operation of
the emissions source (including the control device and associated
capture system) to its normal or usual manner or operation as
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The response shall include
minimizing the period of any startup, shutdown or malfunction and
taking any necessary corrective actions to restore normal operation and
prevent the likely recurrence of the exceedance. You must record the
date and time correction action was initiated, the correction action
taken, and the date corrective action was completed.
(h) If you choose to comply with an emissions limit in Sec.
63.10895(b) using emissions averaging, you must calculate and record
for each calendar month the pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of
metal melted from the group of all metal melting furnaces at your
foundry. You must calculate and record the weighted average pounds per
ton emissions rate for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the
foundry determined from the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.10898(d) and (e).
(i) Except for, as applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and
span adjustments), you must conduct all continuous monitoring (or must
collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the emissions
source is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control
activities shall not be used for the purposes of this subpart,
including data averages and calculations, or fulfilling a minimum data
availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system. A monitoring malfunction
is any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of
the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10898 What are my performance test requirements?
(a) You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the applicable emissions limits for each metal melting
furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces that is subject to an
emissions limit in Sec. 63.10895(b) and for each building or structure
housing foundry operations that is subject to the opacity limit for
fugitive emissions in Sec. 63.10895(d). You must conduct the test
within 180 days of your compliance date and report the results in your
notification of compliance status.
(1) If you own or operate an existing iron and steel foundry, you
may choose to submit the results of a prior performance test for PM or
total metal HAP that demonstrates compliance with the applicable
emissions limit for a metal melting furnace or group of all metal
melting furnaces provided the test
[[Page 53006]]
was conducted within the last 5 years using the methods and procedures
specified in this subpart and either no process changes have been made
since the test, or you can demonstrate that the results of the
performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite such process changes.
(2) If you own or operate an existing iron and steel foundry and
you choose to submit the results of a prior performance test according
to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must submit a written
notification to the Administrator of your intent to use the previous
test data no later than 60 days after your compliance date. The
notification must contain a full copy of the performance test and
contain information to demonstrate, if applicable, that either no
process changes have been made since the test, or that the results of
the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate
compliance despite such process changes.
(b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emissions limit Sec. 63.10895(b) for a
metal melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces no less
frequently than every 5 years and each time you elect to change an
operating limit or make a process change likely to increase HAP
emissions.
(c) You must conduct each performance test according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1), Table 1 to this subpart, and
paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section.
(d) To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal
HAP emissions limit in Sec. 63.10895(b) for a metal melting furnace in
a lb/ton of metal charged format, compute the process-weighted mass
emissions (Ep) for each test run using Equation 1 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.000
Where:
Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM or total metal
HAP, lb/ton;
C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
T = Total time during a test run that a sample is withdrawn from the
stack during melt production cycle, hr;
P = Total amount of metal charged during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound.
(e) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit in
Sec. 63.10895(b) for a group of all metal melting furnaces using
emissions averaging,
(1) Determine and record the monthly average charge rate for each
metal melting furnace at your iron and steel foundry for the previous
calendar month; and
(2) Compute the mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP using Equation
2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.001
Where:
EC = The mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP emissions
for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the foundry, lb/ton;
Epi = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM or total
metal HAP for individual emission unit i as determined from the
performance test and calculated using Equation 1 of this section,
lb/ton;
Tti = Total tons of metal charged for individual emission
unit i for the calendar month prior to the performance test, tons;
and
n = The total number of metal melting furnaces at the iron and steel
foundry.
(3) For an uncontrolled electric induction furnace that is not
equipped with a capture system, you may assume an emissions factor of 3
pounds per ton of PM or 0.2 pounds per ton of total metal HAP per ton
of metal melted in Equation 2 of this section instead of a measured
test value. If the uncontrolled electric induction furnace is equipped
with a capture system, you must use a measured test value.
(f) To determine compliance with the applicable PM or total metal
HAP emissions limit for a metal melting furnace in Sec. 63.10895(b)
when emissions from one or more regulated furnaces are combined with
other non-regulated emissions sources, you may demonstrate compliance
using the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Determine the PM or total metal HAP process-weighted mass
emissions for each of the regulated streams prior to the combination
with other exhaust streams or control device.
(2) 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 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.002
Where:
Ei = Mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at the
control device inlet, lb/hr;
Eo = Mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at the
control device outlet, lb/hr.
(3) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated PM
or total metal HAP process-weighted mass emissions for the regulated
emissions source using Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17SE07.003
Where:
Ep1released = Calculated process-weighted mass emissions
of PM (or total metal HAP) predicted to be released to the
atmosphere from the regulated emissions source, lb/ton; and
Ep1i = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM (or total
metal HAP) in the uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, lb/ton.
(g) To determine compliance with an emissions limit for situations
when multiple sources are controlled by a single control device, but
only one source operates at a time or other situations that are not
expressly considered in paragraphs (d) through (f) of this section, you
must submit a site-
[[Page 53007]]
specific test plan to the Administrator for approval according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(c)(2) and (3).
(h) You must conduct each opacity test for fugitive emissions
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6(h)(5) and Table 1 to this
subpart.
(i) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec. 63.10895(d) no less
frequently than every 6 months and each time you make a process change
likely to increase fugitive emissions.
(j) In your performance test report, you must certify that the
capture system operated normally during the performance test.
(k) You must establish operating limits during the initial
performance test according to the requirements in Table 2 of this
subpart. You may use a previous performance test conducted prior to
September 17, 2007 to establish an operating limit provided the test
meets the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(l) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber,
electrostatic precipitator, or baghouse if you meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your plan
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. 63.10895(b).
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in Table 2 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.10899 What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
(a) In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, you must
maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (12) of this section according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(b)(1).
(1) Records of your written materials specifications according to
Sec. 63.10885(a) and records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for restricted metallic scrap in Sec. 63.10885(a)(1) or
general scrap in Sec. 63.10885(a)(2).
(2) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury switch removal in Sec. 63.10885(b)(1), you must:
(i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed,
the number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent of
mercury switches recovered; and
(ii) Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and
properly managed, the number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the
recovered mercury switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities.
The semiannual reports must include certification that you have
conducted inspections, site visits, or taken other means of
corroboration as required under Sec. 63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must
identify which alternative in Sec. 63.10885(b) applies to each scrap
provider, contract, or shipment. You may include this information in
the semiannual reports required under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) If you are subject to the alternative for approved mercury
programs under Sec. 63.10885(b)(2), you must maintain records
identifying each scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's
participation in an approved mercury switch removal program.
(4) Records to document use of binder chemical formulation that
does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst
formulation for each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line
as required by Sec. 63.10886. These records must be the Material
Safety Data Sheet (provided that it contains appropriate information),
a certified product data sheet, or a manufacturer's hazardous air
pollutant data sheet.
(5) Records of the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-
containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds and
cores. These records must be copies of purchasing records, Material
Safety Data Sheets, or other documentation that provide information on
the binder or coating materials used.
(6) Records of monthly metal melt production for each calendar
year.
(7) Operation and maintenance plan as required by Sec. 63.10896(a)
and records that demonstrate compliance with plan requirements.
(8) If you use emissions averaging, records of monthly metal
melting rate for each furnace at your iron and steel foundry, and
records of the calculated pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of
metal melted for the group of all metal melting furnaces required by
Sec. 63.10897(h).
(9) Records of baghouse monitoring and inspections required by
Sec. 63.10897(c) or, if applicable, records for bag leak detection
systems as follows:
(i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
(ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
(iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms,
and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed.
(10) Records of capture system inspections and repairs as required
by Sec. 63.10897(e).
(11) Records demonstrating conformance with your O&M plan and
specifications for the operation of CPMS as required by Sec.
63.10897(f).
(12) Records of corrective action(s) for exceedances and excursions
as required by Sec. 63.10897(h).
(b) You must submit semiannual reports to the Administrator
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e). The reports must
include, at a minimum, the following information as applicable:
(1) Summary information on the number, duration, and cause
(including unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances,
as applicable, and the corrective action taken;
(2) Summary information on the number, duration, and cause
(including unknown cause, if applicable) for monitor downtime incidents
(other than downtime associated with zero and span or other calibration
checks, if applicable); and
(3) Summary information on any deviation from the pollution
prevention management practices in Sec. Sec. 63.10885 and 63.10886 and
the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.10896 and the
corrective action taken.
Sec. 63.10900 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
(a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source, you
must comply with the requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) according to Table 3 of this subpart.
(b) Your notification of compliance status required by Sec.
63.9(h) must include each applicable certification of compliance,
signed by a responsible official, in Table 4 of this subpart.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.10905 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State,
[[Page 53008]]
local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the EPA, has
the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement
of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under
40 CFR 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' under is defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is
defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.10906 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section.
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 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.
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), management practice, 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 management 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.
Exhaust stream means gases emitted from a process through a
conveyance as defined in this subpart.
Foundry operations means all process equipment and practices used
to produce metal castings for shipment. Foundry operations include:
mold or core making and coating; scrap handling and preheating; metal
melting and inoculation; pouring, cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting,
grinding, and other metal finishing operations; and sand handling.
Free liquids means material that fails the paint filter test by EPA
Method 9095B (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14). That is, if
any portion of the material passes through and drops from the filter
within the 5-minute test period, the material contains free liquids.
Furfuryl alcohol 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 furfuryl alcohol warm box system by the
foundry industry.
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.
Large iron and steel foundry means an iron and steel foundry with a
metal melt production greater than 10,000 tons per year.
Metal charged means the quantity of scrap metal, pig iron, metal
returns, alloy materials, and other solid forms of iron and steel
placed into a metal melting furnace. Metal charged does not include the
quantity of fluxing agents or, in the case of a cupola, the quantity of
coke that is placed into the metal melting furnace.
Metal melting furnace means a cupola, electric arc furnace,
electric induction furnace, or similar device 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.
Metal melt production means the quantity of metal melted in a metal
melting furnace or group of all metal melting furnaces at the iron and
steel foundry. For the purposes of this subpart, metal melt production
is determined on the basis on the quantity of metal charged to each
metal melting furnace; the sum of the metal melt production rates for
each furnace is the total metal melt production of the foundry.
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.
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
[[Page 53009]]
furnace feed is heated to a temperature high enough to eliminate
volatile impurities or other tramp materials by direct flame heating or
similar means of heating. Scrap dryers, which solely remove moisture
from metal scrap, are not considered to be scrap preheaters for
purposes of this subpart.
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
Small iron and steel foundry means an iron and steel foundry that
has a metal melt production of 10,000 tons per year or less.
Total metal HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of
the concentrations of compounds of antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
selenium as measured by EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63
As required in Sec. 63.10898(c), you must conduct performance
tests according to the test methods and procedures in the following
table.
Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
Large Iron and Steel Foundries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must . . . following
requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each metal melting furnace a. Select Sampling sites must
subject to a PM or total sampling port be located at the
metal HAP limit in Sec. locations and outlet of the
63.10895(b). the number of control device (or
traverse points at the outlet of the
in each stack or emissions source if
duct using EPA no control device is
Method 1 or 1A present) prior to
(40 CFR part 60, any releases to the
appendix A). atmosphere.
b. Determine
volumetric flow
rate of the
stack gas using
Method 2, 2A,
2C, 2D, 2F, or
2G (40 CFR part
60, appendix A).
c. Determine dry
molecular weight
of the stack gas
using EPA Method
3, 3A, or 3B (40
CFR part 60,
appendix A)\1\.
d. Measure
moisture content
of the stack gas
using EPA Method
4 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A).
e. Determine PM i. Collect a minimum
concentration sample volume of 60
using EPA Method dscf of gas during
5, 5B, 5D, 5F, each PM sampling
or 5I, as run. The PM
applicable or concentration is
total metal HAP determined using
concentration only the front-half
using EPA Method (probe rinse and
29 (40 CFR part filter) of the PM
60, appendix A). catch.
ii. For Method 29,
only the measured
concentration of the
listed metal HAP
analytes that are
present at
concentrations
exceeding one-half
the quantification
limit of the
analytical method
are to be used in
the sum. If any of
the analytes are not
detected or are
detected at
concentrations less
than one-half the
quantification limit
of the analytical
method, the
concentration of
those analytes is
assumed to be zero
for the purposes of
calculating the
total metal HAP.
iii. A minimum of
three valid test
runs are needed to
comprise a PM or
total metal HAP
performance test.
iv. For cupola metal
melting furnaces,
sample PM or total
metal HAP only
during times when
the cupola is on
blast.
v. For electric arc
and electric
induction metal
melting furnaces,
sample PM or total
metal HAP only
during normal melt
production
conditions, which
may include, but are
not limited to the
following
operations:
charging, melting,
alloying, refining,
slagging, and
tapping.
vi. Determine and
record the total
combined weight of
tons of metal
charged during the
duration of each
test run. You must
compute the process-
weighted mass
emissions of PM
according to
Equation 1 of Sec.
63.10898(d) for an
individual furnace
or Equation 2 of
Sec. 63.10898(e)
for the group of all
metal melting
furnaces at the
foundry.
2. Fugitive emissions from Using a certified i. The certified
buildings or structures observer, observer may
housing any iron and steel conduct each identify a limited
foundry emissions sources opacity test number of openings
subject to opacity limit in according to EPA or vents that appear
Sec. 63.10895(f). Method 9 (40 CFR to have the highest
part 60, opacities and
appendix A) and perform opacity
40 CFR observations on the
63.6(h)(5). identified openings
or vents in lieu of
performing
observations for
each opening or vent
from the building or
structure.
Alternatively, a
single opacity
observation for the
entire building or
structure may be
performed, if the
fugitive release
points afford such
an observation.
[[Page 53010]]
ii. During testing
intervals when PM or
total metal HAP
performance tests,
if applicable, are
being conducted,
conduct the opacity
test such that the
opacity observations
are recorded during
the PM or total
metal HAP
performance tests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also use as an alternative to EPA Method 3B (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A), the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon
dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14).
As required in Sec. 63.10898(k), you must establish operating
limits using the procedures in the following table.
Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Procedures for Establishing
Operating Limits for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each wet scrubber subject to the Using the CPMS required in Sec.
operating limits in Sec. 63.10897(a), measure and
63.10895(c)(1) for pressure drop and record the pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate. scrubber water flow rate in
intervals of no more than 15
minutes during each PM or
total metal HAP test run.
Compute and record the average
pressure drop and average
scrubber water flow rate for
each valid sampling run in
which the applicable emissions
limit is met.
2. Each electrostatic precipitator Measure and record voltage and
subject to operating limits in Sec. secondary current (or total
63.10895(c)(2) for voltage and power input) manually or by
secondary current (or total power CPMS every 15 minutes during
input). each PM or total metal HAP
test run. Compute and record
the minimum hourly average
voltage and secondary current
(or total power input) from
all the readings for each
valid sampling run in which
the applicable emissions limit
is met.
3. Each baghouse subject to the Measure and record the minimum
operating limit in Sec. and maximum pressure drop
63.10895(c)(3) for pressure drop. across each baghouse cell
during each PM or total metal
HAP test run. Compute and
record the average minimum and
maximum pressure drop values
for the three runs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.10900(a), you must meet each requirement in
the following table that applies to you.
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63. --Applicability of General Provisions to Large Iron and Steel Foundries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to large iron
Citation Subject and steel foundry? 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)(i)-(j)....................... Compliance extension Yes. .......................
and Presidential
compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h).................. Performance testing Yes. .......................
requirements.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2).................... Applicability and No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
performance test dates. applicability and
performance test
dates.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3),(b), (c)(1)-(c)(3), Monitoring requirements Yes. .......................
(c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e), (f)(1)-
(f)(6),(g)(1)-(g)(4).
63.8(a)(4)........................... Additional monitoring No. .......................
requirements for
control devices in
Sec. 63.11.
63.8(c)(4)........................... Continuous monitoring No. .......................
system (CMS)
requirements.
[[Page 53011]]
63.8(c)(5)........................... Continuous opacity No. .......................
monitoring system
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
63.8(g)(5)........................... Data reduction......... No. .......................
63.9................................. Notification Yes. .......................
requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii)- Recordkeeping and Yes. .......................
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1)-(2), reporting requirements.
(e)(1)-(2), (f).
63.10(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(15)......... Additional records for No. .......................
continuous monitoring
systems.
63.10(c)(7)-(8)...................... Records of excess Yes. .......................
emissions and
parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS.
63.10(d)(3).......................... Reporting opacity or Yes. .......................
visible emissions
observations.
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess emissions Yes. .......................
reports.
63.10(e)(4).......................... Reporting COMS data.... No. .......................
63.11................................ Control device No. .......................
requirements.
63.12................................ State authority and Yes. .......................
delegations.
63.13-63.16.......................... Addresses of State air Yes. .......................
pollution control
agencies and EPA
regional offices.
Incorporation by
reference.
Availability of
information and
confidentiality.
Performance track
provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by Sec. 63.10900(b), your notification of compliance
status must include certifications of compliance according to the
following table.
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Compliance Certifications for
Large Iron and Steel Foundries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your notification of compliance
status required by Sec.
63.9(h) must include this
For . . . certification of compliance,
signed by a responsible
official:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility has prepared,
subject to scrap management and will operate by, written
requirements in Sec. 63.10885(a)(1) material specifications for
or (2). metallic scrap according to
Sec. 63.10885(a)(1)'' or
``This facility has prepared,
and will operate by, written
material specifications for
general iron and steel scrap
according to Sec.
63.10890(a)(2).''
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility has prepared,
subject to mercury switch removal and will operate by, written
requirements in Sec. 63.10885(b). material specifications for
the removal of mercury
switches and a site-specific
plan implementing the material
specifications according to
Sec. 63.10890(b)(1)'' or
``This facility participates
in and purchases motor
vehicles scrap only from scrap
providers who participate in a
program for removal of mercury
switches that has been
approved by the Administrator
according to Sec.
63.10890(b)(2)'' or ``This
facility complies with the
alternative requirements in
Sec. 63.10890(b)(3) for
specialty metal scrap and will
recover only materials from
motor vehicles for their
specialty alloy content that
are not reasonably expected to
contain mercury switches.''
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility complies with
subject to Sec. 63.10886. the no methanol requirement
for the catalyst portion of
each binder chemical
formulation for a furfuryl
alcohol warm box mold or core
making line according to Sec.
63.10886.''
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility operates a
subject to Sec. 63.10895(a). capture and collection system
for each emissions source
subject to this subpart
according to Sec.
63.10895(a).''
Each existing affected source subject ``This facility complies with
to Sec. 63.10895(b). the PM or total metal HAP
emissions limit in Sec.
63.10895(b) for each metal
melting furnace or group of
all metal melting furnaces
based on a previous
performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.10898(a)(1).''
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility has prepared
subject to 63.10896(a). and will operate by an
operation and maintenance plan
according to Sec.
63.10896(a).''
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility has prepared
subject to Sec. 63.10896(c). and will operate by an
emissions averaging plan
according to Sec.
63.10896(c).''
Each new or existing affected source ``This facility has prepared
subject to Sec. 63.10897(d). and will operate by a site-
specific monitoring plan for
each bag leak detection system
and submitted the plan to the
Administrator for approval
according to Sec.
63.10897(d)(2).''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-17972 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P