[Federal Register: April 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 73)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19150-19164]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ap07-18]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034; FRL-8299-8]
RIN 2060-AM85
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants for iron and steel foundries. The proposed
amendments add alternative compliance options for cupolas at existing
foundries and clarify several provisions to increase operational
flexibility and improve understanding of the final rule requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 17, 2007, unless a
public hearing is requested by April 27, 2007. If a hearing is
requested on the proposed rule, written comments must be received by
June 1, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0034, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
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-
2002-0034. 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 http://www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The http://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
http://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
[[Page 19151]]
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
http://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
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Docket, EPA/
DC, 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. Phil Mulrine, 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) 541-5289; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories 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).
Federal government............. .............. Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.. .............. Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7682
of subpart EEEEE (NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries). 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 confidential business
information (CBI) to EPA through http://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-2002-0034. 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 the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 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 the proposed amendments by April 27, 2007, we will hold a
public hearing on May 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.
E. How is this document organized?
The supplementary 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?
E. How is this document organized?
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
A. Emissions Limitations
B. Work Practice Standards
C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
D. Compliance With Alternative Emissions Limits
E. Monitoring Requirements
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
G. Definitions
H. Applicability
I. Editorial Corrections
IV. 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
[[Page 19152]]
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
II. Background Information
The national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE)
establish emissions limitations and work practice requirements for the
control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from foundry operations. The
NESHAP implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring
all iron and steel foundries that are major sources of HAP to meet
standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The compliance date for most of the subpart EEEEE
requirements is April 23, 2007.
After publication of the NESHAP (69 FR 21906, April 22, 2004), the
American Foundry Society, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and
the Steel Founders' Society of America filed petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. The American Foundry Society and the
Steel Founders' Society of America also filed petitions for review of
the final rule (Steel Founders' Society of America v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-
1190, DC Cir.) and American Foundry Society v. U.S. EPA, No. 04-1191,
DC Cir.). The concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the work
practice standards for scrap management have been resolved by rule
amendments issued on May 20, 2005 (97 FR 29400). The Steel Founders'
Society of America petitioned the court for voluntary dismissal of
their petition for review on March 23, 2006, and the court granted that
petition on May 2, 2006. Thus, the only challenge to the NESHAP
remaining before the court is the American Foundry Society petition for
review, No. 04-1191. This proposed rule addresses the need for
alternative emissions limits for cupolas at existing foundries and
clarification of other rule requirements. EPA anticipates that these
proposed amendments will resolve the remaining issues raised by the
petitioners.
These amendments are set out in Attachment A to a settlement
agreement between EPA and the petitioners that became final on March 9,
2007. In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a
notice of the proposed settlement agreement (72 FR 1986, January 17,
2007) and provided a 30-day comment period which ended on February 16,
2007. The settlement agreement requires that the EPA Administrator sign
proposed amendments no later than April 9, 2007.
In addition, since publication of the final rule, we have
identified a few minor editorial errors requiring correction. Rather
than publish a separate notice of corrections, we are including those
changes along with the proposed amendments.
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
A. Emissions Limitations
1. New Compliance Options for Cupola Metal Melting Furnaces
Section 63.7690(a)(2) of the NESHAP establishes HAP emissions
limits for cupola metal melting furnaces at existing iron and steel
foundries. The owner or operator may elect to comply with a limit of
0.006 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) of particulate
matter (PM) or 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP. The PM emissions
limits for cupolas were based on an evaluation of the average
performance achieved by the top 12 percent of the cupola emissions
sources (i.e., the ``MACT floor''). Because baghouses (the technology
on which the MACT floor performance was based) are generally designed
to meet a specified outlet concentration limit and because EPA Method 5
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) directly determines concentration, a
concentration-based emissions limit was selected for inclusion in the
rule. The alternative concentration-based emissions limit expressed as
total metal HAP provided equivalent metal HAP emissions reductions as
the MACT floor PM emissions limit. We documented the determination of
these emissions limits in a memorandum titled, ``Determination of the
MACT Floor Metal HAP Emission Limits for Iron and Steel Foundries'',
which is included in the docket for the final rule (Docket Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR- 2002-0034-0239).
As part of our discussions with the petitioners on technical
issues, we recognized the need for an equivalent mass-based emissions
limit for cupola melting furnaces to allow the use of control
technologies that are designed on a mass removal basis rather than an
outlet concentration basis. We reviewed the data previously identified
for the top 12 percent of cupola emissions sources as well as the 6th
percentile unit on which the promulgated emissions limit was based.
These data indicate that the equivalent mass PM emissions rate for a
baghouse operating at the MACT floor emissions limit for cupolas at
existing sources (0.006 gr/dscf) is 0.10 pound per ton (lb/ton) of
metal charged. In terms of total metal HAP, the MACT-equivalent mass
emissions rate for cupolas at existing sources is 0.008 lb/ton. We
documented the determination of these mass-based emissions limits in a
memorandum titled, ``Determination of a MACT Floor Equivalent Emission
Limit for Cupola Melting Furnaces,'' which is included in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket Item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034-0223). Therefore,
we are proposing to amend the emissions limits in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(2)
for cupolas at existing sources to add alternative limits of 0.10 lb/
ton of PM or 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP.
2. Fugitive Emissions Opacity Limit
Some of the petitioners requested that we revise the opacity limit
for fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7) to clarify that the
limit does not apply to fugitive emissions that are unrelated to
emissions sources subject to the NESHAP. According to the petitioners,
the rule could be interpreted to apply to fugitive emissions from
foundry-related operations not subject to the rule or operations in
other source categories that may be co-located in foundries.
Some foundries are co-located with other manufacturing processes
that are housed in separate buildings. We did not intend to set
emissions limitations for these co-located operations. Therefore, we
are clarifying that the opacity emissions limitations apply only to
buildings that house iron and steel foundry emissions sources. If
nonfoundry operations are housed in the same building as the foundry
operations, the foundry must comply with the opacity limits for that
building.
3. Triethylamine Emissions Limit
In response to the petitioners' suggestion, we are proposing to
clarify the language of the emissions limit for triethylamine (TEA) in
Sec. 63.7690(a)(11) by replacing the reference to test conditions
(``as determined when scrubbing with fresh acid solution'') with the
phrase ``according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(g)'' since Sec. 63.7732(g) contains the requirement to conduct
the test when scrubbing with fresh acid solution.
Although the existing NESHAP primarily address the control of HAP
metals, there are potential opportunities for foundries to reduce
emissions of other HAP such as TEA through the use of low-HAP binders
and other pollution prevention (P2) techniques. Current information
indicates that these P2 methods show promise, but they are not
appropriate for all foundries or casting methods. And, in some cases,
it can be quite costly for the foundry to incorporate P2 methods into
their
[[Page 19153]]
overall process. EPA encourages foundries to explore the various P2
options available and use them when appropriate and cost-effective to
further reduce their HAP footprint.
B. Work Practice Standards
1. Capture and Collection Systems
Section 63.7690(b)(1) of the NESHAP requires the owner or operator
of an iron or steel foundry to install, operate, and maintain a capture
and collection system for all emissions sources subject to a limit or
standard for volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) or TEA
in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(8) through (11). One petitioner was concerned that
this provision could be construed to require capture and collection
systems for electric arc furnaces and electric induction furnaces, even
though these furnaces are not directly subject to a VOHAP limit.
According to the petitioner, the scrap certification and inspection/
selection requirements in 40 CFR 63.7700 could be understood as work
practice standards to limit organics from entering electric arc
furnaces and electric induction furnaces. It could be inferred that a
``standard'' limiting VOHAP does exist for these furnaces and
therefore, a capture and collection system is required. A similar
concern exists for foundries that decide to meet the work practice
requirement in 40 CFR 63.7700(e) instead of the VOHAP emissions limit
in 40 CFR 7690(a)(9). The petitioner requests that EPA confirm that the
scrap certification and inspection/selection requirements are not
considered VOHAP work practice standards which would necessitate a
capture and collection system.
It is our intent that the requirements for capture and collection
systems apply to emissions sources subject to an emissions limit but
not to an emissions source subject to work practice standards. A
capture and control system that routes emissions to an add-on control
device is not needed because the work practice acts to reduce or
prevent the release of emissions. In response to the petitioner's
concerns, we are proposing to clarify the requirement in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1) by deleting the reference to ``standard''.
2. Scrap Management
Section 63.7700(a) of the NESHAP establishes work practice
standards to minimize the organics and HAP metals in charge materials.
The owner or operator must comply with certification requirements in
Sec. 63.7700(b) or operate according to a scrap selection and
inspection plan required in Sec. 63.7700(c). One commenter requested
that the work practice standards specify that the requirements for the
certification and the written plan specify ``chlorinated'' plastics.
Plastics were included in the list of undesirable scrap material
primarily because certain types of plastics, such as polyvinyl
chloride, could lead to the formation of dioxins. We did not intend to
make certain metal components, such as Quiet Steel([reg]), that contain
some plastics that cannot be removed from the scrap unrecyclable.
Recycling these materials in foundries is environmentally preferable to
landfilling these materials. Therefore, to clarify our intent, we now
specify that it is ``chlorinated'' plastics that are to be removed from
the scrap material.
The petitioner also objected to the requirement in 40 CFR
63.7700(c)(2) for the owner or operator to obtain and maintain onsite a
copy of the procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing
accessible mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that
have had the switches removed. According to the petitioner, it is
difficult for some plants to obtain such written procedures from scrap
suppliers. In this case, the plant should be able to document their
attempts to obtain a copy of the procedures. The proposed amendments
include an alternative procedure that allows the plant to document
their attempts to obtain a copy of the procedures from the scrap
suppliers servicing their area. We note, however, that under 40 CFR
63.7700(c)(2) the materials acquisition program must specify that the
scrap supplier remove accessible mercury switches from the trunks and
hoods of any automotive bodies contained in the scrap in addition to
accessible lead components such as batteries and wheel weights. It is
incumbent on the foundry owner or operator to communicate these
specifications to their scrap suppliers.
3. Scrap Preheaters
Section 63.7700(e) of the rule establishes requirements for scrap
preheaters at an existing iron and steel foundry. The owner or operator
must install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater according to
40 CFR 63.7700(e)(1) or charge only certain materials according to 40
CFR 63.7700(e)(2). One petitioner was concerned that the language in 40
CFR 63.7700(e)(1) could be interpreted to require foundries to install
gas-fired preheaters, even when not necessary for foundry operations.
It was not our intent to mandate installation of preheaters, but rather
to establish requirements for those existing facilities that use scrap
preheaters in lieu of selecting the option in 40 CFR 63.7700(e)(2).
Therefore, we are proposing to clarify Sec. 63.7700(e)(1) by deleting
the word ``install''. Instead, the owner or operator would be required
to operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the flame directly
contacts the scrap charged.
C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
One petitioner suggested that the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7710(b)
for an operation and maintenance plan would be better understood if it
clarified the emissions sources subject to the plan requirements. The
proposed amendments clarify that the requirement applies to each
capture and collection system and control device for an emissions
source subject to a PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in 40
CFR 63.7690(a).
D. Compliance With Alternative Emissions Limits
The existing NESHAP establishes PM emissions limits and alternative
emissions limits expressed in total metal HAP for cupolas and other
foundry processes. In response to requests by the petitioners, we are
proposing amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732, 40 CFR 63.7690, and 40 CFR
63.7734 to clarify our original intent to allow foundries to
demonstrate compliance with any of the applicable alternative emissions
limitations that are provided for a specific emissions source. When
multiple alternative emissions limitations are provided for a specific
emissions source, iron and steel foundries can demonstrate initial
compliance with any of the alternative limits; they are not required to
comply with all of the alternative emissions limits at any one time. We
are also clarifying a facility's ability to change their selected
compliance alternative and the procedures needed to effect that change.
However, regarding continuous compliance, the facility is expected to
continuously comply with the alternative emissions limit that was
selected as their compliance option as demonstrated in their most
recent performance test. The facility may choose to alter their
selected alternative but must continue to comply with the previously
selected alternative until they successfully demonstrate compliance
with the new alternative emissions limitation.
We are also proposing requirements for determining initial
compliance for cupola melting furnaces at existing iron and steel
foundries that are subject to the new mass rate emissions limit.
Revisions to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) would include new equations for
[[Page 19154]]
determining PM or total metal HAP emissions from cupolas in the lb/ton
format. Other amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(b) and (c) would clarify
test method and emissions source sampling requirements.
1. Single Performance Test for Control Devices Serving Multiple Units
Section 63.7734 of the NESHAP requires iron and steel foundries to
demonstrate initial compliance with PM emissions limits by conducting a
performance test for each process unit according to the procedures in
40 CFR 63.7732. One petitioner pointed out that a common emissions
control system may serve two similar or identical cupolas or serve
multiple furnaces or process units. According to the petitioner, a
requirement for separate tests of the control device while the
emissions sources are operating is redundant and imposes unnecessary
costs because the control device should perform the same on each
identical furnace.
We acknowledge that there are certain control device configurations
that we cannot fully address within the rule requirements. These
situations are best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, we
are proposing to resolve the petitioner's concern by adding a new
provision to the performance test requirements. The proposed amendment
requires foundries to submit a site-specific test plan for the
situation described by the petitioner or other situations not expressly
considered in 40 CFR 63.7734. The site-specific test plan, which is
subject to approval by the Administrator, would explain the procedures
that would be followed during the test, such as operation of the unit
or units at the maximum operating condition of the control system. The
Administrator or delegated authority would determine on a case-by-case
basis if one representative furnace/control device configuration may be
tested.
2. Sampling Procedure for Electric Arc Furnaces, Electric Induction
Furnaces, and Scrap Preheaters
One petitioner objected to the sampling instructions in 40 CFR
63.7732(c)(4) and (5) for electric arc and electric induction metal
melting furnaces (when metal is being melted) and scrap preheaters
(when scrap is being preheated) as inappropriate restrictions on
performance testing. Many operations that occur during the furnace
melting process are considered part of typical operation. Scrap
preheaters operate on a batch basis and do not heat scrap for extended
periods of time. It is not practical to start and stop tests for these
emissions sources over the course of a heat until the required sampling
time is accumulated. According to the petitioner, testing during all
phases of operations is consistent with the requirement in Sec.
63.6(f)(2)(iii)(A) of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), which state that a performance test must be conducted under
representative operating conditions of the source.
In response to these concerns, we are proposing to clarify that the
initial compliance demonstrations for electric arc metal melting
furnaces, electric induction metal melting furnaces, and scrap
preheaters should be conducted under normal production conditions. The
emissions limitations derived for these sources used data for various
production cycles, including charging, melting, back-charging, and
tapping. As the MACT floor emissions limitation was based on various
production cycles and because significant PM and metal HAP emissions
can occur from these other production cycles, the promulgated
requirement to test only during melting is being amended to more
accurately align the testing requirements to the testing procedures
used as the basis of the MACT emissions limitation. The proposed
amendments require sampling during normal operating conditions, which
may include charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging, and
tapping (for a furnace) or charging, heating, and discharging (for a
scrap preheater).
3. Minimum Sampling Volume for Total Metal HAP
One petitioner pointed out that it was unnecessary to specify the
minimum sample volume for test runs by EPA Method 29 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) because the method already includes a requirement. The
proposed amendments remove this requirement from 40 CFR 63.7732(c)(2).
4. Opacity Test
Section 63.7732(d) of the existing rule establishes the
requirements for opacity tests. The proposed amendments instruct the
certified observer how to take opacity readings by Method 9 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A) for a building that has many openings. This issue
was not addressed in the NESHAP. Under the proposed amendments, the
observer would be allowed to take readings from a limited number of
openings or vents that appear to have the highest opacities instead of
making observations for each opening or vent from the building or
structure. Alternatively, a single observation for the entire building
would be allowed if the fugitive release points afford such an
observation.
Section 63.7732(d)(2) requires that opacity observations to
demonstrate compliance with the fugitive emissions opacity standards in
40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7) overlap with the PM performance tests. One
petitioner stated that it is not feasible for opacity observations to
overlap with PM performance tests in all cases because subsequent tests
are required every 6 months for opacity and every 5 years for PM
emissions. The petitioner raised the concern that the rule could have
been read to require a PM performance test during each opacity test;
however, this was not our intent. In response to the petitioner's
concern, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(2) to clarify
that opacity tests are to be conducted during PM performance tests, but
that PM performance tests are not required to occur during the
semiannual opacity tests.
5. Alternative Test Method
Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the NESHAP requires the use of EPA Method
18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the triethylamine (TEA)
concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold or core making line.
One petitioner requested EPA to allow an alternative to Method 18
because the detection limit of Method 18, which is approximately 1 part
per million by volume (ppmv), is not significantly less than the
emissions limit. The petitioner believed this could make compliance
determinations problematic. According to the petitioner, operators will
need to use the alternative silica gel adsorption tube sampling
technique in section 8.2.4 of Method 18 to achieve lower detection
limits, but that not all facilities will know to specify the
alternative sampling techniques to their testing contractors. The
commenter stated that the alternative methodology is equivalent to
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method
2010 and requested that the rule allow the NIOSH method as an
acceptable alternative. If the rule specifies the NIOSH method as an
alternative, facilities can ensure that proper sampling techniques are
used to achieve the low detection limits.
We agree that NIOSH Method 2010 is an acceptable and equivalent
sampling alternative to EPA Method 18. However, the NIOSH method does
not include quality assurance performance requirements. Therefore, we
are proposing NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines, Aliphatic'' (incorporated by
reference-see Sec. 63.14) as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
18 (40 CFR
[[Page 19155]]
part 60, appendix A) provided the performance requirements outlined in
section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied. Method 2010 is included in
the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (4th edition, NIOSH Publication
94-113, August 1994). The manual is available from the Government
Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
NTIS publication no. PB95154191. The NIOSH method may also be found on
the NIOSH Web site at the following address: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/method-4000.html
.
6. Procedures for Establishing Operating Limits
One petitioner pointed out that the procedures for establishing
control device operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7733(b) through (d) should
not instruct operators to compute and record the 3-hour average
parameter value because some sampling durations are based on sampling
volumes which do not correspond to a 3-hour period. This requirement
could be misinterpreted to require performance testing over a period of
at least 3 hours.
We originally intended that the performance test consist of three
1-hour tests runs, and that the control device parameter operating
limit would be based on the average of these data. However, there are
instances where the duration of the sampling runs may be greater than 1
hour. The proposed amendments delete the reference to the 3-hour
average from the test procedures and clarify that the operator is to
compute and record the average operating parameter value for each valid
sampling run in which the applicable limit is met.
7. Repeat Performance Tests
One petitioner requested EPA to clarify that demonstrating
compliance by one method does not preclude a demonstration of
compliance using an alternative method at a later date. EPA agrees that
a plant may elect to demonstrate compliance with an alternative
emissions limit during the repeat performance tests conducted at least
every 5 years. Furthermore, the plant may elect to conduct a
performance test earlier than 5 years in order to change an operating
limit or to demonstrate compliance with a different alternative
emissions limit. The proposed amendments clarify these testing options
in amendments to 40 CFR 63.7731(a). A test conducted for the purpose of
changing operating limits is subject to notification requirements in 40
CFR 63.7750(d).
E. Monitoring Requirements
1. Baghouse Monitoring Requirements
Section 63.7740(b) of the existing NESHAP requires a bag leak
detection system for each negative pressure baghouse and for each
positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack where the baghouse is
applied to meet any PM or total metal HAP emissions limitation in
subpart EEEEE. This provision also requires inspection of each baghouse
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7740(b) (1) through (8). One
petitioner states that the final rule appears to omit any monitoring
requirements for positive pressure baghouses not equipped with a stack.
Although these units are not required to install a bag leak detection
system, we intended to require the visual inspection of these positive
pressure baghouses to ensure their proper performance. Therefore, we
are proposing amendments to clarify our original intent to require
monitoring inspections of positive baghouses that are not equipped with
a stack. The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.7740(b) clarify the text
to ensure that the requirements in this paragraph for installing and
using a bag leak detection system apply only to negative pressure
baghouses and positive pressure baghouses equipped with a stack. The
inspection requirements would be separated and placed in a new
paragraph (c) and clarified to state that the inspection requirements
apply to each baghouse regardless of type. The proposed amendments to
40 CFR 63.7740 also renumber the paragraphs which follow new paragraph
(c). Similar clarifications would be made to the requirements for
demonstrating continuous compliance in 40 CFR 63.7743(c).
2. Demonstration of Initial Compliance With Bag Leak Detection System
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Section 63.7736(c) of the existing NESHAP instructs the owner or
operator how to demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements
for bag leak detection systems. Under 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1), the owner
or operator must submit the bag leak detection system monitoring plan
to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.7710(b). One petitioner requested EPA to clarify this provision
because the requirement could be interpreted to necessitate submission
of the monitoring plan independent of the operation and maintenance
plan. Our intent in the existing rule was to include the bag leak
detection system information in the operation and maintenance plan to
streamline the approval process and avoid the administrative costs
associated with a separate submission. In addition, having one
integrated plan provides a centralized reference tool for control
device operation and maintenance requirements. The proposed amendments
to 40 CFR 63.7736(c)(1) clarify the requirement to submit the bag leak
system monitoring information to the Administrator within the written
operation and maintenance plan for approval according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7710(b).
3. Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Requirements for Monitors
One petitioner requested that EPA revise the requirements for
operation and maintenance of continuous parameter monitoring systems
(CPMS) to more clearly describe the inspection requirements. Under the
operation and maintenance requirements for flow measurement devices in
40 CFR 63.7741(a)(1)(iv), the owner or operator must perform monthly
inspections of all flow sensor components for integrity, all electrical
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
The proposed amendments change this provision to require a monthly
visual inspection of all components, including all electrical and
mechanical connections for proper functioning. The same changes would
be made to the monthly inspection requirements for other types of
monitoring devices in Sec. Sec. 63.7741(a)(2)(vi), (c)(1)(vi),
(c)(2)(iv), (d)(8), and (e)(2)(iv).
We are proposing these changes in response to the concerns
expressed by one petitioner who explained that the changes are needed
to ensure the ability of a facility to comply on a monthly basis.
According to the petitioner, the ability of a facility to specifically
inspect for ``integrity'', ``continuity'' and ``leakage'' depends on
where the components are located, but a facility would be able to
readily determine proper functioning. One the facility determines that
a connection is not working properly, additional steps can be taken to
address the problem, which may include removing a barrier to allow
access to the connection. In addition, testing of the electrical
connections for continuity is not necessary when indicators are
routinely used to show whether the current is flowing. A visual
inspection is sufficient to ensure that current is flowing to each
electrical connection.
The proposed amendments also revise the requirement for pressure
[[Page 19156]]
measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) for a ``daily check of the pressure tap for
pluggage.'' We are proposing to require a daily check for pluggage when
using a regular pressure tap and a monthly check when using a non-
clogging pressure tap. Less frequent checks for non-clogging pressure
taps would encourage use of newer technology and provide an inspection
frequency commensurate with the operation of a non-clogging pressure
tap. The proposed amendments also clarify the requirements for pressure
measurement devices in 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR
63.7741(c)(1)(iv) to allow the use of a manometer or equivalent device
for calibrations.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The proposed amendments clarify two of the recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(4). The requirement for the annual
quantity of chemical binder or coating materials used to make molds and
cores would be revised to require the annual quantity of chemical
binder or coating materials used to coat or make molds and cores. We
inadvertently omitted the word ``coat'' from the original rule
language. The requirement for records of the annual quantity of HAP
used would state that records are required of the annual quantity of
HAP used in these chemical binder or coating materials at the foundry,
as calculated from the recorded quantities and chemical compositions
(from Material Data Safety Sheet or other documentation). This proposed
amendment clarifies that the HAP records requirement is specific to the
chemicals used in the mold and core-making and coating operations and
not to other HAP materials used at the foundry such as solvents used to
clean or degrease equipment.
Proposed amendments to the reporting requirements allow foundries
to report the results of the semiannual opacity tests within the
semiannual reports rather than having to submit these semiannual
documents separately. This change would reduce the administrative costs
associated with submission of separate reports. Other proposed
amendments to the reporting requirements clarify the requirements for
an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report by adding the
same language used in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). The proposed amendments
require an immediate report if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction and the source exceeded any applicable emissions limitation
in 40 CFR 63.7690.
G. Definitions
We are proposing to add definitions of the terms ``off blast'' and
``on blast'' to 40 CFR 63.7765. These definitions would clarify that
blast conditions used to bring the cupola up to operating temperature
during start-up are not covered by the VOHAP parameter operating limit
in 40 CFR 63.7690(b)(3). The existing parameter operating limit
requires the foundry to operate each combustion device applied to
emissions from a cupola that is subject to the VOHAP emissions limit so
that the 15-minute average combustion zone temperature does not fall
below a certain level. The operating limit states that periods when the
cupola is off-blast and for 15 minutes after going on-blast from an
off-blast condition are not included in the 15-minute average
combustion zone temperature. The term ``off blast'' would be defined as
those periods of cupola operation when the cupola is not actively being
used to produce molten metal. Off-blast conditions include cupola
startup procedures as defined in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. Off-blast conditions also include idling conditions when the
blast air is turned off or down to the point that the cupola does not
produce additional molten metal. The term ``on blast'' would mean those
periods of cupola operation when combustion (blast) air is introduced
to the cupola furnace and the furnace is capable of producing molten
metal. On blast conditions are characterized by both blast air
introduction and molten metal production.
The petitioners also raised the concern that only a limited number
of metal constituents were evaluated when assessing the total metal HAP
emissions limits. They noted that not all constituents for which EPA
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) is applicable are HAP. They also
sought clarification on how to calculate the total metal HAP if certain
constituents were below the analytical detection limit.
The evaluation of the total metal HAP emissions limits actually
included most Method 29 HAP constituents, although it did not include
phosphorus. The evaluation did not include detection limits or other
non-zero values for metal constituents measured below detection limit.
To address the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing to revise the
definition of ``total metal HAP'' to specify the analytes to be
included and how non-detect values are to be used in calculating the
total metal HAP quantity. The proposed definition is based on the
analytes and methods used to derive the total metal HAP alternative.
The definition of ``total metal HAP'' would be the sum of the
concentrations 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). Only the measured
concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations
exceeding one-half of the quantification limit of the analytical method
are 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
for this subpart.
We are also proposing to clarify the definition of ``scrap
preheater'' to differentiate scrap dryers that are used solely to
remove moisture from the scrap metal from scrap preheaters. Scrap
preheaters are used to preheat the metal scrap and reduce the energy
required to effect melting. Most scrap preheaters heat the scrap metal
to 400 degrees Fahrenheit or higher while scrap dryers operate at lower
temperatures and are used solely to remove moisture from the scrap
metal as a safety consideration when operating an electric induction
furnace. Because of the lower operating temperatures, we do not believe
that scrap dryers are a significant potential source for VOHAP
emissions. We are proposing to amend the definition of ``scrap
preheater'' to state that scrap dryers, which are used solely to remove
water from metal scrap that does not contain any volatile impurities or
other tramp materials, are not considered to be scrap preheaters for
purposes of this subpart.
H. Applicability
One of the petitioners asked EPA to reference the CAA or NESHAP
General Provisions definition of ``major source'' in 40 CFR 63.7681 (Am
I subject to this subpart?). We are proposing to add a reference to 40
CFR 63.2 as requested by the commenter. This addition would clarify
that when we refer to a ``major source'' of hazardous air pollutants in
40 CFR 63.7681, we are referring to the definition of major source in
40 CFR 63.2, and not, for example, to the definition of major source in
40 CFR 51.166.
I. Editorial Corrections
We are proposing to correct a grammatical error in 40 CFR
63.7710(b), which should refer to an emissions
[[Page 19157]]
source subject to a (rather than ``an'') PM, metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP
emissions limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a). A comma would be added to 40 CFR
63.7734(a)(11). The words ``as possible'' were inadvertently omitted
from 40 CFR 63.7741(a)(2)(i) and would be added. The proposed
amendments also correct a misspelling of the word ``calendar'' in 40
CFR 63.7700(c)(3)(iii).
IV. 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
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The proposed amendments add a new compliance alternative, allow a new
alternative test method, and clarify requirements in the existing rule.
One proposed amendment to the baghouse monitoring requirements
clarifies our original intent to require inspections of positive
pressure baghouses not equipped with a stack. No new burden is
associated with this proposed requirement because the burden was
included in the approved information collection request (ICR) for the
existing rule. The OMB has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0543, EPA ICR number 2096.02. A copy of the OMB-approved ICR may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail
at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672.
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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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
amendments 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 amendments
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
There would not be any adverse impacts on any source (including any
small entity) as a result of the proposed amendments because the
proposed amendments provide an overall economic benefit to entities
subject to the rule. The proposed amendments do not create any new
requirements or burdens that were not already included in the economic
impact assessment for the existing rule. The proposed amendments
relieve regulatory burden for all entities as a result of the
operational flexibility afforded by the alternative compliance option,
alternative test method, and provisions allowing plants to combine
multiple reports into a single submission. We have therefore concluded
that these proposed amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all
affected small entities. 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), Pub.
L. 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
[[Page 19158]]
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 the proposed amendments do 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. The proposed amendments are expected to
result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector
and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments.
Thus, the proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the proposed amendments
do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed
amendments contain no requirements that apply to such governments, and
impose no obligations upon them.
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'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They
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. The proposed
amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed
amendments.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
government, EPA specifically solicits comments 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.'' The proposed rule amendments do not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They
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.
The proposed amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.
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. These proposed amendments
are not subject to the Executive Order because they are based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
These proposed amendments are not a ``significant energy action''
as defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that these proposed amendments are not likely to have
any adverse energy effects because energy requirements would remain at
the existing level. No additional pollution controls or other equipment
that would consume energy are required by the proposed amendments.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 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.
The proposed amendments involve technical standards. These proposed
amendments include an alternative methodology, the NIOSH Method 2010,
``Amines, Aliphatic'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.14) for
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to determine the
triethylamine (TEA) concentration of gases from the TEA cold box mold
or core making line provided the performance requirements outlined in
section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA and alternative
methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified.
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 Sec. Sec.
63.7(f) and 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 voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
[[Page 19159]]
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 these proposed amendments will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. These proposed amendments do not relax the control
measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause
emissions increases from these sources.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 9, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter
I, 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 adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) The following method as published in the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) test method compendium, ``NIOSH
Manual of Analytical Methods'', NIOSH publication no. 94-113, Fourth
Edition.
(i) NIOSH Method 2010, ``Amines, Aliphatic,'' Issue 2 (and
subsequent revisions), August 15, 1994, IBR approved for Sec.
63.7732(g)(1)(v) of Subpart EEEEE of this part.
(ii) [Reserved]
Subpart EEEEE--[Amended]
3. Section 63.7681 is amended by revising the second sentence to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart?
* * * Your iron and steel foundry is a major source of HAP for
purposes of this subpart if it emits or has the potential to emit any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year or if it is located at a
facility that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of
25 tons or more per year as defined in Sec. 63.2.
4. Section 63.7690 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7);
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(11)(i) and (ii); and
e. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet the emissions limits or standards in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (11) of this section that apply to you. When alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a given emissions source, you
are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative
emissions limitation is used to demonstrate compliance.
* * * * *
(2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total
metal HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) or (iv) of this section:
(i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM; or
(ii) 0.10 pound of PM per ton (lb/ton) of metal charged, or
(iii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP; or
(iv) 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP.
* * * * *
(7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, you must not
discharge any fugitive emissions to the atmosphere from foundry
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed
27 percent opacity.
* * * * *
(11) * * *
(i) You must not discharge emissions of TEA through a conveyance to
the atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(g); or
(ii) You must reduce emissions of TEA from each TEA cold box mold
or core making line by at least 99 percent, as determined according to
the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(g).
(b) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture and
collection system for all emissions sources subject to an emissions
limit for VOHAP or TEA in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this
section.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.7700 is amended by:
a. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (b);
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii);
c. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (c)(2);
d. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) * * * Any post-consumer engine blocks, post-consumer oil
filters, or oily turnings that are processed and/or cleaned to the
extent practicable such that the materials do not include lead
components, mercury switches, chlorinated plastics, or free organic
liquids can be included in this certification.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater, electric arc metal
melting furnace, or electric induction metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, organic liquids, and a program to ensure the scrap materials are
drained of free liquids; or
(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace,
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent
practicable) of the presence of chlorinated plastic, and a program to
ensure the scrap materials are drained of free liquids.
(2) * * * You must either obtain and maintain onsite a copy of the
[[Page 19160]]
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had
mercury switches removed, as applicable, or document your attempts to
obtain a copy of these procedures from the scrap suppliers servicing
your area.
(3) * * *
(iii) The inspection procedures must include provisions for
rejecting or returning entire or partial scrap shipments that do not
meet specifications and limiting purchases from vendors whose shipments
fail to meet specifications for more than three inspections in one
calendar year.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) You must operate and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the
flame directly contacts the scrap charged; or
* * * * *
6. Section 63.7710 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection
system and control device for an emissions source subject to a PM,
metal HAP, TEA, or VOHAP emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a). * * *
* * * * *
7. Section 63.7731 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA
emissions limitations in Sec. 63.7690 for your iron and steel foundry
no less frequently than every 5 years and each time you elect to change
an operating limit or to comply with a different alternative emissions
limit, if applicable. * * *
* * * * *
8. Section 63.7732 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(4), and (b)(5)
and adding paragraph (b)(6);
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(2), (c)(4), and
(c)(5) and adding paragraph (c)(6);
d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text, adding two sentences
to the end of paragraph (d)(1), and revising paragraph (d)(2);
e. Revising paragraph (e)(3);
f. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(ix) and (f)(3);
g. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v), (g)(2), and (g)(4);
h. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(ii), (h)(3)(ii), and (h)(3)(iii); and
i. Adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry based on your selected compliance alternative,
if applicable, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section.
(b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
PM in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting furnace,
scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section.
* * * * *
(4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production conditions, which may include, but
are not limited to the following cycles: Charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are not limited to the following
cycles: Charging, heating, and discharging.
(6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or
scrap preheater For a cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron
and steel foundry that is subject to the PM emissions limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(ii), calculate the PM emissions rate in lb/ton using
Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.000
Where:
EFPM = Mass emissions rate of PM, lb/ton;
CPM = Concentration of PM measured during performance
test run, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry standard cubic feet per
minute (dscfm);
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during performance test
run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run, minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, grains per pound (gr/lb).
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
total metal HAP in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting
furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
* * * * *
(2) A minimum of three valid test runs are needed to comprise a
performance test.
* * * * *
(4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces,
sample only during normal production conditions, which may include, but
are not limited to the following cycles: Charging, melting, alloying,
refining, slagging, and tapping.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only during normal production
conditions, which may include, but are not limited to the following
cycles: Charging, heating, and discharging.
(6) Determine the total mass of metal charged to the furnace or
scrap preheater during each performance test run and calculate the
total metal HAP emissions rate using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.001
[[Page 19161]]
Where:
EFTMHAP = Emissions rate of total metal HAP, lb/ton;
CTMHAP = Concentration of total metal HAP measured during
performance test run, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dscfm;
Mcharge = Mass of metal charged during performance test
run, tons;
ttest = Duration of performance test run, minutes; and
7,000 = Unit conversion factor, gr/lb.
(d) To determine compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(7) for fugitive emissions from buildings or structures
housing any iron and steel foundry emissions source at the iron and
steel foundry, follow the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) * * * The certified observer may identify a limited number of
openings or vents that appear to have the highest opacities and perform
opacity observations on the 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.
(2) During testing intervals when PM performance tests, if
applicable, are being conducted, conduct the opacity test such the
opacity observations are recorded during the PM performance tests.
(e) * * *
(3) For a cupola metal melting furnace, correct the measured
concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or TOC for oxygen content in the gas
stream using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.002
Where:
CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv as measured by
Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or the concentration of
TGNMO or TOC in ppmv as hexane as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A; and
%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream, percent by
volume (dry basis).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC emissions limit using Equation
4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.003
Where:
CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of VOHAP for the
source test in ppmv as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A or the average concentration of TGNMO for the source test
in ppmv as hexane as measured by Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; and
CCEM = Average concentration of total hydrocarbons in
ppmv as hexane as measured using the CEMS during the source test.
(3) For two or more exhaust streams from one or more automated
conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines, compute
the flow-weighted average concentration of VOHAP emissions for each
combination of exhaust streams using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.004
Where:
Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP or VOC, ppmv
(as hexane);
Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from exhaust stream
``i'', ppmv (as hexane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust
stream ``i,'', dscfm.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Method 18 to determine the TEA concentration. Alternatively,
you may use NIOSH Method 2010 (incorporated by reference-see Sec.
63.14) to determine the TEA concentration provided the performance
requirements outlined in section 13.1 of EPA Method 18 are satisfied.
The sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that either
the TEA concentration in the field sample is at least 5 times the limit
of detection for the analytical method or the test results calculated
using the laboratory's reported analytical detection limit for the
specific field samples are less than \1/5\ of the applicable emissions
limit. When using Method 18, the adsorbent tube approach, as described
in section 8.2.4 of Method 18, may be required to achieve the necessary
analytical detection limits. The sampling time must be at least 1 hour
in all cases.
(2) If you use a wet acid scrubber, conduct the test as soon as
practicable after adding fresh acid solution and the system has reached
normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
(4) If you are subject to the 99 percent reduction standard,
calculate the mass emissions reduction using Equation 6 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.005
Where:
Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device inlet,
kilograms per hour (kg/hr); and
Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device outlet,
kg/hr.
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Calculate the flow-weighted average emissions limit,
considering only the regulated streams, using Equation 5 of this
section, except Cw is the flow-weighted average emissions
limit for PM or total metal HAP in the exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and
Ci is the concentration of PM or total metal HAP in exhaust
stream ``i'', gr/dscf.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or total metal HAP concentration
of the combined exhaust stream both before and after the control device
and calculate the mass removal efficiency of the control device using
Equation 6 of this section, except Ei is the mass emissions
rate of PM or total metal HAP at the control device inlet, lb/hr and
Eo is the mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at
the control device outlet, lb/hr.
(iii) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated
PM or total metal HAP concentration for the regulated emissions sources
using Equation 7 of this section:
[[Page 19162]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP07.006
Where:
Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or total
metal HAP) predicted to be released to the atmosphere from the
regulated emissions source, gr/dscf; and
Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal HAP) in the
uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, gr/dscf.
(i) 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 (b) through (h) of this section, a
site-specific test plan should be submitted to the Administrator for
approval according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(c)(2) and (3).
9. Section 63.7733 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2),
(c)(2), and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7733 What procedures must I use to establish operating
limits?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) 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.
(c) * * *
(2) Compute and record the average combustion zone temperature for
each valid sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
(d) * * *
(2) Compute and record the average scrubbing liquid flow rate for
each valid sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.7734 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv);
d. Revising paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
(a) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the emissions
limits in Sec. 63.7690(a) by meeting the applicable conditions in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (11) of this section. When alternative
emissions limitations are provided for a given emissions source, you
are not restricted in the selection of which applicable alternative
emissions limitation is used to demonstrate compliance.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/dscf; or
(iii) The average PM mass emissions rate, determined according to
the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did not exceed
0.10 lb/ton; or
(iv) The average total metal HAP mass emissions rate, determined
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(c), did
not exceed 0.008 lb/ton.
* * * * *
(7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, the opacity of
fugitive emissions from foundry operations discharged to the
atmosphere, determined according to the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent (6-minute average), except
for one 6-minute average per hour that did not exceed 27 percent
opacity.
* * * * *
(11) For each TEA cold box mold or core making line in a new or
existing iron and steel foundry, the average TEA concentration,
determined according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(g), did not exceed 1 ppmv or was reduced by 99 percent.
* * * * *
11. Section 63.7736 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) You have submitted the bag leak detection system monitoring
information to the Administrator within the written O&M plan for
approval according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7710(b);
* * * * *
12. Section 63.7740 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (g) as (d) through (h); and
c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7740 What are my monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(b) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack that is applied to meet any PM or total
metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must at all times
monitor the relative change in PM loadings using a bag leak detection
system according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7741(b).
(c) For each baghouse, regardless of type, that is applied to meet
any PM or total metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you
must conduct inspections at their specified frequencies according to
the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
(2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspections or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this 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.
* * * * *
13. Section 63.7741 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii),
(a)(2)(iv), and (a)(2)(vi);
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and
(c)(2)(iv);
[[Page 19163]]
d. Revising paragraph (d)(8); and
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7741 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
(2) * * *
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close as possible to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure and
that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
* * * * *
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily. If a ``non-
clogging'' pressure tap is used, check for pluggage monthly.
(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent device such as a magnahelic or
other pressure indicating transmitter, check gauge and transducer
calibration quarterly.
* * * * *
(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
* * * * *
(b) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack that is applied to meet any PM or total
metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must install,
operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily. If a ``non-
clogging'' pressure tap is used, check for pluggage monthly.
(iv) Using a manometer or equivalent device such as a magnahelic or
other pressure indicating transmitter, check gauge and transducer
calibration quarterly.
* * * * *
(vi) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
(2) * * *
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
(d) * * *
(8) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) At least monthly, visually inspect all components, including
all electrical and mechanical connections, for proper functioning.
* * * * *
14. Section 63.7743 is amended by:
a. Adding a second sentence to the end of paragraph (a)
introductory text and removing the colon after the first sentence in
paragraph (a) in text and adding period in its place;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)
and (iv);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and
d. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7743 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
(a) * * * When alternative emissions limitations are provided for a
given emissions source, you must comply with the alternative emissions
limitation most recently selected as your compliance alternative.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the
exhaust stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf; or
(iii) Maintaining the average PM mass emissions rate at or below
0.10 lb/ton; or
(iv) Maintaining the average total metal HAP mass emissions rate at
or below 0.008 lb/ton.
* * * * *
(7) For each building or structure housing any iron and steel
foundry emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, maintaining the
opacity of any fugitive emissions from foundry operations discharged to
the atmosphere at or below 20 percent opacity (6-minute average),
except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 27
percent opacity.
* * * * *
(c) For each baghouse,
(1) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7740(c)(1) through (8) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements; and
(2) If the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak detection system,
maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system sounded,
and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed.
* * * * *
15. Section 63.7750 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (e) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7750 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(e) * * * For opacity performance tests, the notification of
compliance status may be submitted with the semiannual compliance
report in Sec. 63.7751(a) and (b) or the semiannual part 70 monitoring
report in Sec. 63.7551(d).
* * * * *
16. Section 63.7751 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan and the source exceeds any applicable emissions
limitation in Sec. 63.7690, you must submit an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report according to the requirements of Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
* * * * *
17. Section 63.7752 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7752 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(4) Records of the annual quantity of each chemical binder or
coating material used to coat or make molds and cores, the Material
Data Safety Sheet or other documentation that provides the chemical
composition of each component, and the annual quantity of HAP used in
these chemical binder or coating materials at the foundry as calculated
from the recorded quantities and chemical compositions (from Material
Data Safety Sheets or other documentation).
* * * * *
18. Section 63.7765 is amended by:
a. Revising the definition for ``Deviation'';
b. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Offblast'' and
``On blast''; and
c. Revising the definitions ``Scrap preheater'' and adding ``Total
metal HAP'' to read as follows:
[[Page 19164]]
Sec. 63.7765 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an
owner or operator of such an affected source. A deviation is not always
a violation. The determination of whether a deviation constitutes a
violation of the standard is up to the discretion of the entity
responsible for enforcement of the standards.
* * * * *
Off blast means those periods of cupola operation when the cupola
is not actively being used to produce molten metal. Off blast
conditions include cupola startup when air is introduced to the cupola
to preheat the sand bed and other cupola startup procedures as defined
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Off blast conditions
also include idling conditions when the blast air is turned off or down
to the point that the cupola does not produce additional molten metal.
On blast means those periods of cupola operation when combustion
(blast) air is introduced to the cupola furnace and the furnace is
capable of producing molten metal. On blast conditions are
characterized by both blast air introduction and molten metal
production.
* * * * *
Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate 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.
* * * * *
Total metal HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of
the concentrations 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). Only the measured
concentration of the listed analytes that are present at concentrations
exceeding one-half the quantitation 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 quantitation limit of
the analytical method, the concentration of those analytes will be
assumed to be zero for the purposes of calculating the total metal HAP
for this subpart.
* * * * *
19. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is amended by revising the entry for
Sec. 63.9 to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject EEEEE? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.9............................... Notification Yes Except: For opacity
requirements performance tests, Subpart
EEEEE allows the
notification of compliance
status to be submitted
with the semiannual
compliance report or the
semiannual part 70
monitoring report.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-7203 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P