[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 225-265]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-15]
[[Page 225]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries Area Sources; Final Rule
[[Page 226]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-8509-6]
RIN 2060-AM36
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries Area Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel
foundries). The requirements for the two area source categories are
combined in one subpart. The final rule establishes different
requirements for foundries based on size. Small area source foundries
are required to comply with pollution prevention management practices
for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and binder
formulations. Large area source foundries are required to comply with
the same pollution prevention management practices as small foundries
in addition to emissions standards for melting furnaces and foundry
operations. The final standards reflect the generally achievable
control technology and/or management practices for each subcategory.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 2, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January
2, 2008.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://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: chin.conrad@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
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. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Applicability and Compliance Dates
B. Pollution Prevention Management Practices
C. Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
D. Implementation and Enforcement
E. Definitions
F. Impact Estimates
G. Miscellaneous
V. Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/
NO][DATE]*[/DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/
SUBJECT][/PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED][EXTRACT][P]*[/P]
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
final 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. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this final
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.
[[Page 227]]
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March
3, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to
this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for us to convene a
proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection
can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within
the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to
make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
II. Background Information
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3)
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v.
Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3). Among other things, the court order, as amended on October
15, 2007, requires that EPA complete standards for nine area source
categories by December 15, 2007. We are issuing this final rule in
response to the court order. Other final NESHAP will complete the
required regulatory action for the remaining area source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.
\2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), 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.'' As explained in the preamble
to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing emission standards based on GACT
for the control of the Urban HAP for which the source category was
listed (compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) that are
emitted from metal melting furnaces at area source facilities
classified as large iron and steel foundries.
In addition, we are establishing pollution prevention management
practices based on GACT that apply to all area source foundries. The
pollution prevention management practices reduce HAP emissions of
organics, metals, and mercury generated from furnace charge materials
and prohibit the use of methanol as a component of binder formulations
in certain applications. Another pollution prevention management
practice requires 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.
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
The final NESHAP applies to each new and existing iron and steel
foundry that is an area source of HAP. The final rule allows 2 years
(instead of 1 year as proposed) for existing foundries to comply with
the pollution prevention standards for mercury. As proposed, all
foundries must comply with the pollution prevention management
practices for scrap management and binder formulations by January 2,
2009. A large existing foundry must comply with applicable emissions
limitations and operation and maintenance requirements no later than 2
years after initial classification.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed, different rule requirements apply to facilities
classified as large foundries or small foundries. Based on public
comment, we have revised the threshold level in the definitions of
large foundry'' and ``small foundry'' as they apply to existing
affected sources. For an existing affected source, we are defining a
``small foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal
melt production of 20,000 tons or less (instead of 10,000 tons). An
existing affected source that has an annual metal melt production
greater than 20,000 tons is classified as a large foundry. For new
affected sources, we have revised the basis for determining the
threshold. For a new affected source, we are defining a ``small
foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt
capacity of 10,000 tons or less. A new affected source that has an
annual metal melt capacity greater than 10,000 tons is classified as a
large foundry. The term, ``annual metal melt capacity'' is defined in
the final rule as:
* * * the lower of the total metal melting furnace equipment melt
rate capacity assuming 8,760 operating hours per year summed for all
metal melting furnaces at the foundry or, if applicable, the maximum
permitted metal melt production rate for the iron and steel foundry
calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise specified in the
permit, permitted metal melt production rates that are not specified
on an annual basis must be annualized assuming 24 hours per day, 365
days per year of operation. If the permit limits the operating hours
of the
[[Page 228]]
furnace(s) or foundry, then the permitted operating hours are used
to annualize the maximum permitted metal melt production rate.
Each existing foundry must determine its initial classification as
a small or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008.
After the initial classification, an existing affected source
classified as a small foundry that exceeds the 20,000 ton annual metal
melt production threshold during the preceding calendar year must
comply with the applicable requirements for a large foundry within 2
years of the date of the foundry's notification that the annual metal
melt production exceeded 20,000 tons (provided the facility has never
been classified as a large foundry). For example, if an existing small
foundry produces more than 20,000 tons of melted metal from January 1
through December 31, 2009, that facility is required to comply with the
requirements for a large foundry by January 2012. If the small foundry
has previously been classified as a large foundry, the facility must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry immediately (no later
than the date of the foundry's most recent notification that the annual
melt production exceeded 20,000 tons). If an existing 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 metal melt
production falls below 20,000 tons. After 3 years, the foundry may
reclassify the facility as a small foundry provided the annual metal
melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 tons or
less. A large foundry that is reclassified as a small foundry must
continue to comply with the applicable requirements for small foundries
immediately (no later than the date the foundry notifies the
Administrator of the reclassification). A large foundry that is
reclassified as a small foundry and then exceeds an annual metal melt
production of 20,000 tons for a subsequent calendar year, must comply
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately (no
later than the date the foundry notifies the Administrator of the
reclassification).
The owner or operator of a new area source foundry must comply with
the rule requirements by January 2, 2008 or upon startup, whichever is
later. Each new foundry must determine its initial classification as a
small or large foundry based on its annual metal melting capacity at
startup. Following the initial determination, a small foundry that
increases their annual metal melting capacity to greater than 10,000
tons must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no later
than the startup date for the new equipment or if applicable, the date
of issuance for their revised State or Federal operating permit. If the
new foundry is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small
foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), the owner or operator
must comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3
years before reclassifying the facility as a small foundry. After 3
years, the owner or operator may reclassify the facility as a small
foundry provided the annual metal melting capacity is 10,000 tons or
less. If a large foundry is reclassified as a small foundry, the owner
or operator must comply with the requirements for a small foundry no
later than the date the melting equipment was removed or taken out of
service or if applicable, the date of issuance for their revised State
or Federal operating permit.
B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution prevention
management practices?
1. Metallic Scrap
The material specification requirements are based on pollution
prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials from
metallic scrap before melting. All foundries must prepare and operate
according to written material specifications for one of two equivalent
compliance options.
One compliance option requires 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''. A new provision
states that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the
owner or operator can demonstrate that the free liquid results from
scrap exposed to rain.
The second compliance option requires 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.
Except for a cupola equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap
charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace must 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. In response to comments, we deleted a provision in the
proposed rule that would have exempted the routine recycling of
baghouse bags or other internal process or maintenance materials in the
furnace.
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 final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention
and require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from motor
vehicles 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. The final rule clarifies that
the requirements do not apply to scrap providers who do not provide
motor vehicle scrap or to contracts and shipments that do not include
motor vehicle scrap. 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. An 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 recover
only specialty scrap that does not contain mercury switches. Provisions
are also included for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
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
[[Page 229]]
mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator. The
NVMSRP \4\ is an approved program under this final standard as is the
mercury switch recovery program implemented by the State of Maine.
Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a compliance option must
assume all of the responsibilities as described in the MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For details see: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm. In
particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foundries may also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating
in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or operator must 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 must 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 must be submitted to
the Administrator for approval and 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, 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 may 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 count towards
the 80 percent goal.
In response to comments, we have revised the final rule to include
provisions designed to increase the effectiveness and enforceability of
the EPA-approved programs. The requirements for a site-specific plan
specify that the owner or operator must operate according to the plan
during the review process, operate according to the plan at all times
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the
Administrator or delegated authority within 60 days following
disapproval of a plan. The owner or operator may request approval to
revise the plan and may operate according to the revised plan unless
and until the revision is disapproved by the Administrator or delegated
authority. A new provision also requires the site-specific plan to
include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate
to suppliers throughout the supply chain the need to promote the
removal of mercury switches from end of life vehicles. The owner or
operator must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach
to suppliers at the request of the Administrator or delegated
authority. We have also clarified that the information in the
semiannual progress reports for each scrap provider can be submitted in
aggregated form and does not have to be submitted for each shipment. We
have also revised the option for approved mercury programs to require
that foundries develop and maintain onsite a written plan demonstrating
the manner through which the facility is participating in the EPA-
approved program. The plan must include facility-specific
implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts
coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for each facility.
The plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff
to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need
to promote the removal or mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles.
The owner or operator also must conduct periodic inspections or provide
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware
of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
An equivalent compliance option is provided for foundries that
recover specialty metals. The option requires 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 switches. We have added to the final rule certification
requirements for facilities that do not use motor vehicle scrap
containing mercury switches.
Records are required to document conformance with the material
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury
switches. Each foundry is 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 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. This final rule includes recordkeeping requirements to document
conformance with this requirement.
C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?
This final rule requires each new and existing affected source that
is classified as a small foundry to comply with the pollution
prevention management practices for metallic scrap, mercury switches,
and binder formulations described above. The owner or operator is
required to submit an initial notification of applicability no later
than May 1, 2008 (or within 120 days after the foundry becomes subject
to the standard; see 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)). The foundry is also required
to submit an initial written notification to the Administrator that
identifies their facility as a small (or large) foundry; this
notification is due no later than January 2, 2009. Subsequent
notifications are required within 30 days for a change in
[[Page 230]]
process or operations that reclassifies the status of the facility and
its compliance obligations. A small foundry is also 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 must include certifications of
compliance for the pollution prevention management practices. This
final 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 requiring 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 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 final NESHAP requires new and existing affected sources that
are classified as large foundries to comply with the pollution
prevention management practices described in section III.B of this
preamble. In addition, large foundries are required to operate capture
and collection systems for metal melting furnaces and comply with
emissions standards, operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing,
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. Emissions Limitations
New and existing affected sources that are classified as large
foundries must 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 final emissions limits for metal
melting furnaces are:
0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds
of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting
furnace at an existing iron and steel foundry.
0.1 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pounds
of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting
furnace at a new iron and steel foundry.
The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source may
choose to comply with these emission limits utilizing emissions
averaging as specified in this 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.
The proposed rule included operating parameter limits that applied
to PM control devices applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace. We eliminated the operating limit for baghouse pressure drop
in response to comments because this operating parameter was determined
not to be an appropriate indicator of performance. We have revised the
other operating limits to apply to PM control devices at new affected
sources instead of existing affected sources to minimize costs to
existing sources associated with monitoring system retrofits. For a wet
scrubber, a foundry 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. For an electrostatic
precipitator, a foundry 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. The
final rule does not include an operating limit for baghouses at
existing or new affected sources. The final NESHAP also includes a
fugitive emissions opacity limit of 20 percent for each building or
structure housing iron and steel foundry operations revised since
proposal to allow one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 30
percent. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive emissions opacity
limit 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 is required to prepare and operate by an 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 may be used to comply with the requirements
for an O&M plan.
3. Monitoring Requirements
In response to comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring
requirements in several respects. The monitoring requirements in the
final rule apply to new and existing affected sources that are
classified as large foundries (those having an annual metal melt
production greater than 20,000 tons instead of 10,000 tons in the
proposed rule). We are requiring that large foundries at new and
existing affected sources conduct initial and periodic inspections of
PM control devices (baghouses, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic
precipitators) in lieu of the proposed monitoring requirements. As an
alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an existing
area source may use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit
instead of complying with the inspection requirements for baghouses.
We are requiring that large iron and steel foundries at new
affected sources install and operate CPMS to measure and record
operating parameters of wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators
used to comply with PM or total metal HAP emissions limit. All CPMS
must be operated and maintained according to the O&M plan. These
foundries are also subject to control device operating limits that are
the same as the proposed operating limits for wet scrubbers and
electrostatic precipitators. No operating limits apply to baghouses at
existing or new affected sources.
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 final
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
[[Page 231]]
system as soon as practicable but no later than 90 days 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 final NESHAP requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. The facility
must determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this final rule.
We have reduced the default emissions factor for uncontrolled induction
furnaces in an emissions averaging group from 3 pounds of PM per ton of
metal charged (lb/ton) to 1.6 lb/ton. The owner or operator must
maintain records of the monthly calculations and report any exceedance
in the semiannual report.
4. Performance Tests
We are requiring 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 the applicable compliance date 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 is 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 in the rule and either
no process changes have been made since the test, or the test results
reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit
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. Special provisions
also are included for testing electric induction furnaces (EIFs) at
existing foundries. Performance tests are required for all new area
source foundries. Subsequent tests for furnaces are 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 final rule for determining compliance
with PM or total metal HAP emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal
charged format and for establishing control device operating parameter
limits. This final rule also includes requirements to perform opacity
testing by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) every 6 months. This
final rule describes the methods and requirements for these semiannual
opacity observations. In response to comments, we have revised the
proposed rule to allow an alternative to the Method 9 test. The
alternative allows the owner or operator to conduct semiannual VE
observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7). If visible
fugitive emissions from foundry operations occur for more than 10
percent of the Method 22 observation period (i.e., more than a
cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-hour period), the owner or operator must
conduct a Method 9 test of the fugitive emissions from foundry
operations as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the
Method 22 test to determine compliance with the opacity limit.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator is required to submit an initial notification
that identifies the facility as a large (or small) foundry. In
addition, the owner or operator is required to comply with certain
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are identified in Table 3 of this final 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 are
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
must 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 requiring 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 primary
purpose of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate
and use nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.
6. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements
For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
are exempting iron foundries and steel foundries area source categories
from title V permitting requirements. Although the final rule exempts
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already
have a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this
rule through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 37 comments on the proposed area source
NESHAP from 31 companies, trade associations, and anonymous members of
the public and from 6 States and State associations during the public
comment period (September 17, 2007 to November 1, 2007). A public
hearing was held on October 2, 2007, where we received testimony from
two industry representatives. Sections IV.A through IV.G of this
preamble provide responses to the public comments received on the
proposed NESHAP, including our rationale for changes made as a result
of the comments.
A. Applicability and Compliance Dates
Comment: Nine commenters stated that EPA should consider a higher
plant size threshold of 15,000 tons per year (tpy) of melted metal
because of the significant economic burden associated with the proposed
rule. In addition, one commenter said the industry subcategorization
threshold should be ``significantly above'' 15,000 tpy. Another
commenter stated that it would be difficult to justify the proposed
rule for foundries with a production of 30,000 tpy, and that it is not
cost-effective to require controls on foundries with a melt production
less than 15,000 tpy. One commenter recommended a threshold of 20,000
tpy and two commenters said that the threshold should be
``significantly above'' 30,000 tpy. One commenter opposed the rule as
proposed and recommended that EPA reconsider the proposed size
threshold of 10,000 tpy.
[[Page 232]]
One commenter supported the co-proposal which would implement only
the pollution prevention management practices. The commenter stated
that foundries are adequately regulated by existing Federal, State, and
local regulations and the proposed rule would impose significant burden
without significant environmental improvement.
Response: Based on our consideration of comments, including the
combined effect of the emission and cost impacts on both the nationwide
cost-effectiveness and the economic impacts of the rule, we concluded
that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for new and
existing affected sources that are classified as large foundries may
not be appropriate. Based on the revised impact analysis, we determined
that the most appropriate size threshold for existing affected sources
classified as large foundries is 20,000 tpy. However, we found no basis
for increasing the size threshold for new affected sources. New
affected sources do not have the same retrofit issues as existing
affected sources. Moreover, there are existing affected sources with
metal melt production of 10,000 tpy that operate controls. Therefore,
we have retained the 10,000 tpy threshold at which a new affected
source is classified as a large foundry.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the rule
does not apply to foundries that produce nonferrous metals where
nonferrous metal means ``any pure metal other than iron or any metal
alloy for which a metal other than iron is its major constituent by
percent in weight.''
Response: We agree. The types of facilities identified by the
commenter are covered under other source categories depending on the
type of metal produced (e.g., secondary nonferrous metals, secondary
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.). In response to this comment, we have
added a definition of ``nonferrous metal'' to the final rule and
revised the definition of ``iron and steel foundry'' to clarify that
nonferrous metal in scrap, metal melting furnaces, and foundry
operations is not covered by the rule.
Comment: Twelve commenters requested 3 years to comply with the
mercury switch removal program to allow for the program to develop
based on participation by the larger steel producers. Another commenter
requested 5 years to comply with the mercury switch removal program.
Response: We agree that the typical area source foundry does not
have the financial resources and market force over its scrap providers
when compared with the much larger mini-mills. The area source
foundries purchase only a small fraction of the national supply of
scrap from end-of-life vehicles; the vast majority is used in
steelmaking. Over time, we expect many more dismantlers will join the
National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP), and even the
smaller scrap providers will find it to their advantage to participate.
We believe that an appropriate solution to the difficulties identified
by the commenters is to allow more time for these area source foundries
to comply with the mercury requirements. Consequently, we are revising
the rule to allow additional time (up to 2 years) to comply with the
pollution prevention requirements for mercury.
B. Pollution Prevention Management Practices
1. Requirements for Metallic Scrap
Comment: Three commenters stated that the phrase ``to the extent
practicable'' makes the requirements in the scrap specifications
unenforceable. The commenters recommended that EPA either define the
term or establish concrete criteria. One of the commenters recommended
that for scrap containing free liquid, EPA should define ``to the
extent practicable'' as scrap failing the paint filter test, similar to
Sec. 63.10885(a)(1). Another of the commenters asks what ``to the
extent practicable'' means and recommends that the phrase ``according
to standard industry practice'' be used instead; this would make the
foundry and electric arc furnace (EAF) rules more consistent.
Response: The commenters are referring to the term, ``to the extent
practicable'' as used in Sec. 63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed rule. We
used this term to demonstrate our understanding that furnace charge
materials can not be depleted of 100 percent of the organics and HAP
metals or the presence of used oiled filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids. We do
not see the need to codify a definition of ``practicable'' but note
here that our intent is that something is practicable if it is capable
of being put into practice and is feasible. However, we believe that
the term ``standard industry practice'' does not have a significantly
clearer meaning, and in fact may not result in as much removal. We are
replacing the term in the final EAF rule with the term ``to the extent
practicable'' as it relates to the removal of lead-containing
components such as batteries and wheel weights. Therefore, we decided
not to revise the proposed rule for foundries to replace ``to the
extent practicable'' with ``standard industry practice.''
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements for metallic
scrap management in the proposed rule should be the same as for the EAF
rule in that the pollution prevention plan should have Administrator
approval and should require compliance inspections and corrective
action.
Response: The requirements for scrap management under the proposed
foundries rule differ from the requirements for scrap management under
the proposed EAF rule because we determined that GACT for the iron
foundries and steel foundries area source categories is represented by
written material specifications. The proposed area source rule for
foundries requires that the facility operate by written specifications
for the purchase and use of specified material or of only scrap that
has been depleted of organics and HAP metals. These written
specifications must be kept onsite and be readily available;
consequently, they can be reviewed at any time by EPA or the delegated
agency for completeness and for compliance with the rule's
requirements. The owner or operator must maintain records demonstrating
compliance with these requirements and must submit a certification of
compliance to that effect. We continue to believe that these written
material specifications represent GACT for iron and steel foundries,
and the additional requirements recommended by the commenter are not
warranted and would be unnecessarily burdensome for the large
population of small area source foundries.
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule must be
revised to require the facility's owner or operator to ensure the
``baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials''
that are charged in the foundry do not contain organics, HAP metals,
chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The commenter explained
that under Sec. 63.10885(a)(1), if an inspector found organics, HAP
metals, chlorinated plastics or free organic liquids in charge
materials, the inspector would need to demonstrate that these wastes do
not stem from ``internal process materials or maintenance materials.''
The commenter stated that this type of loophole will make enforcement
difficult.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the provision exempting
baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials
from scrap management requirements is not needed in this rule
[[Page 233]]
and have deleted the provision from the final rule.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the limitations
for scrap managed using a scrap preheater equipped with an afterburner.
Response: We have revised the proposed rule to clarify that the
limitations for metallic scrap are the same for all scrap preheaters
and metal melting furnaces whether or not the preheater or furnace
(except for a cupola) is equipped with an afterburner. A different set
of limitations for metallic scrap applies only to cupolas with
afterburners.
Comment: One commenter stated that it is virtually impossible to
ensure no free liquids on scrap received when it rains during the
transport of the scrap. The commenter stated that the impact of this
requirement has been underestimated.
Response: Our intent in prohibiting free liquids was to minimize
the presence of organic liquids. We have clarified in the final rule
that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the owner or
operator can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted
from scrap exposure to rain.
2. Requirements for Mercury Switch Removal
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA establish mercury
emission performance standards to supplement the scrap management
program. The commenter recommended that EPA adopt emissions limits
(effective in 2010) from the New Jersey standards which require a
mercury limit of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or a
reduction of least 75 percent at the exit of the mercury control
system. The commenter stated that the rule allows facilities time to
reduce emissions by removing sources of mercury from the scrap they
process but requires additional control if the source separation
programs are not sufficient to meet the emissions limit. The commenter
said that one New Jersey foundry had already installed an activated
carbon injection system for mercury control and a baghouse for the
cupola; mercury emission test results show mercury reductions greater
than 90 percent. The commenter argued that such an emissions limit is
needed to determine the success of the source separation program and
the need for add-on controls for melters.
Three commenters recommended that the final rule include testing
and monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the mercury switch source
reduction program. Two commenters stated that the final rule should
require facilities to test emissions within 6 months of the final rule
to establish a baseline for each facility. One of these commenters also
stated that percent reduction targets and timelines be included in the
final rule along with a sampling program. The third commenter requested
that the final rule include performance or stack testing (inlet/outlet)
and baghouse hopper dust analysis to confirm and demonstrate reduced
mercury inputs and emissions. This commenter stated that baghouse
hopper dust testing is used in some States and EPA should evaluate
State requirements to develop national minimum requirements.
Two of the commenters stated that there are monitoring technologies
that are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry. The
commenters noted that batch process emissions are tested and monitored
in many industrial sectors, and EPA has established emission standards
for many batch processes without requiring the use of continuous
monitors, including Pesticide Active Ingredient Manufacturing and
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. The commenters also said
that EPA has recently promulgated the ``sorbent tube'' method for
sampling stack gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75,
appendix K). The commenters explained that because this method of
monitoring mercury is capable of sampling flue gases over any period of
time (hours or even days), there appears to be little impediment to
using this method to sample ``batch'' processes like those at
foundries. There are also several statistical sampling techniques that
account for the variability of emissions.
Response: We understand from the commenter that there is one major
source foundry with a cupola that has installed emission controls for
mercury. However, we are not aware that any of the more than 400 area
source iron and steel foundries for which we have emission control
information have installed mercury emission controls, and consequently,
we do not believe that such controls represent GACT for area sources.
On the other hand, pollution prevention practices have been used to
reduce mercury emissions at foundries and similar sources, such as EAF
steelmaking facilities, and these practices have been demonstrated to
be successful at reducing mercury emissions. We determined that the
pollution prevention requirements for mercury were economically and
technologically feasible and concluded they represent GACT for iron and
steel foundries that are area sources.
As part of the GACT determination, we concluded that it was not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for mercury because
mercury emissions are highly variable, and we have insufficient
information to determine an emission limit that might be achieved on a
continuing basis. On the other hand, the pollution prevention approach
quantifies the reduction in mercury release to the environment by
requiring that the amount of mercury recovered from end-of-life
vehicles be reported. This type of recordkeeping and reporting is an
important monitoring component of the rule and provides assurance that
the requirements are achieving mercury reductions. The monitoring for
mercury recommended by the commenters is not appropriate because it is
not related to the rule requirements and provides no information
related to enforcing the rule. We have chosen monitoring requirements
that are applicable to the pollution prevention requirements in the
rule.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the final rule include
enforceable measures of accountability to ensure the effectiveness of
the collection programs. The commenters stated that these measures
should include written documentation and audits of the participation of
suppliers and evaluation of switch recovery rates. One commenter
recommended a provision for expectations that a certain percentage of
switches will be collected from the vehicles and another commenter
recommended quantifiable measures such as the fraction of switches
collected from the vehicles. Both commenters stated that the final rule
should include consequences if the programs do not meet their goals.
One commenter was concerned about using an estimate of the
percentage of mercury switches removed to determine whether an approved
plan should continue to be approved because the estimate of the
percentage of mercury switches removed is highly uncertain and
dependant on many assumptions. The commenter stated that determining
the effectiveness of site-specific mercury switch removal programs by
comparing uncertain statistics with an aggressive removal goal (80
percent) may cause effective programs to have their approval revoked.
Response: We determined at proposal that GACT for mercury emissions
was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and shredded for
use. GACT would be implemented by foundry owners purchasing scrap only
from
[[Page 234]]
scrap providers that were participating in an EPA-approved program for
switch removal, operating pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific
plan (of equal effectiveness to an EPA-approved program) that ensured
scrap providers had removed mercury switches, or by not melting scrap
from end-of-life vehicles. We determined that the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Removal Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA-
approved program. However, we received two comments questioning how the
effectiveness of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and
suggestions for improving aspects of the rule related to program
transparency, enforcement, and implementation. We have incorporated
several of these suggested improvements into the final rule. The
improvements include developing and maintaining a plan showing how the
facility is participating in the approved program, documentation of
communication to suppliers of the need to remove mercury switches and
corroboration to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal
procedures.
The NVMSRP resulted from a 2-year process of collaboration and
negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to create a dedicated
nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing switches from end-of-
life vehicles. The stakeholders included EPA, automakers, steel
manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap recyclers, and
State agency representatives. These stakeholders signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) detailing their respective responsibilities and
commitments in the national switch recovery effort. This effort will
result in substantial reductions in mercury emissions from foundries by
removing the majority of mercury from metal scrap. In addition, it will
have environmental benefits from reducing mercury emissions from
sources other than foundries and will reduce mercury releases to media
other than air. EPA recounts this history not to show that the Agency
is blindly accepting this negotiated agreement, but that EPA has
examined the agreement anew in light of the requirements of section
112(d) and finds that the program resulting from that agreement meets
the statutory requirements. The success of the program has been
documented by direct measurements of mercury in switches removed, and
as of November 28, 2007, over 843,000 switches with 1,855 pounds of
mercury have been recovered.
As we stated in detail at proposal, this pollution prevention
approach was determined to be GACT for reducing mercury emissions from
foundries. Emissions of mercury result from the melting of scrap metal
that contains mercury components. When these components are removed
prior to charging the scrap to a metal melting furnace, the mercury
emissions are prevented. Thousands of automobile recyclers have already
joined the NVMSRP, although not all members have yet sent in recycled
switches. Information on the program, including scrap suppliers who
have joined and the number of switches they have turned in to date, can
be found on the End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) Web site (http://www.elvsolutions.org
).
There are many elements in the NVMSRP that are designed to measure
success and to evaluate its effectiveness. One year following the
effective date of the MOU and each year thereafter, the parties or
their designees and EPA agreed to meet to review the effectiveness of
the program at the State level based upon recovery and capture rates.
The parties to the agreement will use the results to improve the
performance of the program and to explore implementation of a range of
options in that effort. Two and one-half years from the inception of
the program, the parties agreed to meet and review overall program
effectiveness and performance. This review will include discussion of
the number of switches that have been collected and what factors have
contributed to program effectiveness.
We note here that the Administrator is committed to evaluating the
effectiveness of the approved program on a continuing basis and is a
party to the agreement that established the NVMSRP. The parties
(including the Administrator) recently reviewed the program's
effectiveness after 1 year. The 1-year review showed reasonable
progress, with recycling programs now available in every State. The
national program was slightly ahead of the schedule projected for
start-up. We now expect switch removals to steadily increase over the
next year as these programs begin to fully operate. If the
Administrator finds the program to be ineffective at the next scheduled
review under the MOU, or at any time as provided in the rule, the
Administrator may disapprove the program in whole or in part (e.g., for
a particular State), and participation in the program would no longer
be a compliance option, leaving foundry owners or operators obligated
to develop site-specific programs for EPA approval in order to meet the
requirements of this rule. Under the site-specific program, it would
fall on the foundry owner or operator to provide a detailed accounting
of switches removed and vehicles processed from all of their scrap
providers to enable the Administrator or permitting authority to
evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the switch removal
requirements. The somewhat lower documentation feature of the NVMSRP
provides a strong incentive to all of the parties involved in switch
removal to make every effort to ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a
continuing basis. However, if the national program were to prove
unsatisfactory and be subsequently disapproved as a compliance option,
the burden would be on the foundry owner or operator to implement a
site-specific approach. In either case (whether a national program or
site-specific program), we have codified an approach that provides
accountability and measures of effectiveness.
A key element of measuring the success of the program is
maintaining a database of participants that has detailed contact
information; documentation showing when the participant joined the
program (or started submitting mercury switches); records of all
submissions by the participant including date, number of mercury
switches; and confirmation that the participant has submitted mercury
switches as expected. Another important element is aggregated
information to be updated on a quarterly basis, including progress
reports, summaries of the number of program participants by State,
individual program participants, and records of State and national
totals for the number of switches and the amount of mercury removed.
The program is also estimating the number of motor vehicles recycled.
The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during the first year of the
program, every 6 months in the second and third year of the program,
and annually thereafter. The reports prepared by ELVS will include the
total number of dismantlers or other potential participants identified;
the total number of dismantlers or others contacted; and the total
number of dismantlers or others participating. The annual report will
include the total mercury (in pounds) and number of mercury switches
recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury, number of mercury
switches, and an estimated national capture rate, with information
organized by State, compared with the expected range of mercury switch
retirement rates for each State; and the total number and identity of
dismantlers or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal
[[Page 235]]
from the program. Mercury switch removal is already underway--more than
1,855 pounds of mercury from more than 843,000 switches have been
recovered to date by program participants. This represents almost 20
percent of our estimated reduction in mercury emissions of 5 tons per
year once the final rule is implemented.
The commenters make valid points that the effectiveness of the rule
could be improved by incorporating certain elements that the steel
manufacturers have already agreed to in the MOU. We have revised the
proposed rule to provide more specificity to the foundry owner or
operator responsibilities and to improve the effectiveness of EPA-
approved programs, which may include programs other than the NVMSRP. In
addition, we are including these same requirements in the option for
developing a site-specific plan for switch removal. The rule changes
include:
Foundry owners or operators must develop and maintain
onsite a plan demonstrating the manner through which their facility is
participating in the EPA-approved program. The plan must include
facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies,
and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for
each facility.
Foundry owners or operators must provide in the plan
documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to
suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to promote the
removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request
of the permitting authority, the owner or operator must provide
examples of materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as
letters, contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap
inspection protocols.
Foundry owners or operators must conduct periodic
inspections or provide other means of corroboration to ensure that
suppliers are aware of the need for and are implementing appropriate
steps to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life
vehicles.
In regard to the commenter's question regarding estimates of the
recovery rate, the 80 percent minimum recovery rate is a goal that all
parties to the MOU agreed to work toward. We recognize that 80 percent
recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two; however, the
parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at least four
million switches in the first 3 years of the NVMSRP and agreed to
exceed this amount if possible. We believe that recovery of four
million switches (approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per
switch) in the first 3 years is a good beginning for working toward
recovery of 80 percent of mercury switches. It is necessary to
acknowledge that there will be an initial delay in many States that
have recently joined the NVMSRP while individual dismantlers accumulate
sufficient switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been
estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch
collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS website at
http://www.elvsolutions.org, switches are typically collected in 3.5 gallon
buckets that can hold up to 450 pellets).
Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury
switches is not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a
program. The Administrator can evaluate the success of an EPA-approved
program at any time, identify States where improvements might be
needed, recommend options for improving the program in a particular
State, and if necessary, disapprove the program as implemented in a
State from being used to demonstrate compliance with the rule based on
an assessment of this performance. The evaluation would be based on
progress reports submitted to the Administrator that provide the number
of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles
processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered. The Administrator
can assess the information with respect to the program's goal for
percent switch recovery and trends in recovery rates. For example, as
the NVMSRP has ramped up, switch recovery rates have increased from
241,000 switches in 2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 months of
2007.
Comment: One commenter stated that unlike the corresponding section
of the EAF rule, Sec. 63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed foundries rule
does not indicate or confirm that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved
by the EPA Administrator. The commenter states that this omission is
counter to EPA's intentions as stated in section V.8.A of the MOU and
does not provide a quick pathway for scrap providers to participate in
a mercury switch removal program. The commenter stated that the final
rule should provide pre-approval of the NVMSRP and pre-approval of
existing State programs based on section VII.2.A.1.c of the MOU (which
refers to existing State programs in its articulation of the NVMSRP's
goal). The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight existing
State programs (which account for about 1,900 participants) would
eliminate the need for scrap providers participating in those programs
to obtain EPA's approval of their site-specific plans under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1).
Response: We have revised the area source rule for iron and steel
foundries to be consistent with the rule for EAF steelmaking by adding
language confirming that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved by the
EPA Administrator. We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery
program mandated by State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program
because they submitted documentation that the requirements are
equivalent to (or more stringent than) the approved national program.
No other States made such requests or submitted information showing
equivalency; consequently, we are not currently identifying other State
programs as EPA-approved in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter pointed to the provision in Sec.
63.10885(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data. The
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and
the effective date of the revocation provides sufficient time for the
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1) and if there was a process in place for seeking
reconsideration of the revocation.
Response: The final rule requires the Administrator or delegated
agency to review and approve the site-specific plan. This is what the
proposed rule allowed because this authority was not among those listed
in the rule as not being delegated. We believe the 90-day period is
adequate for the approval process. The rule has no formal process for
seeking reconsideration of revocation.
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(2)(iii) for the program sponsor to submit reports at least
yearly should be consistent with the corresponding requirement in the
proposed EAF rule. The commenter noted that the proposed foundries rule
required that the report contain, among other data, the number of
vehicles processed while the proposed EAF rule requires ``the estimated
number of vehicles processed.'' The commenter requested correction of
the proposed foundries rule to read ``the estimated number of vehicles
processed''.
Three commenters requested that EPA harmonize the language and
content of the proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule. Each
of these commenters said that the proposed rule did not identify the
NVMSRP as an
[[Page 236]]
approved program while the EAF proposed rule does identify the NVMSRP
as an approved program. Two commenters added that the MOU suggests that
the foundry rule should include and refer to the NVMSRP in its mercury
requirements. One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(iv) for a mercury switch removal goal of 80 percent
because this requirement does not apply the goal to each provider as
does the proposed EAF rule. The implication is that there can be
different mercury switch removal standards for different scrap
providers to foundries. This language has the potential to create
inequalities. One commenter noted several differences between the
proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule including different
heading, different phrasing of the same requirements, and specific
differences in requirements and definitions.
Response: We agree that the pollution prevention requirements for
mercury for iron and steel foundries should be consistent with those
for EAF steelmaking facilities because the technology for controlling
mercury emissions (i.e., mercury switch removal from end-of-life
vehicles) is the same for both source categories. We are making
revisions to the final rule to ensure they are consistent. Changes to
the site-specific plan for mercury switches include adding references
to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and
corrective action, requiring an 80 percent goal for each scrap provider
and a separate semiannual report. Changes to the option for approved
mercury programs include statements that the NVMSRP and the State of
Maine program for mercury switch removal are EPA-approved programs,
requiring reporting of an estimate of the number of vehicles processed
instead of the number of vehicles processed, adding parenthetical
mention of RCRA requirements, and adding a database requirement for
progress reports. We have revised Sec. 63.10905 (Who implements and
enforces this subpart?) to remove the phrase ``in addition to EPA'' and
make the list of nontransferable authorities the same in both rules. We
have also revised Sec. 63.10906 (What definitions apply to this
subpart?) to add definitions applicable to the mercury switch removal
program.
Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that it is technically and
economically unviable for small foundries to implement a site-specific
plan for mercury switch removal that meets the proposed rule
requirements. Also, small foundries do not have significant buying
power to push suppliers to implement an EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program, according to the commenters. While the commenters
support the mercury switch removal efforts, they believe that the
proposed rule requirements are unnecessarily onerous for foundries. One
commenter stated they would support the mercury switch removal
provisions once 80 percent of scrap dealers are registered in the
Federal program.
Response: Only foundries that purchase shredded motor vehicle scrap
from non-program participants are required to prepare a site-specific
plan. Most of the smaller area source foundries do not use shredded
motor vehicle scrap, so they would not be required to prepare a site-
specific plan for mercury switch removal. Furthermore, as indicated
previously, we are providing area source foundries 2 years to comply
with the mercury switch removal program specifically because area
source foundries purchase much smaller quantities of scrap compared to
EAF steel mills. By providing this additional compliance time, we
believe that the NVMSRP will be sufficiently mature that area source
foundries will be able to purchase motor vehicle scrap from
participants of the program. Therefore, very few area source foundries
will need to prepare a site-specific plan for mercury switch removal as
a consequence of this final rule. Based on our analysis, we do not
expect any foundries to incur a significant adverse economic impact as
a result of the mercury switch removal requirements in this final rule.
The commenters provided no additional information on the specific
requirements they claim to be ``unnecessarily onerous.'' Consequently,
we made no direct revisions to the requirements for the site-specific
plan, if it is selected as the compliance option.
Comment: One commenter noted that scrap supply has been very tight
and the costs have doubled over the past year. Another commenter
estimated that eliminating shredded auto scrap could cost the
commenter's foundries approximately $4 million per year.
Response: We understand that the price of scrap has increased over
the past few years; however, the past increase and any future changes
in price will not be affected in any significant way by the rule
requirements for mercury switch removal. We expect most facilities will
comply by participating in the NVMSRP and purchasing scrap only from
scrap providers who are also participants. This program is
independently funded and administered by several stakeholders.
Consequently, there is no reason for the commenter to eliminate
shredded automobile scrap.
Comment: One commenter stated the corrective action requirements
present significant obstacles to getting reasonable site-specific plans
approved. The commenter also said that what constitutes an acceptable
plan will vary by State and region, resulting in uneven regulatory
burden and unfair competitive advantages.
Response: Corrective actions are an important component of the
site-specific plan to ensure that scrap providers are removing mercury
switches. Corrective actions are not unique to the area source rule in
that iron and steel foundries impose specifications on scrap related to
quality and safety, and facilities take corrective actions when scrap
shipments do not meet these specifications. The Administrator or
delegated authority is the appropriate entity for review and approval
of these plans, and the rule provides a clear description of the
requirements for the plans that can be used as criteria for approval or
disapproval.
Comment: Sixteen commenters stated that the mercury switch removal
requirements should not apply to automotive scrap, such as brake rotors
and pump housings, that do not contain mercury switches. Two commenters
recommended that EPA clarify the type of scrap subject to the metallic
scrap requirements by describing it as ``shredded auto bodies'' or
``post-consumer automotive body scrap.'' One commenter requested
specific exemptions from the mercury switch requirements for foundries
that melt only pre-consumer scrap or that the rule be written to apply
to only those melting recycled auto bodies. One commenter requested
that the proposed rule include a fourth option that specifically
excludes scrap that does not come in contact with mercury from the
mercury switch removal provisions.
Response: We have added a definition of the term ``motor vehicles
scrap'' to the final rule. ``Motor vehicle scrap'' means vehicle or
automobile bodies, including automobile body hulks, that have been
processed through a shredder. This definition does not include
automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous vehicle parts such as
wheels, bumpers, or other components that do not contain mercury
switches. We have also clarified the rule by adding provisions specific
to scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. The final rule
requires that for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment, the
foundry must procure all scrap that does not contain
[[Page 237]]
motor vehicle scrap according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10885(b)(4) of the final rule. Section 63.10885(b)(4) requires the
owner or operator to certify in the notification of compliance status
that the scrap used at the foundry does not contain motor vehicle scrap
and to keep records to document the certification.
Comment: Four commenters stated other products that contain mercury
beside automotive switches are included in the scrap metal used by
foundries and should be covered by the mercury requirements. Three of
the commenters said that components in household and commercial
appliances, sump and bilge pumps, heating and air conditioning units,
and industrial equipment (e.g., tilt switches, thermometers, flame
sensors, float sensors, relays, switches, barometers, manometers,
floats, and other types of sensing and control equipment) also contain
mercury and should be included in a removal program. This could be done
by expansion of the NVMSRP or through the establishment and funding by
mercury product manufacturers and the steelmaking sector and/or
collection programs targeting other products that contain mercury.
One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be expanded to
require the removal of all automotive switches, not just 80 percent of
convenience light switches. Another commenter stated that the rule
should expand the scope of the switch program to include any original
equipment or aftermarket mercury tilt switch installed in a vehicle and
used in convenience lighting, anti-lock braking systems (ABS) sensors,
security systems, active ride control, or other applications.
Response: During the development of the proposed EAF rule, the EPA
considered the removal of other mercury-containing components in
automobiles, such as switches in ABS, and determined the option was not
justified as a beyond-the floor standard (72 FR 53824). Similarly, we
conclude that removal of these sources of mercury does not represent
GACT for iron and steel foundries. These sensors are considerably more
difficult and time consuming to remove than are convenience light
switches, and they contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of
the mercury in end-of-life vehicles comes from convenience light
switches). The commenters provided no data or rationale to support that
the removal of other sources of mercury from the scrap supply was
economically and technologically feasible for foundries or that their
removal should represent GACT.
Most mercury-containing components in appliances were phased out
several years ago, and any that might remain would contribute very
little mercury to the scrap supply compared to switches in automobiles.
While some ABS contained mercury sensors, these too have been phased
out and were much less common than mercury convenience light switches.
Comment: One commenter stated that the NVMSRP is a voluntary
program in his State and not all suppliers participate. The final rule
should require effective participation by suppliers or compliance with
the national program.
Two commenters stated that the requirements of the mercury switch
removal program must be incorporated in air permits, and the provisions
must be clearly understood and enforceable by air agencies and their
counterparts in other media programs. If these provisions are not
explicit in the program, the pollution prevention approach will not be
effective.
Two commenters claimed that EPA has not taken the NVMSRP into
account when developing these regulations in the development of this
rule as required by the MOU. The commenters stated that the MOU was
written as a nonbinding contract for EPA and several industries for the
voluntary removal and disposal of mercury switches while the
requirements in the rule are mandatory.
Response: Although participation in the NVMSRP is voluntary, the
pollution prevention standard for mercury establishes clear mandatory
requirements for the removal of mercury switches to reduce mercury
emissions from iron and steel foundries. Participation in the NVMSRP is
only one option for compliance, and although we expect it to be the
preferred compliance approach, each of the compliance approaches have
common requirements to ensure switch removal and to provide an
accounting of the number of switches removed and number of vehicles
processed. The number of scrap providers participating in the NVMSRP
has increased steadily since its inception, and as the area source
rules for iron and steel foundries and EAF steelmaking are implemented,
there will be additional incentives for many more scrap providers to
participate to maintain their customer base.
The rule requirements are explicit and should be clearly understood
and enforceable by air agencies. Although the final rule exempts
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already
have a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this
rule through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA must address ways to
encourage or require mercury removal from scrap destined for export.
Response: This area source rule addresses mercury in scrap destined
for iron and steel foundries, and removal of mercury from scrap
destined for export in not within the scope of the rule. However, we
expect that the NVMSRP and State programs for mercury switch removal
will result in the reduction in mercury in scrap for all users,
including scrap that is exported.
Comment: One commenter recommended that a sunset clause be added to
the mercury switch removal requirements as mercury switches have been
phased out of new automobiles.
Response: Our information indicates that there is a 10-year supply
of end-of-life vehicles that may contain mercury switches.
Consequently, we do not think it is appropriate to add a sunset
provision. However, review of the mercury requirements will be
appropriate when the 8-year review of the standard is conducted.
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to inspect the
scrap poses a safety risk to the personnel inspecting the scrap.
Response: Our information indicates that many facilities already
inspect incoming scrap and have established procedures for doing so
safely.
Comment: One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to direct
that every recycling facility should be removing the same amount of
switches because there is no mechanism that can accurately gauge if
facilities are removing the maximum number of switches. The commenter
explained that a facility can be removing only 10 switches per month
and be maximizing their removal while another facility can be removing
1,000 switches per month and only removing a portion of available
switches based on the age and origin of the vehicles handled by the
facility. Attempting to determine the recovery rate necessitates having
both the number of switches recovered and the total number of vehicles
processed but the number of vehicles processed is confidential business
information (CBI). The commenter stated that the rate could vary from
facility to facility and not be indicative of the facilities level of
participation in an approved program.
[[Page 238]]
Another commenter said that the requirements in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require scrap
providers to divulge CBI or to provide sensitive information to foundry
operators to comply.
Response: The NVMSRP does not require that facilities remove the
same number of switches. There are two key statistics in determining
the recovery rate of mercury switches: the number of switches removed
and the number of vehicles processed. This information is essential in
determining the progress towards meeting the recovery goal of 80
percent. The percent of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined
in the MOU) is the number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life
vehicles divided by the total mercury switch population in end-of-life
vehicles in a given time period (e.g., each year of the program) times
100. Furthermore, the 80 percent goal recognizes that the total mercury
switch population is dependent on the age of the vehicles processed.
This approach accounts for the differences in the capacity or
processing rate of different facilities, which is the subject of the
comment.
It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and foundry
operator to provide the information required by the rule and to
establish procedures if necessary to protect confidential information.
The requirements in the final rule include: (1) Periodic inspections or
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and
dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove mercury
switches; (2) estimates of the number of switches removed; and (3)
semiannual progress reports that provide the number of switches or
weight of mercury removed, number of vehicles processed, estimate of
the percent of switches removed, and certification of proper disposal
of the switches. This information is an essential monitoring component
of the rule to measure the effectiveness of a facility's pollution
prevention program. The information on number of vehicles processed can
be aggregated for a facility if it is important not to reveal the
number of vehicles processed by a given scrap provider. We do not see
nor did the commenter identify exactly what component of the requested
information would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that the
information is not emissions data and there is CBI involved, EPA and
the permitting authorities have established procedures for managing and
safeguarding CBI and will, of course, utilize them.
Comment: One commenter stated that in Sec. 63.10885(b)(1)(i) and
(ii), the requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle
bodies used to make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of
inaccessible switches. The commenter suggests replacing ``mercury
switches'' with ``accessible mercury switches.''
Response: We have defined mercury switch to include only those
switches that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism. Our
information indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily
removed, and it is important to the success of the pollution prevention
program that they be removed. Consequently, we are not adding the
additional requirement that they be ``accessible,'' which would
introduce additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be
made as to what is accessible.
Comment: One commenter stated the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(B) for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets
specifications does not seem to allow for uncertainty or error. The
commenter suggested that the language read ``Provisions for obtaining
assurance from scrap providers that to the best of their knowledge,
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specification''.
Response: We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter
is necessary because the phrase ``to the best of their knowledge'' is
subjective and provides no improvement. The foundry owner or operator
must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the scrap meets
specifications.
Comment: One commenter said the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C) for a 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 should
be replaced with appropriate steps ``to encourage the removal of
accessible mercury switches from motor vehicles to be shredded''.
Response: We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is
necessary to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution
prevention requirements.
Comment: One commenter asked what is meant by taking corrective
action in Sec. 63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(D) since the nonconforming actions
are committed by different parties? Does a scrap provider have any
recourse when corrective actions are deemed necessary by a foundry?
One commenter stated that any corrective action plan elements
approved by the Administrator should reference MOU sections V.3.H and
V.7.C, which defines good faith participation as ``the actual removal
of switches or the implementation of source control programs to assure
removal of switches prior to receipt''.
Response: The procedures for taking corrective actions must be
described by the owner or operator in the site-specific plan, and these
procedures may vary depending on the type of scrap, scrap provider, and
other factors, some of which may be unique to the facility. The concept
is not a new one because foundry owners or operators have historically
taken corrective actions when scrap does not meet their specifications.
The area source rule places no direct requirements on the scrap
provider; however, we expect that the scrap provider would work with
customers (the iron and steel foundry owners or operators) to resolve
any questions of recourse with respect to corrective actions.
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of end-of-
life vehicles. The commenter stated that to impose such burdensome
requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far exceeds the
Agency's regulatory authority, poses CBI concerns, and imposes
excessive paperwork and recordkeeping requirements on the scrap
provider. These comments also apply to Sec. 63.10885(b)(1)(v) because
the requirements are likely to compel scrap providers to provide
information to foundry operators to comply. Another commenter stated
that it is unreasonable to burden foundries to ensure scrap providers
and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove and
dispose of mercury switches. The commenter also noted that foundries
would not be able to obtain information on the number of mercury
switches or weight of mercury removed because most foundries use scrap
brokers and are a step or two removed from the dismantlers. Another
commenter stated that it is inappropriate for EPA to regulate end-users
and that EPA should directly regulate the scrap sellers and processors
with respect to mercury switch removal.
Response: The burden imposed by the Agency is on the foundry owner
or operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a
critical
[[Page 239]]
monitoring component of the rule. The owner or operator in turn must
require this information from scrap providers, and if such information
is not obtained, the owner or operator could be found in violation of
the rule. It is in the interest of the scrap provider, the owner or
operator, the public health, and the environment that such information
be obtained to ensure that mercury releases to the environment are
reduced by the removal of mercury switches.
Comment: One commenter objected to the credit allowed in Sec.
63.0085(b)(1)(iv) for calculating the 80 percent mercury switch removal
goal for site-specific plans. The commenter objected to the credit
because it allows counting of mercury removed from components other
than convenience lighting while the approved plan requires only the
removal of mercury switches from convenience lighting. The commenter
stated that the provision is not consistent with the MOU, which states
that only mercury switches used for convenience lighting will be
counted for purposes of measuring program performance. The commenter
argued that site-specific plans should not be held to a higher standard
than the NVMSRP.
Response: While it is true that only switches from convenience
lighting apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS
accepts switches from anti-lock brake systems and the automobile or
scrap recyclers that remove them are paid the incentive fee of $1.00
per switch. We believe that this provides an incentive to remove
switches from anti-lock brake systems as well as for convenience
lighting. In the requirements for site-specific plans, other sources of
mercury are included in determining the 80 percent goal, such as in
anti-lock brake systems, security systems, active ride control, and
other applications. Inclusion of these other components in the site-
specific programs provides an incentive for their removal. These
mercury-containing components contribute less mercury (13 percent
compared to 87 percent from convenience light switches), and they are
more difficult to locate, identify, and remove. Mercury-containing
components in anti-lock brake systems will be the components other than
convenience light switches that are most often removed. The removal of
these components requires removing the rear seat and dismantling the
anti-lock brake system. We believe that if a dismantler chooses to take
the time to remove and recover mercury components from anti-lock brake
systems or other components, they should receive some type of credit
for doing so, thus they can include them in their 80 percent minimum
recovery goal.
C. Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
1. Subcategorization of Metal Melting Furnaces
Comment: Five commenters stated that EPA should also consider a 5
ton per hour (tph) melting capacity threshold for each EIF as the most
appropriate way to minimize impacts on small area source foundries if
the per furnace basis is used. Another commenter recommended a size
threshold 5 tph for EIF if the per furnace basis was used. In addition,
two commenters opposed the proposed rule and asked EPA to reconsider
the applicability to melting processes or allowable emissions. As
discussed in section IV.F of this preamble, several commenters stated
that control of metal melting furnaces and/or EIF was not cost-
effective.
Response: We considered EIF-specific thresholds, but concluded that
these were not appropriate for several reasons. First, as described
previously, we increased the size threshold for large area source
foundries to 20,000 tpy. The increased size threshold more effectively
reduced burden to the smaller foundries than an EIF-specific cut-off.
Second, we could not identify a strong rationale as to why smaller
induction furnaces at foundries with production greater than 20,000 tpy
should be subcategorized. A significant portion of EIFs at foundries
greater than 20,000 tpy metal melting capacity were controlled,
regardless of the EIF size. Finally, emissions from EIF furnaces are
much better correlated with the total melt production than the size of
the furnace. Smaller furnaces can have higher emissions than larger
furnaces if they process more metal. Therefore, we determined that an
EIF-specific threshold was not appropriate and is not included in this
final rule.
2. Emission Standards
Comment: One commenter stated that because area source standards
will not be subject to residual risk standards, it is important to
regulate emissions of particulate matter (PM) and HAP as well as
possible under this rule.
Response: We agree. As discussed in the proposal preamble, we
evaluated more stringent emission limits, but found that these were not
cost-effective for existing sources. Although we increased the size
threshold in this final rule, we rejected higher thresholds or
additional EIF-specific thresholds specifically to regulate emissions
of PM and HAP as well as possible, while considering the costs of these
regulations.
Comment: One commenter noted that in the proposal preamble EPA
refers to the emission limit as pounds per ton of metal melted, but the
regulatory language in Sec. 63.10895(b)(1) refers to ``per ton of
metal charged.'' The commenter requested clarification as to EPA's
intent, and recommended the use of ``per ton metal charged'' as the
charge into the furnace is more amenable to measurement.
Response: We agree with the commenter. We intended to require
foundries to measure and record the tons of metal charged to the
furnace as indicated in the proposed regulatory language. Although we
commonly refer to this as tons of metal melted, we acknowledge that
there is a subtle difference and we have tried to consistently refer to
``tons metal charged'' as the basis of the standards in this final rule
and preamble.
Comment: One commenter stated that the PM emissions limit (0.8
pound of PM per ton of metal charged) is too low because some existing
wet scrubbers cannot achieve this emission limit and because the
alternatives to improve the emission performance of these systems would
be very costly.
Response: The available data clearly indicate that the 0.8 lb/ton
emission limit is easily achievable with a well performing wet scrubber
or baghouse control system. The available data also indicated that a
small percentage of cupola wet scrubbers would need to be upgraded in
order to meet this emission limit. We have considered the costs of
these upgrades and determined that these upgrades are reasonable for
the large area source foundries. GACT need not be an emission limit
that all wet scrubbers can meet, regardless of their design or
performance. We selected the 0.8 lb/ton PM limit as GACT because this
level of performance represented the typical performance of the
generally available control technologies used to reduce PM and metal
HAP emissions from foundry melting furnaces at reasonable cost.
Comment: One commenter noted that Sec. 63.10895(a) requires
``each'' melting furnace to operate a capture system, but Sec.
63.10898(e)(3) provides default emission factors for uncontrolled EIF
not equipped with a capture system for use in emissions averaging
calculation. The commenter requested clarification that capture and
collection systems are not required for ``each'' melting furnace.
Response: We agree. We have revised the language in Sec.
63.10895(a) of the proposed rule and Sec. 63.10895(b) of the
[[Page 240]]
final rule to indicate that ``You must operate a capture and collection
system for each metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron and
steel foundry unless that furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part
of an emissions averaging group.''
Comment: One commenter requested elaboration on EPA's intent when
referencing ``accepted engineering standards published by ACGIH'' for
capture systems.
Response: Accepted engineering standards such as design procedures
for local exhaust hoods and exhaust systems are included in each annual
edition of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice
published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH). The purpose of the rule requirement is to require
foundries to install and operate capture systems using appropriate
design factors for the hood and furnace emissions so that the capture
systems will operate properly.
Comment: One commenter said that he assumed the PM emissions limit
applies only to melting (SCC 30400303), but it would be impossible to
segregate these emissions from charge handling and inoculation (SCC
30400315 and 30400310), and stated that this issue requires further
evaluation.
Response: In general, all activities that are performed in the
metal melting furnaces are subject to the emission limits. These
include, but are not limited to: Charging, melting, alloying, refining,
slagging, and tapping. We have provided more detail regarding the
operating conditions for the performance tests to clarify this issue.
Generally, inoculation is performed in the transfer ladle and transfer
ladle operations are subject only to the building opacity limit.
However, if inoculation occurs in the melting furnace, then inoculation
emissions are subject to the overall furnace emission limit.
Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed opacity limit is
more restrictive than the major source rule since it does not include
an allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent
opacity. The commenters stated that the area source rule should not be
more stringent than the major source foundry rule, which was based on
MACT, and recommended that EPA include, at a minimum, an allowance for
one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity. Another
commenter stated that the opacity limit should not be based on MACT,
but on GACT, which the commenter believes would be 30 percent or 40
percent average opacity.
Response: We agree that the proposed opacity limit should not be
more stringent than the corresponding MACT standard. We reviewed the
State and local agency opacity requirements for selected States with
significant foundry populations. There are several States that require
20 percent opacity, but nearly all of these State programs provide an
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour; allowances provided in
different State regulations include: 27, 30, 40 and 60 percent opacity
limits. Although we do not agree with the second commenter that a limit
of 30 to 40 percent opacity limit would represent GACT, we do agree
that one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity reflects
GACT for area source foundries. In response to the commenters'
concerns, we have revised the proposed opacity limit to include the
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity.
3. Monitoring
Comment: Eighteen commenters said that EPA should allow visible
emissions (VE) observations to document compliance with the fugitive
emissions limit in order to reduce burden on small foundries. One of
the commenters stated that EPA underestimated the burden associated
with Method 9 observations. The commenters recommended that if visible
emissions were observed, a Method 9 test could be conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit. Another commenter stated
that EPA should require VE observations on a weekly basis (noncertified
individual would be acceptable under certain conditions) in addition to
the semiannual Method 9 readings because weekly observations would be
more effective for compliance than a certified reading occurring twice
a year.
Response: We agree with the commenters that allowing VE
observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7), with a
subsequent test by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) is a
reasonable alternative for determining compliance with the opacity
limit for fugitive emissions from foundry operations and may reduce
compliance costs. In response, we have revised Table 1 of the final
rule to include such an alternative. The alternative allows foundries
to conduct the semiannual performance tests using Method 22 instead of
Method 9. The results of the Method 22 test demonstrate compliance with
the opacity limit if no visible emissions occur for at least 90 percent
of the 1-hour observation period. If visible fugitive emissions from
foundry operations occur for more than 10 percent of the Method 22
observation period (i.e., more than a cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-
hour period), the owner or operator must conduct a Method 9 test as
soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the Method 22 test to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit.
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to install and
maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) is potentially
costly and unnecessary. The commenter suggested that visual checks and
manual recording of the operating parameter values once per shift as
used in existing title V permits be allowed instead of a CPMS.
Response: This commenter objected to CPMS as too costly and
unnecessary. As discussed below, other commenters objected to the
proposed operating parameters for baghouses, wet scrubbers, and
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) that would be monitored. In response
to these comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring provisions
for PM control devices. For PM control devices at existing affected
sources, the final rule requires the owner or operator to conduct
initial and periodic inspections of each PM control device. These
inspection requirements are included in many title V permits for PM
control devices. We have deleted the proposed inspection and monitoring
requirements for fabric filters that required pressure drop monitoring
of baghouses. Bag leak detection systems are required for fabric
filters used at new affected sources. The owner or operator of an
existing affected source may choose to comply with the requirements for
bag leak detection systems or the new inspection requirements.
We have also revised the proposed monitoring requirements for wet
scrubbers and ESP to apply to new affected sources instead of existing
affected sources. The final rule requires CPMS to measure the 3-hour
pressure drop and water flow rate for each wet scrubber. For ESP, the
owner or operator must maintain the voltage and secondary current (or
total power output) to the control device at or above the level
established during the initial or subsequent performance test. Table 2
of the final rule requires the operating limit for a wet scrubber to be
based on the average pressure drop and average scrubber water flow rate
measured during the performance test; for an ESP, the operating limit
is to be based on the minimum hourly average measurements.
Comment: Four commenters objected to basing the baghouse pressure
drop
[[Page 241]]
operating limit on the pressure drop range observed during the
performance test. The commenters stated that baghouses can operate
effectively over a range of pressure drops and a single test is too
short to encounter the full range of pressure drops that are normally
encountered. The commenters recommended using manufacturer's
recommended operating ranges or historical performance for the baghouse
pressure drop operating limits. One commenter suggested volumetric flow
rate or static pressure upstream of the baghouse may be more
appropriate operating parameters to monitor. Four commenters objected
to the baghouse pressure drop operating limit being determined across
each baghouse cell. The commenters recommended using the pressure drop
across the entire baghouse. One commenter said that baghouse pressure
drop varies with overall building ventilation and balancing air flow in
the foundry is a balancing act, and varies with the outdoor
temperature. The commenter stated that it is impossible to capture
these scenarios during a performance test.
Response: We agree with the commenters that pressure drop is not a
good indicator of baghouse performance. The requirement for pressure
drop monitoring originated from baghouse maintenance requirements
included in title V permits. As discussed above, we have replaced these
provisions in the proposed rule with other inspection and maintenance
requirements.
Comment: Three commenters objected to basing the wet scrubber
pressure drop operating limit on the pressure drop range observed
during the performance test for the same reasons as their comments on
baghouse pressure drop operating limits. The commenters argued that
like baghouses, scrubbers can operate effectively over a range of
pressure drops and a single test is too short to encounter the full
range of pressure drops that are normally encountered. The commenters
recommended using manufacturer's recommendations or operation history
for setting the operating limits. One commenter extended these comments
to electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).
Response: We disagree with the commenters. In performance tests
conducted on a cupola wet scrubber, we noted a strong (inverse)
correlation between the wet scrubber pressure drop and the PM emissions
from the control system. Relatively small changes in the pressure drop
altered the emissions by a factor of two. A foundry may always re-test
the control system at new (lower) operating limits if the operating
limits determined during the initial test are too restrictive, but the
foundry must demonstrate that they can meet the emissions limit at that
lower operating limit. That said, we recognize that many existing
foundries are not equipped with CPMS. Therefore, we have revised the
monitoring requirements for existing sources, but we retain the
requirements for CPMS for new sources.
Comment: One commenter stated that new sources should not be
required to install bag leak detection systems, but should be allowed
to monitor their baghouses similar to existing sources. The commenter
requested further explanation on EPA's position on this issue.
Response: New sources should be able to employ improved monitoring
technology. Wherever possible, we request that new sources use
automated systems that will measure and record operating parameters (or
emissions). Over time, we expect that this approach will improve
monitoring technology and reduce costs for existing and new sources.
4. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the
requirement to have a written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan
because writing the plan is an unnecessary burden (in the range of
$2,000 to $2,500 for a small facility, according to the commenters)
with little environmental benefit. According to the commenters,
monitoring and recording operating parameters are sufficient to
demonstrate compliance and this can be done without a written plan.
Response: We have reduced the burden associated with preparation of
the O&M plan by revising the monitoring requirements. Several portions
of the O&M plan requirements are related to the operation and
maintenance of bag leak detection systems and CPMS. The final rule
requires these monitoring systems only for new sources. We continue to
believe that an O&M plan provides EPA and foundry representatives with
a single source of information on monitoring and maintenance
responsibilities. In the development of the proposed requirements for
the O&M plan, we included many of the industry comments and
recommendations for requirements that were reasonable for area source
facilities.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA expand the O&M plan to
include actions to be taken in the event of an opacity exceedance. If
after a specified time with no opacity exceedances, the facility could
be allowed to make weekly observations with a non-certified individual
instead of Method 9 readings twice a year.
Response: If the foundry exceeds the opacity limit, then that
foundry is out of compliance with the emissions limit and could be
subject to enforcement actions. Although we considered more frequent
visible emission observations, the visible emission observations could
not be tied to the opacity limit. Therefore, if visible emissions were
observed, an opacity observation would be needed to verify that the
visible emissions did not exceed the opacity limit. This would greatly
increase the burden associated with the opacity requirements, which
many commenters suggested were already too burdensome. A foundry may
use weekly visible emission observations as means to ensure compliance
with the opacity limit if they choose, and the foundry may include such
observations and corrective actions to be taken within their O&M plan
if they choose.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the daily check of the
compressed air supply for a pulse-jet baghouse was not necessary. The
commenters argued that static pressure exceeding allowable ranges would
be a better indicator of a problem and the need for corrective action
measures. Three commenters stated that the monthly visual bag
inspections are not necessary, and suggested that semi-annual
inspections would be sufficient. Similarly, the commenters recommended
that the quarterly inspection of baghouse physical integrity and fans
is unnecessary and that semi-annual inspections would be sufficient.
Response: The commenters' concerns have been addressed because we
have removed the baghouse inspection and maintenance requirements from
the proposed rule. These requirements have been replaced with more
general inspection and maintenance requirements for PM control devices
(baghouses, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators).
Comment: One commenter requested guidance on what an acceptable
alarm set point is when using a continuous bag leak detection system.
Response: The alarm set point will vary according to the design of
the equipment. For additional information on bag leak detection systems
that operate on the triboelectric effect, we encourage the commenter to
review ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
September 1997, EPA-
[[Page 242]]
454/R-98-015, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication
PM98164676. This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161. This document also may be available on the
TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html.
Comment: One commenter stated that, while 30 days may be sufficient
time to implement minor repairs (i.e., time between inspections), some
repairs may require more time (e.g., to solicit contract bids, perform
engineering analysis, and install equipment). The commenter requested
that the rule allow additional time for foundries to complete necessary
repairs.
Response: In response to the commenter's concern, we have added
additional time to implement repairs to capture systems. The final rule
requires that repairs be completed as soon as practicable, but no later
than 90 days.
Comment: One commenter stated that capture system requirements
should be included in the O&M plan because PM build-up in capture
systems, particularly for batch processes such as EIFs, could
significantly reduce capture efficiency. The commenter recommended that
EPA include capture system in the inspections required for control
systems. Specifically, Sec. 63.10985(a) be revised to require ``* * *
Each capture and collection system must meet and maintain * * * '';
Sec. 63.10896(a) be revised to require an O&M plan `` * * * for each
capture and control device * * * ''; add a paragraph Sec.
63.10896(a)(6) to require ``Information on the inspection of the
capture system components, including, but not limited to, emission
intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, and fans, to assure there is not material build-up impeding
flow to the control device.''; and revising Sec. 63.10897(c)(8) to
``Inspect emission intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork,
dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans for wear.''
Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions. While capture
systems have been included in the O&M plans for major source rules, we
have not included requirements for capture systems in the area source
rule as one way of reducing compliance costs for area source foundries.
In addition, the suggested revisions to Sec. 63.10897(c)(8) are not
needed as inspection requirements for the capture system are already
specified in Sec. 63.10897(e).
5. Testing Requirements
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how 1-hour
performance tests are to be conducted on EIFs that operate in a batch
mode for 25 minutes. Additionally, the commenter inquired if there were
operating condition requirements, such as operating within 10 percent
of the stated melt capacity, for the performance test or if the
operating conditions were not relevant because the emission limit is
normalized by the melt rate. Another commenter requested guidance on
methods for measuring emissions per ton charges for line frequency
furnace shops, and noted concern on how a 1-hour emission test would
provide a representative estimate of the emissions from a series of
EIFs all cycling differently.
Response: In this final rule, we have clarified that ``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.'' For the 25-minute batch time cited by the first
commenter, approximately two batches would be completed during the 1-
hour run. If multiple EIFs are all cycling differently, the 1-hour run
would capture different cycles for the different furnaces. In the
course of three 1-hour runs, data for several complete cycles will be
collected. We do not specify operation within 10 percent of the stated
melt capacity of the furnace because, as noted by the commenter,
emission limits are normalized by the tons of metal charged. However,
the melting rates are required to be indicative of normal production
conditions.
Comment: One commenter said that when there are many furnaces and
other unregulated sources exhausting to a baghouse, the performance
test will be problematic because it will be difficult to identify
suitable test ports that are not influenced by other disturbances. The
cost of duct rework, according to the commenter, is approximately
$100,000.
Response: First, we have included provisions for determining
compliance with the emissions limit in situations where regulated and
non-regulated emission streams are mixed. We recognize that these
provisions may not be suitable for all duct conditions. However, one
can always demonstrate compliance with the emission limit on the
combined stream. Using a baghouse control system, it is likely that the
baghouse exhaust can be used to demonstrate compliance with the PM
limit, even when other PM sources (such as sand handling) are included.
Moreover, we have also provided an alternative metal HAP emission
limit. As emission limits were not set for other PM emission sources at
the foundry precisely because these PM sources do not contain
appreciable metal HAP, we expect that the baghouse exhaust can be used
to demonstrate compliance with the metal HAP emission limit, regardless
of what other unregulated streams may also be controlled by the
furnaces' baghouse.
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA eliminate the
requirement to re-test every 5 years for PM emissions provided that
initial results were less than 75 percent of the emission limit and no
process changes are made.
Response: We considered this alternative, but concluded that
elimination of the subsequent tests (every 5 years) was not
appropriate. First, we have reduced the monitoring burden for the
control systems in this final rule compared to the proposed rule.
Therefore, the subsequent tests are necessary to assure ongoing
compliance with the emission limits. Second, the subsequent tests do
not pose an unreasonable compliance cost to large (greater than 20,000
tpy) area source foundries.
Comment: One commenter stated that, in order to perform an
emissions test on the EIFs at his facility, the plant would have to
install a capture and blower system that costs almost $1 million just
to determine whether or not they are already in compliance.
Response: We recognize that testing uncontrolled EIFs is difficult.
For this reason, we have added to the final rule special provisions for
testing EIFs. For EIFs equipped with emission control devices, this
final rule allows existing foundries to use the performance test
results for one EIF to demonstrate compliance for other EIFs provided
the other furnaces are similar with respect to the type of emission
control device used, composition of the scrap charged, furnace size,
and melting temperature. For uncontrolled EIFs, the final rule allows
the use of test results from another furnace to demonstrate compliance
if the test results are prior to any control device, and the furnaces
are similar with respect to the composition of scrap charged, furnace
size, and melting temperature. In addition, for EIFs without emission
capture systems, we have clarified in the final rule that existing
foundries may install a temporary enclosure for the purpose of sampling
emissions. A permanent enclosure and capture system is not required for
the purpose of testing.
Comment: One commenter noted that the preamble stated that
performance tests are required within 180 days of
[[Page 243]]
promulgation, and stated that this was inadequate time to install
controls and demonstrate compliance since it takes 180 days to get a
construction permit.
Response: We have revised the preamble to the final rule to state
that the owner or operator must conduct the performance test within 180
days of the compliance date, not the effective date.
D. Implementation and Enforcement
Comment: Seven commenters supported EPA's proposal to exempt area
source foundries from title V permit requirements because requiring
title V permits would add significantly to the compliance costs with
little to no additional environmental benefit. Two commenters stated
that the requirements of the mercury switch removal program must be
incorporated in air permits and the provisions must be clearly
understood and enforceable by air agencies and their counterparts in
other media programs. If these provisions are not explicit in the
program, the pollution prevention approach will not be effective.
Response: We did not receive any adverse comments on our decision
to exempt this area source category from title V permitting
requirements. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (72 FR
52997, September 17, 2007) we found that the cost of title V permitting
would be burdensome and the cost would not be justified because there
would be little to no potential gains in compliance if title V permits
were required. We also concluded that title V permitting was
unnecessary to assure compliance with the NESHAP because the statutory
requirements for implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP by EPA
and the delegated States are sufficient to assure compliance without
title V permits. In addition, we have added provisions to the final
rule to improve the enforceability and effectiveness of the mercury
switch removal program. The commenters did not provide any new
information to change these conclusions. Therefore, we are not revising
the final rule to require title V permits for the mercury switch
removal requirements. Although the final rule exempts facilities that
do not have a title V permit from the requirement to obtain a permit
for the purposes of this rule, sources that already have a title V
permit generally must include the requirements of this rule through a
permit reopening or at renewal according to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 70 and the title V permit program.
Comment: One commenter questioned the addition of the phrase ``in
addition to EPA'' to the provisions for implementation and enforcement
in Sec. 63.10905. The commenter said this language (which is not in
the EAF rule) suggests that two separate entities have equal
implementation and enforcement authorities except for nontransferable
authorities listed in Sec. 63.10905(a). The commenter stated that this
dualism would create legal issues and could create practical problems
for stakeholders. The commenter requests that this phrase be removed
from the final rule.
Response: We agree with the commenter and have removed this phrase
from the final rule.
Comment: One commenter noted that Sec. 63.10905(c) refers to the
authorities which cannot be delegated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)
of this section, then lists (c)(1) through (5). The commenter also asks
why this rule has two extra non-transferable authorities concerning
opacity that are not in the EAF rule.
Response: We have revised the proposed rule to cite paragraph
(c)(5) instead of (c)(4) as the commenter noted. There are five non-
transferable authorities in this final rule that cover the emissions
limits, opacity limit, monitoring, test methods, and recordkeeping/
reporting requirements. We have also revised the proposed rule to
specifically reserve EPA's authority for review and approval of local,
State, or national mercury switch removal programs. The proposed EAF
rule should have cited the emissions limit and opacity limit as well as
the monitoring, test methods, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements.
We will revise the proposed EAF rule to show five non-transferable
authorities instead of three and to reserve authority for approval of
local, State, or national mercury switch removal programs.
E. Definitions
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA include a definition of
``total metal HAP'' as provided in the amendments to the major source
foundry rule currently under development.
Response: We agree with the commenter's suggestion and have revised
the proposed rule accordingly.
Comment: One commenter said that the rule should define ``fugitive
emissions'' as in the foundry MACT standard, but further clarify that
fugitive emissions do not include emissions that stay within the
building as follows: ``Fugitive emissions is a drifting emission that
exits a building in a manner other than though a collected or
uncollected, powered exhaust fan/vent.''
Response: We agree with the commenter that ``fugitive emissions''
should be defined and we have added a definition of ``fugitive
emissions'' commensurate with the one used in the major source foundry
MACT standards. We disagree that fugitive emissions excludes
uncollected dust that is exhausted through general building ventilation
or roof fans.
Comment: One commenter stated that the final rule should include a
definition for ``scrap provider'' that is the same as the definition in
the EAF rule with the recommended changes. The commenter recommended
that the proposed definition of ``scrap provider'' in the EAF rule be
revised because the definition includes brokers who have no oversight
over scrap preparation and delivery. According to the commenter, a
revised definition should allow brokers to considered ``scrap
providers'' as a contractual matter. The commenter suggested that EPA
define ``scrap provider'' to mean ``the final preparer of scrap
delivered to a steel mill, or a broker when a brokered transaction
specifies that the broker provide information to the steel mill from
the scrap processors participating in the brokered transaction.''
Response: We agree that the definition of ``scrap provider'' in the
EAF rule should be included in the final rule. We disagree that the
proposed definition in the EAF rule should be revised because the
definition as proposed allows a broker to be considered a scrap
provider. The foundry owner or operator must ensure that the broker
receives scrap only from suppliers participating in an EPA-approved
program or for the site-specific option, that the suppliers have
removed mercury switches and provide an accounting of the number of
switches removed and vehicles processed, along with all of the other
requirements in the site-specific plan.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final rule include the
definition of ``motor vehicle scrap'' as revised to refer to shredded
scrap that contains shredded end-of-life vehicles. The commenter
explained that shredded scrap typically includes shredded end-of-life
or obsolete appliances as well as other materials. Alternatively, the
commenter suggested replacing the definition of ``motor vehicle scrap''
with a definition of ``shredded scrap'', which would contain some
fraction of shredded end-of-life vehicles.
Response: We agree that the definition of ``motor vehicle scrap''
should be included in the final rule. We have added the definition in
the EAF rule to this final rule. The definition of ``motor
[[Page 244]]
vehicle scrap'' is specific to vehicles processed in a shredder. We do
not see a need to revise the definition as suggested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter requested EPA to add the definition of
``nonferrous metal'' in 40 CFR 471.02 of the effluent guidelines for
nonferrous metals forming and metal powders point source category.
Under 40 CFR 471.02(a), ``nonferrous metal'' is defined as ``any pure
metal other than iron or any metal alloy for which a metal other than
iron is its major constituent in percent by weight.'' This definition
distinguishes the primary and secondary production of other metals or
alloys (which are covered by air emission standards for other source
categories) from the ferrous metals iron and steel.
Response: We added this definition of ``nonferrous metal'' to the
final rule except that we changed the phrase ``a metal other than
iron'' to ``an element other than iron''.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that EPA provide State and
local agencies with sufficient additional grants so that they may
participate in the implementation of additional area source rules.
According to the commenters, Federal grants currently fall far short of
what is needed to support State and local agencies in carrying out
their existing responsibilities, and budget requests for the last 2
years have called for additional cuts. The commenters claimed that,
without additional funding, some State and local air agencies may not
be able to adopt and enforce additional area source rules. One
commenter further stated that, even for permitting authorities that do
not adopt these area source rules, it is possible that these rules will
increase their work loads and resource needs. The commenter stated
that, for example, synthetic minor permits (or Federally Enforceable
State Operating Permits) will need to incorporate all applicable
requirements, including area source standards. Noting that the title V
permit fee funds are not available for these efforts, the commenter
asserted that many State and local air agencies do not have sufficient
resources for these responsibilities.
Response: State and local air programs are an important and
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these
programs; however, we do not believe that this issue can be addressed
through this rulemaking.
In this rulemaking, EPA is promulgating standards for the Iron
Foundries and Steel Foundries area source categories that reflect the
practices currently in use by sources in these area source categories,
and these standards represent what constitutes GACT for these
categories under section 112(d)(5). GACT standards are technology-based
standards. The level of State and local resources needed to implement
this rule is not a factor that we consider in determining what
constitutes GACT under section 112(d)(5). Moreover, we note that the
commenters did not challenge our proposed determination to exempt from
title V the Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries area source categories,
although they did recommend that the pollution prevention standard for
mercury be incorporated in title V permits.
Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through this
rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to
working with State and local agencies to implement this rule. State and
local agencies that receive grants for continuing air programs under
CAA section 105 should work with their project officer to determine
what resources are necessary to implement and enforce the area source
standards. EPA will continue to provide the resources appropriated for
section 105 grants consistent with the statute and the allotment
formula developed pursuant to the statute.
F. Impact Estimates
1. Environmental Impacts
Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that the emission reductions
that can be achieved from uncontrolled EIFs are overestimated because
EPA used an unrepresentative emission factor. Twelve commenters stated
that EPA should use ``an already well-referenced PM emission factor
that is representative and technically defensible''. One commenter
recommended that EPA use the current emission factor in AP-42 (0.9 lb/
ton). Another commenter recommended basing the emission factor on data
reported by Shaw (1982). Twelve of the commenters described the dataset
as limited and problematic as much of the data are not verifiable and
one commenter said that the baghouse catch data were suspect.
Response: First, the impact assessment performed was to assess the
impacts of the EIFs that could not meet the PM or metal HAP emission
limit without a control device. To develop an assessment of the worst-
case economic impacts, we assumed all EIFs would have to add a control
device. In actuality, we do believe that a significant portion
(approximately one-half) of EIFs will be able to demonstrate compliance
with the 0.8 lb/ton PM emission limit or the alternative 0.06 lb/ton
metal HAP limit without installing additional controls. We agree that
the EIFs that do meet this limit are ``clean burning.'' However,
available data indicate that many EIFs may have PM emissions that
significantly exceed this limit. The PM emission factor used previously
was developed to model the emission reductions and cost-effectiveness
of these reductions of the EIFs that could not meet the PM emission
limit as proposed.
In response to these comments, we reevaluated the data used to
assess the PM emission factor for EIFs. We did identify a few
``baghouse catch'' data that included operations other than EIF melting
operations, such as inoculation. While we do expect that capture and
control systems will likely help to reduce PM emissions from
inoculation, inoculation emissions are primarily magnesium which is not
a HAP metal. As such, we do not expect that these PM will contribute
significantly to the total metal HAP emissions. Therefore, we did
exclude these data although these PM emissions could be considered a
co-benefit of the proposed furnace emission controls. We also included
the data from Shaw, as requested by one commenter, although these data
are provided only as secondary references, all of which are 30 years
old or more. We also considered more recent Casting Emissions Reduction
Program (CERP) data. The augmented data set supports the average
emission factor reported in AP-42, but also indicates that those EIFs
not able to meet the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit have an average emission
factor of 1.6 lb/ton. The augmented data set and basic statistics for
the data set are provided in a memorandum to the docket.
Although this PM emission factor is 20 percent lower than the
emission factor used in developing the nationwide impacts for the
proposed rule, as stated previously, the second and major reason the PM
reductions (as well as the total control costs) were overstated in the
impacts as estimated for the proposed rule is that many EIF will be
able to meet the proposed rule without additional control requirements
(or with the installation of suppression controls only). To develop a
more
[[Page 245]]
realistic assessment of the nationwide impacts, we performed a Monte
Carlo assessment. Based on the emission data compiled as described
previously, a log-normal distribution was used with a mean of -0.25 and
standard deviation of 0.7. This distribution leads to a median emission
factor of 0.8 lb/ton and an arithmetic average emission factor of 1.0
lb/ton, which agrees well with the AP-42 emission factor of 0.9 lb/ton.
By using the Monte Carlo analysis, we address both reasons the PM
emission reductions were overestimated at proposal.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should use the default
average emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs used in developing the
impact estimates. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that the default
factor used by EPA in the impacts analysis is too high and lower
average emission factors should be used for both the impacts analysis
and the default factor for emissions averaging.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the average emissions
factor for uncontrolled EIFs should be used as a default factor. If we
allowed foundries to use the average emissions factor, then many of the
uncontrolled EIFs would have actual emissions higher than the assumed
emissions. A default factor of 3 lb/ton of PM was selected at proposal
as an upper end estimate of the emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs.
Based on the expanded PM data set, a 3 lb/ton emissions factor
represents the 98th percentile of the distribution. Using a 3 lb/ton PM
default emissions factor for uncontrolled EIFs provides a very high
degree of assurance that an emissions averaging group meets the 0.8 lb/
ton emission limit when not measuring the emissions from all
uncontrolled furnaces. EPA believes that it is appropriate to use a
conservative figure for the default emissions factor, in part because
foundries have the option to establish an actual emissions rate by
testing. However, EPA recognizes that using a 3 lb/ton emission factor
overestimates emissions from 98 percent of uncontrolled furnaces, and
believes that using an emissions factor based on a somewhat lower
percentile would reduce the burden of initial testing and still provide
adequate assurance that the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit is met for
multiple furnaces using emissions averaging. Therefore, we have revised
the proposed rule to allow uncontrolled EIFs that are not equipped with
a capture system and have not been previously tested to assume an
uncontrolled emission factor of 2 lb/ton, which is approximately the
75th percentile. If a lower emissions rate is needed for an
uncontrolled EIF in order for the emissions averaging group to meet the
emissions limit, the foundry has the option to test any uncontrolled
EIF and establish a measured emissions rate for use in the emissions
averaging equation.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA overstated HAP emission
reductions and did not fully take into consideration the different
types of melting furnaces and the variety of control equipment
available.
Response: Metal HAP emission reductions were overstated for the
same reasons that the PM emission reductions were overstated. However,
we respectfully disagree with the commenter with respect to the types
of furnaces and controls. The emission and cost impacts were performed
on a furnace specific basis, considering the type of control device
installed for each furnace. We also evaluated certain design aspects of
the control system to assess which controls could or could not meet the
0.8 lb/ton PM emissions limit.
Comment: One commenter noted that some induction furnaces only tap
about one-third of the molten metal, and are never fully emptied except
to work on the EIF refractory. The commenter said that these furnaces
can be sources of small quantities of emissions even when the unit is
not melting so that the control system would need to operate
continuously, even when the plant is not actively melting and that this
makes it difficult to know what the actual emissions are in terms of
tons of metal melted as some of the emissions are not directly related
to production.
Response: We disagree with the commenter. For periods when the
furnace is idling, a suppression cover is all that is necessary to
ensure emissions are not released from the furnace. The cover will also
reduce heat losses from the furnace, reducing overall electricity costs
(especially as compared to running the control system continuously). We
acknowledge the difficulty in assessing the true emissions from these
sources, which is why the long-term baghouse data were considered to be
highly relevant in assessing the emission potential of EIFs.
2. Cost Impacts
Comment: Sixteen commenters stated that EPA underestimated the
costs of the capture and control equipment needed to retrofit an
existing uncontrolled EIF with a control device. One commenter noted
that some retrofits may require substantial furnace modifications, site
preparation, and business interruption, the costs of which were not
included in EPA's estimates. A third commenter stated that EPA had
previously concluded that a retrofit cost factor of 2.8 was appropriate
for an existing EIF. Another commenter explained that business
interruption costs associated with a control system retrofit would
directly impact the economic viability of the foundry.
Ten of the commenters stated that EPA's cost estimates were
understated because more EIFs than those identified by EPA will need to
install controls to meet the proposed emission limits.
One commenter stated that operating cost factors were supplied by
individual companies and that the labor included overhead and bags were
changed every 2 years. This commenter also stated that the current cost
of capital equipment loans range from 7.5 to 9 percent, so annualizing
costs using 7 percent understates the annual cost for the capital
equipment.
One commenter stated that the capital cost formula used by EPA is
reasonably accurate if their furnaces can be modified to use a close
capture system. If not, the commenter estimated that 250,000 actual
cubic feet per meter (acfm) of gas would need to be collected (versus
40,000 acfm), which would increase the size of the cost of the baghouse
control system by nearly a factor of five. The commenter also stated
that the operating cost formula used by EPA appeared to significantly
underestimate the on-going costs. The commenter stated that EPA's
estimate for melting 17,000 tpy production rate, operating costs of
$72,600 per year would be estimated while the commenter estimates the
cost for electricity and compressed air alone to be approximately
$103,000 per year for the 40,000 acfm system. The commenter also noted
that additional costs of heating make-up air (to keep from drawing cold
air into the building) could increase operating costs by another
$100,000 per year and maintenance costs were estimated to be $15,000
per year. The commenter also noted that, based on the types of EIFs
used at their foundry, the emission controls would have to run 24 hours
a day, 365 days per year because the furnaces always have molten metal
in them.
Response: First, while we have revised the cost impacts, we
consider that the control costs estimated for EIFs are likely to be
biased high because we assume the EIFs that cannot meet the 0.8 lb/ton
PM emission limit will install baghouse control devices. Other control
systems, such as wet scrubbers or ESPs are expected to be able to meet
the metal
[[Page 246]]
melting furnace emission limit for existing sources and typically at
less total cost compared to baghouse control systems. For example, in
reviewing the costs submitted by one of the commenters, the design
performance of the baghouses was far greater than needed to comply with
the proposed rule (designed to meet 0.0035 gr/dscf). Based on other
commenters, EPA's estimate of the capital equipment cost for the
baghouse system is not understated. Consequently, we did not revise the
capital cost estimate for the baghouse system itself as we expect these
capital cost estimates to already be conservatively high.
We do note that there may be additional retrofit costs for those
induction furnaces that do not have existing capture and control
system, although we do not agree that a retrofit factor of 2.8 is
warranted or appropriate. We increased the capital costs needed to
install a capture system when one is not in place. At proposal, we
estimated the cost of the capture system as 15 percent of the cost of
the baghouse system. For this final rule, we estimated the cost of the
capture system/furnace modification as 40 percent of the cost of the
baghouse system. That is, for a baghouse system projected to cost $1
million, capture system/furnace modifications were estimated to cost an
additional $400,000. We also substantially increased the projected cost
of testing the EIFs when no capture system is in place. For furnaces
that already have a capture system (but no controls), then just costs
of the baghouse system were attributed to the furnace.
In addition, based on our review of the comments, we adjusted and
increased the overall pressure drop through the system, which
significantly increased the projected electricity costs. We also
changed the frequency of bag replacement from 4 years to 2 years.
Together with the additional capital costs, the control costs for EIFs
increased compared to the estimates at proposal. However, we did not
include the higher costs reported by some of the commenters, such as
assuming bag replacement requiring a full-time person over a year to
replace the bags or utilizing labor rates reported to include overhead,
but then multiplying those rates by an overhead factor.
We disagree with the commenter that the control costs were under-
estimated because more EIFs would need to be controlled than were
estimated. Although the database used does not include every area
source foundry in the country, we expect the existing database to
include a very high majority of the larger area source foundries.
Additionally, as noted in developing the emission impacts, we assumed
that every EIF that was in the database required controls. As such, we
believe that we overestimated the nationwide control costs because many
existing EIFs are expected to meet the 0.8 lb/ton emission limit
without installing additional controls. Furthermore, ``missing'' EIF
from the database impact both emission reductions and costs, so that
the overall cost-effectiveness projected for the rule will not be
significantly impacted if some EIFs are ``missing'' from the database.
Finally, we acknowledge that interest rates vary, but the 7 percent
annual interest rate is our best estimate for long-term cost of
capital.
3. Cost Effectiveness Impacts
Comment: Several commenters stated that the emission limits for
metal melting furnaces, and specifically for EIF, are not cost-
effective. One commenter stated that the cost per ton of PM or metal
HAP emissions reduced is about four times higher than the EPA estimates
due to the combination of EPA's overestimate of emission reductions and
underestimate of emission control costs. Five commenters stated that
EPA did not propose controls for pouring because the cost to control
pouring ranged from $30,000 to $110,000 per ton of PM removed. The
commenters said that because the commenters' cost-effectiveness for EIF
controls are in this range, EPA should conclude that melting furnace
controls are also not cost-effective. Another commenter recommended
that EPA re-evaluate the need to control area source melting furnaces.
Two commenters stated that, if the appropriate emission factors and
compliance costs are used, the proposed rule is even less cost-
effective. One commenter compared the cost effectiveness of the
proposed rule to the MACT standard for Industrial and Institutional
Boilers and Process Heaters, which was approximately $33,000 per ton of
HAP removed as further rationale demonstrating that the proposed rule
is not cost-effective. Another commenter stated that, based on the cost
estimate, the rule is not cost-effective. Using EPA's emission factor
of 2 lbs/ton and assuming a PM emissions limit of 0.8 lbs/ton, the cost
of controlling EIFs at his facility is approximately $30,000 to $50,000
per ton of PM reduced, and these costs increase significantly if one
uses the emission factor reported in AP-42. The commenter said that the
requirement for EIF controls for new units appeared to be reasonable,
but that the cost to control existing EIFs was unreasonable.
Response: The commenters are mistaken--we did not reject emission
controls for pouring on the basis of cost effectiveness. We stated
clearly at proposal (72 FR 52987) that we were not regulating pouring
at area source foundries for two reasons, and neither reason was cost
effectiveness. We noted that the quantity of metal HAP in pouring
emissions is very small relative to the emissions from melting
furnaces. Further, we explained there are technical difficulties in the
capture and control of pouring emissions because of the need to access
the molten metal during the pouring process.
We also disagree with the commenter's estimate of cost
effectiveness of $30,000 to $50,000 per ton of PM for EIFs. We have re-
evaluated our cost estimates, and based on our revised analysis for the
final rule, we estimate the cost effectiveness for PM as $13,000 per
ton.
Comment: One commenter stated that the GACT standard for EIFs was
not as cost-effective and was more stringent than the MACT standard for
EIFs. The commenter also noted that the MACT standard reduced metal HAP
by 102 tpy compared to only 19 tpy for the GACT standard.
Response: We developed the GACT standard for large area source
foundries (including EIFs) by assessing the technologies and management
practices that are generally available for large area source foundries.
We selected a format of ``lb/ton'' as the most appropriate format for
measuring emission control performance, and we concluded that 0.8 lb
PM/ton of metal charged (or 0.06 lb total metal HAP/ton of metal
charged), together with the pollution prevention management practices
of the rule, represent GACT for this subcategory. In contrast, the MACT
standard of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) was
based on the emissions level achieved by the average of the top 12
percent of major sources. We disagree that the GACT standard for EIFs
(0.8 lb/ton) is more stringent than the MACT standard (0.005 gr/dscf).
For example, for an EIF operating at 5 tons per hour (tph) and 14,600
actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) of gas flow, the MACT standard is
six times more stringent. For larger EIFs operating at 20 tph and
36,800 acfm, the MACT standard is 10 times more stringent.
In addition, one of the reasons the cost effectiveness estimates
differ between the major source MACT standard and this rule is that the
major source rule applies to larger foundries with greater economies of
scale. That
[[Page 247]]
said, the HAP emission reductions achieved by the GACT standard that we
are finalizing today are significant.
Moreover, the commenter's comparisons of cost effectiveness and
emission reductions between the major source MACT standard and the GACT
standard at issue in this rule are not relevant. As we have explained
previously, Congress expressly authorized EPA to issue alternative
emission standards for area sources. Under section 112(d)(5), EPA can
promulgate standards that provide for the use of generally available
control technologies or management practices (GACT) for area sources
listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3). EPA has done precisely that in
this case. The fundamental issue here is whether the GACT standard
described above complies with the requirements of section 112(d)(5),
and for all of the reasons described in this preamble and the docket in
support of this final rule, the standard described above for large
foundries represents GACT.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. There are approximately 83
large area source foundries, and approximately two thirds of these
foundries achieve the GACT level of control (0.8 lb/ton). We also
examined options more stringent than 0.8 lb/ton and concluded the more
stringent options were not GACT because of the increased cost, due
primarily to the fact that a significant percentage of the foundries
would have to retrofit or replace their existing emission control
systems. (See 72 FR 52993, September 17, 2007.) As we explained in an
earlier comment response, we re-evaluated the economic impacts of the
rule as proposed and made appropriate changes to improve our cost
estimates and reduce adverse economic impacts. For example, we
estimated that three of the large area source foundries that might have
to install additional controls under the rule as proposed would incur
costs that were greater than 3 percent of revenues based on our revised
analysis of impacts. To minimize economic impacts, we evaluated an
alternative foundry size threshold of 20,000 tpy instead of 10,000 tpy
and found that none of the 30 large area source foundries that might
have to install controls would incur costs greater than 3 percent of
revenues. We also concluded that a threshold of 20,000 tpy still
resulted in significant emission reductions for metal HAP. In addition,
only nine plants were estimated to incur costs that were over 1 percent
of sales. Consequently, we revised the proposed rule to reduce economic
impacts while maintaining significant emission reductions of HAP
metals.
The final GACT standard for large foundries will provide reductions
of 13.2 tpy of compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel,
which are all ``Urban HAP'' for which this category was listed pursuant
to sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k). EPA listed these metal compounds as
Urban HAP because of their significant adverse health effects. A large
portion of the reductions of these Urban HAP will occur in the urban
areas that EPA identified in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.
See CAA 112(k)(3)(C).
The primary HAP emitted from melting iron and steel scrap are
manganese and lead with smaller levels of chromium and nickel. These
metals (especially manganese) are inherent components of the scrap that
is melted, and at the high temperatures used in the melting furnaces,
the HAP metals are unavoidably vaporized and emitted. These metal HAP
are present in the particulate matter emissions from the furnace, and
because they are in particulate form, they can be captured and removed
from the gas stream at high efficiency by control devices designed to
capture PM (such as baghouses). The nature of these emissions and the
HAP composition are unique to iron and steel melting furnaces and are
quite different from the emissions from other processes and operations
that do not involve melting metal scrap at high temperatures.
There are adverse health effects associated with the metal HAP
emitted from melting furnaces such as EIF. Hexavalent chromium and
certain forms of nickel are known human carcinogens. Lead is toxic at
low concentrations, and children are particularly sensitive to the
chronic effects of lead. Chronic exposure to manganese affects the
central nervous system. Additional details on the health and
environmental effects of these HAP can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html.
In addition, 75 percent of the emissions
are in the form of fine particulate matter, and EPA studies have found
that fine particles continue to be a significant source of health risks
in many urban areas.
In summary, the GACT standard for EIFs will reduce the emissions of
urban metal HAP from area source foundries in urban areas, which will
reduce the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. As
discussed earlier, these reductions will be achieved by technology and
management practices that are generally available at large area source
foundries. Furthermore, we have incorporated into this final rule
certain provisions of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) that afford sources additional flexibility. For example, existing
sources can request an additional year to comply with the standard if
they can demonstrate to the permitting authority that such additional
time is needed to install controls. See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A). In
addition, EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 112(l) provide
further flexibility. Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provides
that a State may seek approval of permit terms and conditions that
differ from those specified in a section 112 rule, if the State can
demonstrate that the terms and conditions of the permit are equivalent
to the requirements of this rule. The procedures for seeking approval
of such a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR 63.94.
4. Economic Impacts
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's economic impact assessment
is deficient. The commenter stated that EPA defined this rule as a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, a
definition that triggers specific requirements to provide economic
impact analyses that include a statement of need for the proposed rule,
examination of alternative approaches and analysis of social benefits
and costs. The commenter stated that EPA has not met these requirements
in a clear and comprehensive manner that allows for the evaluation of
the regulatory costs and impacts. The commenter recommended that EPA
provide a direct listing of the projected revenue and compliance costs
for each foundry.
Response: The proposed rule (and this final rule) was declared a
``significant regulatory action'' by the Office of Management and
Budget because it raised novel legal or policy issues. In the preamble
to the proposed rule and supporting material in the docket, EPA met its
obligations under section 6(a)(3)(B) of Executive Order 12866 to
provide ``a reasonably detailed description of the need for the
regulatory action and an explanation of how the regulatory action will
meet that need'' as well as ``an assessment of the potential costs and
benefits of the regulatory action''. Section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive
Order 12866 imposes additional obligations on agencies for economically
significant rules, but these additional obligations do not apply to
this rule because it is not economically significant.
[[Page 248]]
We consider that the level of analysis provided for the proposed
and final rule is appropriate for this rulemaking. We relied on
nationwide impact estimates for the proposed rule (instead of uncertain
facility-specific analyses) and included the relevant analyses in the
docket for public review at proposal (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0359-0007).
A Monte Carlo analysis was used to assess the impacts for this
final rule. This type of analysis provides an excellent means of
determining the average nationwide impacts including average control
cost estimates, average emission reductions, average number of
foundries exceeding a set cost-to-revenue ratio, etc. The Monte Carlo
analysis also provides a means to assess the uncertainty associated
with these impacts. Although the Monte Carlo analysis provides
meaningful nationwide impacts, it does not provide facility-specific
impacts. We have included in the docket all relevant economic impacts
analyses conducted for this final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA underestimated the economic
impact because the compliance costs were underestimated. One commenter
stated that his facility was a small foundry that exceeded the 10,000
tpy threshold. The commenter stated that their revenue was
approximately $5 to 6 million and the control equipment costs would
exceed $1 million for their foundry, which would cause the facility to
declare bankruptcy. Another commenter stated that the rule, as
proposed, would likely cause their facility to close, resulting in a
loss of jobs and exporting the business to countries that have little
or no environmental regulations. Another commenter stated that the
proposed rule would have a significant negative financial impact on
their business and disagreed with the proposed rule requirements.
Response: As described previously, after reviewing and revising
both the emission and cost impact estimates, the impacts of the rule
were re-evaluated. The number of existing foundries potentially
impacted greater than 3 percent of revenues increased to three based on
the revised analysis. Therefore, based on the revised impact analysis,
we concluded that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for
existing large foundries was not appropriate. We evaluated alternative
standards using the revised impacts methodology and selected a 20,000
tpy threshold for existing large foundries for this final rule. We
estimate no foundries will be impacted greater than 3 percent of
revenues at this higher production threshold.
Comment: Six commenters recommended that the economic impacts be
evaluated on the furnace level rather than on the foundry level. The
commenters requested that EPA include only the revenue based on the
portion of the metal produced from a particular furnace that is in need
of additional controls. The commenters stated that this approach will
reduce the revenue for many foundries and make it more likely that the
cost-to-revenue ratio exceeds benchmark thresholds.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. The cost-to-revenue
benchmark is typically evaluated at the entity level. For this
analysis, we evaluated the impacts on the foundry level. It is possible
that some entities operate several foundries. As such, we may have
already overestimated the number of entities impacted greater than a
given cost-to-revenue benchmark.
Comment: One commenter stated that the cost-to-revenue ratio
benchmark thresholds that EPA used are inappropriate for the foundry
industry. The commenter provided data of the ``pre-tax profitability''
(defined by the commenter as income subject to tax divided by total
business receipts) for foundries with assets less than $10 million
averages only 1.02 percent, which is much less than the manufacturing
industry as a whole. The commenter also stated that roughly 70 percent
of foundries did not show a profit at all in 2002 and 2003. The
commenter warned that recent reports indicating that profit margins of
5.4 percent were realized by foundries in 2005 and 2006 were not
statistically designed and were therefore biased toward more profitable
firms. If EPA does consider these recent reports, the commenter urged
EPA to use an average profitability over the past 5 years as a better
indicator of the affordability of compliance costs. The commenter also
stated that U.S. foundries cannot pass on price increases to the
consumer due to international competition, citing a 2005 U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC) report.
Eleven commenters stated that the rule would have an adverse
economic impact on a significant number of foundries due to the
industry's low profit margins and foreign competition. Six of these
commenters also stated that the foundry industry has a common profit
margin of approximately 2 percent so that impacts of 1 percent are
significant to this industry.
Response: First, most foundries with 10,000 tpy or more of metal
charged have assets of $10 million so the 1 percent profit margin
quoted by one of the commenters for these smaller foundries is really
immaterial. It is the profit margin for the larger foundries that are
relevant to the foundries that are materially impacted by this final
rule. Profit margins generally increase with revenue, therefore, the
profit margin for foundries greater than 20,000 tpy are likely well
above the 2 percent values suggested by the commenters, so that impacts
of 1 percent would not impose a significant adverse economic impact.
Based on our revised analysis and the 20,000 tpy threshold, we expect
there will be no foundries impacted greater than 3 percent of revenues,
at most only one foundry may be impacted greater than 2 percent, and an
average of nine foundries would be impacted greater than 1 percent. As
such, we estimate that there will not be a significant adverse economic
impact for a substantial number of iron and steel foundry area sources
subject to this final rule.
Comment: Six commenters stated that the capital investment costs of
roughly $1 million will be incurred by many foundries, and that it will
be difficult to secure financing for such a significant investment for
a non-revenue-generating project. One of the commenters stated that the
high capital investment that would be required by this rule is nearly
three times the capital investment made in the plant (for income
producing equipment) for all of 2007. The commenters recommended that
EPA re-assess the economic impacts in light of their comments.
Response: We appreciate the difficulty making investment in non-
income generating equipment, especially for small facilities. This was
part of the consideration in selecting the higher 20,000 tpy threshold.
However, we are required to establish area source standards based on
our assessment of the industry and, for the reasons discussed in this
preamble, we believe the control technologies and management practices
described above represent GACT for the subcategories at issue in this
final rule.
G. Miscellaneous
Comment: One commenter stated that some of the references in Sec.
63.10890 need correction. In Sec. 63.10892(c)(2), references are made
to Sec. 63.10892(b)(2) and (3) which do not exist and in Sec.
63.10890(d)(4), there is a reference to (b)(2) which does not exist.
Response: We have revised the proposed rule to correct these
citations.
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA specify the document
retention
[[Page 249]]
time for information not submitted to the agency.
Response: We have revised the proposed recordkeeping requirements
for small and large foundries to specify a 5-year period for record
retention.
V. Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule
We estimate that the final rule (using 20,000 tpy as the production
capacity threshold for existing affected sources) will reduce emissions
of HAP metal compounds by 13.7 tpy and will reduce PM emissions by 380
tpy from the baseline. Additionally, the final standard is expected to
reduce emissions of organic HAP by 32 tpy. The total capital cost of
the final standard is estimated at $17 million. The annual operating,
maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs of the
final standard are estimated at $3.2 million per year. The total
annualized cost of the final standard, including the annualized cost of
capital equipment, is estimated at $4.8 million. Additional information
on our impact estimates on the sources is available in the docket. (See
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359.)
The final standard is estimated to impact a total of 427 area
source iron and steel foundries. When subcategorizing foundries by
production thresholds, we estimate that 83 of these foundries are large
iron and steel foundries and 344 foundries are small iron and steel
foundries. Approximately 35 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 include solid waste generated as a result of
the PM emissions collected and energy impacts associated with operation
of control devices. At a 20,000 tpy production capacity threshold, we
estimate that 440 tpy of solid waste will be generated and an
additional 4,400 megawatts per hour (MW-hr) of electrical energy will
be consumed each year as a result of the final standard.
VI. 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 rule have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (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 2267.02. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final 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 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 are 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 are
required to maintain monthly production data to support their
classification as a large or small foundry.
The final 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 must 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 are required to prepare and follow an O&M
plan, conduct initial performance tests and follow-up tests every 5
years, conduct control device inspections or 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 is 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 must 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 is required to demonstrate compliance
for each calendar month using a calculation procedure in the rule. The
owner or operator of a large foundry is 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 must 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 6,064 labor hours per
year at a cost of $420,718 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 final standards (based on a
subcategorization using an annual metal melt production threshold of
20,000 tons for an existing affected source classified as a small
foundry).
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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the
[[Page 250]]
Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.
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 final 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 final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are iron and steel
foundries that are area sources. We estimate that this rule will impact
a total of 427 area source iron and steel foundries; 319 of these
foundries are small entities based on employment. We estimate that 83
of these foundries are large iron and steel foundries (metal melt
production greater than 20,000 tpy), and 344 foundries are small iron
and steel foundries (metal melt production of 20,000 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 2.3 percent. The analysis
also shows that of the 30 existing foundries owned by small entities
subject to the requirements for large foundries (i.e., exceeding 20,000
tpy melt production), no small entity will incur economic impacts
exceeding 3 percent of its revenue and only one small entity will incur
economic impacts exceeding 2 percent of its revenue.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. This final
rule minimizes the impact on small entities by applying special
provisions for small foundries that melt low quantities of metal (less
than 20,000 tpy). Small iron and steel foundries are 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 final 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.
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 final 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 final rule is not expected to impact
State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, this final rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA
has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
final rule contains no requirements that apply to such governments, and
imposes no obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism'' (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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule does not impose
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (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
[[Page 251]]
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes no requirements on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.
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 final 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 final rule is 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 it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects because energy requirements will not be
significantly impacted by the additional pollution controls or other
equipment that are required by this final rule.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, 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 final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 9, 22, and 29 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
and EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2,
November 1994) (incorporated by reference-see Sec. 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, 22, 29, or 9095B. The
search and review results are in the docket for this rule.
One VCS was identified as applicable to this final rule. The
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,''
(incorporated by reference-see Sec. 63.14) is cited in this final 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 final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for
the purposes of this final rule. Therefore, EPA is not adopting these
standards for this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the
13 methods are discussed in a memorandum in the docket for this final
rule.
For the methods required or referenced by this final 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.
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 final 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 will reduce HAP emissions
and thus decrease the amount of emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this
final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on January 2, 2008.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporations by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[[Page 252]]
Dated: December 14, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[AMENDED]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (k)(1)(i)
through (iv) 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) * * *
(i) Method 0023A, ``Sampling Method for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran Emissions from Stationary
Sources,'' dated December 1996, IBR approved for Sec. 63.1208(b)(1) of
Subpart EEE of this part.
(ii) Method 9071B, ``n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) for
Sludge, Sediment, and Solid Samples,'' dated April 1998, IBR approved
for Sec. 63.7824(e) of Subpart FFFFF of this part.
(iii) Method 9095A, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' dated December
1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.7700(b) and 63.7765 of Subpart
EEEEE of this part.
(iv) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2),
dated November 2004, IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic
liquids'' in Sec. 63.10692, Sec. 63.10885(a)(1), and the definition
of ``Free liquids'' in Sec. 63.10906.
* * * * *
0
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
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.10880 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.10881 What are my compliance dates?
Pollution Prevention Management Practices for New and Existing Affected
Sources
63.10885 What are my management practices for metallic scrap and
mercury switches?
63.10886 What are my management practices for binder formulations?
Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Small
Foundries
63.10890 What are my management practices and compliance
requirements?
Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large
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 my large
foundry?
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
New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries
Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Establishment of Operating Limits
for New Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large
Foundries
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Compliance Certifications for New
and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large 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.
If an affected source is not new pursuant to the preceding sentence, it
is not new as a result of a change in its compliance obligations
pursuant to Sec. 63.10881(d).
(c) On and after January 2, 2008, 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) If you own or operate an existing affected source, 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 20,000 tons or less, your area source is a
small foundry. If your metal melt production for calendar year 2008 is
greater than 20,000 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 January
2, 2009.
(g) If you own or operate a new affected source, 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 annual metal
melting capacity at startup. If the annual metal melting capacity is
10,000 tons or less, your area source is a small foundry. If the annual
metal melting capacity 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 120 days after startup.
[[Page 253]]
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) through (3) of this section.
(1) Not later than January 2, 2009 for the pollution prevention
management practices for metallic scrap in Sec. 63.10885(a) and binder
formulations in Sec. 63.10886.
(2) Not later than January 4, 2010 for the pollution prevention
management practices for mercury in Sec. 63.10885(b).
(3) 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 January 2, 2008, you must achieve compliance with
the provisions of this subpart not later than January 2, 2008.
(c) If you own or operate a new affected source for which the
initial startup date is after January 2, 2008, you must achieve
compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon startup of your
affected source.
(d) Following the initial determination for an existing affected
source required in Sec. 63.10880(f),
(1) Beginning January 1, 2010, if the annual metal melt production
of your small foundry exceeds 20,000 tons during the preceding calendar
year, you must submit a notification of foundry reclassification to 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 metal melt production exceeded 20,000 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 metal melt production exceeded 20,000
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 metal melt production falls below 20,000 tons. After 3 years,
you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided your
annual metal melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000
tons or less. If you reclassify your large foundry as a small foundry,
you must submit a notification of reclassification to the Administrator
within 30 days and comply with the requirements for a small foundry no
later than the date you notify the Administrator of the
reclassification. If the annual metal melt production exceeds 20,000
tons during a subsequent year, you must submit a notification of
reclassification to the Administrator within 30 days and comply with
the requirements for a large foundry no later than the date you notify
the Administrator of the reclassification.
(e) Following the initial determination for a new affected source
required in Sec. 63.10880(g),
(1) If you increase the annual metal melt capacity of your small
foundry to exceed 10,000 tons, you must submit a notification of
reclassification to the Administrator within 30 days and comply with
the requirements for a large foundry no later than the startup date for
the new equipment, if applicable, or the date of issuance for your
revised State or Federal operating permit.
(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. After 3 years,
you may reclassify your facility as a small foundry provided your most
recent annual metal melt capacity is 10,000 tons or less. If you
reclassify your large foundry as a small foundry, you must notify the
Administrator within 30 days and comply with the requirements for a
small foundry no later than the date your melting equipment was removed
or taken out of service, if applicable, or the date of issuance for
your revised State or Federal operating permit.
Pollution Prevention Management Practices for New and Existing Affected
Sources
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 providers. 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 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14). The
requirements for no free liquids do not apply if the owner or operator
can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted from scrap
exposure to rain.
(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) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section,
specifications for metallic scrap materials charged to a scrap
preheater or metal melting furnace to 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 a program to ensure the scrap materials are drained
of free liquids.
(ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is
equipped with an afterburner, specifications for metallic scrap
materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of
chlorinated plastics, accessible lead-containing components (such as
batteries and wheel weights), and a program to ensure the scrap
materials are drained of free liquids.
(b) Mercury requirements. For scrap containing motor vehicle scrap,
you must procure the scrap pursuant to one of the compliance options in
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each scrap provider,
contract, or shipment.
[[Page 254]]
For scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap, you must procure
the scrap pursuant to the requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You may have
one scrap provider, contract, or shipment subject to one compliance
provision and others subject to another compliance provision.
(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. You must operate
according to the plan as submitted during the review and approval
process, operate according to the approved plan at all times after
approval, and address any deficiency identified by the Administrator or
delegated authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan. You
may request approval to revise the plan and may operate according to
the revised plan unless and until the revision is disapproved by the
Administrator or delegated authority. The Administrator or delegated
authority 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
management of the mercury switches removed from the scrap as required
under the rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The
plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to
communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to
promote the removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon
the request of the Administrator or delegated authority, you must
provide examples of materials that are used for outreach to suppliers,
such as letters, contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and
scrap inspection protocols;
(B) Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers motor
vehicle scrap provided to the facility meet the scrap specification;
(C) Provisions for periodic inspections 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 the mercury switches removed
are being properly managed, including the minimum frequency such means
of corroboration will be implemented; and
(D) Provisions for taking corrective actions (i.e., actions
resulting in scrap providers removing a higher percentage of mercury
switches or other mercury-containing components) 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 each scrap supplier to remove 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) For each scrap provider, 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 estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent
of mercury switches removed, and certification that the removed mercury
switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise
properly managed pursuant to RCRA subtitle C regulations referenced in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. This information can be
submitted in aggregate form and does not have to be submitted for each
shipment. 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) Option 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. If you purchase motor vehicle scrap from a
broker, you must certify that all scrap received from that broker was
obtained from other scrap providers who participate in a program for
the 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. The National Mercury Switch Recovery Program and
the State of Maine Mercury Switch Removal Program are EPA-approved
programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section unless and until the
Administrator disapproves the program (in part or in whole) under
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) The program includes outreach 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 to remove at least 80 percent of
mercury switches from motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider processes.
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 weight of mercury recovered
from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
facilities with permits as required under the rules implementing
subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The progress
reports must be based on a database that includes data for each program
participant; however, data may be aggregated at the State level for
progress reports that will be publicly available. The Administrator may
change the approval status of a program or portion of a program (e.g.,
at the State level) following 90-days notice based on the progress
reports or on other information.
[[Page 255]]
(iv) You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the
manner through which your facility is participating in the EPA-approved
program.
(A) The plan must include facility-specific implementation
elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a
trade association as appropriate for each facility.
(B) You must provide in the plan documentation of direction to
appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap
supply chain the need to promote the removal or mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the Administrator or
delegated authority, you must provide examples of materials that are
used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, contract language,
policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection protocols.
(C) You must conduct periodic inspections or other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware of the need for
and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of
mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
(3) Option for specialty metal scrap. You must certify in your
notification of compliance status and maintain records of documentation
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.
(4) Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. For scrap not
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section, you must certify in your notification of compliance status and
maintain records of documentation that this scrap does not contain
motor vehicle scrap.
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 New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Small
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. 63.10885(b)(1) and/or ``This facility participates in and
purchases motor vehicle 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. 63.10885(b)(2) and has prepared a
plan for participation in the EPA-approved program according to Sec.
63.10885(b)(2)(iv)'' and/or ``The only materials from motor vehicles in
the scrap charged to a metal melting furnace at this facility are
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content in accordance
with Sec. 63.10885(b)(3) which are not reasonably expected to contain
mercury switches'' and/or ``This facility complies with the
requirements for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap in
accordance with Sec. 63.10885(b)(4).''
(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) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the
most recent 2 years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3
years of data may be retained off site. Such files may be maintained on
microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape
disks, or on microfiche.
(e) You must maintain records of the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(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) and/
or for the use of general scrap in Sec. 63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury
in Sec. 63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as applicable. You must keep
records documenting compliance with Sec. 63.10885(b)(4) for scrap that
does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
(3) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury switch removal under 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 estimated 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 estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a
certification that you have conducted periodic inspections or taken
other means of corroboration as required under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must identify which option in paragraph
Sec. 63.10885(b) applies to each scrap provider, contract, or
shipment. You may include this information in the semiannual compliance
reports required under paragraph (f) of this section.
(4) If you are subject to the option 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. If you purchase motor vehicle
scrap from a broker, you must maintain records
[[Page 256]]
identifying each broker and documentation that all scrap provided by
the broker was obtained from other scrap providers who participate 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 provides information on
the binder or coating materials used.
(7) Records of metal melt production for each calendar year.
(f) You must submit semiannual compliance 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.
(g) You must submit a written notification to the Administrator of
the initial classification of your facility as a small foundry as
required in Sec. 63.10880(f) and (g), as applicable, and for any
subsequent reclassification as required in Sec. 63.10881(d)(1) or (e),
as applicable.
(h) Following the initial determination for an existing affected
source as a small foundry, if the annual metal melt production exceeds
20,000 tons during the preceding year, you must comply with the
requirements for large foundries by the applicable dates in Sec.
63.10881(d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii). Following the initial determination
for a new affected source as a small foundry, if you increase the
annual metal melt capacity to exceed 10,000 tons, you must comply with
the requirements for a large foundry by the applicable dates in Sec.
63.10881(e)(1).
(i) You must comply with the following requirements of the 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 of the General Provisions not cited
in the preceding sentence do not apply to the owner or operator of a
new or existing affected source that is classified as a small foundry.
Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large
Iron and Steel Foundries
Sec. 63.10895 What are my standards and management practices?
(a) If you own or operate an affected source that is a large
foundry as defined in Sec. 63.10906, you must comply with the
pollution prevention management practices in Sec. Sec. 63.10885 and
63.10886, the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this
section, and the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.10896 through 63.10900.
(b) You must operate a capture and collection system for each metal
melting furnace at a new or existing iron and steel foundry unless that
furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part of an emissions averaging
group. Each capture and collection system must meet accepted
engineering standards, such as those published by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
(c) 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 (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
When an alternative emissions limit is provided for a given emissions
source, you are not restricted in the selection of which applicable
alternative emissions limit is used to demonstrate compliance.
(1) For an existing iron and steel foundry, 0.8 pounds of
particulate matter (PM) per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds of
total metal HAP per ton of metal charged.
(2) For a new iron and steel foundry, 0.1 pounds of PM per ton of
metal charged or 0.008 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal
charged.
(d) If you own or operate a new affected source, you must comply
with each control device parameter operating limit in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (2) 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.
(e) If you own or operate a new or existing iron and steel foundry,
you must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive emissions 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 30 percent.
Sec. 63.10896 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for each control device
for an emissions source subject to a PM, metal HAP, or opacity
emissions limit in Sec. 63.10895. 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 that are equipped with bag leak detection
systems, the O&M plan must include the site-specific monitoring plan
required in Sec. 63.10897(d)(2).
(4) Identity and estimated quantity of the replacement parts that
will be maintained in inventory; and
(5) For a new affected source, procedures for operating and
maintaining a 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) You must conduct an initial inspection of each PM control
device for a metal melting furnace at an existing affected source. You
must conduct each initial inspection no later than 60 days after your
applicable compliance date for each installed control device which has
been operated within 60 days of the compliance date. For an installed
control device which has not operated within 60 days of the compliance
date, you must conduct an initial inspection prior to startup of the
control device. Following the initial inspections, you must perform
periodic inspections and maintenance of each PM control device
[[Page 257]]
for a metal melting furnace at an existing affected source. You must
perform the initial and periodic inspections according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section. You must
record the results of each initial and periodic inspection and any
maintenance action in the logbook required in Sec. 63.10899(b)(13).
(1) For the initial inspection of each baghouse, you must visually
inspect the system ductwork and baghouse units for leaks. You must also
inspect the inside of each baghouse for structural integrity and fabric
filter condition. Following the initial inspections, you must inspect
and maintain each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork for leaks.
(ii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the baghouse
for structural integrity and to determine the condition of the fabric
filter every 6 months.
(2) For the initial inspection of each dry electrostatic
precipitator, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic
controls for corona power and rapper operation, that the corona wires
are energized, and that adequate air pressure is present on the rapper
manifold. You must also visually inspect the system ductwork and
electrostatic housing unit and hopper for leaks and inspect the
interior of the electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition
and integrity of corona wires, collection plates, hopper, and air
diffuser plates. Following the initial inspection, you must inspect and
maintain each dry electrostatic precipitator according to the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power and rapper
operation, that the corona wires are energized, and that adequate air
pressure is present on the rapper manifold.
(ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork, housing unit, and hopper for leaks.
(iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, plate rappers, hopper, and air
diffuser plates every 24 months.
(3) For the initial inspection of each wet electrostatic
precipitator, you must verify the proper functioning of the electronic
controls for corona power, that the corona wires are energized, and
that water flow is present. You must also visually inspect the system
ductwork and electrostatic precipitator housing unit and hopper for
leaks and inspect the interior of the electrostatic precipitator to
determine the condition and integrity of corona wires, collection
plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and air diffuser plates.
Following the initial inspection, you must inspect and maintain each
wet electrostatic precipitator according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the proper
functioning of the electronic controls for corona power, that the
corona wires are energized, and that water flow is present.
(ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork, electrostatic precipitator housing unit, and hopper for
leaks.
(iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the
electrostatic precipitator to determine the condition and integrity of
corona wires, collection plates, plate wash spray heads, hopper, and
air diffuser plates every 24 months.
(4) For the initial inspection of each wet scrubber, you must
verify the presence of water flow to the scrubber. You must also
visually inspect the system ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks and
inspect the interior of the scrubber for structural integrity and the
condition of the demister and spray nozzle. Following the initial
inspection, you must inspect and maintain each wet scrubber according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) You must conduct a daily inspection to verify the presence of
water flow to the scrubber.
(ii) You must conduct monthly visual inspections of the system
ductwork and scrubber unit for leaks.
(iii) You must conduct inspections of the interior of the scrubber
to determine the structural integrity and condition of the demister and
spray nozzle every 12 months.
(b) For each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace at a new affected source, you must use a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) to measure and record the 3-hour average
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate.
(c) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace at a new affected source, you must measure and
record the hourly average voltage and secondary current (or total power
input) using a CPMS.
(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 inspection requirements in paragraph (a)(1)
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 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.
[[Page 258]]
(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 as soon as
practicable, but no later than 90 days. 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 an 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(c) 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).
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(c) and for each building or structure
housing foundry operations that is subject to the opacity limit for
fugitive emissions in Sec. 63.10895(e). 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 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 with the applicable
emissions limit 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.
(3) If you have an electric induction furnace equipped with an
emissions control device at an existing foundry, you may use the test
results from another electric induction furnace to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limit in
Sec. 63.10895(c) provided the furnaces are similar with respect to the
type of emission control device that is used, the composition of the
scrap charged, furnace size, and furnace melting temperature.
(4) If you have an uncontrolled electric induction furnace at an
existing foundry, you may use the test results from another electric
induction furnace to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or
total metal HAP emissions limit in Sec. 63.10895(c) provided the test
results are prior to any control device and the electric induction
furnaces are similar with respect to the composition of the scrap
charged, furnace size, and furnace melting temperature.
(5) For electric induction furnaces that do not have emission
capture systems, you may install a temporary enclosure for the purpose
of representative sampling of emissions. A
[[Page 259]]
permanent enclosure and capture system is not required for the purpose
of the performance test.
(b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP emissions limits
in Sec. 63.10895(c) 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(c) for a metal melting furnace in
a lb/ton of metal charged format, compute the process-weighted mass
emissions (E\p\) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JA08.000
Where:
Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions rate of PM or total
metal HAP, pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton (lb/ton) of metal
charged;
C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP measured during
performance test run, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, dry standard cubic feet per
hour (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(c) 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] TR02JA08.001
Where:
EC = The mass-weighted PM or total metal HAP emissions
for the group of all metal melting furnaces at the foundry, pounds
of PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal charged;
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,
pounds of PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal charged;
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 and has not been previously tested for
PM or total metal HAP, you may assume an emissions factor of 2 pounds
per ton of PM or 0.13 pounds 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(c)
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] TR02JA08.002
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] TR02JA08.003
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, pounds of PM or
total metal HAP per ton of metal charged; and
Ep1i = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM (or total
metal HAP) in the uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, pounds of
PM or total metal HAP per ton of metal charged.
(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-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(e) no less
frequently than every 6 months and each time you make
[[Page 260]]
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 for a new affected source
during the initial performance test according to the requirements in
Table 2 of this subpart.
(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(c).
(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) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the
most recent 2 years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3
years of data may be retained off site. Such files may be maintained on
microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape
disks, or on microfiche.
(b) In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, you must
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(13) of this section.
(1) You must keep 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) and/or for the use of general scrap in Sec.
63.10885(a)(2) and for mercury in Sec. 63.10885(b)(1) through (3), as
applicable. You must keep records documenting compliance with Sec.
63.10885(b)(4) for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
(2) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury under 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 estimated 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 estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a
certification that you have conducted periodic inspections or taken
other means of corroboration as required under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C). You must identify which option in Sec.
63.10885(b) applies to each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You
may include this information in the semiannual compliance reports
required under paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) If you are subject to the option 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. If your scrap provider is a
broker, you must maintain records identifying each of the broker's
scrap suppliers and documenting the scrap supplier's participation in
an approved mercury switch removal program.
(4) You must keep records to document use of any 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) You must keep 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) You must keep records of monthly metal melt production for each
calendar year.
(7) You must keep a copy of the 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, you must keep records of the
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) If applicable, you must keep 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) You must keep records of capture system inspections and
repairs as required by Sec. 63.10897(e).
(11) You must keep records demonstrating conformance with your
specifications for the operation of CPMS as required by Sec.
63.10897(f).
(12) You must keep records of corrective action(s) for exceedances
and excursions as required by Sec. 63.10897(g).
(13) You must record the results of each inspection and maintenance
required by Sec. 63.10897(a) for PM control devices in a logbook
(written or electronic format). You must keep the logbook onsite and
make the logbook available to the Administrator upon request. You must
keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (b)(13)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date and time of each recorded action for a fabric filter,
the results of each inspection, and the results of any maintenance
performed on the bag filters.
(ii) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet or dry
electrostatic precipitator (including ductwork), the results of each
inspection, and the results of any maintenance performed for the
electrostatic precipitator.
(iii) The date and time of each recorded action for a wet scrubber
(including ductwork), the results of each inspection, and the results
of any maintenance performed on the wet scrubber.
(c) You must submit semiannual compliance 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
[[Page 261]]
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 Sec. 63.10896 and the
corrective action taken.
(d) You must submit written notification to the Administrator of
the initial classification of your new or existing affected source as a
large iron and steel facility as required in Sec. 63.10880(f) and (g),
as applicable, and for any subsequent reclassification as required in
Sec. 63.10881(d) or (e), as applicable.
Sec. 63.10900 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my large
foundry?
(a) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that is
classified as a large foundry, you must comply with the requirements of
the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) according to Table 3
of this subpart.
(b) If you own or operator a new or existing affected source that
is classified as a large foundry, 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, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency 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 (6) 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.
(6) Approval of a local, State, or national mercury switch removal
program under Sec. 63.10885(b)(2).
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.
Annual metal melt capacity means the lower of the total metal
melting furnace equipment melt rate capacity assuming 8,760 operating
hours per year summed for all metal melting furnaces at the foundry or,
if applicable, the maximum permitted metal melt production rate for the
iron and steel foundry calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise
specified in the permit, permitted metal melt production rates that are
not specified on an annual basis must be annualized assuming 24 hours
per day, 365 days per year of operation. If the permit limits the
operating hours of the furnace(s) or foundry, then the permitted
operating hours are used to annualize the maximum permitted metal melt
production rate.
Annual 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 in a given calendar year. 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 for each furnace in a given calendar year is the
annual metal melt production of the foundry.
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.
Chlorinated plastics means solid polymeric materials that contain
chlorine in the polymer chain, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PVC
copolymers.
Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by a
metal melting furnace.
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
[[Page 262]]
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 mean 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 liquids
test by EPA Method 9095B, Revision 2, November 1994 (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.
Fugitive emissions means any pollutant released to the atmosphere
that is not discharged through a system of equipment that is
specifically designed to capture pollutants at the source, convey them
through ductwork, and exhaust them using forced ventilation. Fugitive
emissions include pollutants released to the atmosphere through
windows, doors, vents, or other building openings. Fugitive emissions
also include pollutants released to the atmosphere through other
general building ventilation or exhaust systems not specifically
designed to capture pollutants at the source.
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, operations that only produce non-commercial
castings, and operations associated with nonferrous metal production
are not included in this definition.
Large foundry means, for an existing affected source, an iron and
steel foundry with an annual metal melt production greater than 20,000
tons. For a new affected source, large foundry means an iron and steel
foundry with an annual metal melt capacity greater than 10,000 tons.
Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed
in a vehicle.
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.
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 greensand molds or cores.
Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and
usually is operated with rubber tires for use on highways.
Motor vehicle scrap means vehicle or automobile bodies, including
automobile body hulks, that have been processed through a shredder.
Motor vehicle scrap does not include automobile manufacturing bundles,
or miscellaneous vehicle parts, such as wheels, bumpers, or other
components that do not contain mercury switches.
Nonferrous metal means any pure metal other than iron or any metal
alloy for which an element other than iron is its major constituent in
percent by weight.
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.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.
63.2.
Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate 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.
Scrap provider means the person (including a broker) who contracts
directly with an iron and steel foundry to provide motor vehicle scrap.
Scrap processors such as shredder operators or vehicle dismantlers that
do not sell scrap directly to a foundry are not scrap providers.
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 foundry means, for an existing affected source, an iron and
steel foundry that has an annual metal melt production of 20,000 tons
or less. For a new affected source, small foundry means an iron and
steel foundry that has an annual metal melt capacity of 10,000 tons 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-8).
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.
Tables to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63
[[Page 263]]
Table 1 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Performance Test Requirements for
New and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries
[As required in Sec. 63.10898(c) and (h), you must conduct performance
tests according to the test methods and procedures in the following
table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For. . . You must. . . following
requirements. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each metal melting a. Select sampling Sampling sites must
furnace subject to a PM or port locations and be located at the
total metal HAP limit in the number of outlet of the
Sec. 63.10895(c). traverse points in control device (or
each stack or duct at the outlet of
using EPA Method 1 the emissions
or 1A (40 CFR part source if no
60, appendix A). control device is
b. Determine present) prior to
volumetric flow any releases to the
rate of the stack atmosphere.
gas using Method 2, i. Collect a minimum
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or sample volume of 60
2G (40 CFR part 60, dscf of gas during
appendix A). each PM sampling
c. Determine dry run. The PM
molecular weight of concentration is
the stack gas using determined using
EPA Method 3, 3A, only the front-half
or 3B (40 CFR part (probe rinse and
60, appendix A).\1\. filter) of the PM
d. Measure moisture catch.
content of the ii. For Method 29,
stack gas using EPA only the measured
Method 4 (40 CFR concentration of
part 60, appendix the listed metal
A). HAP analytes that
e. Determine PM are present at
concentration using concentrations
EPA Method 5, 5B, exceeding one-half
5D, 5F, or 5I, as the quantification
applicable or total limit of the
metal HAP analytical method
concentration using are to be used in
EPA Method 29 (40 the sum. If any of
CFR part 60, the analytes are
appendix A). 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 a. Using a certified i. The certified
buildings or structures observer, conduct observer may
housing any iron and steel each opacity test identify a limited
foundry emissions sources according to EPA number of openings
subject to opacity limit in Method 9 (40 CFR or vents that
Sec. 63.10895(e). part 60, appendix A- appear to have the
4) and 40 CFR highest opacities
63.6(h)(5). 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.
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.
[[Page 264]]
b. As alternative to i. The observer may
Method 9 identify a limited
performance test, number of openings
conduct visible or vents that
emissions test by appear to have the
Method 22 (40 CFR highest visible
part 60, appendix A- emissions and
7). The test is perform
successful if no observations on the
visible emissions identified openings
are observed for 90 or vents in lieu of
percent of the performing
readings over 1 observations for
hour. If VE is each opening or
observed greater vent from the
than 10 percent of building or
the time over 1 structure.
hour, then the Alternatively, a
facility must single observation
conduct another for the entire
performance test as building or
soon as possible, structure may be
but no later than performed, if the
15 calendar days fugitive release
after the Method 22 points afford such
test, using Method an observation.
9 (40 CFR part 60, ii. During testing
appendix A-4). intervals when PM
or total metal HAP
performance tests,
if applicable, are
being conducted,
conduct the visible
emissions test such
that the
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).
Table 2 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Procedures for Establishing
Operating Limits for New Affected Sources Classified as Large Foundries
[As required in Sec. 63.10898(k), you must establish operating limits
using the procedures in the following table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each wet scrubber subject Using the CPMS required in Sec.
to the operating limits in 63.10897(b), measure and record the
Sec. 63.10895(d)(1) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow
pressure drop and scrubber rate in intervals of no more than 15
water flow rate. minutes during each PM or total metal
HAP test run. Compute and record the
average pressure drop and average
scrubber water flow rate for all the
valid sampling runs in which the
applicable emissions limit is met.
2. Each electrostatic Using the CPMS required in Sec.
precipitator subject to 63.10897(c), measure and record voltage
operating limits in Sec. and secondary current (or total power
63.10895(d)(2) for voltage input) in intervals of no more than 15
and secondary current (or minutes during each PM or total metal
total power input). 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to New and Existing Affected Sources
Classified as Large Foundries
[As required in Sec. 63.10900(a), you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to large
Citation Subject 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)- Monitoring requirements Yes.
(c)(3), (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.
63.8(c)(5).......................... Continuous opacity No.
monitoring system
(COMS) minimum
procedures.
63.8(g)(5).......................... Data reduction......... No.
[[Page 265]]
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63.--Compliance Certifications for New
and Existing Affected Sources Classified as Large Iron and Steel
Foundries
[As required by Sec. 63.10900(b), your notification of compliance
status must include certifications of compliance according to the
following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your notification of compliance status
required by Sec. 63.9(h) must include
For. . . this certification of compliance, signed
by a responsible official:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each new or existing affected ``This facility has prepared, and will
source classified as a large operate by, written material
foundry and subject to scrap specifications for metallic scrap
management requirements in according to Sec. 63.10885(a)(1)'' and/
Sec. 63.10885(a)(1) and/or or ``This facility has prepared, and
(2). will operate by, written material
specifications for general iron and
steel scrap according to Sec.
63.10885(a)(2).''
Each new or existing affected ``This facility has prepared, and will
source classified as a large operate by, written material
foundry and subject to specifications for the removal of
mercury switch removal mercury switches and a site-specific
requirements in Sec. plan implementing the material
63.10885(b). specifications according to Sec.
63.10885(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 EPA Administrator
according to Sec. 63.10885(b)(2) and
have prepared a plan for participation
in the EPA approved program according to
Sec. 63.10885(b)(2)(iv)'' and/or ``The
only materials from motor vehicles in
the scrap charged to a metal melting
furnace at this facility are materials
recovered for their specialty alloy
content in accordance with Sec.
63.10885(b)(3) which are not reasonably
expected to contain mercury switches''
and/or ``This facility complies with the
requirements for scrap that does not
contain motor vehicle scrap in
accordance with Sec. 63.10885(b)(4).''
Each new or existing affected ``This facility complies with the no
source classified as a large methanol requirement for the catalyst
foundry and subject to Sec. portion of each binder chemical
63.10886. formulation for a furfuryl alcohol warm
box mold or core making line according
to Sec. 63.10886.''
Each new or existing affected ``This facility operates a capture and
source classified as a large collection system for each emissions
foundry and subject to Sec. source subject to this subpart according
63.10895(b). to Sec. 63.10895(b).''
Each existing affected source ``This facility complies with the PM or
classified as a large total metal HAP emissions limit in Sec.
foundry and subject to Sec. 63.10895(c) for each metal melting
63.10895(c)(1). 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 ``This facility has prepared and will
source classified as a large operate by an operation and maintenance
foundry and subject to Sec. plan according to Sec. 63.10896(a).''
63.10896(a).
Each new or existing (if ``This facility has prepared and will
applicable) affected source operate by a site-specific monitoring
classified as a large plan for each bag leak detection system
foundry and subject to Sec. and submitted the plan to the
63.10897(d). Administrator for approval according to
Sec. 63.10897(d)(2).''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-24836 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P