[Federal Register: December 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 246)]
[Proposed Rule]
[Page 78273-78316]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de02-26]
[[Page 78273]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries; Proposed Rule
[[Page 78274]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0034; FRL-7416-4]
RIN 2060-AE43
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries. The EPA has
identified iron and steel foundries as a major source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions. These proposed standards will implement
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major
sources to meet HAP emissions standards reflecting application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
The HAP emitted by facilities in the iron and steel foundries
source category include metal and organic compounds. For iron and steel
foundries that produce low alloy metal castings, metal HAP emitted are
primarily lead and manganese with smaller amounts of cadmium, chromium,
and nickel. For iron and steel foundries that produce high alloy metal
or stainless steel castings, metal HAP emissions of chromium and nickel
can be significant. Organic HAP emissions include acetophenone,
benzene, cumene, dibenzofurans, dioxins, formaldehyde, methanol,
naphthalene, phenol, pyrene, toluene, triethylamine, and xylene.
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects, including cancer and chronic or acute disorders of the
respiratory, reproductive, and central nervous systems. The proposed
NESHAP would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from iron and steel
foundries by over 900 tons per year (tpy).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 21, 2003.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by January 13, 2003, a public hearing will be held on
January 22, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail,
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC at 10 a.m.
Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Cassie Posey, Metals Group (MD-C439-02), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0069, at
least 2 days in advance of the hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, (MD-
C439-02), Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2364, electronic mail (e-mail) address,
cavender.kevin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS Examples of regulated
Category code* entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... 331511 Iron foundries.
........ Iron and steel plants.
........ Automotive and large
equipment manufacturers.
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel foundries (except
investment).
Federal government................ ........ Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..... ........ Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*North American Information Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7682 of the
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034. The official public docket is
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the
Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket at the EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), EPA West, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system,
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search'' and key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is
[[Page 78275]]
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public
docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material,
will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk
or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on
the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not
edit your comment and any identifying or contact information provided
in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that
is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's
electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select
``search'' and key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034. The system is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to air-and-r-
docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Iron
and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S.
EPA West, (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034.
By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments (in duplicate,
if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0034. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket
Center's normal hours of operation.
By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Iron
and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034.
CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, 109 TW
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Docket ID
No. OAR-2002-0034. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as
CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule is also available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be placed
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
C. What Processes Are Used at Iron and Steel Foundries?
D. What HAP are Emitted and how are they Controlled?
E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From
Iron and Steel Foundries?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Are the Affected Sources?
B. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limitations?
C. What Are the Proposed Work Practice Standards?
D. What Are the Proposed Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
E. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Demonstrating Initial
and Continuous Compliance?
F. What Are the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
G. What Are the Proposed Compliance Deadlines?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?
B. What Other Emissions Sources Did We Consider?
C. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed
Standards for Emissions Sources in the Metal Casting Department?
E. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed
Standards for Emissions Sources in the Mold and Core Making
Department?
F. How Did We Select the Proposed Initial Compliance
Requirements?
G. How Did We Select the Proposed Continuous Compliance
Requirements?
H. How Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping,
and Reporting Requirements?
[[Page 78276]]
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
B. What Aare the Cost Impacts?
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental, and Energy
Impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
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 Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish technology-
based regulations for all categories and subcategories of major sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b). Major sources
are those that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of
any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. The EPA may later
develop additional standards under section 112(f) to address residual
risk that may remain even after application of the technology-based
controls.
Area sources are stationary sources of HAP that are not major
sources. The regulation of area sources is discretionary. If there is a
finding of a threat of adverse effects on human health or the
environment, then the source category can be added to the list of area
sources to be regulated.
Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list all categories of
major and area sources of HAP for which we would develop national
emissions standards. We published the initial list of source categories
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). ``Iron Foundries'' and ``Steel
Foundries'' were two of the source categories on the initial list. The
1992 listing of these source category is based on our determination
that iron foundries and steel foundries may reasonably be anticipated
to emit one or more HAP listed in section 112(b) in quantities
sufficient to be major sources. We combined these two categories into
one category, ``Iron and Steel Foundries.'' We believe this is
reasonable because of the similarities in processes, emissions, and
controls. Also, several foundries pour both iron and steel. This
proposed rule will apply to each new and existing iron and steel
foundry.
Approximately 650 iron and steel foundries exist in the U.S. Of
these, about 100 iron and steel foundries are anticipated to be major
sources of HAP. Most of these major sources are foundries that are
operated by manufacturers of automobiles and large industrial equipment
and by suppliers of these manufacturers.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category of subcategory (or the best performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
C. What Processes Are Used at Iron and Steel Foundries?
Iron and steel foundries manufacture castings by pouring molten
iron or steel melted in a furnace into a mold of a desired shape. The
primary processing units of interest at iron and steel foundries
because of their potential to generate HAP emissions are: metal melting
furnaces; scrap preheaters; pouring areas; pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines; mold and core making lines; and mold and core coating
lines.
Metal Melting Furnaces
There are three types of furnaces used to melt scrap metal at iron
and steel foundries: cupolas, electric arc furnaces, and electric
induction furnaces. Cupolas are used exclusively to produce molten
iron; electric arc furnaces and electric induction furnaces are used to
produce either molten iron or molten steel.
Cupolas. A cupola is vertical cylindrical shaft furnace that uses
coke and forms of iron and steel, such as scrap and foundry returns, as
the primary charge components. The iron and steel are melted through
combustion of the coke by a forced upward flow of heated air. Cupolas
are equipped with afterburners downstream from the charge to incinerate
carbon monoxide (CO), which is a major byproduct of coke combustion.
Some of the coke used to fuel the cupola also becomes part of the
molten metal, thereby raising the carbon content of the molten metal.
Consequently, cupolas are used to produce iron castings; steel castings
must have carbon content of less than 1 percent, which cannot be
achieved in a cupola.
There are, generally, two distinct cupola design configurations.
The differences between the two designs relate to the method of
charging. In one configuration, termed above charge gas takeoff,
charging is done through a door in the shaft above the level of the
charge. Alternatively, in the below charge gas takeoff configuration,
the flow of gas is taken from an opening in the side of the shaft below
the level of the charge. The latter configuration is more typical of
modern cupolas. In either case, the offgas may be directed through a
heat exchanger to transfer heat to the inlet air for energy
conservation.
Molten metal, along with slag, is tapped from an opening in the
bottom of the furnace shaft much like a blast furnace. Tapping is
essentially a continuous process, whereas charging is done in batches.
Electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters. An electric
induction furnace is a vessel in which forms of iron and steel, such as
scrap and foundry returns, are melted through 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
[[Page 78277]]
surrounding a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the vessel. An
electric induction furnace operates in batch mode, an operating cycle
consisting of charging, melting the charge, adding an additional charge
(backcharging) in some cases and melting that charge, and tapping the
molten metal.
Scrap feed for an electric induction furnace is commonly preheated,
usually by direct exposure to a gas flame, prior to charging to the
furnace. Preheating is done primarily to eliminate volatile substances
such as water and residual oil and grease that may vaporize suddenly
and cause an explosion if added to a molten charge or heel in the
furnace. When preheating is done, the scrap is commonly heated to
800Sec. F or higher because the cost of initial heating with gas is
less costly than heating with electricity. A scrap preheater, where
used, is considered to be an integral part of the electric induction
furnace melting operation.
Electric arc furnaces. An electric arc furnace is a vessel in which
forms of iron and steel, such as scrap and foundry returns, are melted
through resistance heating by an electric current that flows through
the arcs formed between electrodes and the surface of the metal and
also through the metal between the arc paths. Typically, the electric
arc furnace is equipped with a removable cover and charged from the
top. Molten metal is tapped from the electric arc furnace by removing
the cover and tilting the furnace. An electric arc furnace operates in
batch mode as does an electric induction furnace, an operating cycle
consisting of charging, melting, backcharging in some cases and melting
that charge, and tapping.
Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout Lines
A pouring, cooling, and shakeout line includes three major
operations: pouring molten metal into molds, allowing the metal to cool
and solidify, and removing the castings from the molds. The most common
type of pouring, cooling, and shakeout line is the conveyor or pallet
line, in which the pouring ladle is stationary and molds are moved to
the ladle by conveyor or rail. After pouring is complete, the molds
move along the conveyor or rail through a cooling area, which is often
an enclosed tunnel. A less common type of pouring, cooling, and
shakeout line is floor or pit pouring, which is used by small to medium
sized foundries that do not have sufficient capital to finance
mechanization and also by foundries that produce castings too large to
be transported by conveyor. In this type of line, molds are placed on
an open floor or in a pit, and the pouring ladle is transported to the
molds, generally by overhead pulley. After pouring, the casting is
cooled in place.
After castings have solidified, they are removed from the sand
molds in a process called shakeout. At most foundries, shakeout is a
mechanized process where molds are placed on vibrating grids or
conveyors to shake the sand loose from the casting. In some foundries,
the castings and molds are separated manually.
Mold and Core Making Lines
Most iron and steel foundries pour metal into molds that are made
primarily of sand. Molds may also be made of tempered metal (iron or
steel) that are filled by gravity (permanent molds) or by centrifugal
force (centrifugal casting). Some systems use polystyrene or other low
density plastic (foam) patterns and pack sand around the patterns. This
type of casting operation is referred to as expendable pattern casting,
or the lost foam process since the plastic pattern is volatilized (and/
or pyrolyzed) by the molten metal as the castings are poured.
The outer shape of a casting is determined by the shape of the
molds. Molds are typically made in two halves that are subsequently
joined together. The inner shapes of the casting that cannot be
directly configured into the mold halves are created by inserting
separately made components called cores, which are almost universally
made of sand. Sand cores are often required in sand molds as well as in
many permanent mold and centrifugal casting operations.
Most sand molds are made from green sand, which is a mixture of
approximately 85 to 95 percent sand, 4 to 10 percent bentonite clay, 2
to 5 percent water, and 2 to 10 percent carbonaceous materials such as
powdered coal (commonly called sea coal), petroleum products, cereals,
and starches. The composition of green sand is chosen so that the sand
will form a stable shape when compacted under pressure, maintain that
shape when heated by the molten metal poured, and separate easily from
the solidified metal casting. The clay and water bind the sand
together. The carbonaceous materials partially volatilize when molten
metal is poured into the mold, creating a reducing atmosphere that
prevents the surface of the casting from oxidizing while it solidifies.
Some sand molds and most sand cores are bound into shape by
plastic-or resin-like chemical substances. Chemical binder systems are
used when the shape of the mold or core cannot be made from green sand
or when strength and dimensional stability requirements are too
stringent for green sand to provide. Chemically bonded molds and cores
are made by first blending the sand and chemicals (mixing), then
forming the sand into the desired shape and hardening (curing) the
chemical binder to fix the shape. Chemical binder systems are of three
types depending on the curing process required:
[sbull] Chemicals that cure upon heating (thermosetting),
[sbull] Combinations of chemicals that cure by reacting with each
other at ambient temperature (self-setting or nobake), and
[sbull] Chemicals that react by catalysis upon exposure to a gas at
ambient temperature (gas-cured or cold box).
Several systems of each type are available, with the choice of
system depending on such features as strength of the mold or core,
speed of curing, and shelf life.
Mold and Core Coating Lines
Molds and cores are often coated with a finely ground refractory
material to provide a smoother surface finish on the casting. We refer
to these processes as ``coating'' operations. The refractory material
is applied as a slurry. After coating, the liquid component of the
slurry is either allowed to evaporate or, if it is a flammable
substance such as alcohol, eliminated by ignition (the light-off
process).
D. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled?
Metal Melting Furnace Emissions
Almost all emissions from a cupola are contained in the flow of air
exiting the stack of the furnace, which contains particulate matter
(PM) and organic compounds in addition to CO. The HAP in PM emissions
from cupolas are primarily lead and manganese, with other HAP such as
cadmium, chromium, and nickel present in lesser amounts. These HAP
originate as impurities or trace elements in the scrap metal fed to the
furnace. Organic HAP arise as by-products from combustion of coke and
also from incomplete combustion of residual oil and grease on the
scrap. Cupola exhaust gases contain acetophenone, polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and pyrene. Most
cupolas control PM emissions by dedicated baghouses or wet scrubbers.
Also, most cupolas employ afterburners, which effectively destroy
organic HAP. Another potential source of emissions is the charging door
of a cupola in which the gas takeoff is above the charge. However, the
cupola is generally
[[Page 78278]]
operated with enough vacuum in the shaft to prevent gases from exiting
the door during normal operations.
Emissions of PM from electric induction furnaces contain HAP metals
such as manganese and lead, but may also contain significant amounts of
chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel alloy castings are
produced. Emissions from scrap preheaters contain PM and organic
species that have not been characterized. Emissions from electric
induction furnaces and scrap preheaters are controlled by baghouses,
cyclones, and wet scrubbers, with emissions from both types of units
often controlled by the same device. Organic emissions from scrap
preheaters are typically controlled by direct flame heating of the
scrap and, at one source, by afterburning the preheater emissions.
Emissions of PM from electric arc furnaces contain HAP metals such
as lead and manganese, but may also contain significant amounts of
chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel alloy castings are
produced. Emissions may also include trace levels of organic substances
that have not been characterized. Emissions of PM are typically
controlled by baghouses. Organic emissions are controlled by natural
incineration within the furnace.
Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout Line Emissions
The majority of HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout
lines are organic HAP created by incomplete combustion of organic
material in the mold and core sand. When molten metal comes into
contact with organic materials in the sand such as binder chemicals and
sea coal, these materials are partially volatilized and incinerated.
Due to the limited availability of oxygen in the poured molds,
combustion is incomplete, and the mold offgas can contain a wide
variety of organic substances. The primary HAP emitted are benzene,
formaldehyde, and toluene. The offgases from most molds ignite
spontaneously. For floor and pit pouring, the offgas does not always
spontaneously flare but is ignited by applying a flame to the mold's
vent locations. Aside from lighting-off mold vents, three foundries use
add-on controls to further reduce organic emissions from pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines. In addition to organic emissions, pouring
lines are a source of metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP contained in the
molten metal is emitted as metal fumes when the metal is poured into
the molds. Baghouses and scrubbers are used to control metal HAP
emissions at several pouring lines.
Mold and Core Making and Mold and Core Coating Line Emissions
Mold making using green sand produces virtually no emissions. The
use of chemical binder systems, by contrast, can produce significant
HAP emissions. In the process of mixing, forming, and curing, volatile
constituents of these chemicals evaporate to some extent. Many binder
system components contain HAP as polymerization reactants, solvents, or
catalysts. Although some information on the composition of binder
system components is proprietary, much is known about their HAP
content. The HAP used in these chemicals and emitted in the mold and
core making process include cumene, formaldehyde, methanol,
naphthalene, phenol, and xylene. Also, triethylamine is commonly used
as a catalyst gas in the cold box process. Most foundries capture and
control triethylamine emissions with wet scrubbers that use acid
solution as the collection medium. No other organic emissions from mold
and core making lines are controlled. Emissions of HAP can also arise
in the process of coating the molds and cores. The liquid component of
the slurry may contain a HAP such as methanol. Coating emissions are
controlled only where the light-off process is used to eliminate
flammable constituents.
E. What are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Iron and
Steel Foundries?
The metal HAP emitted from melting furnaces includes cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. Aromatic organic HAP produced by
mold and core making lines; melting furnaces; and pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines contain acetophenone, benzene, cumene, dibenzofurans,
dioxins, naphthalene, phenol, pyrene, toluene, and xylene. The non-
aromatic organic HAP emitted are formaldehyde, methanol, and
triethylamine. The known health effects of these substances are
described in the ``EPA Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air
Pollutants-Draft,'' EPA-452/D-95-00, PB95-503579 (December 1994), which
is available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/hapindex.html.
Although numerous HAP may be emitted from iron and steel foundries,
only a few account for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions
from these foundries. These HAP are: formaldehyde, methanol,
napthalene, triethylamine, manganese, and lead.
Of the HAP listed above, benzene is a known human carcinogen of
moderate carcinogenic hazard. Cadmium, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin),
formaldehyde, lead, and nickel are classified as probable carcinogens.
Chromium can exist in two valence states. Chromium VI is a known human
carcinogen of high carcinogenic hazard by inhalation. (Note: Chromium
III and Chromium VI by oral pathways are classified as Group D ``not
classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.'') Acute effects of some
of the HAP listed above include irritation to the eyes, nose, and
throat, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness, central nervous system
depression, and unconsciousness. Chronic effects include respiratory
effects (such as coughing, asthma, chronic bronchitis, chest wheezing,
respiratory distress, altered pulmonary function, and pulmonary
lesions), gastrointestinal irritation, liver injury, and muscular
effects. Reproductive effects include menstrual disorders, reduced
incidence of pregnancy, decreased fertility, impotence, sterility,
reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation, slowed postnatal
neurobehavioral development, and spontaneous abortions.
The proposed rule would reduce emissions of many of these HAP and
would also reduce PM emissions, which are regulated under national
ambient air quality standards. Emissions of PM have been associated
with aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and
increased risk of premature death.
We have no data to assess to what extent iron and steel foundries
emissions are causing health effects. We recognize that the degree of
adverse effects to health experienced by exposed individuals can range
from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the health effects
may be experienced depends on:
[sbull] Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
[sbull] The ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as
influenced by emissions rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
[sbull] The frequency and duration of exposures; and
[sbull] Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics,
age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary
significantly with the population.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Are the Affected Sources?
The affected sources are each new or existing metal casting
department, and each new or existing mold and core making department,
at an iron and steel
[[Page 78279]]
foundry that is a major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source
is one for which construction or reconstruction begins after December
23, 2002. An existing affected source is one for which construction or
reconstruction began on or before December 23, 2002. The emissions
sources in a metal casting department covered by the proposed rule
include metal melting furnaces, scrap preheaters, pouring stations at
an existing metal casting department, pouring areas and pouring
stations at a new metal casting department, and pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines. The emissions sources in a mold and core making
department covered by the proposed rule include each mold and core
making and mold and core coating line.
B. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limitations?
The proposed rule includes emissions limits for metal and organic
HAP as well as operating limits for capture systems and control
devices. Particulate matter, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
serve as surrogate measures of HAP emissions. Today's proposed rule
includes the following emissions standards:
[sbull] Each melting furnace and scrap preheater at an existing
metal casting department must control emissions of PM to 0.005 grains
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), and each melting furnace and
scrap preheater at a new metal casting department must control
emissions of PM to 0.001 gr/dscf.
[sbull] Each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department
must control CO emissions to 200 parts per million by volume (ppmv).
[sbull] Each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting
department must achieve a 98 percent reduction, by weight, in VOC
emissions or an outlet concentration of no more than 20 ppmv of VOC (as
propane).
[sbull] Each pouring station at an existing metal casting
department must control emissions of PM to 0.010 gr/dscf, and each
pouring station or pouring area at a new metal casting department must
control emissions of PM to 0.002 gr/dscf.
[sbull] Each new metal casting department must achieve a 98 percent
reduction, by weight, in VOC emissions or an outlet concentration of no
more than 20 ppmv of VOC (as propane). This limit would be a flow-
weighted average.
[sbull] Each triethylamine cold box mold and core making line at a
new or existing mold and core making department must control
triethylamine emissions to 1 ppmv.
The owner or operator of an affected source would be required to
install a capture and collection system for each emissions source
subject to an emissions limit. The capture and collection system would
be required to maintain a 200 foot per minute (fpm) face velocity when
all access doors (if present) are in the open position. In addition,
for each capture and collection system installed on an affected source,
the owner and operator would be required to establish operating limits
for capture systems parameter (or parameters) appropriate for assessing
capture system performance. At minimum, the limits must indicate the
level of the ventilation draft and damper position settings. The
proposed rule would require the owner or operator to operate each
capture system at or above the lowest value or settings established in
the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan. Proposed operating limits for
control devices are:
[sbull] If a baghouse is applied to PM emissions from a metal
melting furnace, scrap preheater, or shakeout station, the alarm on the
bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time in a semiannual reporting period.
[sbull] If a wet scrubber is applied to PM emissions from a pouring
station, the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate
must remain at or above the minimum levels established during the
initial performance test.
[sbull] If a wet acid scrubber is applied to triethylamine
emissions from a cold box mold and core making line, the 3-hour average
scrubbing liquid flowrate must remain at or above the minimum level
established during the initial performance test, and the 3-hour average
pH of the scrubber blowdown must remain at or below the maximum level
so established. If a combustion device is applied to triethylamine
emissions from a cold box mold and core making line, the 3-hour average
combustion zone temperature must remain at or above the minimum level
established during the initial performance test.
The proposed operating limits would not apply to a combustion
device applied to organic HAP emissions from a cupola, scrap preheater,
or pouring, cooling, and shakeout line because continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) would be required to directly measure CO and
VOC emissions.
C. What Are the Proposed Work Practice Standards?
To reduce HAP emissions from metal casting departments, facilities
would be required to develop and operate according to written
specifications and procedures for the selection and inspection of the
scrap iron or steel that limit the amount of organics and HAP metals in
the scrap used as furnace charge. For a pouring, cooling, and shakeout
line in an existing metal casting department and a pouring area in a
new or existing metal casting department, foundries would be required
to manually ignite gases from mold vents that do not automatically
ignite.
Four work practice standards are proposed for coating and binder
chemicalformulations used at new or existing mold and core making
departments:
[sbull] All mold and core making lines would be required to use
non-HAP coating formulations.
[sbull] All furan warm box mold and core making lines would be
required to use methanol-free binder chemical formulations.
[sbull] All phenolic urethane cold box or phenolic urethane nobake
mold and core making lines would be required to use naphthalene-
depleted solvents. Depletion of naphthalene can not be accomplished by
substituting other HAP for the naphthalene.
[sbull] All other types of mold and core making lines (not furan
warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, or phenolic urethane nobake)
would be required to use reduced-HAP binder formulations unless it is
technically and/or economically infeasible. Foundries would conduct an
initial study to evaluate and identify alternatives. A foundry that
does not adopt reduced-HAP binder formulations must repeat the study
and submit a report every 5 years to demonstrate that all applicable
alternatives remain technically or economically infeasible.
D. What Are the Proposed Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
The proposed rule would ensure good O&M of control equipment by
requiring all foundries to prepare and follow a written O&M plan for
capture systems and control devices. The O&M plan must include capture
system operating limits, requirements for capture system inspections
and repairs, procedures and schedules for preventative maintenance of
control devices, and corrective action steps to be taken in the event
of a bag leak detection system alarm. The proposed rule also includes
[[Page 78280]]
requirements for a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan similar to
those required for other MACT rules. See Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) for more information on
these requirements.
E. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Demonstrating Initial and
Continuous Compliance?
Emissions Limitations
The proposed rule includes requirements for foundries to conduct
performance tests for all emissions sources subject to an emissions
limit to show they meet the applicable limit. The proposal would
require foundries to measure the concentration of PM using EPA Methods
1 through 4, and either Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as applicable, in
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The proposed rule would require foundries
to use Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the
concentration of triethylamine. The proposed rule would also require
foundries using CO or VOC CEMS to demonstrate compliance by conducting
CEMS performance evaluations and measuring emissions for 3 consecutive
operating hours. The proposed rule also includes procedures for
establishing operating limits for capture systems and control devices,
and revising the limits, if necessary or desired, after the initial
performance test.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed rule would
require a CO CEMS for cupolas, a VOC CEMS for scrap preheaters, and a
VOC CEMS for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal
casting department. The proposed rule would require performance tests
every 5 years to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions
limits. The proposed rule would require emissions sources not equipped
with a CEMS to conduct repeat performance tests every 5 years.
Monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters
would demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits
between emissions tests. These proposed monitoring requirements include
bag leak detection systems for baghouses and continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS) for capture systems (unless damper positions
are fixed), wet scrubbers, combustion devices, and wet acid scrubbers.
Technical specifications, along with requirements for installation,
operation, and maintenance of these monitoring systems, are included in
the proposed rule. Records would be required to document any bag leak
detection system alarms and to show conformance with inspection and
maintenance requirements for baghouses, CPMS, and CEMS.
Work Practice Standards
No performance test would be required to demonstrate initial
compliance with the work practice standards. Foundries would certify in
their notification of compliance status that they have installed any
required capture systems, submitted the required written plans, and
that they will meet each of the applicable work practice requirements
in the plan or rule as proposed.
Records for visual inspections of all incoming shipments are
required to show continuous compliance with the work practice standards
for scrap selection and inspection plans. Daily visual inspections are
required to show continuous compliance with the work practice standard
for mold vent ignition. A record must be kept of each inspection. To
demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards for
coatings and binder chemicals, foundries would keep records of the
chemical composition of the formulations. A new compliance
certification would be required each time they change the formulation.
F. What Are the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
These requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE (the proposed rule) shows
each of the requirements in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec. 63.2
through 63.15) and whether they apply.
The major notifications include one-time notifications of
applicability (due within 120 days of promulgation), performance tests
(due at least 60 days before each test), performance evaluations, and
compliance status. The notification of compliance status is required
within 60 days of the compliance demonstration if a performance test is
required or within 30 days if no performance test is required.
Foundries would be required to maintain records that are needed to
document compliance, such as performance test results; copies of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; O&M plan; scrap selection and
inspection plan, and associated corrective action records; monitoring
data; and inspection records. In most cases, records must be kept for 5
years, with records for the most recent 2 years kept onsite. However,
the O&M plan; scrap selection and inspection plan; and startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan would be kept onsite and available for
inspection for the life of the affected source (or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the proposed rule requirements.)
All foundries would make semiannual compliance reports of any
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit),
work practice standard, or O&M requirement. If no deviation occurred
and no monitoring systems were out of control, only a summary report
would be required. More detailed information is required in the report
if a deviation did occur. An immediate report would be required if
actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
G. What Are the Proposed Compliance Deadlines?
Foundries with existing affected sources would be required to
comply within 3 years of publication of the final rule. New or
reconstructed sources that start up on or before the promulgation date
for the final rule would have to comply by the promulgation date. New
or reconstructed sources that start up after the promulgation date must
comply upon initial startup.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?
Affected source means the collection of equipment, activities, or
both within a single contiguous area and under common control that is
included in the source category or subcategory to which the emissions
limitations, work practice standards, and other regulatory requirements
apply. The affected source may be the entire collection of equipment
and processes in the source category or it may be a subset of equipment
and processes. For each rule, we must decide which individual pieces of
equipment and processes warrant separate standards in the context of
the CAA section 112 requirements and the industry operating practices.
We considered three different approaches for designating the
affected source: the entire iron and steel foundry, groups of emissions
points, and individual emissions points. We did not designate the
entire foundry as the affected source because this broad approach would
require us to establish a facilitywide MACT floor based on the total
HAP emissions indicative of best-performing foundries. Applying a
single
[[Page 78281]]
MACT floor to groups of process and fugitive emissions points would be
impracticable given the diversity of processes used at individual
foundries, especially considering the variety of mold and core making
processes used.
One significant group of emissions points in an iron and steel
foundry is the metal casting department, which includes emissions from
metal melting furnaces (cupolas, electric induction furnaces, scrap
preheaters, and electric arc furnaces) and pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines (where molten metal is poured into molds, molds are
cooled, and castings are separated from molds). Although some variation
exists in these operations at different foundries, these variations do
not significantly alter the nature or amount of the HAP emissions from
the individual emissions sources, the types of HAP emitted, or the
control technology typically used to reduce HAP emissions. We,
therefore, concluded that identifying the group of major processes in
the metal casting department at an iron and steel foundry as an
affected source is appropriate.
The other significant group of emissions points at iron and steel
foundries is associated with mold and core making operations. The
primary source of HAP emissions from these processes is HAP
constituents in binder and coating chemicals. All major source
foundries make extensive use of chemical systems to bind the mold and
core sand, and certain types of binder systems have much higher
volatile HAP content than other systems, so that the amounts of HAP and
the specific HAP constituents emitted from mold and core making
operations vary substantially between foundries processing the same
amount of sand and having similar metal production rates. The use and
formulations of mold and core coatings also varies significantly
between foundries. Because of the extreme variation in potential to
produce HAP emissions, it is necessary to consider mold and core making
and coating operations separately from other foundry processes in
determining emissions standards. This subset of equipment and processes
is termed the mold and core making department.
In selecting the affected sources for regulation, we identified the
HAP-emitting operations, the HAP emitted, and the quantity of HAP
emissions from the individual or groups of emissions points. The
proposed rule includes emissions limits or standards for the control of
emissions from melting furnaces and pouring, cooling, and shakeout
lines at metal casting departments, and mold and core making lines at
mold and core making departments. Selection of these units as the
emissions sources represents the most effective means for EPA to
regulate emissions from this source category and addresses all of the
principal emissions points from units in this source category.
B. What Other Emissions Sources Did We Consider?
As described in the background information document, there are
numerous other ancillary emissions sources that may contain trace
quantities of HAP. The emissions sources that would be regulated under
this proposed rule generally contribute over 99 percent of a foundry's
HAP emissions. Coatings applied to the cast parts may also
significantly contribute to a foundry's total HAP emissions. The HAP
emissions from these emissions sources will be regulated under the
proposed NESHAP for Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
(67 FR 52779).
Sand handling systems are used to recover sand from the shakeout
system, avoid buildup at facility work stations, and to reuse sand for
making new molds. This sand may include trace organic chemicals such as
pyrolysis products formed during pouring and cooling that condensed on
the cooler sand at the outer circumference of the mold. Due to the
large diameter of the PM emissions generated during sand handling and
the fact that these sources are located inside facility buildings, we
do not expect that these emissions are released from the foundry
building or property line as ambient emissions. Therefore, we have not
proposed standards regulating sand handling systems.
Mechanical finishing operations, such as cut-off, grinding, and
shot blasting, also produce PM emissions. These PM emissions may
contain significant concentrations of metal HAP. However, as with sand
handling systems, we do not expect that the large diameter particles
generated during these operations are released as ambient emissions.
Therefore, we have not proposed standards regulating mechanical
finishing operations.
Metal treatment is generally used to achieve the final chemistry
needed in the cast part. It is also used to produce ductile iron by
adding magnesium to the molten iron (commonly referred to as
inoculation). Metal treatment generally occurs in holding furnaces or
transfer ladles, but may occur in an electric induction furnace or
electric arc furnace. The emissions from metal treatment operations
consist primarily of magnesium, but may include trace amounts of metal
HAP. It is unclear to what extent these emissions may be released from
the building, but emissions estimates from the available data suggest
that these emissions do not contribute appreciably to the emissions
from the foundry. As such, we believe regulating metal treatment would
not achieve any measurable reduction in metal HAP emissions. Therefore,
we have not proposed standards regulating metal treatment at this time.
Holding furnaces are often used to store the molten metal until it
is needed by the foundry's pouring stations. These furnaces are almost
completely enclosed and, consequently, they are not a source of ambient
HAP emissions from foundries. Again, no measurable reduction in metal
HAP emissions can be achieved by regulating holding furnaces.
Therefore, we have not proposed emissions standards regulating holding
furnaces.
In addition to the operations listed above, we have not proposed
emissions standards regulating metal HAP emissions from cooling lines
and shakeout stations. Although these are significant sources of
organic HAP emissions, they do not contribute to ambient emissions of
metal HAP from iron and steel foundries. Cooling lines do not generate
PM emissions and the molten metal is not exposed to the atmosphere
where metal fumes might be released. Shakeout stations are a
significant source of PM emissions, however, these emissions are almost
entirely comprised of sand. As with sand handling systems, the PM
(sand) emissions may include trace organic chemicals such as pyrolysis
products formed during pouring and cooling that condensed on the cooler
sand at the outer circumference of the mold. It may also include small
chunks of metal. However, due to the large diameter of the PM emissions
generated during shakeout, we do not expect that these emissions are
released as ambient emissions from the foundry. Therefore, we are not
proposing standards for metal HAP from cooling lines and shakeout
stations.
We are specifically considering whether to adopt a fugitive
emissions standard in the form of a shop opacity limitation or a roof
vent emissions limitation. Such a requirement would provide additional
assurance that any fugitive emissions sources within the physical
strictures at iron and steel foundries would not contribute
significantly to ambient emissions from such facilities. Such a
standard might include an opacity limit of 5 percent or a no visible
emissions limit for all foundry building releases (roof vents,
[[Page 78282]]
doors, or other openings) that are not otherwise covered by a specific
emissions limit. If we were to establish such a requirement, we would
establish the level for the limit by evaluating existing state and
permit limits and any available emissions information consistent with
the procedures described later in this document that was used to
establish MACT for other emissions sources at iron and steel foundries.
However, we have not proposed an opacity or visible emissions limit
because our emissions estimates indicated that the emissions sources
for which we have not proposed standards are unlikely to contribute to
ambient HAP emissions from the iron and steel foundries. Thus, while we
do not have conclusive data regarding the potential for fugitive
emissions to contribute to ambient HAP emissions from foundries, it
appears that the inclusion of an opacity or visible emissions limit for
the foundry building might not function to control HAP emissions from
the foundry.
We specifically request comment on the regulatory options that we
are considering for control of potential fugitive emissions from these
miscellaneous sources. We request additional data on the potential for
the miscellaneous sources discussed above to contribute to ambient HAP
emissions from iron and steel foundries, including comments and
supporting data that either demonstrates the need to regulate one or
several of these currently unregulated emissions sources or that
supports our position that these emissions sources do not release HAP
to the atmosphere in quantities sufficient to require additional
regulation. We also request comment on the appropriateness of the
possible levels for the fugitive emissions limits discussed above, and
the methodology for calculating such limits for this source category.
C. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
There are three types of melting furnaces used at major source iron
and steel foundries: Cupolas, electric induction furnaces, and electric
arc furnaces. All three furnace types emit PM that is known to contain
HAP metals, predominately manganese and lead. We, therefore, decided to
establish standards for metal HAP emissions. Source tests on cupolas
have shown the presence of small amounts of organic HAP including
acetophenone, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins, and pyrene. We concluded that establishing standards for these
HAP is appropriate. We selected PM as a surrogate for metal HAP
emissions from melting furnaces and CO as a surrogate for organic HAP
emissions from cupolas.
Pouring molten metal into sand molds produces emissions from the
incomplete combustion of the organic chemicals used in chemically
bonded molds and cores and also from sea coal and other organic
constituents of green sand. These products of incomplete combustion are
known to contain benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene. In addition, small
amounts of HAP metals are emitted during pouring. We selected PM as a
surrogate for metal HAP emissions from pouring and VOC as a surrogate
for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
In the process of mixing sand and binder chemicals, forming the
sand into molds and cores, and curing the resulting shapes, volatile
constituents of the binder chemicals evaporate to some extent. The HAP
emitted in the mold and core making process include cumene,
formaldehyde, methanol, naphthalene, phenol, triethylamine, and xylene.
Emissions vary widely between different types and formulations of
chemical systems; however, for each system the HAP species emitted can
be identified. We, therefore, decided to establish standards to control
the emissions of these HAP.
The source of HAP emissions from the mold and core coating
operation is the liquid component of the slurry, which may contain a
HAP such as methanol. Alternative liquid formulations that contain no
HAP are available. We conclude that substitution of coating material
formulations is possible, and that it is feasible to establish
emissions standards in this proposal based on pollution prevention that
address liquid HAP used in coating operations.
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Emissions Sources in the Metal Casting Department?
Scrap Selection
There is the potential for HAP emissions to occur during all phases
of metal casting (including melting, pouring, cooling, and shakeout)
due to impurities (such as lead, paint, oil and grease) that may be
present in the scrap metal. By reducing, to the extent possible, the
amounts of these impurities in the scrap metal, foundries can achieve
HAP emissions reductions throughout the metal casting department.
In 1998, we conducted a detailed and comprehensive survey of known
foundries in the U.S. From this survey, EPA compiled the data from the
595 iron and steel foundries that provided survey responses. Among
other things, this survey requested information on work practices, such
as scrap selection and/or cleaning, at foundries that reduced air
emissions. Of the 595 iron and steel foundries that provided survey
responses, 360 (or 60 percent) of iron and steel foundries indicated
that they used some type of scrap selection, cleaning, or inspection
program to ensure the quality of scrap metal used by the foundry.
The percentage of foundries that specify scrap selection as a work
practice to reduce emissions are relatively consistent for foundries
operating different furnace types: 45 percent of cupola foundries, 61
percent of electric arc furnace foundries, and 65 percent of electric
induction furnace foundries. These percentages indicate that scrap
selection or cleaning measures are utilized by a sufficient number of
foundries to represent the MACT floor control regardless of the melting
furnace. Furthermore, several foundries operate two different types of
melting furnaces and these foundries typically specify the same scrap
selection for each furnace. Electric induction furnaces have scrap
preparation procedures targeted at reducing the amount of water
(moisture) in the scrap being changed. These procedures are included
for safety concerns specific to electric induction furnace operation
and do not necessarily reduce the amount of HAP in the scrap or the HAP
emissions from the metal casting department. These procedures account
for the slightly higher percentage of electric induction furnaces that
report general scrap selection measures.
The EPA evaluated survey responses to determine the number of
foundries that have specific scrap specifications that limit either HAP
contaminants (e.g., lead) or contaminants that are precursors to HAP
emissions (e.g., oil or paint). Many of the responses were general in
nature, such as ``use clean scrap,'' ``follow scrap specification,'' or
``inspect scrap.'' However, 71 foundries (12 percent) specified in
their survey responses that their scrap selection procedures included
limits or restrictions on the amount of organic material in the scrap
metal. These organic material restrictions were most commonly expressed
as limits or bans on oil, grease, and/or paint in the scrap.
Occasionally, restrictions included reference to coolants or rubber
components (belts, hoses) in the scrap. In addition, 55 foundries (7.5
percent) specified in their survey responses that
[[Page 78283]]
their scrap selection procedures included limits or restrictions on the
amount of tramp metals in the scrap. These scrap selection metal
restrictions were most commonly limits (or bans) on lead, but often
included restrictions on the use of galvanized metals (a source of
cadmium) and certain alloys (a source of chromium, nickel, or high
manganese).
Through information collected through site visits and additional
queries of large foundries that are anticipated to be major sources of
HAP emissions, we have determined that scrap selection and inspection
is an integral part of foundry operations needed to ensure the quality
(chemistry) of the cast parts. Although some of the foundries visited
or queried did not have a written scrap selection plan and did not
indicate scrap selection as a work practice used to reduce air
emissions, these foundries generally purchased specific grades of scrap
and typically included specifications on the scrap (such as ``no oil''
and/or ``no lead'') on their purchase requisitions. Furthermore, these
foundries routinely inspected incoming scrap shipments and rejected
scrap shipments that did not meet their quality requirements.
It is difficult to establish specific emissions reductions achieved
by these scrap selection and inspection programs. First, nearly all
foundries implement some sort of formal or informal scrap selection and
inspection program (to maintain product quality) so it is difficult to
assess what the baseline emissions might be without the scrap selection
and inspection program. Second, these scrap selection and inspection
programs are used in conjunction with other air emissions control
technologies used to reduce emissions from the melting furnace and
pouring, cooling, and shakeout line exhaust vent streams. The emissions
reductions specifically attributable to the scrap selection and
inspection program are impossible to separate out. Nonetheless, it is
clear that any reduction in HAP content or HAP precursors entering the
metal casting department will tend to reduce the emissions of HAP
metals and organics from the metal casting department's emissions
sources.
While a scrap selection and inspection program is expected to
reduce HAP emissions, they cannot be expected to eliminate all HAP
elements or precursors in the scrap. First, scrap loads are generally
large (at least at major source iron and steel foundries) and difficult
to inspect. A load of scrap may contain thousands of different pieces,
and some scrap may be shredded and bundled. Visual inspections are only
able to identify obvious off-specification materials that are on the
top of a load. Second, some of the HAP elements are desirable
components in the scrap iron and steel which contribute to the overall
chemistry of the product and provide valuable properties in the cast
metal (e.g., manganese and chromium.) Third, even undesirable HAP
metals cannot be eliminated from the cast iron and steel as they are
trace components in the scrap iron and steel which cannot be separated.
For example, all cast iron contains trace amounts of lead (typically
0.5 to 4 percent). As such, a load of scrap meeting a ``no lead'' scrap
specification does not mean that the scrap is lead-free--only that the
scrap is free of lead components (e.g., batteries or wheel weights).
As a scrap selection and inspection program can be reasonably
expected to reduce HAP emissions from the metal casting department and
since over 6 percent (the median of the top 12 percent) of the
foundries employ a scrap selection and inspection program that limits
the amount of organic impurities (HAP precursors) and HAP metals in
their scrap, we have determined that the MACT floor for existing
sources is the work practice of scrap selection and inspection to limit
the amount of organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap used by
the metal casting department of the foundry.
Considering the practical limitations discussed above, we believe
that scrap specifications with specific numeric limits on HAP
concentrations cannot be established. A visual inspection program
cannot distinguish the trace lead content of the scrap iron and steel
parts contained in a load of scrap. The ultimate chemistry of a load of
scrap cannot be accurately assessed until after the metal is melted
(which is too late to reduce HAP emissions). Additionally, we cannot
establish that one scrap selection and inspection program that limits
or restricts both organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap
provides higher emissions reductions than an alternative scrap
selection and inspection program that limits or restricts both organic
impurities and HAP metals. Therefore, the MACT floor for new sources is
the same as the MACT floor for existing sources, which is the work
practice of a scrap selection and inspection program that specifically
addresses methods for reducing the amount of organic impurities and HAP
metals in the scrap used by the metal casting department of the
foundry.
We could identify no other practical pollution prevention method to
reduce HAP emissions from the metal casting department based on
alternative scrap specifications. Therefore, no emissions reduction
options beyond the MACT floor were considered for the scrap selection
and inspection program.
In summary, we are proposing a pollution prevention work practice
standard as a component of MACT for both new and existing foundries to
limit both organic and metal HAP emissions throughout the metal casting
department. This standard would require facilities to develop and
operate according to written specifications and procedures for the
selection and inspection of the scrap iron that would limit the amount
of organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap used by the metal
casting department of the foundry.
The scrap selection and inspection requirements being proposed are
intended to ensure that facilities make a reasonable effort to limit
the amount of organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap they
process and are based on our understanding of what the best performing
facilities are currently doing. A few examples of the types of
specifications that we believe are appropriate include bans on lead
components (i.e., lead batteries, lead pipe, and lead fittings), and
that oils and other liquids be drained. We do not believe that limits
on chromium or manganese content are appropriate because these elements
are required in the cast iron and steel parts. We specifically request
comment on the feasibility of implementing the proposed scrap selection
and inspection requirements and whether or not the proposed
requirements accurately reflect the practices at the best performing
facilities.
Cupolas
A cupola is a vertical cylindrical shaft furnace used to melt iron
and steel scrap through combustion of the coke in a forced upward flow
of heated air. Virtually all emissions from a cupola are contained in
the flow of air exiting the stack of the furnace, which contains
organic compounds, CO and PM. The organic compounds, which arise from
incomplete combustion of coke and impurities such as oil and grease in
the furnace charge, include traces of organic HAP such as acetophenone
and pyrene. The PM contains HAP metals such as lead and manganese that
are impurities in the scrap. The organic compounds and CO are destroyed
by combustion, which may occur spontaneously but is typically initiated
by an afterburner located downstream from the charge. The PM are
typically controlled by
[[Page 78284]]
either a fabric filter (baghouse) or a wet scrubber.
Cupolas are used to produce molten iron. Because the coke used to
fuel the cupola increases the carbon content of the molten metal,
cupolas cannot be used to produce molten steel (which requires less
than 1 percent carbon content). Unlike other melting furnaces, cupolas
produce a continuous supply of molten metal, and they typically have
much higher melting capacities than other furnace types.
A substantial body of information is available on the types,
configurations, and operating conditions of the pollution control
devices applied across the iron and steel foundry source category. This
information was collected through our comprehensive survey of known
iron and steel foundries conducted in 1998. From this survey, detailed
data are available for 595 iron and steel foundries which provided
survey responses. This survey indicates that 143 cupolas are operated
in the U.S.
MACT for organic HAP emissions. The primary method for reducing
organic HAP emissions from cupolas is an afterburner, which is used on
104 of the 143 existing cupolas. Afterburners are installed primarily
to combust CO, a byproduct of the furnace operation, but also act to
incinerate any organic compounds present. A typical cupola exhaust will
contain CO at levels of 10 percent or higher.
The afterburner itself is a relatively simple device consisting of
a cylindrical refractory-lined chamber equipped with burners for
ignition and sufficiently sized to provide appropriate residence time
to achieve complete combustion. Cupola afterburners are typically
operated at an ignition temperature of 1,300 [deg]F or higher to
combust the CO in the cupola exhaust stream. This temperature is the
minimum temperature need to oxidize CO to carbon dioxide. Given that
thermal destruction of most organic compounds occurs at 1,200 [deg]F or
below,\1\ we believe that organic HAP are effectively controlled by an
afterburner that effectively oxidizes CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Ed. by A.J. Buonicore and
W.T. Davis. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992. Page 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To confirm the effectiveness of an afterburner applied to an iron
and steel foundry cupola, we conducted source tests on two cupolas, one
equipped with an afterburner followed by a baghouse, and another
equipped with an afterburner followed by a venturi scrubber. Three
sampling runs were made in one test and four in the other. Test methods
used were EPA Method 23, Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) From Stationary
Sources, and SW-846 Methods 0010 (sampling) and 8270 (analysis), which
are applicable to the determination of semivolatile principal organic
hazardous compounds from incineration systems.
Results of the Method 23 tests showed that measured amounts of
PCDD/PCDF were very low and highly variable. In six of the seven runs,
concentrations of at least some of the fractions or species analyzed
were below the quantitative limits. Within this limitation, total PCDD/
PCDF adjusted for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) were
1.8 to 5.5 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7
percent oxygen in one test, 0.17 to 0.85 ng/dscm in the other. The
constituent that was consistently measured in the highest quantifiable
levels adjusted by the TEF was the pentachlorinated dibenzofuran
fraction, which varied from 1.0 to 3.0 ng/dscm in one test, and 0.07 to
0.40 ng/dscm in the other.
Results of SW-846 Methods 0010/8270 also showed very low and highly
variable concentrations. Of the 70 compounds analyzed, only 20 were
detected in the first test, 25 in the second. Only acetophenone in the
first test and acetophenone and pyrene in the second test were detected
at levels above the quantitative limits in all runs. The maximum
concentration of acetophenone varied from less than 1 to less than 2
parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The maximum concentration of pyrene
measured was 0.070 ppbv. The maximum mass emissions rates for both
tests were 0.0011 and 0.00013 pounds per hour for acetophenone and
pyrene, respectively. These emissions test data suggest that organic
HAP emissions from well-controlled cupolas are at or below the
detection limits of current EPA methods. It is clear from the data that
afterburners are effective in reducing organic HAP emissions.
In selecting the MACT floor for organic HAP control from cupolas,
we considered the feasibility of an emissions limit for one or more HAP
organic compounds. The two tests that we conducted, as discussed above,
are the only organic HAP emissions data available from cupolas. We
believe the test data are too limited to determine the variability and
achievability of an emissions limit for individual organic HAP
compounds.
We believe CO is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP emissions
from cupolas. As discussed previously, the combustion conditions
required to oxidize CO generally exceed the conditions necessary to
combust organic HAP compounds. As such, effective control of CO will
ensure effective control of organic HAP emissions. However, evaluation
of organic HAP emissions from similar exhaust streams in other source
categories indicate that reduction of the CO concentration below a few
hundred ppmv does not necessarily correlate to additional organic HAP
emissions reductions. This is because organic HAP destruction occurs
more readily than CO oxidation and because emissions of certain organic
HAP such as formaldehyde tend to increase when a combustion device is
used to reduce CO concentration. This phenomena is believed to be
caused by additional natural gas consumption needed to achieve these
very low CO concentrations in the exhaust stream. For these reasons, we
believe that CO is a good surrogate for organic HAP at concentrations
above several hundred ppmv. However, available data suggest that
organic HAP emissions do not continue to decrease when CO
concentrations fall below a few hundred ppmv.
We have CO emissions data from 17 cupolas. We also examined State
requirements for cupolas as they relate to organic HAP emissions
limitations. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin are all
States that contain a large number of iron and steel foundries. Each of
these States have standards that relate to cupola emissions which
require the use of an afterburner. The Illinois standard requires that
gases are burned in a direct flame afterburner so that the resulting
concentration of CO in such gases is less than or equal to 200 ppmv
corrected to 50 percent excess air for cupolas with melting rates of
greater than five tons per hour. The Ohio and Wisconsin standards both
require afterburning at 1,300 [deg]F for 0.3 seconds or greater. The
Michigan standard requires cupolas with melting rates of 20 or more
tons per hour be equipped with an afterburner control system, or
equivalent, which reduces the CO emissions from the ferrous cupola by
90 percent. The Indiana standard simply requires cupolas with melting
rates of 10 or more tons per hour be burned in a direct-flame
afterburner or boiler. These standards clearly indicate that
afterburning is the preferred control measure for organic HAP from
cupolas.
These State standards are intended to control CO emissions from
cupolas either by limiting outlet CO concentration, requiring a minimum
CO destruction efficiency, or establishing incinerator operating
conditions targeted to achieve CO destruction. Of
[[Page 78285]]
these State standards, we believe the 200 ppmv limit is the most
stringent (i.e., requires the greatest CO destruction efficiency) and,
therefore, the most effective in organic HAP emissions reductions. And
as stated above, further reductions in CO concentration are not
expected to result in further organic HAP emissions reductions.
We determined the MACT floor for new and existing cupola furnaces
by ranking the furnaces for which we have emissions information based
on the estimated emissions limitation achieved for that furnace. We
have emissions information from the comprehensive survey of known iron
and steel foundries for 143 cupolas. Two types of emissions information
was used to determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering
design parameters including afterburner control efficiency and outlet
CO concentration design values.
Where we had CO emissions source test data for a furnace, we used
the emissions data to estimate the emissions limitation achieved for
that furnace. We have credible emissions source test data for 13 cupola
afterburners controlling 17 cupolas. Each test is comprised of at least
three EPA Method 10 sampling runs of approximately 1 hour in duration.
While we believe each emissions source test gives a good indication
of the level of control achieved by the control device during the time
of the emissions test, we do not believe a single emissions source test
can be used as an estimate of the long term emissions limitation
achieved for that source due to normal variations in process and
control device performance and other factors, such as the inherent
imprecision of sampling and analysis, which cannot be controlled. We
believe that the MACT floor performance level must be achievable under
the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected to
recur. As such, the MACT floor performance limit must include a
consideration for the variability inherent in the process operations
and the control device performance. Therefore, we used a statistical
method to estimate the emissions limitation achieved by a furnace when
emissions source test data were available. For each furnace where
emissions source test data were available, the emissions limitation
achieved for that furnace was estimated at the 95th percentile outlet
CO concentration using a one-sided z-statistic test (i.e., the
emissions limitation which the furnace is estimated to be able to
achieve 95 percent of the time). We evaluated several options to
estimate the standard deviation that is needed to perform the z-
statistic test. We decided not to estimate the standard deviation for
each furnace based on the available emissions data for just that
furnace since most furnaces only have three data points to use in
estimating the standard deviation, one data point for each run in a
three run emissions source test. Instead, we calculated a relative
standard deviation (RSD) for each test and then averaged the RSD to
provide our best estimate of the variability of the test data. We
estimated an average RSD of 0.5 based on a pooling of all of the
available emissions source test data. We believe this method adequately
accounts for the normal variability in emissions source test data and
provides a reasonable estimate of the long term emissions limitation
achieved by a furnace.
When emissions source test data were not available for a furnace,
we estimated the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on
other emissions information including afterburner control efficiency
and outlet CO concentration design values. These data were used to
estimate the emission reduction limitation achieved for the remaining
126 cupolas where we did not have stack test emissions data.
Additional information on the ranking of the furnaces used to
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed
rule.
We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be
the 6th percentile unit. As we have emissions information on 143 cupola
sources, the 6th percentile would be the 9th best performing unit (143
x 0.06 = 8.6). Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation
achieved by the existing cupola afterburners, we determined that the
MACT floor for organic HAP control at existing sources is a CO
emissions concentration of 200 ppmv. Based on available emissions test
data, we believe that existing sources can achieve an emissions
limitation of 200 ppmv using a well-designed and operated afterburner
to control emissions.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on
our ranking, the best-controlled similar source has achieved a CO
emissions limitation of 20 ppmv. However, evaluation of organic HAP
emissions from similar exhaust streams in other source categories
indicate that reduction of the CO concentration below a few hundred
ppmv does not necessarily correlate to additional organic HAP emissions
reductions. This is because organic HAP destruction occurs more readily
than CO oxidation, and because emissions of certain organic HAP such as
formaldehyde tend to increase due to the significant increase in
natural gas consumption, which results in formaldehyde emissions,
needed to achieve these very low CO concentrations in the exhaust
stream. We believe a CO concentration of 200 ppmv is a good indicator
of proper destruction of organic HAP. However, we do not believe that
further reduction in CO concentrations will result in additional
organic HAP emissions reduction beyond that achieved by an afterburner
operated to meet a 200 ppmv CO concentration limit. Therefore, we
established the MACT floor for organic HAP emissions from new sources
as a CO emissions limit of 200 ppmv.
Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor) options. We could not identify any
technically feasible options that can reduce organic HAP emissions
below the level of the new source MACT floor of 200 ppmv. Therefore,
the proposed MACT standards are based on the MACT floor performance
limits for new and existing sources. For existing and new sources, the
MACT standard for organic HAP emissions is a CO emissions limit of 200
ppmv.
MACT for HAP metal emissions. Metal HAP emissions from cupolas are
controlled by baghouses, venturi scrubbers, and electrostatic
precipitators (ESP). Based on industry survey data available for 143
cupolas in the iron and steel foundries source category, there are 58
cupolas (40 percent) controlled by baghouses, 76 (53 percent)
controlled by venturi scrubbers, 1 (1 percent) controlled by an ESP,
and 9 (6 percent) that are uncontrolled for metal HAP.
We have very limited metal HAP emissions data. Specifically, the
only data on metal HAP emissions from cupolas include two source tests
we conducted on two cupolas: one controlled by a baghouse, and the
other controlled by a venturi scrubber. The two source tests
demonstrate that a baghouse achieves lower HAP metal emissions than a
venturi scrubber. Concentrations of lead and manganese, the two HAP
metals found to be present
[[Page 78286]]
in the highest concentrations, were substantially lower in the baghouse
exhaust gas than in the wet scrubber exhaust gas. The average lead
concentration measured was 42 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm)
from the baghouse, and 240 [mu]g/dscm from the scrubber. The average
manganese concentration was 21 [mu]g/dscm from the baghouse, and 1,570
[mu]g/dscm from the scrubber. While these data are useful in
demonstrating that baghouses do achieve greater control of metal HAP
emissions than venturi scrubbers, they are inadequate for the purpose
of establishing a specific emissions standard (or standards) for metal
HAP.
We also have emissions data for PM from source tests conducted on
36 cupolas: 12 controlled by baghouses, 23 controlled by venturi
scrubbers, and 1 controlled by an ESP. For metal HAP compounds, we
believe PM to be a reasonable surrogate. The metal compounds of concern
are in fact a component of the PM contained in the cupola exhaust. As a
result, effective control of cupola PM emissions will also result in
effective control of HAP metals. Because emissions data for PM are
available, and because PM can reasonably serve as a surrogate for metal
HAP from cupolas, we elected to establish PM limits to control metal
HAP emissions from cupolas.
We also looked at existing State PM emissions limitations and
discovered that they are much more lenient than actual emissions.\2\
Therefore, we believe that PM emissions limitations that are specified
in air regulations and facility operating permits applicable to iron
and steel foundries cannot function as a reasonable proxy for actual
emissions and, as such, are not appropriate for establishing the MACT
floor for metal HAP or for PM as a surrogate of metal HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin are States
containing a large number of iron and steel foundries. These states
have PM concentration limits for cupolas of 0.08 gr/dscf or higher.
By contrast, exhaust gas emissions from 27 of the 34 cupolas for
which we have data show measured PM concentrations of 0.07 gr/dscf
or lower. Also, the average PM concentrations from all 12 of the
cupolas with baghouses were 0.005 gr/dscf or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined the MACT floor for new and existing cupola furnaces
by ranking the furnaces for which we have emissions information based
on the estimated emissions limitation achieved for that furnace. We
have emissions information from the comprehensive survey of known iron
and steel foundries for 143 cupolas. Two types of emissions information
was used to determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering
design parameters including control type and outlet PM concentration
design values.
Where we had emissions source test data for a furnace, we used the
emissions data to estimate the emissions limitation achieved for that
furnace. We have credible emissions source test data for 36 cupolas
including 12 controlled by baghouses, 23 controlled by venturi
scrubbers, and 1 controlled by an ESP. Each test is comprised of at
least three EPA Method 5 sampling runs of approximately 1 hour in
duration. We were careful to include only the data representing the
Method 5 PM (i.e., ``front half'' PM catch), as some foundries reported
both front and back half PM catches.
While we believe each emissions source test gives a good indication
of the level of control achieved by the control device during the time
of the emissions test, we do not believe a single emissions source test
can be used as an estimate of the long term emissions limitation
achieved for that source due to normal variations in process and
control device performance and other factors, such as the inherent
imprecision of sampling and analysis, which cannot be controlled. We
believe that the MACT floor performance level must be achievable
``under the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected
to recur.'' As such, the MACT floor performance limit must include a
consideration for the variability inherent in the process operations
and the control device performance.
Therefore, we used a statistical method to estimate the emissions
limitation achieved by a furnace when emissions source test data were
available. For each furnace where emissions source test data were
available, the emissions limitation achieved for that furnace was
estimated at the 95th percentile outlet PM concentration using a one-
sided z-statistic test (i.e., the emissions limitation which the
furnace is estimated to be able to achieve 95 percent of the time.) We
evaluated several options to estimate the standard deviation that is
needed to perform the z-statistic test. We decided not to estimate the
standard deviation for each furnace based on the available emissions
data for just that furnace since most furnaces only have three data
points to use in estimating the standard deviation, one data point for
each run in a three run emissions source test. We also decided not to
estimate the standard deviation for a furnace based on just the data
available for that furnace type because we have very limited
information on electric arc furnaces, and because the standard
deviation estimates the three types of furnaces were very similar. An
analysis of variance was performed on the data and there was no
statistically significant difference in the standard deviation
estimates for the three furnace types. Ultimately, we estimated an
average RSD of 0.4 based on a pooling of all of the available emissions
source test data for all furnaces types controlled by baghouses. Note
that data on venturi scrubbers and ESP were not used in estimating the
RSD because the available emissions source test data clearly
demonstrated that the furnaces controlled with these devices were not
among the best performing 12 percent of sources. We believe this method
adequately accounts for the normal variability in emissions source test
data and provides a reasonable estimate of the long term emissions
limitation achieved by a furnace. Additional information on the
statistical analysis used to estimate the emissions limitation achieved
by a furnace, including the data used and the complete ranking of
furnaces, is available in the docket for the proposed rule.
When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other
emissions information including control type and outlet PM
concentration design values. These data were used to estimate the
emission reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 107 cupolas
where we did not have stack test emissions data.
Additional information on the ranking of the furnaces used to
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed
rule.
We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be
the 6th percentile unit. It is reasonable to use the median to
represent the emissions reductions achieved by the top performing units
because the median represents the emissions reductions achieved by an
actual facility and, therefore, is representative of the what can be
achieved with the emissions controls used at that facility. As we have
emissions information on 143 cupola sources, the 6th percentile would
be the 9th best performing units (143 x 0.06 =
[[Page 78287]]
8.6). Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation achieved by the
existing cupola furnaces, we determined that the MACT floor for metal
HAP control at existing sources is a PM emissions concentration of
0.005 gr/dscf. Based on available emissions test data, we believe that
existing sources can achieve an emissions limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf
using a well-designed and operated baghouse to control emissions.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on
our ranking, the best-controlled similar source achieves an emissions
limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf. Two cupolas were identified that have
achieved average outlet PM concentrations of 0.001 gr/dscf. Both of
these cupola systems employ a novel pulse-jet baghouse with
horizontally supported bags (referred to as a horizontal baghouse) that
exhibited significantly better performance, based on available
emissions source test data, than any of the traditionally-designed
(vertically hanging bag) baghouses. In addition, one of the two
facilities was designed with a vendor guaranteed performance level of
0.001 gr/dscf, and five emissions source tests have been conducted on
this baghouse demonstrating that it is able to achieve a PM
concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf. Therefore, the MACT floor for metal HAP
control at new sources is determined to be an average PM concentration
of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor) options. We could not identify any
technically feasible options that can reduce metal HAP emissions below
the level of the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. For existing
sources, we evaluated the option of requiring existing sources to meet
the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. Based on the available
emissions source test data, it is likely that existing sources would
have to install and operate a horizontal baghouse in order to achieve
an emissions limit of 0.001 gr/dscf. Since only two furnaces are
currently equipped with horizontal baghouses, the rest of the existing
sources would have to remove any existing controls (including
traditional baghouses) and replace them with horizontal baghouses. We
estimated the incremental annualized cost of requiring all existing
sources to meet a 0.001 gr/dscf standard over the MACT floor level of
0.005 gr/dscf at $6.3 million dollars per year. We estimated the
additional HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved at 13 tpy.
Therefore, the additional cost per ton of additional HAP removed is
$480,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced for the beyond-the-floor
alternative. We rejected the beyond-the-floor control option because of
its high incremental costs per ton of HAP removed.
The proposed MACT standards are based on the MACT floor performance
limits for new and existing sources. For existing sources, the MACT
standard for cupolas is an average PM concentration of 0.005 gr/dscf or
less. For new sources, the proposed MACT standard for cupolas is an
average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
Electric Induction Furnaces and Scrap Preheaters
An electric induction furnace is a vessel in which forms of iron
and steel, such as scrap and foundry returns, are melted though
resistance heating by an electric current. The current is induced in
the metal charge by passing an alternating current through a coil that
surrounds either the charge (the coreless electric induction furnace)
or a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the vessel (the channel
electric induction furnace). An electric induction furnace operates in
batch mode, an operating cycle consisting of charging, melting,
backcharging (adding a second load of charge after the first load has
melted, which is optional), and tapping.
One major characteristic of melting operations using an electric
induction furnace is that scrap feed for an electric induction furnace
is commonly preheated prior to charging to the furnace. When used,
preheating is almost universally effected by direct exposure of the
scrap metal to a gas flame. Scrap preheaters are used primarily to
eliminate volatile substances, including water, that may vaporize
suddenly and cause an explosion if added to a molten charge or heel in
the furnace. Scrap preheaters are also used because the cost of initial
scrap heating with a gas flame (up to approximately 800 [deg]F) is less
costly than heating with electricity. Scrap preheaters are used solely
for electric induction furnaces. Where used, scrap preheaters are
considered to be an integral part of the electric induction furnace
metal melting operation, and they generally share a common PM control
device with the electric induction furnace. Therefore, we have included
scrap preheaters in the evaluation of electric induction furnace
control requirements.
Another significant characteristic of electric induction furnaces
is that they typically have low melting rates and are generally used at
smaller iron and steel foundries. From the comprehensive survey of iron
and steel foundries, there are 1,394 electric induction furnaces at the
595 iron and steel foundries that provided survey responses. Although
there are almost ten times more electric induction furnaces than
cupolas, the total amount of metal melted nationwide using electric
induction furnaces is only about 65 percent of the metal melted in
cupolas. The median size electric induction furnace has a melting
capacity of 1 ton/hr, and 95 percent of all electric induction furnaces
at iron and steel foundries have melting capacities under 10 tons/hr.
Predominately, electric induction furnaces are used at small foundries
or for small-production specialty-metal castings (e.g., high alloy iron
castings) at larger foundries. Emissions from electric induction
furnaces are generally low and primarily consist of PM and metal fumes.
MACT for organic HAP emissions. Electric induction furnaces are not
considered to be a significant source of organic HAP emissions,
primarily due to safety concerns with adding volatile substances to the
furnace. To avoid explosion hazards, tramp materials such as oil and
grease that are commonly present in scrap are removed either by the use
of a scrap preheater, by cleaning and drying the scrap on-site, or are
eliminated by purchasing only pre-cleaned or ingot scrap. As such,
organic HAP emissions from electric induction furnaces are negligible
and establishing a limit would not result in measurable emissions
reductions. Therefore, we are not proposing an emissions limit
regulating organic HAP emissions from electric induction furnaces.
Scrap preheaters are a potential source of organic HAP due to the
volatilization and incomplete combustion of oil and grease that may be
present in the scrap. Direct flame heating is used for most of the 177
scrap preheaters operated at iron and steel foundries. This method is
anticipated to effect a reduction in organic HAP by combusting most of
the organic materials that may be present in the scrap. A second method
of control is afterburning of exhaust gases, which is used for 12 scrap
preheaters at two foundries. Six of the scrap preheaters for which
afterburning is used are at one foundry that preheats scrap in vessels
that are so large that the flame may not penetrate the entire charge,
thus allowing some organic tramp materials to be volatilized and escape
without being combusted.
We do not have actual organic HAP emissions data; neither do we
have data on emissions that can function as a
[[Page 78288]]
surrogate for organic HAP. Therefore, we cannot use scrap preheater
emissions data to directly calculate an emissions limit for organic HAP
from scrap preheaters. We do have significant data on the methods
currently used at scrap preheaters that reduce organic HAP emissions
and well-established information on the performance and effectiveness
of these methods, and we can use these data to estimate the level of
control that these operations currently achieve.
Afterburning is used at 12 (6.8 percent) of the 177 scrap
preheaters, and these scrap preheaters are located at three iron and
steel foundries (6 scrap preheaters at each of 2 foundries). As these
afterburners are used in conjunction with direct flame preheaters, it
is reasonable to conclude that these systems achieve the greatest
organic HAP emissions reductions compared to scrap preheaters operated
without any additional control systems. Because more than 6 percent
(i.e., greater than the median of the top 12 percent) of the scrap
preheaters are equipped with afterburners, the MACT floor is
represented by the performance achieved by scrap preheater
afterburners.
Without additional data to characterize the organic HAP removal
performance of scrap preheater afterburners, we relied on our extensive
experience with, and knowledge of, the capabilities of thermal
incinerators at destroying organic emissions. Because afterburners are
thermal incinerators, it is reasonable to conclude that the performance
of scrap preheater afterburners is comparable to the performance of
thermal incinerators generally. We have over 20 years of experience in
evaluating the performance of thermal incinerators on a variety of
organic emissions sources. Based on our experience, we have identified
a well-established presumption that a well-designed and operated
thermal incinerator or afterburner is capable of achieving a 98 percent
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC. There is no
reason to believe that there is anything about the thermal incinerators
used in conjunction with scrap preheaters that would result in any
poorer or more efficient HAP reduction performance.
We believe that VOC is a reasonable surrogate for organic HAP
emissions from scrap preheaters because organic HAP emissions are a
significant component of the VOC emissions. Furthermore, effective
control of VOC emissions will result in effective control of organic
HAP emissions. Unlike the emissions from cupolas, which are high in CO
content due to the incomplete combustion of coke, CO is not a good
surrogate for organic HAP emissions from scrap preheaters. Scrap
preheater emissions are already low in CO content because the
preheaters use natural gas as fuel and operate with excess oxygen.
Therefore, we selected VOC as the surrogate for organic HAP emissions
from scrap preheaters.
We have determined that afterburners represent the MACT floor
control for scrap preheaters. We believe that the performance of these
scrap preheater afterburners is comparable to the performance of
thermal incinerators on other organic emissions sources, and that VOC
is a reasonable surrogate for organic HAP emissions from scrap
preheaters. Accordingly, we have established the existing source MACT
floor for organic HAP emissions from scrap preheaters as a 98 percent
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC.
We do not know of any control option that would result in lower
organic HAP emissions than can be achieved by afterburning. As such,
the MACT floor for new sources is the same as the MACT floor for
existing sources. Therefore, the proposed MACT standard for both
existing and new scrap preheaters is a VOC reduction of 98 percent or
greater, or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv if a 98 percent
reduction would result in an outlet concentration below 20 ppmv.
Because we do not have emissions data from scrap preheaters that
directly or indirectly measure organic HAP, we specifically request
comment on the proposed performance limits for organic HAP emissions
from scrap preheaters.
We believe this emissions limit is appropriate and achievable by
scrap preheaters equipped with afterburners. Because the direct flame
used by some scrap preheaters can itself function as a thermal
incinerator, we believe that most scrap preheaters units that employ
direct flame preheating will be able to meet this limit without the
application of afterburners.
MACT for metal HAP emissions. Both electric induction furnaces and
scrap preheaters are sources of metal HAP. As discussed earlier,
reduction of metal HAP emissions is accomplished by PM control since
the metal HAP of concern are primarily contained in the particulate
emissions. Baghouses, along with a few cartridge filters, are the
devices most commonly used for PM controls on the 1,394 electric
induction furnaces operated at iron and steel foundries. Baghouses and
cartridge filters (or fabric filters) are used for controlling melting
operations for 388 electric induction furnaces (28 percent), wet
scrubbers are used for 21 electric induction furnaces (1.5 percent),
and cyclones are used for 2 electric induction furnaces (0.1 percent).
Electric induction furnaces also have the potential to emit PM during
charging and tapping operations. These operations are generally
controlled by the same control device used to control melting operation
emissions. As such, fabric filters also dominate the charging and
tapping emissions controls. Charging is controlled by fabric filters
for 358 electric induction furnaces (26 percent) and tapping is
controlled by fabric filters for 309 electric induction furnaces (22
percent). Over 70 percent of electric induction furnaces (961) do not
use PM controls for any phase of operation.
Of the 177 scrap preheaters used at iron and steel foundries, 64
have baghouse controls for the discharging phase of operation; 23 of
the 64 use the same controls for heating, and 25 of the 64 use the same
controls for loading. Other controls used for PM are cyclones (used for
11 scrap preheaters) and wet scrubbers (two scrap preheaters).
Approximately half of the scrap preheaters do not use controls for any
phase of operation. Of the 64 scrap preheaters that are controlled by
baghouses, 59 are employed in conjunction with electric induction
furnaces that are also equipped with baghouses. Of those 59 scrap
preheaters, 43 are controlled by the same baghouses as their associated
electric induction furnace. We are proposing a single MACT limit for
both electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters because PM
emissions from scrap preheaters are typically controlled with the same
control device used to control the PM emissions from their associated
electric induction furnace.
Data for actual emissions of HAP metals are available from only one
electric induction furnace. These data are insufficient to characterize
HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries. However, as we explained
earlier, we believe PM to be a reasonable surrogate for HAP metal
compounds for electric induction furnaces and scrap preheater/electric
induction furnace systems. The metal HAP compounds of concern are in
fact a component of the PM contained in the scrap preheater and
electric induction furnace exhaust. As a result, effective control of
PM emissions will also result in effective control of HAP metals.
Outlet PM concentration data are available for 19 fabric filters (17
baghouses and 2 cartridge filters) used to control emissions from 57
electric
[[Page 78289]]
induction furnaces and 16 scrap preheaters, 1 venturi scrubber on 2
electric induction furnaces, 1 cyclone on 2 electric induction
furnaces, and 7 uncontrolled electric induction furnaces. Based on the
relative availability of PM versus HAP metal emissions data and based
on the nature of the metal HAP emissions (being particulate in nature),
we elected to use PM as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions in
establishing the MACT floor.
We also looked at Federally-enforceable emissions limitations as a
possible surrogate for actual electric induction furnace and scrap
preheater HAP emissions data. However, the State limitations are much
more lenient than actual emissions and cannot serve as a proxy for the
level of performance that such units actually achieve.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Alabama have PM
emissions limits that apply to melting furnace and general foundry
operations. In these States, PM emissions limits are 0.05 gr/dscf or
higher. In contrast, measured PM concentration in electric induction
furnace baghouse offgases are generally less than 0.005 gr/dscf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined the MACT floor for new and existing electric
induction furnaces and scrap preheaters by ranking the furnaces for
which we have emissions information based on the estimated emissions
limitation achieved for that furnace. We have emissions information
from the comprehensive survey of known iron and steel foundries for
1,394 electric induction furnaces and scrap preheater/electric
induction furnace systems. Two types of emissions information was used
to determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering design
parameters including control type and outlet PM concentration design
values.
As with cupola furnaces, where we had emissions source test data
for a furnace, we used the emissions data to estimate the emissions
limitation achieved for that furnace. We have credible emissions source
test data for 57 electric induction furnaces controlled by 19 fabric
filters (17 baghouses and 2 cartridge filters), 2 electric induction
furnaces controlled by venturi scrubbers, 2 electric induction furnaces
controlled by cyclones, and 7 uncontrolled electric induction furnaces.
Each test is comprised of at least three EPA Method 5 runs (except two
tests at one foundry that employed EPA Method 17) with sampling runs of
approximately 1 hour in duration. As discussed earlier, the MACT floor
performance limit must include a consideration for the variability
inherent in the process operations and the control device performance.
Therefore, we used a statistical method to estimate the emissions
limitation achieved by a furnace when emissions source test data were
available. For each furnace where emissions source test data were
available, the emissions limitation achieved for that furnace was
estimated at the upper 95th percentile outlet PM concentration using a
one-sided z-statistic test (i.e., the emissions limitation which the
furnace is estimated to be able to achieve 95 percent of the time.) We
believe this method adequately accounts for the normal variability in
emissions source test data and provides a reasonable estimate of the
emissions limitation achieved by a furnace. Additional information on
the statistical analysis used to estimate the emissions limitation
achieved by a furnace, including the data used and the complete ranking
of furnaces, is available in the docket for the proposed rule.
When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other
emissions information from the detailed survey including control type,
outlet PM concentration design values, and design PM removal
efficiencies. These data were used to estimate the emission reduction
limitation achieved for the remaining 1,337 electric induction furnaces
and scrap preheaters where we did not have stack test emissions data.
Additional information on the ranking of the sources used to
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed
rule.
We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be
the 6th percentile unit. Again, it is reasonable to use the median to
represent the emissions reductions achieved by the top performing units
because the median represents the emissions reductions achieved by an
actual facility and, therefore, is representative of the what can be
achieved with the emissions controls used at that facility. As there is
emissions information on 1,394 electric induction furnaces and scrap
preheater/electric induction furnace sources, the 6th percentile would
be represented by the 84th best performing units (1,394 x 0.06 = 83.6).
Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation achieved by the
existing electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters/electric
induction furnaces, we determined that the MACT floor for metal HAP
control at existing sources is a PM emissions concentration of 0.005
gr/dscf. We believe that existing sources can achieve an emissions
limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf using a well-designed and operated baghouse
to control emissions.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on
our ranking, the best-controlled similar source achieves an emissions
limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf. This source actually employs a three stage
control system: a baghouse (positive pressure, shaker, polyester, air-
to-cloth ratio of 3 ft/min), followed by a set of cartridge filters,
followed by high efficiency particulate arrester (HEPA) filters. There
are also several traditional baghouse units that are achieving this
performance level, and these units span the range of potential electric
induction furnaces and scrap preheater control configurations.
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, we believe baghouse technologies
exist that can effectively meet this performance level, and we believe
this baghouse technology can be applied to electric induction furnace
and scrap preheater emissions sources. Based on the available
information, the MACT floor performance level for new electric
induction furnaces and scrap preheaters emissions sources is determined
to be an average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
Next we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor) options. We could not identify any
technically feasible options that can reduce metal HAP emissions below
the level of the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. For existing
sources, we evaluated the option of requiring existing sources to meet
a more stringent limit, including the new source MACT floor of 0.001
gr/dscf. However, we believe that a more stringent limit is not
justified for existing electric induction furnace and scrap preheater
emissions sources because many units that could currently meet the
existing source MACT floor would need to purchase new baghouse control
systems and remove and dispose of their existing baghouses. The
incremental cost per ton of HAP removed for a 0.001 gr/dscf emissions
limit for existing electric induction furnace and scrap preheater
sources is roughly $400,000 to $500,000 per ton of HAP metal reduced.
[[Page 78290]]
Therefore, the proposed MACT standards for electric induction
furnaces and scrap preheaters are based on the MACT floor performance
limits for new and existing sources. For existing sources, the MACT
standard for electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters is an
average PM concentration of 0.005 gr/dscf. For new sources, the MACT
standard for electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters is an
average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf.
Electric Arc Furnaces
An electric arc furnace is a vessel in which forms of iron and
steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted through resistance
heating by an electric current. The current flows through the arcs
formed between electrodes (that are slowly lowered into the furnace)
and the surface of the metal and also through the metal between the arc
paths. Like an electric induction furnace, an electric arc furnace
operates in batch mode; an operating cycle consists of charging the
furnace, melting the charge, backcharging (which is optional), and
tapping the molten metal.
Electric arc furnaces are primarily used in the steel foundry
industry with limited applications at iron foundries. Based on the
information collected through our comprehensive survey of iron
foundries, 81 iron and steel foundries (out of 595 respondents)
reported using electric arc furnaces for their melting operations.
These 83 iron and steel foundries operate a total of 163 melting
electric arc furnaces.
MACT for organic HAP emissions. We have no organic HAP specific
emissions data for electric arc furnaces. However, electric arc
furnaces are not anticipated to be a significant organic HAP emissions
source. Total hydrocarbon concentrations measured in the exhaust stream
show very low organic concentrations (less than 1 ppmv). Small amounts
of organic HAP emissions may arise from electric arc furnaces due to
the vaporization or partial combustion of contaminant oils and greases
that may be present in the scrap. Implementation of a scrap selection
and inspection program that limits the amount of organic impurities in
the scrap used, which has previously been determined to be a part of
the MACT floor for the metal casting department of the foundry, should
minimize the potential for organic emissions from the electric arc
furnace. Furthermore, it is likely that most trace organic materials
present in the scrap after scrap selection and inspection will be
pyrolyzed in the electric arc furnace due to the heat associated with
the melting operation. Thus, we believe that organic HAP emissions from
electric arc furnaces are negligible, and that the performance of these
units with respect to organic HAP can not be measurably improved.
Moreover, no iron and steel foundry operates an emissions control
system that would further reduce the organic HAP emissions, if any
exist, from the electric arc furnace exhaust stream. Because no units
currently reduce organic HAP emissions from electric arc furnaces in
the iron and steel foundry industry, the MACT floor for organic HAP
from electric arc furnaces (for both new and existing sources) would be
no reduction in emissions. Because the organic concentrations are
already so low, no technically feasible control technologies can be
identified that could reduce the organic emissions from electric arc
furnaces. Therefore, aside from the scrap selection and inspection
requirements, no organic HAP emissions standards are proposed for
electric arc furnaces.
MACT for metal HAP emissions. The PM emissions from electric arc
furnaces contain metal HAP such as lead and manganese that are trace
components in the scrap metal. The metal HAP emissions are reduced
primarily by PM control. Baghouses, the only means used for controlling
PM emissions for electric arc furnaces, are employed for 81 charging/
backcharging, 160 melting, and 62 tapping operations (of the 163
electric arc furnaces operated at iron and steel foundries).
The MACT floor cannot be determined from actual emissions of HAP
because no HAP emissions data are available. However, as stated
earlier, we believe PM to be a reasonable surrogate for HAP metal
compounds. Effective control of PM emissions will also result in
effective control of HAP metals.
We also looked at State limits or permit conditions as a possible
surrogate for actual electric arc furnace emissions data. However, the
State limits and permit conditions are much more lenient than actual
emissions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Alabama have PM
emissions limits that apply to melting furnace and general foundry
operations. Exhaust gas concentration limits are 0.05 gr/dscf or
higher. In contrast, measured PM concentration in electric arc
furnace baghouse offgases are generally less than 0.005 gr/dscf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined the MACT floor for new and existing electric arc
furnaces by ranking the furnaces for which we have emissions
information based on the estimated emissions limitation achieved for
that furnace. We have emissions information from the comprehensive
survey of known iron and steel foundries for 163 electric arc furnaces.
Two types of emissions information was used to determine the MACT
floor--source test data, and engineering design parameters including
control type and outlet PM concentration design values.
As with the other furnace types, where we had emissions source test
data for a furnace, we used the emissions data to estimate the
emissions limitation achieved for that furnace. Outlet PM concentration
data are available for ten baghouses that are used to control the
emissions from 23 electric arc furnaces operated by iron and steel
foundries. As discussed earlier, the MACT floor performance limit must
include a consideration for the variability inherent in the process
operations and the control device performance. Therefore, we used a
statistical method to estimate the emissions limitation achieved by a
furnace when emissions source test data were available. For each
furnace where emissions source test data were available, the emissions
limitation achieved for that furnace was estimated at the upper 95th
percentile outlet PM concentration using a one-sided z-statistic test
(i.e., the emissions limitation which the furnace is estimated to be
able to achieve 95 percent of the time.) As stated earlier, we believe
this method adequately accounts for the normal variability in emissions
source test data and provides a reasonable estimate of the emissions
limitation achieved by a furnace.
When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other
emissions information obtained from the detailed survey including
control type, outlet PM concentration design values, and design PM
removal efficiencies. These data were used to estimate the emission
reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 140 electric arc
furnaces where we did not have stack test emissions data.
Additional information on the ranking of the sources used to
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed
rule.
We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be
the 6th percentile unit. Again, it is reasonable to use the median to
represent the emissions reductions
[[Page 78291]]
achieved by the top performing units because the median represents the
emissions reductions achieved by an actual facility and, therefore, is
representative of the what can be achieved with the emissions controls
used at that facility. As there is emissions information on 163 EAF
sources, the 6th percentile would be represented by the 10th best
performing unit (163 x 0.06 = 10). Based on our ranking of the
emissions limitation achieved by the existing electric arc furnaces, we
determined that the MACT floor for metal HAP control at existing
electric arc furnace sources is a PM emissions concentration of 0.005
gr/dscf. We believe that existing sources can achieve a PM emissions
limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf using a well-designed and operated baghouse
to control emissions.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on
our ranking, the best-controlled electric arc furnace achieves an
emissions limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf. Unlike the top performing cupola
or electric induction furnace control system, there does not appear to
be a technological reason why this baghouse has superior performance.
This baghouse is a negative-pressure shaker-type baghouse serving one
furnace. One other baghouse (a positive-pressure shaker-type baghouse
serving two furnaces) also appears to meet this performance limit.
Positive-pressure baghouses are notoriously difficult to test and there
are potential concerns about dilution air, which is often used to
maintain optimal baghouse operating temperatures. However, the source
test on this baghouse appears to have been rigorously performed using
EPA Method 5D. The baghouse has seven compartments and seven exhaust
stacks. Each exhaust stack was traversed, with 12 traverse points per
stack, for each of the three runs. Thus, 96 traverse points were
sampled for each run. With this many traverse points, a relatively
large gas sample volume was collected, affording quantifiable PM
catches even at the low concentrations observed. A second source test
was performed on this unit and it again achieved an average outlet
concentration 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
In addition, we believe that other available technology (i.e., a
horizontal baghouse as discussed in the cupola section) also can
consistently meet an emissions limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf, and that
this technology can also be applied for the control of electric arc
furnace emissions. Based on the available information, the MACT floor
performance level for new electric arc furnaces is determined to be an
average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
It is possible that there may be process differences that account
for the low emissions achieved by some electric arc furnaces that may
be grounds for further sub-categorization. We request comments and
solicit supporting data on whether there are process related
differences that would justify further sub-categorization of electric
arc furnaces. All comments and data received will be considered in
forming the final rule requirements.
Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than
the MACT floor (beyond the floor) options. We could not identify any
technically feasible options that can reduce metal HAP emissions below
the level of the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. For existing
sources, we evaluated the option of requiring existing sources to meet
a more stringent limit, including new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/
dscf. However, we believe that a more stringent limit is not justified
for existing electric arc furnace emissions sources because many units
that could currently meet the existing source MACT floor would need to
purchase new baghouse control systems and remove and dispose of their
existing baghouses. The incremental cost per ton of HAP removed for a
0.001 gr/dscf emissions limit for existing electric arc furnace sources
is roughly $400,000 to $500,000 per ton of HAP metal reduced.
In summary, the metal HAP MACT standard for electric arc furnaces
at existing sources is an average PM concentration of 0.005 gr/dscf or
less. For new sources, the MACT standard for electric arc furnaces is
an average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less. These proposed
MACT standards are based on the MACT floor performance limits for new
and existing sources.
Pouring Areas and Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout Lines
As described earlier in this preamble, after the iron and steel is
melted, the molten metal is poured into molds that contain open
cavities in the shape of the part being cast. The majority of molds are
made of sand that contain prescribed amounts of clay and moisture
(green sand) or chemical additives that help the sand retain the
desired shape of the cast part. Molds may also be made of tempered
metal (iron or steel) that are filled by gravity (permanent molds) or
by centrifugal force (centrifugal casting). Some systems use
polystyrene or other low density plastic (foam) patterns and pack sand
around the patterns. This type of casting operation is referred to as
expendable pattern casting or the lost foam process since the plastic
pattern is volatilized (and/or pyrolyzed) by the molten metal as the
castings are poured; expendable pattern casting is generally used for
complex, close-tolerance castings.
There are two basic configurations for pouring, cooling and
shakeout. The most common configuration is automated or pallet lines
that transfer the mold to and from a fixed location (the ``pouring
station'') where the molten metal is poured into molds. The molds are
then transported to a conveyor or separate cooling area where the molds
are allowed to cool until the cast part has sufficiently hardened so
that it can be removed from the mold. The cast parts are removed from
the molds at the shakeout station, which is typically a vibrating grate
or conveyor that breaks apart the sand molds. This configuration is
referred to as pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
The second configuration employs stationary molds (such as pit or
floor molding), and the molten metal is transported to and from the
molds using portable pouring ladles. The metal is poured and the molds
are then allowed to cool in-place (i.e., in the ``pouring area''). The
molds may then be transported to a separate shakeout area or more
commonly shakeout may be performed in the pouring area. Shakeout for
these stationary molds is generally accomplished manually (with sledge
hammers) or using back hoes or similar devices to break apart the molds
and retrieve the cast part.
Based on the differences in the operation of these systems, we
elected to subcategorize pouring, cooling, and shakeout operations into
two subcategories--pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines; and pouring
areas. Pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines use pouring stations and
the molds are transported to and from the pouring station. Cooling and
shakeout then occurs in a separate area within the facility. These
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines are often automated systems and
are typically used for cast parts the size of automotive engine blocks
or smaller. Pouring areas have molds that remain stationary during
pouring and cooling (and typically shakeout). Pouring areas are
commonly used to make large cast parts (e.g., construction equipment)
where it is difficult to move the molds after pouring due to the size
of the molds employed. Based on the industry survey data, iron and
steel foundries operate 1,317 pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines
(e.g., automated or pallet lines that
[[Page 78292]]
have fixed pouring stations) and 435 pouring areas (e.g., floor or pit
molds).
MACT for organic HAP emissions. Organic HAP are emitted from
pouring areas and pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines when chemicals
in sand molds and cores are vaporized or pyrolyzed by the heat of the
molten metal. The most common control for organic HAP is ignition of
mold offgas. Ignition typically occurs spontaneously in automated
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, while manual ignition of mold
vents is standard practice for floor and pit molding (i.e., pouring
areas). After several minutes (roughly 5 to 10 minutes depending on the
size of the mold and castings), the rate of gaseous release from the
molds eventually subsides to the point that a flame cannot be supported
by the mold vents. At this point, the flame goes out but the molds can
continue to smolder and emit organic HAP as they continue to cool.
Ignition of mold vents is believed to effectively reduce organic
emissions immediately after pouring when the release of organic vapor
from the molds is the highest.
In addition to mold vent ignition, three foundries operate control
systems that further reduce organic HAP emissions from the pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines. One iron and steel foundry is equipped
with a thermal oxidizer operated on one of its two pouring and cooling
lines (the thermal oxidizer is not used to control emissions from this
pouring and cooling line's shakeout station). Operators of the foundry
installed the thermal oxidizer to meet State permit limits on the VOC
emissions from this line. Two iron and steel foundries operate carbon
adsorption systems for their pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. At
one foundry, the carbon adsorption system is reported to control
pouring, cooling and shakeout operations for the one pouring, cooling,
and shakeout line at the foundry. At the second foundry, the carbon
adsorption system is used to control one of two cooling lines and both
shakeout stations for the two pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines
operated at the foundry. Both of the carbon adsorption systems were
designed and installed to reduce odor by 90 percent. No additional
organic HAP emissions controls (beyond mold vent ignition) are used for
any pouring areas.
In addition to these control measures, some studies are currently
investigating pollution prevention measures for reducing pouring,
cooling, and shakeout organic HAP emissions by reducing certain
additives in green sand or chemical binder formulations. The
limitations to binder formulations proposed as part of the standard for
mold and core making lines may also reduce organic HAP emissions from
the pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines; however, no numerical limit
can be assigned to these pollution prevention techniques. These systems
may be used to comply with the proposed standard for new sources, but
these pollution prevention techniques are only in the investigation
stages and cannot be characterized as proven or commercially available
techniques. Consequently, we do not consider such regulatory
alternatives available for purposes of establishing emissions limits
for these sources.
Only limited data on organic HAP or VOC emissions from pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines are available, and the data that are
available are not adequate for establishing an emissions limit based on
actual emissions. Therefore, we have determined the MACT floor for
organic HAP from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines and pouring areas
based on our assessment of the effectiveness of the controls used on
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines and pouring areas at existing
foundries.
Pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. Most pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines (well over 12 percent) control organic HAP by either
spontaneous ignition or manual ignition of offgas from mold vents
immediately after pouring. While pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines
equipped with a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorption system achieve
greater control of organic HAP emissions than lines using ignition of
mold vent offgas alone, very few existing units use these control
methods, and they do not constitute part of the MACT floor for existing
sources. Thus, ignition of mold vent offgas represents the organic HAP
MACT floor control for existing pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
We do not believe it is feasible to establish an emissions standard
representative of the emissions limitation achieved by ignition of mold
vent offgas. We do not have adequate emissions data to characterize the
emissions reductions achieved by mold vent ignition. Nor can we
identify any information upon which we could reasonably rely on to
estimate the performance of mold vent ignition in order to establish an
emissions limit. Moreover, since these emissions are not captured or
conveyed to a stack, it is not reasonable to establish a numeric
emissions limitation. Therefore, we are proposing a work practice
requirement to ensure ignition of the offgas from the mold vents
immediately after pouring as the MACT floor for pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines.
For new source MACT on pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, we
examined the pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines that are equipped
with a thermal oxidizer or a carbon adsorption system. No data are
available to compare the emissions limitation achieved by these
pouring, cooling, and shakeout line versus pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines that only use ignition of mold vent offgas. However,
since these control systems are used in conjunction with mold vent
ignition, and since we know that ignition alone leaves substantial HAP
emissions uncontrolled (i.e., after the flame goes out), and we know
that these additional technologies typically are efficient at reducing
organic HAP, we believe that these systems provide more effective
organic HAP emissions reductions than the use of mold vent ignition
alone. No HAP or VOC emissions data exist for the carbon adsorption
systems, so we are unable to determine which of the two types of
control devices (thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorption system) provide
the greatest reduction in organic HAP emissions.
The pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines that employ these
additional control systems appear to be pouring, cooling, and shakeout
lines that have unusually high VOC emissions potential. These foundries
employ chemically bonded molds or use significant amounts of chemically
bonded cores per ton of metal poured. As such, these foundries are
expected to have much higher VOC and organic HAP emissions from their
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines than most foundries.
Data for VOC and HAP emissions were available for ten pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines at two foundries. These foundries operate
green sand pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines with chemically-bonded
cores (core sand to metal ratio of approximately 0.1 to 1). These
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines exhibited VOC concentrations of
0.4 to 18 ppmv (as propane). Data for the foundry operating a thermal
oxidizer indicate VOC concentrations in excess of 100 ppmv.
Data for VOC and HAP emissions are also available for several
bench-scale testing operations. Since the actual concentrations
measured for these bench-scale units should be similar to full-scale
production units, these data indicate the organic HAP emissions
comprise roughly 65 percent of the VOC emissions arising from pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines. Thus, we believe that VOC is an
appropriate surrogate for
[[Page 78293]]
organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
At the low organic concentrations found in most pouring, cooling,
and shakeout lines, the destruction efficiency of a thermal oxidizer
and the removal efficiency of a carbon adsorption system is greatly
reduced. Based on the available VOC emissions data and engineering
considerations of these control systems, we believe that both of these
control systems are essentially equivalent control systems for reducing
organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. The
performance of these systems represents the MACT floor control for new
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
Without additional data to characterize the organic HAP removal
performance of these systems applied to pouring, cooling, and shakeout
lines, we relied on our well-established understanding of the
capabilities of thermal incinerators at destroying organic emissions.
It is reasonable to conclude that the performance of these control
systems for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is comparable to the
performance of well-designed and operated thermal incinerators and
carbon adsorption systems generally. We have over 20 years of
experience in evaluating the performance of these control systems on a
wide variety of organic emissions sources. Based on our experience with
these technologies and the related engineering constraints, we have
reasonably concluded that well-designed and operated thermal
incinerators or carbon adsorption systems are capable of achieving a 98
percent reduction down to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC. We
have no reason to expect that there is anything about these
technologies used in conjunction with pouring, cooling, and shakeout
lines that would result in poorer or more effective HAP reduction
performance.
As with scrap preheaters, we believe that VOC is a reasonable
surrogate for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout
lines because the organic HAP is a significant component of the VOC
emissions. Furthermore, effective control of VOC emissions will result
in effective control of organic HAP emissions. Therefore, we selected
VOC as the surrogate for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling,
and shakeout lines. Accordingly, we have established the new source
MACT floor for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines as a 98 percent reduction, or an outlet concentration of
20 ppmv if a 98 percent reduction would result in an outlet
concentration below 20 ppmv.
Next, we evaluated options more stringent than the MACT floor.
First we looked for alternatives that are more stringent than the MACT
floor for new pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. However, we do not
know of any control option that would result in lower organic HAP
emissions than can be achieved by thermal incinerators or carbon
adsorption systems. Therefore, the proposed MACT standard for new
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is a VOC reduction of 98 percent
or greater or an outlet VOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less. Because
we have very little data about the actual organic HAP performance of
these control systems on pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at iron
and steel foundries, we specifically request comment on these
performance limits for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines at new metal casting departments. We believe the new
source emissions limit is appropriate and achievable by pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines equipped with thermal incinerators or
carbon adsorption systems. It may also be possible for some pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines that use low emitting binder systems or
green sand additives to meet this limit using only mold vent ignition.
We also evaluated the option of requiring existing pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines to meet the new source MACT floor of 98
percent reduction or 20 ppmv. The cost per ton of organic HAP removed
for this control option will vary for each individual pouring, cooling,
and shakeout line. A preliminary analysis was conducted to estimate the
control cost for all chemically bonded mold pouring, cooling, and
shakeout lines, as these mold lines are the most likely to have VOC
emissions of greater than 20 ppmv. Based on this preliminary analysis,
the cost of this control option is likely to exceed $25,000 per ton
organic HAP emissions reduced. As such, we elected not to require the
more stringent limit because application of these control systems to
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines that have exhaust VOC
concentrations greater than 20 ppmv does not appear to be cost
effective. Although we did not elect to require more stringent control
systems for existing pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at this time,
we intend to further refine the cost estimates for these organic HAP
emissions control systems for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. If
the refined analysis indicates that this control option is more cost
effective than currently projected, we may require existing pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines to achieve a 98 percent VOC emissions
reduction or 20 ppmv VOC concentration (as propane). We specifically
invite comment on whether or not a more stringent control requirement
for existing pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is appropriate. We
also invite the submission of additional information that may be useful
in estimating the cost and effectiveness of these control systems as
applied to pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
Therefore, we are proposing the work practice of ensuring ignition
of the offgas from the mold vents immediately after pouring as MACT for
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at existing metal casting
departments. We are also establishing emissions limitations for organic
HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines as a 98 percent
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC as new source
MACT for metal casting departments.
Pouring Areas. Most pouring areas (well over 12 percent) control
organic HAP by either spontaneous ignition or manual ignition of offgas
from mold vents immediately after pouring. In addition, none of the
existing pouring areas are equipped with add-on controls. Thus,
ignition of mold vent offgas represents the organic HAP MACT floor
control for existing and new pouring lines.
As discussed above for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, we do
not believe it is feasible to establish an emissions standard
representative of the emissions limitation achieved by ignition of mold
vent offgas (see discussion above). Therefore, we are proposing a work
practice requirement to ensure ignition of the offgas from the mold
vents immediately after pouring as the MACT floor for pouring, cooling,
and shakeout lines.
We evaluated potential control systems that may be applicable to
reduce organic HAP emissions from pouring areas beyond the level of the
MACT floor. As discussed above, thermal incinerators and carbon
adsorption systems are generally effective organic HAP emissions
control devices, but their effectiveness in reducing emissions becomes
very limited at low organic HAP concentrations. Due to the requirements
to access the molds in the pouring area (e.g., for pouring, mold vent
ignition and manual shakeout), any capture system employed for molding
areas must be located some appreciable distance from the molds. Also,
as the pouring areas are generally large (large
[[Page 78294]]
molds or multiple molds in a pouring area), the high ventilation
requirements for effective capture of pouring area emissions would
necessarily result in very low organic HAP concentrations in the
pouring area exhaust stream (likely less than 1 or 2 ppmv). At these
low concentrations, the effectiveness of the additional organic HAP
emissions controls is very low, and the secondary impacts (energy and
other environmental impacts) associated with the capture and control
system is significant. As such, we have determined that no effective
control system is available to reduce organic HAP emissions from
pouring areas beyond the MACT floor control technology (mold vent
ignition).
Therefore, we are proposing the work practice of ensuring ignition
of the offgas from the mold vents immediately after pouring as MACT for
both new and existing pouring areas, based on the MACT floor analysis.
MACT for metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP is emitted from pouring
stations and pouring areas as metal fumes escape the molten metal as it
is poured into the molds. Once the molten metal is contained within the
mold, the potential for metal HAP emissions is greatly reduced due to
the very small surface area from which metal HAP can be released. The
potential for releases is further reduced as the molten metal cools and
hardens. As such, cooling and shakeout do not result in appreciable
metal HAP emissions releases from the foundry.
We do not believe we can establish an emissions limit for specific
HAP metals because emissions data are very limited for pouring stations
and pouring areas. Metal HAP emissions data are available for a pouring
station at one foundry, but these data are for uncontrolled emissions
and cannot be used to assess the performance of the MACT floor control
system. Furthermore, when pouring emissions are controlled, they are
typically combined with other emissions sources at the foundry (e.g.,
melting, cooling, or shakeout operations), which further complicates
the development of specific HAP emissions limits.
We believe that PM is an appropriate surrogate for HAP metal
emissions from pouring emissions. The metal compounds of concern are in
fact a component of the PM contained in the exhaust. As a result,
effective control of PM emissions will also result in effective control
of HAP metals. Because emissions data for PM are available, and because
PM can reasonably serve as a surrogate for metal HAP, we elected to
establish PM limits to control metal HAP emissions from pouring
stations and pouring areas.
We looked at State limits and permit conditions applied to pouring.
The most prevalent type of limit was expressed in lb/hr of PM, and
these limits are site specific and vary from plant to plant. A few
States, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, have some concentration limits
expressed in pounds per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (lb/1,000 lb). The
limits range from 0.038 to 0.2 lb/1,000 lb, which is roughly equivalent
to 0.02 to 0.10 gr/dscf. However, available test data show that the
actual performance achieved by pouring control systems is an outlet PM
concentration of 0.010 gr/dscf or less. Consequently, State limits or
permit conditions cannot function as a reasonable proxy for actual
emissions from pouring stations and pouring areas.
Pouring stations. Baghouses are used to control 178 (or 13 percent)
of the existing pouring stations and wet scrubbers are used to control
35 (or three percent) of the pouring stations. The majority of pouring
stations (1,104 pouring stations or 84 percent) do not control PM (or
metal HAP) emissions.
As with melting furnaces, we determined the MACT floor for new and
existing by ranking the pouring stations based on the available
emissions information. Emissions information was available for 1,317
pouring stations. Again, two types of emissions information was used to
determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering design
parameters including control type and outlet PM concentration design
values.
Where we had emissions source test data for a furnace, we used the
emissions data to estimate the emissions limitation achieved for that
furnace. Outlet EPA Method 5 performance data for PM were available for
11 controlled pouring station vent streams at nine foundries. As
discussed earlier, the MACT floor performance limit must include a
consideration for the variability inherent in the process operations
and the control device performance. Therefore, we used the statistical
method discussed earlier to estimate the emissions limitation achieved
by a furnace when emissions source test data were available.
When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other
emissions information obtained from the detailed survey including
control type, outlet PM concentration design values, and design PM
removal efficiencies. These data were used to estimate the emission
reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 140 electric arc
furnaces where we did not have stack test emissions data.
Additional information on the ranking of the sources used to
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed
rule.
We again use the 6th percentile unit as the most representative
estimate of the average emissions limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources because the 6th percentile
points to specific control device and performance limit. The 6th
percentile of 1,317 sources is the performance of the 79th best
performing unit. Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation
achieved by these pouring stations, we determined that the MACT floor
for metal HAP control at existing sources is a PM emissions
concentration of 0.010 gr/dscf. Based on available emissions test data,
we believe that existing sources can achieve an emissions limitation of
0.010 gr/dscf using a well-designed and operated baghouse or wet
scrubber to control emissions.
For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on
our ranking, the best-controlled pouring station achieves an emissions
limitation of 0.002 gr/dscf. There appeared to be no technological
reason why the best-performing pouring stations achieved significantly
lower PM concentrations than the other control systems in the MACT
pool. However, as discussed earlier for melting furnaces, it does
appear that technologies exist that can achieve these low outlet PM
concentrations. Furthermore, it appears that there are several pouring
stations at iron and steel foundries that currently meet a 0.002 gr/
dscf emissions limit. Therefore, the MACT floor for metal HAP control
for pouring stations at new affected sources is an average PM
concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than
the MACT floor. One option we evaluated was to require existing pouring
areas to meet a 0.002 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. However, this option
was rejected because the cost per ton of HAP reduced is expected to
exceed $250,000 per ton. We do not know of any other control options
that would result in lower emissions than the MACT floor options.
Therefore, the proposed MACT standards for metal HAP are based on
the MACT floor performance limits for new and existing sources. For
pouring stations at existing sources, the MACT
[[Page 78295]]
standard is an average PM concentration of 0.010 gr/dscf or less. For
pouring stations at new sources, the proposed MACT standard is an
average PM concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
Pouring areas. We have information on 435 pouring areas from the
industry survey. Baghouses are used to control 20 (or 4.6 percent) of
these pouring areas and wet scrubbers are used to control two (or 0.5
percent) of the pouring areas. A total of 413 (or 95 percent) of the
435 pouring areas do not control pouring emissions.
Only 5 percent of pouring areas employ a capture and control system
for pouring emissions. We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing
sources to be the performance achieved by the median source of the top
12 percent best performing sources, which would be the 6th percentile
unit. We use the 6th percentile unit because it points to a specific
control technology and performance limit and more accurately reflects
the central tendency in terms of the level of performance achieved by
an actual unit. An arithmetic average of the emissions reduction
achieved by the top 12 percent of sources for which we have emissions
data would not reflect the performance of any actual unit or any actual
control technology, and it would reflect a level of emissions
performance that the majority of units in the top 12 percent are not
currently able to achieve. Consequently, we believe it is more
reasonable to use the performance of the median unit to establish the
MACT floor. Accordingly, add-on controls are not part of the MACT floor
for pouring areas. Because controlling HAP in the input materials is
the only other measure that existing facilities use to reduce HAP
emissions from these units, the MACT floor for existing units is
limited to the metal HAP reduction achieved by the scrap selection and
inspection program that was identified as part of the MACT floor for
the entire metal casting department.
We based the MACT floor for new pouring areas on the emissions
reductions achieved by the best controlled pouring area. A few
facilities do capture and control metal HAP emissions from the pouring
area. However, we do not have any stack test emissions data for pouring
areas. As such, we ranked the available information on pouring area
controls based on reported outlet concentration design performance
values and the percent removal design value for each control system.
Based on our ranking, the best-controlled pouring area achieves an
emissions limitation of 0.002 gr/dscf. We believe that this emissions
limit is achievable and reasonable. Existing technologies can
consistently achieve this level of control. Therefore, the MACT floor
for metal HAP control for pouring areas at new affected sources is an
average PM concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than
the MACT floor. One option we evaluated was to require existing pouring
areas to meet a 0.010 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. However, this option
was rejected because the cost per ton of HAP reduced is expected to
exceed $250,000 per ton. We also evaluated requiring existing pouring
stations to meet a 0.002 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. This option was
also rejected because the cost per ton of additional HAP removed is
estimated to exceed $500,000 per ton.
Therefore, the proposed MACT standards for metal HAP are based on
the MACT floor performance limits for new and existing sources. For
pouring areas at existing sources, no additional requirements are
proposed beyond the scrap selection and inspection requirements
identified as a component of MACT for the entire metal casting
department. For pouring areas at new sources, the proposed MACT
standard is an average PM concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
E. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for the Emissions Sources in the Mold and Core Making Department?
Emissions of HAP from mold and core making departments arise from
three sources: the catalyst gas exhaust vent (gas cured systems only),
curing and storage, and coating.
Catalyst Gas Exhaust Vent
Some mold and core making binder systems use a catalyst gas to cure
the chemical binder. The catalyst gas does not react in the process but
passes unchanged through the form and is released to the atmosphere
unless it is collected and controlled. Of the binder systems that use
catalyst gasses, only the phenolic urethane cold box binder system uses
a gas that contains a HAP. The phenolic urethane cold box binder system
uses triethylamine, a HAP, as the catalyst gas. None of the other
catalyst gases used in the iron and steel foundry system are believed
to contain HAP. The triethylamine phenolic urethane cold box binder
system is one of the dominant binder systems in use at iron and steel
foundries, especially at high volume automated production lines, due to
the fast curing time of this system.
In establishing MACT for the catalyst gas exhaust vent, we first
evaluated the controls used on the existing phenolic urethane cold box
mold and core making lines. Of the 469 phenolic urethane cold box mold
and core making lines operated by iron and steel foundries, emissions
from 335 (71 percent) are controlled by wet scrubbing with acid
solution, seven are controlled by incineration methods such as
afterburning or regenerative thermal oxidation, four are controlled by
condensers, and the remaining lines are uncontrolled.
Acid wet scrubbers are very effective at controlling triethylamine
emissions. The triethylamine reacts rapidly and irreversibly in the
acid solutions used as the scrubber solution. As expected, the
available source test data indicate that acid wet scrubbers are highly
effective in controlling triethylamine emissions. We have reliable
performance test data for seven acid wet scrubbers at six foundries.
Inlet and outlet measurements were conducted across five of the
scrubbers, while only outlet measurements were conducted for the sixth
acid wet scrubber. Each test consisted of three individual runs. One
test was conducted using EPA Method 19, the standard reference method
we use for the measurement of organic compound emissions from
stationary sources; one test was conducted using both EPA Method 19
(inlet) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) Method 221 (Outlet); two tests were conducted using NIOSH
Method 2010; and no test method was identified for the remaining two
tests.
In all but one of the tests, the outlet emissions were lower than
the quantitative limit of the sampling and analytical method used. The
controlled triethylamine concentrations for the single source test with
quantitative triethylamine concentrations in the acid wet scrubber
exhaust ranged from 0.29 to 0.34 ppmv. This scrubber experienced the
highest inlet triethylamine concentrations (ranging from 209 to 255
ppmv) and achieved an average emissions reduction of 99.8 percent. In
the other tests, outlet concentrations were below detection limits,
which ranged from less than 0.03 to less than 1.5 ppmv. While the true
removal efficiencies cannot be determined because the outlet
concentrations were below detection limits, estimating the outlet
emissions at one half the detection limit provides removal efficiency
estimates ranging from 98 to 99.9 percent.
We have no emissions data on the seven phenolic urethane cold box
lines controlled by incineration or condensation. However, based on
[[Page 78296]]
extensive studies on source types where incinerators have been applied,
we have seen that properly designed and operated incinerators are
capable of achieving a 98 percent removal efficiency down to an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv. Likewise, our studies have shown that
condensers are typically only capable of achieving a removal efficiency
of up to 95 percent. Based on this information and the data we have for
triethylamine scrubbers, we believe that wet scrubbing is superior to
both incinerators and condensers for the purpose of removing
triethylamine emissions from the catalyst gas exhaust vent. As acid wet
scrubbers are employed at well over 12 percent of the triethylamine
phenolic urethane cold box mold and core making lines, the MACT floor
for triethylamine control is characterized by the level of control
achieved by wet scrubbing with acid solution.
Next we established the emissions limit based on the available
emissions data for acid wet scrubbers applied to triethylamine phenolic
urethane cold box mold and core making lines. As discussed above, all
of the emissions data on the exhaust of the acid wet scrubbers were
very low and were for the most part below the detection limit. The EPA
Method 18 is the EPA-approved method applicable for determining
triethylamine concentrations in the acid wet scrubber exhaust stream.
The detection limit for EPA Method 18 is generally considered to be 1
ppmv. Based on the available emissions data and considering the
quantitative limit associated with the applicable EPA test method for
this emissions source, we select a 1 ppmv triethylamine outlet
concentration as the existing source MACT floor level of control.
As no other emissions control device is known that can achieve a
higher triethylamine emissions reduction than acid wet scrubbers and
considering the quantitative limits associated with the applicable EPA
test method for this emissions source, the new source MACT is the same
as the existing source MACT, which is a 1 ppmv triethylamine outlet
concentration. We believe this emissions limit is achievable by a
properly designed and operated acid wet scrubber. For some
triethylamine phenolic urethane cold box mold and core making lines, it
may also be possible to achieve this emissions limit using a thermal
combustion device.
Mold and Core Curing and Storage
Organic HAP emissions arise from evaporation of HAP constituents
contained in binder chemical formulations during mold and core curing
and storage. These emissions are fugitive in nature and are not subject
to capture and control at any iron and steel foundries. Furthermore, no
suitable control technology could be identified to reduce the HAP
emissions from this source due to the low concentrations of HAP in the
fugitive emissions. However, in response to VOC regulations, binder
manufacturers are developing and evaluating new binder systems or re-
formulations of existing binder systems to reduce VOC emissions. These
new binder systems may also reduce HAP content of the binder system,
which effects a reduction in the HAP emissions from mold and core
curing and storage. Therefore, pollution prevention practices regarding
reduced HAP binder formulations were evaluated.
In general, foundries cannot readily switch from one binder system
to another because the binder systems are primarily selected based on
the required properties and dimensions of the cast part being
manufactured. Binder selection must consider the size of the casting
(which affects the size and strength requirements of the mold and
cores), the complexity of the cast shape and the tolerance requirements
on the dimensions of the casting, the metal surface finish requirements
of the casting, and the production rate of the foundry. In some cases,
different equipment may be required or additional space needed for
storage (due to slower cure times). Consequently, it is not feasible
for EPA to dictate the type of binder system used at new or existing
foundries solely on the basis of the HAP emissions potential of the
currently available binder systems. Such a requirement would not only
adversely impact the quality of the castings produced, it would also
limit the on-going advances in the development of new, low HAP-
containing binder systems.
Within a given binder system, there are different chemical
formulations of that binder system, some of which may have reduced HAP
content. These different formulations are also selected by the foundry
based on the quality requirements of the casting, strength requirements
of the mold, and curing times (i.e., production rates). Differences in
formulations may also be required based on regional or seasonal
variations in temperature and humidity for optimum binder performance.
Again, it is difficult to prescribe the use of specific low-HAP binder
formulations without negatively impacting cast part quality. However, a
foundry may more readily use a re-formulated binder system of the same
type than to change the type of binder system altogether.
The available binder systems were evaluated based on consultation
with binder chemical manufacturers to identify low-HAP formulations.
Low-HAP formulations were identified for three binder systems that
appear to provide the same performance characteristics as their
traditional counterpart while achieving HAP emissions reductions. That
is, we believe these low-HAP emitting binder systems can be used to
replace their traditional counterparts with no adverse impacts on the
production process or the quality of the product. These three systems
are: Furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane
nobake.
MACT for furan warm box binder system formulations. Methanol is the
only significant HAP emitted from mold and core making lines using
traditional formulations of furan warm box. According to industry
suppliers, the furan warm box system can be formulated without
methanol. A water-based, HAP-free system is used in at least 23 (42
percent) of the 55 furan warm box lines used in iron and steel
foundries. We believe that methanol-free systems can readily substitute
for other coating systems. Therefore, we are proposing a work practice
standard as the MACT floor for both existing and new mold and core
making lines using the furan warm box system. The proposed work
practice standard requires the use of a furan warm box formulation that
does not include methanol as a specific ingredient. The proposed
standard for furan warm box mold and core making lines is the work
practice of using a chemical formulation which does not contain
methanol as a specific ingredient.
MACT for phenolic urethane cold box and phenolic urethane nobake
binder system formulation. The phenolic urethane cold box and phenolic
urethane nobake systems use solvents that may contain up to 10 percent
naphthalene along with lesser amounts of cumene and xylene, all of
which are HAP. These solvents are petroleum distillate products. The
only emissions reduction practice used for these systems is the use of
a formulation with an alternative distillate fraction, termed
naphthalene-depleted solvent, that contains a maximum of 3 percent
naphthalene and correspondingly lesser amounts of cumene and xylene.
Iron and steel foundries employ 439 phenolic urethane cold box lines
and 266 phenolic urethane nobake lines. At least three foundries are
known to use
[[Page 78297]]
binder chemicals with a naphthalene-depleted solvent.
Considering the above information, we are establishing a work
practice standard as the new source MACT floor for phenolic urethane
cold box/ phenolic urethane nobake mold and core making lines. This
proposed standard requires the use of a formulation with naphthalene-
depleted solvent. Because fewer than 6 percent of the sources currently
use naphthalene depleted solvents, the MACT floor for existing sources
is the use of the traditional naphthalene solvent, which reflects no
reduction in emissions of organic HAP.
In selecting the MACT standard for existing sources, we also
examined the costs associated with requiring naphthalene-depleted
solvent formulations of phenolic urethane cold box/ phenolic urethane
nobake binder systems at existing sources as a beyond-the-floor control
option. According to information from industry sources, these solvents
are available at a premium of 3 to 5 cents per pound over the price of
the regular solvent. Using the 5 cents per pound figure, the price
increase relates to a cost of 71 cents per pound of naphthalene reduced
in the solvent (from 10 to 3 percent). By our estimate, 9 percent of
the naphthalene evaporates during mold or core making; thus, the cost
to reduce naphthalene emissions would be $7.94 per pound, or $15,900
per ton.
Our cost estimate is made assuming that enough naphthalene-depleted
solvent is available to supply all major source foundries. The phenolic
urethane cold box and phenolic urethane nobake binder systems are the
primary binder systems used by foundries, especially high production
foundries likely to be major sources of HAP emissions. Therefore, the
availability of an adequate supply of naphthalene-depleted solvent is a
significant concern. The availability question cannot be answered
without additional input from the foundry industry and its suppliers
and, therefore, we invite comment on this issue.
Based on the tentative assumption that an adequate supply of
naphthalene-depleted solvent is available, we propose to establish a
work practice standard requiring the use of naphthalene-depleted
solvent in all phenolic urethane cold box and phenolic urethane nobake
binder formulations for both new and existing mold and core making
lines.
MACT for other chemical binder systems. The HAP content of systems
other than the furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic
urethane nobake systems cannot be systematically reduced or eliminated
because the quality of the cast part or some required feature of the
mold or core, such as strength, speed of curing, and shelf life cannot
otherwise be maintained. Therefore, the new and existing MACT floors
for mold and core making lines using chemical binder systems other than
the furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane
nobake systems are no change in formulation, reflecting no reduction in
HAP emissions. However, there may be instances where reduced-HAP binder
formulations may be suitable for a given foundry's mold and core making
line based on the type of castings produced. Additionally, new binder
formulations are constantly being developed, and many of these have
reduced HAP content. Therefore, we believe that a work practice
standard that requires an initial evaluation of available binder
systems, and alternative binder formulations to identify applicable
binder systems or formulations that reduce HAP emissions are warranted.
As proposed, a foundry operator must either adopt a reduced-HAP binder
system or provide technical and/or economic rationale as to why the
currently available alternative systems are inappropriate for their
foundry. The binder system evaluation report is required to be updated
each permit renewal period. As this requirement is considered to be
beyond the floor, costs may be considered when evaluating alternative
binder systems or formulations.
MACT for mold and core coating. The HAP emissions arise during the
evaporation of liquid components after application of the coating
material. The two emissions reduction measures employed are the light-
off procedure and the use of a coating formulation with no HAP in the
liquid component (the solid component may contain chromite, for
example, but we do not expect this component to be emitted). Although
we have no specific data on emissions from the light-off procedure,
reductions cannot be greater than those achieved by eliminating HAP
from the formulation. Coatings based on water or non-HAP alcohols are
used in 1,145 (86 percent) of the 1,335 mold and core making lines. By
comparison, 29 lines use methanol and there are 161 lines that use an
unidentified alcohol or an unidentified substance that may or may not
be a HAP. Although we have no definitive information regarding possible
substitutions for these unidentified substances, the predominance of
lines that use formulations without HAP strongly suggests that
substitutions can be made. Therefore, we are establishing a work
practice standard as the MACT floor for HAP emissions from mold and
core making lines at existing mold and core coating departments. This
standard would require use of coating formulations that do not contain
HAP as a specific ingredient in the liquid component. Since no more
stringent measure of emissions reductions exist, we choose the work
practice of using coating formulations that contain no HAP in the
liquid component as a specific ingredient as the standard for both new
and existing mold and core making lines. We request comment on the
availability and feasibility of coating formulations that contain no
HAP in the liquid component for all mold and core coating applications.
F. How Did We Select the Proposed Initial Compliance Requirements?
We selected initial compliance requirements that will:
[sbull] Establish compliance with emissions limits,
[sbull] Determine operating limits on capture systems and control
devices that will be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with
emissions limits, and
[sbull] Confirm that equipment, materials, and procedures are in
place that will provide compliance with work practice standards.
The proposed rule would require a performance test for each
emissions source subject to a PM or triethylamine emissions limit to
demonstrate initial compliance. Foundries would be required to measure
PM using EPA Method 5 (or variations) and triethylamine using Method 18
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A). We would also require that operating
limits for parameters relevant to control device performance be
determined during the initial compliance test to ensure that the
control devices operate properly on a continuing basis. All operating
limits must be established during a performance test that demonstrates
compliance with the applicable emissions limit. During Method 5
performance tests for PM, operating limits must be established for
pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate for wet scrubbers. During
Method 18 performance tests for triethylamine, operating limits must be
established for scrubbing liquid flowrate and blowdown pH for wet
scrubbers or combustion temperature for thermal oxidizers. Operating
limits for capture systems would be established in the O&M plan.
[[Page 78298]]
Foundries using CEMS would be required to conduct performance
evaluations, followed by a performance test comprised of 3 continuous
hours of measurements. Operating limits would not apply to control
devices equipped with CEMS because emissions would be directly
measured.
Initial compliance with the various work practice standards is
achieved through submission of written plans, establishment of the
practices, and certification of such in the notification of compliance.
G. How Did We Select the Proposed Continuous Compliance Requirements?
We selected continuous compliance requirements that will:
[sbull] Periodically confirm compliance with emissions limits
through performance testing,
[sbull] Verify that control devices are operating in a manner that
provides compliance with the emissions limits, and
[sbull] Maintain the use of equipment, materials, and procedures
that are required to provide compliance with work practice standards.
We chose a periodic performance testing schedule which is
consistent with current permit requirements. We consulted with several
States on how they were implementing title V permitting requirements
for performance tests. In general, performance tests are repeated every
2.5 to 5 years, depending on the size of the source. Consequently, we
decided that performance tests should be repeated every 5 years.
We also developed procedures to ensure that control equipment is
operating properly on a continuous basis. When baghouses are used, the
alarm for the a bag leak detection system must not sound for more than
5 percent of the time in any semiannual reporting period. Wet scrubbers
controlling PM emissions must be monitored for pressure drop and
scrubber water flowrate, which must not fall below the limits
established during the performance test. Wet acid scrubbers used for
triethylamine emissions control must be monitored for scrubber liquid
flowrate and blowdown pH; the flowrate must not fall below the limit
established during the performance test, and the pH must not rise above
the limit established during the performance test. For afterburners
used for triethylamine emissions control, the combustion zone
temperature must not fall below the level determined during the
performance test. Foundries would be allowed to select site-specific
operating parameters to monitor for capture systems. The proposed rule
also includes inspection and maintenance requirements for CPMS.
We also developed procedures to ensure that the work practice
standards are met. The scrap specification and inspection program would
be verified through written scrap specifications and maintaining
appropriate records of the scrap inspections. Mold vent offgas ignition
must be routinely verified. All work practice standards regarding
limits on the coating and binder formulations for mold and core making
would be verified by maintaining appropriate records.
H. How Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements?
We selected the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements are necessary and
sufficient to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Most iron and steel foundries have had emissions controls in place
for many years similar to those we are proposing to require. The
primary impact of the PM standards will be to require cupolas that are
currently using venturi scrubbers to control emissions more
effectively, most likely by replacing the scrubbers with baghouses. We
project that these controls would reduce metal HAP emissions by about
120 tpy.
Establishment of a standard of 1 ppmv triethylamine emissions
limitation would result in triethylamine emissions reductions of 146
tpy from the two foundries that do not presently control emissions; the
VOC limit would result in additional organic HAP emissions reductions
of 4 tpy from two foundries that do not presently control these
emissions from cupolas. The EPA believes that a requirement for non-HAP
coating formulations, methanol-free binder system formulations for
furan warm box binder systems, naphthalene-depleted solvents, and
reduced-HAP binder system formulations would reduce organic HAP
emissions by as much as 790 tpy.
Overall, we expect the proposed standards to reduce HAP emissions
by over 900 tpy--a 40 percent reduction from the current level of
nationwide HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries. Concurrent with
the reduction in HAP emissions, the proposed NESHAP is also expected to
reduce PM and VOC emissions by 3,600 tpy.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The nationwide total annualized cost of the proposed rule,
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting would be $21.7
million. This cost includes the annualized cost of capital and the
annual operating and maintenance costs for supplies, control equipment,
monitoring devices, and recordkeeping media. The nationwide total
capital cost of the proposed rule would be $141 million.
The capital costs associated with the proposed rule are primarily
due to the costs of installing modular pulse-jet baghouse systems to
control emissions of metal HAP and PM from cupolas currently controlled
using venturi scrubbers which is estimated to cost approximately $110
million. This capital cost estimate includes the cost of removing the
venturi scrubbers and installing modular pulse-jet baghouse systems.
Based on information provided by the iron and steel foundry industry,
we used a retrofit cost factor of 2.0 (i.e., the cost of installing a
baghouse at an existing facility was estimated to be 2.0 times the cost
of installing an identical baghouse at a new facility). This retrofit
cost factor is considerably higher than the typical retrofit costs
suggested by the literature (typical retrofit cost factors range from
1.2 to 1.5). We request comments and supporting data on the
appropriateness of such a high retrofit cost factor.
As the cost of operating a baghouse is less than the cost of
operating a PM wet scrubber due to lower energy consumption (lower
pressure drop) of the baghouse system and the avoidance of wastewater
treatment/disposal costs, the annual operating and maintenance cost of
the proposed rule is actually estimated to be less than the cost of
operating the current control equipment for cupolas. Therefore, there
would be a net savings in the annual operating and maintenance costs
for baghouses over venturi scrubbers of roughly $7 million. The
nationwide total annual cost (including capital recovery) for complying
with the PM emission limit for cupolas is estimated at $2.9 million per
year.
The cost impacts would also include:
[sbull] The cost of installing and operating baghouses on currently
uncontrolled electric induction furnaces;
[sbull] The cost of installing and operating baghouses on currently
uncontrolled pouring stations;
[[Page 78299]]
[sbull] The cost of installing and operating triethylamine
scrubbers for currently uncontrolled triethylamine cold box mold and
core making lines;
[sbull] The additional cost of using replacement naphthalene-
depleted solvent in sand binder chemicals;
[sbull] The cost of installing and operating monitoring equipment
(predominantly baghouse leak detectors for PM sources) on melting
furnace exhaust streams, pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines,
triethylamine scrubbers, and VOC afterburners; and
[sbull] The cost of electronic and paper recordkeeping media.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We conducted a detailed assessment of the economic impacts
associated with the proposed rule. The compliance costs associated with
the proposed rule are estimated to increase the price of iron and steel
castings by less than 0.1 percent with domestic production declining by
almost 8,000 tons in aggregate. The analysis also indicates no impact
on the market for foundry coke, which is used by cupolas in the
production of iron castings.
Through the market impacts described above, the proposed rule would
have distributional impacts across producers and consumers of iron and
steel castings. Consumers are expected to incur $13.5 million of the
overall regulatory burden of $21.7 million because of higher prices and
forgone consumption. Domestic producers of iron and steel castings are
expected to experience profit losses of $9.2 million due to compliance
costs and lower output levels, while foreign producers would experience
profit gains of $1 million associated with the higher prices. For more
information, consult the economic impact analysis supporting the
proposed rule that is available in the docket.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?
The proposed rule would provide positive secondary environmental
and energy impacts. Primarily due to the lower energy requirements for
operating a baghouse versus a wet scrubber, the proposed rule is
projected to reduce annual energy consumption by 130,000 megawatt hours
per year. This would lead to reduced nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides
emissions from power plants of roughly 230 tons per year and 490 tons
per year, respectively. The replacement of wet scrubbers with baghouses
is also responsible for the proposed rule's estimated 14.6 billion
gallons per year reduction in water consumption and disposal rates.
Although baghouses have slightly higher dust collection efficiencies,
the dust is collected in a dry form while PM collected using a wet
scrubber contains significant water even after dewatering processes.
Therefore, the total volume and weight of solids disposed under the
proposed rule is estimated to be approximately the same as, if not less
than, the current solid waste disposal rates.
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from interested
parties. You must submit full supporting data and a detailed analysis
with your comments to allow us to make the best use of them. Be sure to
direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034 (see ADDRESSES).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2096.01), and a copy may be obtained
from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or
by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy also may be downloaded off the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are
not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule would require applicable one-time notifications
required by the General Provisions for each affected source. As
required by the NESHAP General Provisions, all plants would be required
to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
Plants also would be required to prepare an O&M plan for capture
systems and control devices; a scrap selection and inspection plan; and
a report on available reduced-HAP binder formulations. Records would be
required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the O&M requirements
for capture systems and control devices and requirements for monitoring
systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are required. These reports
would describe any deviation from the standards; any period a
continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-control''; or any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to respond were
consistent with startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. If no
deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report would be
required. Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in
response to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not
consistent with the plan, an immediate report must be submitted within
2 days of the event with a letter report 7 days later.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection
[[Page 78300]]
of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule) is estimated to total 26,389 labor hours per
year at a total annual cost of $2,884,840 including labor, capital, and
operation and maintenance.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA (2136), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between
30 and 60 days after December 23, 2002, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 22,
2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to
the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards for NAICS codes
331511 (Iron Foundries), 331512 (Steel Investment Foundries), and
331513 (Steel Foundries, except Investment) of 500 or fewer employees;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
In accordance with the RFA, we conducted an assessment of the
proposed rule on small businesses within the iron and steel castings
manufacturing industry. Based on SBA size definitions for the affected
industries and reported sales and employment data, we identified 20 of
the 63 companies incurring compliance costs as small businesses. These
small businesses are expected to incur $4.7 million in compliance
costs, or 22 percent of the total industry compliance costs of $21.7
million. Under the proposed rule, the mean annual compliance cost as a
share of sales for small businesses is 0.64 percent, and the median is
0.35 percent, with a range of 0.03 to 2.36 percent. We estimate that
four of the 20 small businesses may experience an impact greater than 1
percent of sales, but no small businesses will experience an impact
greater than 3 percent of sales. While a few small firms may experience
initial impacts greater than 1 percent of sales, no significant impacts
on their viability to continue operations and remain profitable are
expected. See Docket A-2000-34 for more information on the economic
analysis.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we have nonetheless
worked to minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities,
consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We have discussed
potential impacts and opportunities for emissions reductions with
company representatives, and company representatives have also attended
meetings held with industry trade associations to discuss the proposed
rule. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost
of the proposed rule for any year has been
[[Page 78301]]
estimated to be $6.8 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not
subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has
determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because
it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
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.'' The proposed
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are
owned or operated by State governments and the proposed rule would not
preempt any State laws that are more stringent. In addition, the
proposed rule is required by statute and, if implemented, will not
impose any substantial direct compliance costs. Thus, the requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed 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 9, 2000) requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that have
tribal implications.'' The proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal
governments own or operate iron and steel foundries. The proposed rule
is required by statute and will not impose any substantial direct
compliance costs. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the
proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks 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, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in
the proposed rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3,
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with
the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G,
and 5D. The search and review results have been documented and are
placed in the docket for the proposed rule.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 17
voluntary consensus standards applicable to the proposed rule. The EPA
determined that 14 of these 17 standards were impractical alternatives
to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. Therefore,
EPA does not propose to adopt these standards today. The reasons for
this determination for the 14 methods are in docket for the proposed
rule.
The following three of the 17 voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of this proposed rule because they are under
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow
Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1);
ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging
Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ISO/DIS 12039,
``Stationary Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon
Dioxide, and Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A. While we
are not proposing to include these three voluntary consensus standards
in today's proposal, the EPA will consider the standards when final.
The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
in the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should
also explain why the proposed rule should adopt these voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards.
Emissions test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied
with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data
and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method
other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
Section 63.7732 of the proposed rule lists the EPA test methods for
use in emissions tests. Under Sec. 63.8 of the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative
[[Page 78302]]
monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the CFR is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart EEEEE to read as follows:
Subpart EEEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.7680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7682 What parts of my foundry does this subpart cover?
63.7683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emissions Limitations
63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?
Work Practice Standards
63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
General Compliance Requirements
63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Initial Compliance Requirements
63.7730 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
63.7733 What procedures must I use to establish operating limits?
63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions
limitations that apply to me?
63.7735 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.7740 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7741 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
63.7742 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.7743 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
63.7744 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7745 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.7750 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7752 What records must I keep?
63.7753 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.7760 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7761 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7762 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.7680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries. This subpart also
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous
compliance with the emissions limitations, work practice standards, and
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.
Sec. 63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron and
steel foundry that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to
you. Your iron and steel foundry is a major source of HAP if it emits
or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or
more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more
per year.
Sec. 63.7682 What parts of my foundry does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at
your iron and steel foundry.
(b) Affected sources covered by this subpart are each new or
existing metal casting department and each new or existing mold and
core making department at your iron and steel foundry.
(c) This subpart covers emissions from each metal melting furnace,
scrap preheater, pouring area, pouring station, and pouring, cooling,
and shakeout line in a new or existing metal casting department and
each mold and core making line and mold and core coating line in a new
or existing mold and core making department.
(d) An affected source at your iron and steel foundry is existing
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source
on or before December 23, 2003.
(e) An affected source at your iron and steel foundry is new if you
commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source after
December 23, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the
definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.
Sec. 63.7683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) For each existing affected source, you must comply with each
emissions limitation, work practice standard, and operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later
than [3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
(b) For each new affected source for which its initial startup date
is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must comply with each emissions limitation, work
practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this
subpart that applies to you by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register].
(c) For each new affected source for which its initial startup date
is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must comply with each emissions limitation, work
practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this
subpart that applies to you upon initial startup.
(d) If your iron and steel foundry is an area source that becomes a
major source of HAP, you must meet the requirements of Sec.
63.6(c)(5).
[[Page 78303]]
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.7750. Note that several of these notifications must be
submitted before the compliance date for your affected source.
Emissions Limitations
Sec. 63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emissions limit in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(8) of this section that applies to you.
(1) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a metal
melting furnace or scrap preheater at an existing metal casting
department to a level that does not exceed 0.005 grains per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf).
(2) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a metal
melting furnace or scrap preheater at a new metal casting department to
a level that does not exceed 0.001 gr/dscf.
(3) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a pouring
station at an existing metal casting department to a level that does
not exceed 0.010 gr/dscf.
(4) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a pouring
area or pouring station at a new metal casting department to a level
that does not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf.
(5) You must control emissions of carbon monoxide from a cupola at
a new or existing metal casting department to a level that does not
exceed 200 parts per million by volume (ppmv).
(6) You must reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds from a
scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting department by 98
percent by weight or to a level that does not exceed 20 ppmv as
propane.
(7) You must reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds from
all pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal casting
department, on a flow-weighted average basis, by 98 percent by weight
or to a level that does not exceed 20 ppmv as propane.
(8) You must reduce emissions of triethylamine from a triethylamine
cold box mold or core making line at a new or existing mold and core
making department to a level that does not exceed 1 ppmv.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(6) of this section that applies to you.
(1) For each emissions source subject to an emissions limit under
paragraph (a) of this section, you must capture and vent emissions
through a capture system that maintains a face velocity of at least 200
feet per minute. You must operate each capture system at or above the
lowest value or settings established as operating limits in your
operation and maintenance plan.
(2) You must operate each baghouse applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area or pouring station
subject to an emissions limit for particulate matter in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section such that the alarm on each bag leak
detection system does not activate for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in any semiannual reporting period.
(3) You must operate each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a
metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area or pouring station
subject to an emissions limit for particulate matter in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section such that the 3-hour average
pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate does not fall below the
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
(4) You must operate each combustion device applied to emissions
from a triethylamine cold box mold or core making line subject to the
emissions limit for triethylamine in paragraph (a)(8) of this section,
such that the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature does not fall
below the minimum level established during the initial performance
test.
(5) You must operate each wet acid scrubber applied to emissions
from a cold box mold or core making line subject to the emissions limit
for triethylamine in paragraph (a)(8) of this section such that:
(i) The 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flowrate does not fall
below the minimum level established during the initial performance
test; and
(ii) The 3-hour average pH of the scrubber blowdown does not exceed
the maximum level established during the initial performance test.
(c) If you use a control device other than a baghouse, wet
scrubber, or combustion device, you must prepare and submit a
monitoring plan containing the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) of this section. The monitoring plan is subject to approval
by the Administrator.
(1) A description of the device;
(2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec. 63.7732
verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of
particulate matter, total gaseous non-methane organics, volatile
organic compounds, or triethylamine to the atmosphere to the levels
required by this subpart;
(3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required by Sec.
63.7710(b);
(4) A list of appropriate operating parameters that will be
monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable
emissions limitation(s); and
(5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected
during the performance test.
Work Practice Standards
Sec. 63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?
(a) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written plan for the selection and inspection of iron and steel scrap
to minimize, to the extent practicable, the amount of organics and HAP
metals in the charge materials used by the metal casting department. A
copy of the plan must be kept onsite and readily available to all plant
personnel with purchase, selection, or inspection duties. Each plan
must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Specifications for incoming scrap including, but not limited
to, restrictions on the amount of free liquids, grease, oils, painted
parts, plastic parts, lead components, and galvanized materials. You
must provide each scrap vendor a copy of your specifications.
(2) Procedures for visual inspection of all incoming scrap
shipments to ensure the materials meet the specifications.
(i) The inspection procedures must identify the location(s) where
inspections are to be performed for each type of shipment. The selected
location(s) must provide the best vantage point, considering worker
safety, for visual inspection.
(ii) The inspection procedures must include recordkeeping
requirements that document each visual inspection and the results.
(iii) The inspection procedures must include provisions for
rejecting or returning entire or partial scrap shipments that do not
meet specifications and limiting purchases from vendors whose shipments
do not meet specifications.
(3) Procedures to ensure that no oily turnings are included in
foundry returns used as part of the furnace charge material.
(i) The procedures must include daily visual inspections of the
foundry returns to be used as furnace charge.
(ii) The procedures must include recordkeeping requirements to
document the daily visual inspection and the results.
[[Page 78304]]
(b) For each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line in an existing
metal casting department and each pouring area in a new or existing
metal casting department, you must manually ignite the gases from each
mold vent that do not ignite automatically.
(c) For each mold or core making line in a new or existing mold and
core making department, you must use a coating formulation that does
not contain HAP as an ingredient of the liquid component of the
formulation.
(d) For each furan warm box mold or core making line in a new or
existing mold and core making department, you must use a binder
chemical formulation that contains no methanol that is specifically a
part of the formulation.
(e) For each phenolic urethane cold box or phenolic urethane nobake
mold or core making line in a new or existing mold and core making
department, you must use a binder chemical formulation in which the
solvents are naphthalene-depleted. Depletion of naphthalene must not be
accomplished by substitution of naphthalene with other HAP.
(f) For each mold or core making line in a new or existing mold or
core making department other than a furan warm box, phenolic urethane
cold box, or phenolic urethane nobake mold or core making line, you
must:
(1) Conduct a study to evaluate and identify available reduced-HAP
binder formulations for each line; and
(2) Adopt reduced-HAP binder formulations for each line unless you
demonstrate in your report that all available alternatives are
technically or economically infeasible. If you do not adopt a reduced-
HAP binder formulation for a line, you must conduct a study to evaluate
and identify available reduced-HAP binder formulations every 5 years
(at permit renewal).
(g) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraphs (a) through
(f) of this section.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Sec. 63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels
required by this subpart.
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection
system and control device for an emissions source subject to an
emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a). Each plan must contain the
elements described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors,
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g.,
presence of holes in the ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused
by dents or accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion). The
operation and maintenance plan must also include requirements to repair
the defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next
scheduled inspection.
(2) Operating limits for each capture system for an emissions
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a). You must
establish the operating limits according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Select operating limit parameters appropriate for the capture
system design that are representative and reliable indicators of the
performance of the capture system. At a minimum, you must use
appropriate operating limit parameters that indicate the level of the
ventilation draft and damper position settings for the capture system
when operating to collect emissions, including revised settings for
seasonal variations. Appropriate operating limit parameters for
ventilation draft include, but are not limited to; volumetric flowrate
through each separately ducted hood, total volumetric flowrate at the
inlet to the control device to which the capture system is vented, fan
motor amperage, or static pressure. Any parameter for damper position
setting may be used that indicates the duct damper position related to
the fully open setting.
(ii) For each operating limit parameter selected in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, designate the value or setting for the
parameter at which the capture system operates during the process
operation. If your operation allows for more than one process to be
operating simultaneously, designate the value or setting for the
parameter at which the capture system operates during each possible
configuration that you may operate (i.e., the operating limits with one
furnace melting, two melting, as applicable to your plant).
(iii) Include documentation in your plan to support your selection
of the operating limits established for your capture system. This
documentation must include a description of the capture system design,
a description of the capture system operating during production, a
description of each selected operating limit parameter, a rationale for
why you chose the parameter, a description of the method used to
monitor the parameter according to the requirements of Sec.
63.7740(a), and the data used to set the value or setting for the
parameter for each of your process configurations.
(3) Preventative maintenance plan for each control device,
including a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with
the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(4) A corrective action plan for each baghouse. The plan must
include the requirement that, in the event a bag leak detection system
alarm is triggered, you must initiate corrective action to determine
the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective
action to correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the
alarm, and complete the corrective action as soon as practicable.
Corrective actions taken may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Making process changes.
(vii) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter
emissions.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emissions limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
(b) During the period between the compliance date specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.7683 and the date upon which
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and verified
operational and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must
[[Page 78305]]
maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process
and emissions control equipment.
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7730 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance
test within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified
in Sec. 63.7683 for your affected source to demonstrate initial
compliance with each emissions limitation in Sec. 63.7690 that applies
to you.
(b) For each work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700 and each
operation and maintenance requirement in Sec. 63.7710 that applies to
you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance
test, you must demonstrate initial compliance within 30 calendar days
after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.7683.
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 23, 2002 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either
the proposed emissions limit or the promulgated emissions limit no
later than [180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or no later than 180 calendar days
after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.
63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 23, 2002 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emissions
limit when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a second
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the promulgated
emissions limit by [3 YEARS AND 180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or after startup
of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable emissions limitations in Sec. 63.7690
for your affected source no less frequently than every 5 years.
Sec. 63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for
particulate matter in Sec. 63.7690(a)(1) through (4) for a metal
melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, you
must follow the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter that are
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flowrate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as applicable, to determine the
concentration of particulate matter.
(2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet
of gas during each particulate matter sampling run. A minimum of three
valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test.
(3) For cupolas, sample only during times when the cupola is on
blast.
(4) For electric arc and electric induction furnaces, sample only
when metal is being melted.
(5) For scrap preheaters, sample only when scrap is being
preheated.
(c) To determine compliance with the emissions limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(5) for carbon monoxide from a cupola at a new or existing
metal casting department, you must follow the procedures in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Using the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
required in Sec. 63.7740(e), measure and record the concentration of
carbon monoxide for 3 consecutive operating hours. Measure emissions at
the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the emissions
source if no control device is present) prior to any releases to the
atmosphere.
(2) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in
Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
(3) Compute and record the 3-hour average of the monitoring data.
(d) To determine compliance with the emissions limit in Sec.
63.7690(a)(6) for volatile organic compound emissions from a scrap
preheater at a new or existing metal casting department, or in Sec.
63.7690(a)(7) for volatile organic compound emissions from one or more
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal casting department,
you must follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Measure and record the concentration of volatile organic
compound emissions (as propane) using the CEMS in Sec. 63.7740(f) for
3 consecutive operating hours.
(i) If you elect to meet the percent reduction standard for a scrap
preheater, you must measure the concentration of emissions at inlet and
outlet of the control device (or the inlet and outlet of the emissions
source, if no control device is present) prior to any releases to the
atmosphere.
(ii) If you elect to meet the concentration limit of 20 ppmv for a
scrap preheater or pouring, cooling, and shakeout line, you must
measure emissions at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet
of the emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any
releases to the atmosphere. For two or more exhaust streams from a
pouring, cooling, and shakeout line, compute the flow-weighted average
concentration for each combination of exhaust streams using Equation 1
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE02.001
Where;
Cw = Flow-weighted concentration, ppmv (as propane);
Ci = Concentration of volatile organic compounds from
exhaust stream ``i,'' ppmv (as propane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flowrate of effluent gas from exhaust stream
``i,'' in dry standard cubic feet per minute.
(2) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in
Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
[[Page 78306]]
(3) Compute and record the 3-hour average of the monitoring data.
(e) To determine compliance with the limit in Sec. 63.7690(a)(8)
for a triethylamine cold box mold or core making line, you must follow
the test methods and procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases
to the atmosphere.
(2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric
flowrate of the stack gas.
(3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of
the stack gas.
(4) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(5) Method 18 to determine the concentration of triethylamine. The
Method 18 sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that
either the triethylamine concentration in the field sample is at least
5 times the limit of detection for the analytical method or the test
results calculated using the laboratory's reported analytical detection
limit for the specific field samples are less than \1/5\ of the
applicable emissions limit. In no case shall the sampling time be less
than 1 hour.
Sec. 63.7733 What procedures must I use to establish operating
limits?
(a) For each capture system subject to operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1), you must establish site-specific operating limits
according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) and (5) of this
section.
(2) Concurrent with applicable emissions tests, measure and record
values for each of the operating limit parameters in your capture
system operation and maintenance plan according to the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.7740(a).
(3) For any dampers that are manually set and remain at the same
position at all times the capture system is operating, the damper
position must be visually checked and recorded at the beginning and end
of each run.
(4) Review and record the monitoring data. Identify and explain any
times the capture system operated outside the applicable operating
limits.
(5) Certify in your performance test report that during all test
runs, the capture system maintained a minimum face velocity of 200 feet
per minute and the values or settings in your capture system operation
and maintenance plan were established.
(b) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(3) for pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate, you must
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS)
required in Sec. 63.7740(c), measure and record the pressure drop and
scrubber water flowrate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during
each particulate matter test run.
(2) Compute and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and average
scrubber water flowrate for each sampling run in which the applicable
emissions limit is met.
(c) For each combustion device applied to emissions from a
triethylamine cold box mold or core making line subject to the
operating limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(4) for combustion zone temperature,
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7740(d), measure and record
the combustion zone temperature during each sampling run in intervals
of no more than 15 minutes.
(2) Compute and record the 3-hour average combustion zone
temperature for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions
limit is met.
(d) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(4) for scrubbing liquid flowrate and pH of the
scrubber blowdown, you must establish site-specific operating limits
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.7740(e), measure and record
the scrubbing liquid flowrate and the scrubber blowdown pH during each
triethylamine sampling run in intervals of no more than 15 minutes.
(2) Compute and record the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flowrate
and average scrubber blowdown pH for each sampling run in which the
applicable emissions limit is met.
(e) You may change the operating limits for a capture system, wet
scrubber, acid wet scrubber, or combustion device if you meet the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating
limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limitation in Sec. 63.7690.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
Sec. 63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
(a) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the emissions
limits in Sec. 63.7690(a) if:
(1) For each metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at an
existing metal casting department, the average concentration of
particulate matter in the exhaust stream, determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.005
gr/dscf;
(2) For each metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at a new
metal casting department, the average concentration of particulate
matter in the exhaust stream, determined according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.001 gr/dscf;
(3) For each pouring station at an existing metal casting
department, the average concentration of particulate matter in the
exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.010 gr/dscf;
(4) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new metal casting
department, the average concentration of particulate matter in the
exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf;
(5) For each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department:
(i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(c); and
(ii) The 3-hour average concentration of carbon monoxide, measured
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(c), did
not exceed 200 ppmv.
(6) For each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting
department:
(i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(d); and
(ii) The 3-hour average concentration of volatile carbon compounds,
measured according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(d), was reduced by 98 percent, by weight, or did not exceed 20
ppmv as propane.
(7) For each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line at a new metal
casting department:
[[Page 78307]]
(i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(d); and
(ii) The 3-hour average concentration of volatile organic compounds
from a pouring, cooling, and shakeout line, or the flow-weighted 3-hour
average concentration of volatile organic compounds from one or more
lines, measured according to the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 ppmv as propane.
(8) For each triethylamine cold box mold or core making line in a
new or existing mold and core making department, the 3-hour average
concentration of triethylamine, determined according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7732(e), did not exceed 1 ppmv.
(b) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the operational
requirements in Sec. 63.7690(b) if:
(1) For each capture system subject to operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1), you have demonstrated that the face velocity is greater
than 200 feet per minute using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
or (ii) of this section, and you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits(s) and have a record of the operating
parameter data measured during the performance test in accordance with
Sec. 63.7733(a).
(i) Calculate the hood face velocity by measuring the flowrate in
the duct and the face area of the hood using the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) (i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Use Method 1 to select an appropriate sampling port location in
the duct leading from the hood to the control device.
(B) Use Method 2 to measure the volumetric flowrate in the duct
from the hood to the control device.
(C) Determine the face area of the hood by measuring the open area
between the emission source and the hood. If the hood has access doors,
the face area shall include the open area for the doors when the doors
are in the position they are in during normal operation.
(D) Calculate the face velocity by dividing the volumetric flowrate
by the total face area of the hood.
(ii) Measure the face velocity directly using the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Measure the face velocity using a propellor anemometer or
equivalent device.
(B) The propellor anemometer shall be made of a material of uniform
density and shall be properly balanced to optimize performance.
(C) The measurement range of the anemometer shall extend to at
least 1000 feet per minute.
(D) A known relationship shall exist between the anemometer signal
output and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a
suitable readout system.
(E) Measure the face velocity by placing the anemometer in the
plane of the hood opening. If the hood has access doors, measure the
face velocity with the doors in the position they are in during normal
operation.
(2) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate, you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate measured during
the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7733(b).
(3) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit
specified in Sec. 63.7690(b)(3) for combustion zone temperature, you
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the combustion zone temperature measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7733(c).
(4) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(4) for scrubbing liquid flowrate and scrubber blowdown
pH, you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and
have a record of the scrubbing liquid flowrate and pH of the scrubbing
liquid blowdown measured during the performance test in accordance with
Sec. 63.7733(e).
Sec. 63.7735 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
(a) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the work practice
standard in Sec. 63.7700, you have demonstrated initial compliance if
you have certified in your notification of compliance status that:
(1) You have prepared and submitted a written plan for the
selection and inspection of iron and steel scrap to the applicable
permitting authority for review according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7700(a) and will meet each of the work practice requirements in the
plan.
(2) You will meet each of the work practice requirements in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) For each pouring area and pouring, cooling, and shakeout line
subject to the work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(b), you meet
each work practice requirement for ignition of gases;
(ii) For each mold or core coating line subject to the work
practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(c), you meet the ``no HAP''
requirement for each coating formulation;
(iii) For each furan warm box mold or core making line subject to
the work practice standard in Sec. 63.7700(d), you will meet the ``no
methanol'' requirement for each binder chemical formulation; and
(iv) For each phenolic urethane cold box or phenolic urethane
nobake mold or core making line subject to the work practice standard
in Sec. 63.7700(e), you will meet the ``naphthalene-depleted solvent''
requirement for each binder chemical formulation.
(3) You have records documenting your certification of compliance,
such as a material safety data sheet (provided that it contains
appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a
manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet, onsite and available
for inspection.
(4) For each mold and core coating line (other than furan warm box,
phenolic urethane cold box, or phenolic urethane nobake mold or core
making lines) subject to the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(f), you have demonstrated initial compliance if:
(i) You have certified in your notification of compliance status
that you meet the ``reduced-HAP'' work practice requirement for each
binder chemical formulation or that adoption of the reduced-HAP
chemical formulation is technically and/or economically infeasible;
(ii) You have prepared and submitted a written study to the
applicable permitting authority for review and approval that evaluates
and identifies available reduced-HAP binder formulations for each line.
If you do not adopt reduced-HAP binder chemical formulations for a
line, your report must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
permitting authority that their use is technically and/or economically
infeasible; and
(iii) You have records documenting your certification of
compliance, such as a material safety data sheet (provided that it
contains appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a
manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet, onsite and available
for inspection.
Sec. 63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b) established in your operation and maintenance plan, you have
demonstrated initial compliance if you
[[Page 78308]]
meet the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) You have certified in your notification of compliance status
that:
(i) You have prepared the capture system operation and maintenance
plan according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7710(b), including
monthly inspection procedures and detailed descriptions of the
operating parameter(s) selected to monitor the capture system; and
(ii) You will operate the capture and collection system at the
value or settings established in your operation and maintenance plan.
(2) You have certified in your performance test report that the
system operated during the test at the operating limits established in
your operation and maintenance plan.
(3) You have submitted a notification of compliance status
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7750(e), including a copy of
the capture system operation and maintenance plan.
(b) For each control device subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have
certified in your notification of compliance status that:
(1) You have prepared the control device operation and maintenance
plan according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7710(b); and
(2) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each control device
according to the procedures in the plan.
(c) You have submitted a notification of compliance status
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7750(e), including a copy of
your operation and maintenance plans for capture systems and control
devices.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.7740 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b)(1) established in your capture system operation and
maintenance plan, you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7741(a) and the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor the operating
limit parameter, you must at all times monitor the hourly average rate
(e.g., the hourly average actual volumetric flowrate through each
separately ducted hood or the average hourly total volumetric flowrate
at the inlet to the control device).
(2) Dampers that are manually set and remain in the same position
are exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CPMS. If
dampers are not manually set and remain in the same position, you must
make a visual check at least once every 24 hours to verify that each
damper for the capture system is in the same position as during the
initial performance test.
(b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must at all
times monitor the relative change in particulate matter loadings using
a bag leak detection system according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7741(b) and conduct inspections at their specified frequencies
according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(8) of this section.
(1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the manual.
(2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of
removal mechanisms.
(3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each
day.
(4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an
appropriate methodology.
(5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
(7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
(8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
(c) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(3), you must at all times monitor the pressure drop and
scrubber water flowrate using CPMS according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7741(c).
(d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(4), you must at all times monitor the combustion zone
temperature using CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7741(d).
(e) For each wet acid scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5), you must at all times monitor the scrubbing liquid
flowrate and scrubber blowdown pH using CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(e).
(f) For each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department,
you must at all times monitor the concentration of carbon monoxide
using a CEMS according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7741(g).
(g) For each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting
department, and each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line at a new metal
casting department, you must at all times monitor the concentration of
volatile organic compound emissions using a CEMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(h).
Sec. 63.7741 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor an operating
limit parameter for a capture system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow
and that reduces swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flowrate.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least
semiannually.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(2) If you use a pressure measurement device to monitor the
operating limit parameter for a capture system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and
external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
[[Page 78309]]
(iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(3) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit specified in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(2) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according
to the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this
section.
(1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot)
or less.
(2) The system must provide output of relative changes in
particulate matter loadings.
(3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel.
(4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997). This document is available on the EPA's
Technology Transfer Network at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.pdf
(Adobe Acrobat version) or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.wpd
(WordPerfect version). You may install, operate, and maintain other
types of bag leak detection systems but you must install, operate, and
maintain these systems, in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's
written specifications and recommendations and you must also submit a
monitoring plan appropriate for these systems.
(5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the
alarm delay time.
(6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(c) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.7690(b)(3), you must install and maintain CPMS to measure and record
the pressure drop across the scrubber and scrubber water flowrate
according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) For each CPMS for pressure drop, you must:
(i) Locate the pressure sensor in or as close as possible to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure
drop and that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration,
and internal and external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
(iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a
new pressure sensor.
(vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(2) For each CPMS for scrubber liquid flowrate, you must:
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream
disturbances.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flowrate.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(4), you must install and maintain a CPMS to measure
and record the combustion zone temperature according to the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 [deg]C or 0.75 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 [deg]C or 2 percent of the temperature
value, whichever is larger.
(4) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(5) If you use a chart recorder, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20 [deg]F.
(6) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor
validation check, in which a second or redundant temperature sensor
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading
within 16.7 [deg]C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(7) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range, or install a new temperature sensor.
(8) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(e) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5), you must install and maintain CPMS to measure and
record the scrubbing liquid flowrate and the scrubber blowdown pH
according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) For each CPMS for scrubbing liquid flowrate, you must:
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream
disturbances.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2
percent of the flowrate.
(iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
[[Page 78310]]
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(2) For each CPMS for scrubber blowdown pH, you must:
(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pH and that minimizes or eliminates
internal and external corrosion.
(ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.1 pH
or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of
the pH range.
(iii) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration
monthly using a manual pH gauge.
(iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(f) For each CPMS installed on a capture system, wet scrubber,
combustion device, or wet acid scrubber that is subject to the
operating limits in Sec. 63.7690(b), you must operate the CPMS
according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of three of
the required four data points to constitute a valid hour of data.
(2) Each CPMS must have valid hourly data for 100 percent of every
averaging period.
(3) Each CPMS must determine and record the hourly average of all
recorded readings and the 3-hour average of all recorded readings.
(g) For each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department,
you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to measure and record
the concentration of carbon monoxide emissions according to the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to
Performance Specification 4 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and Performance
Specification 4 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(h) For each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting
department and each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line at a new metal
casting department, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to
measure and record the concentration of volatile organic compound
emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to
Performance Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.8 and Performance
Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(i) You must operate each CEMS according to the requirements
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
(2) You must reduce CEMS data as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
(3) Each CEMS must determine and record the 3-hour average
emissions using all the hourly averages collected for periods during
which the CEMS is not out-of-control.
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
Sec. 63.7742 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) any time a source of emissions is operating.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emissions
or operating levels or to fulfill a minimum data availability
requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during
all other periods in assessing compliance.
(c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
Sec. 63.7743 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each new or existing affected source, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter
from a metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at an existing metal
casting department in a concentration at or below 0.005 gr/dscf;
(2) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter
from a metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at a new metal casting
department in a concentration at or below 0.001 gr/dscf;
(3) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter
from a pouring station at an existing metal casting department in a
concentration at or below 0.010 gr/dscf;
(4) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter
from a pouring station at a new metal casting department in a
concentration at or below 0.002 gr/dscf;
(5) Maintaining the 3-hour average concentration of carbon monoxide
emissions from a coupla at a new or existing metal casting department
in a concentration at or below 200 ppmv and:
(i) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(g) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(ii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(i) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(6) Maintaining a 98 percent reduction in the 3-hour average
concentration of volatile organic compounds from a scrap preheater at a
new or existing metal casting department or the 3-hour average in a
concentration at or below 20 ppmv as propane and:
(i) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(h) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(ii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(i) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(7) Maintaining a 98 percent reduction in the 3-hour average
concentration of volatile organic compounds from one or more pouring,
cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal casting department or
maintaining the 3-hour, flow-weighted average concentration of volatile
organic compounds from one or more pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines
at a new metal casting department in a
[[Page 78311]]
concentration at or below 20 ppmv as propane:
(i) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(h) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(ii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(i) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements.
(8) Maintaining the average concentration of triethylamine from a
triethylamine cold box mold or core making line at a new or existing
mold and core making department in a concentration at or below 1 ppmv.
(9) Conducting subsequent performance tests at least every 5 years
for each emissions source subject to an emissions limitation in Sec.
63.7690(a).
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each capture
system subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(1) by meeting
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Operate the capture system at or above the lowest values or
settings established for the operating limits in your operation and
maintenance plan; and
(2) Monitor the capture system according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7740(a) and collect, reduce, and record the monitoring data
for each of the operating limit parameters according to the applicable
requirements in this subpart.
(b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in Sec.
63.7690(b)(2) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection
system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating
time during any semiannual reporting period. Follow the procedures
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section to
determine the percent of time the alarm sounded.
(i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak
detection system are not included in the calculation.
(ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
(iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the
alarm.
(v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the
total operating time multiplied by 100.
(2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated
corrective action, the corrective action taken, and the date on which
corrective action was completed; and
(3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7740(b)(1) through (8) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection
system beyond the limit in Sec. 63.7741(b)(1), you must include a copy
of the required written certification by a responsible official in the
next semiannual compliance report.
(c) For each wet scrubber that is subject to the operating limits
in Sec. 63.7690(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 3-hour average pressure drop and 3-hour average
scrubber water flowrate at levels no lower than those established
during the initial or subsequent performance test;
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(c) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and
scrubber water flowrate according to the requirements of Sec.
63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(d) For each combustion device that is subject to the operating
limit in Sec. 63.7690(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature at a
level no lower that established during the initial or subsequent
performance test;
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(d) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for combustion zone
temperature according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7741(f) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(e) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in
Sec. 63.7690(b)(5), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
(1) Maintaining the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flowrate at a
level no lower than the level established during the initial or
subsequent performance test;
(2) Maintaining the 3-hour average scrubber blowdown pH at a level
no higher than the level established during the initial or subsequent
performance test;
(3) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.7741(e) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with these requirements; and
(4) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubbing liquid
flowrate and scrubber blowdown pH according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements.
Sec. 63.7744 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work
practice standards that apply to me?
(a) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the work practice
standards in Sec. 63.7700(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by maintaining records documenting conformance with the
procedures in your scrap selection and inspection plan.
(b) For each pouring area in a new or existing metal casting
department and each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line in an existing
metal casting department subject to the work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
(1) Visually inspecting each line at least once every shift to
verify that the gases have ignited automatically and record the results
of each inspection;
(2) Manually igniting the gases from each mold vent that do not
ignite automatically and recording that manual ignition was done.
(c) For each new or existing mold and core making department you
must:
(1) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all coating
formulations applied in each mold or core coating
[[Page 78312]]
line to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of Sec.
63.7700(c);
(2) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all binder
formulations applied in each furan warm box mold or core making line to
demonstrate compliance with the requirement of Sec. 63.7700(d);
(3) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all binder
formulations applied in each phenolic urethane cold box and each
phenolic urethane nobake mold or core making line to demonstrate
compliance with the requirement of Sec. 63.7700(e);
(4) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all binder
formulations applied in each mold or core making line (other than furan
warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane nobake mold
or core making lines) to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of
Sec. 63.7700(f). If you do not adopt reduced-HAP binder formulations
for a line, you must conduct a study to evaluate and identify available
formulations as described in Sec. 63.7700(g) every 5 years; and
(5) If you change the formulation of any coating or binder chemical
used in the mold and core coating and mold and core making lines
subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.7700(b) through (f), notify us
in your next compliance report and recertify compliance with the
applicable work practice standard.
Sec. 63.7745 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each capture system and control device for an emissions
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec. 63.7690(a), you must
demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance
requirements of Sec. 63.7710 by:
(1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems and initiating
corrective action according to Sec. 63.7710(b)(1) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements;
(2) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device
according to the preventive maintenance plan required by Sec.
63.7710(b)(3) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements; and
(3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak
detection system alarm according to the corrective action plan required
by Sec. 63.7710(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document
conformance with these requirements.
(b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and
maintenance plans required by Sec. 63.7710(b) onsite and available for
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emissions limitation in Sec. 63.7690 (including each
operating limit) that applies to you. This requirement includes periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each
instance in which you did not meet each work practice standard in Sec.
63.7700 and each operation and maintenance requirement of Sec. 63.7710
that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emissions
limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance
requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be reported
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.7751.
(b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(1) Consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
(2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.7750 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications required by Sec. Sec.
63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e); 63.8(f)(4) and (6); 63.9(b) through (e), and
(g) through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than [120
CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start your new
affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no
later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required by Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of
compliance status according to the requirements of Sec.
63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to the requirement specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source by Sec.
63.7683 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes
first after the compliance date that is specified for your affected
source.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your
first compliance report is due.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31,
[[Page 78313]]
whichever date comes first after the end of the semiannual reporting
period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section and, as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took action consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there were no deviations from any emissions limitations
(including operating limit), work practice standards, or operation and
maintenance requirements, a statement that there were no deviations
from the emissions limitations, work practice standards, or operation
and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or CEMS) was out-of-control as specified by
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which
the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(7) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) that occurs at an affected source for which you are
not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or CEMS) to
comply with an emissions limitation or work practice standard required
in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of
this section. This requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction.
(i) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause) as applicable and the corrective action
taken.
(8) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected
source where you are using a continuous monitoring system (including a
CPMS or CEMS) to comply with the emissions limitation or work practice
standard in this subpart, you must include the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this
section. This requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
system was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.
63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(v) A summary of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and unknown
causes.
(vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source
operating time during the reporting period.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report according to the requirements of Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
(d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or
part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in
the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)
or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required
information concerning deviations from any emissions limitation or
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected
source to your permitting authority.
Sec. 63.7752 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section:
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you
submitted, according to the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the following records for each CEMS.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(3) Request for alternatives to relative accuracy tests for CEMS as
required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i).
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(c) You must keep the records required by Sec. Sec. 63.7743,
63.7744, and 63.7745 to show continuous compliance
[[Page 78314]]
with each emissions limitation, work practice standard, and operation
and maintenance requirement that applies to you.
Sec. 63.7753 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to the requirements of
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records for the previous 3 years off
site.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.7760 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.7761 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has
delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office
to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to work practice standards under Sec.
63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.7762 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section.
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Binder chemical means a component of a system of chemicals used to
bind sand together into molds, mold sections, and cores through
chemical reaction as opposed to pressure.
Capture system means the collection of components used to capture
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then
convey the captured gas stream to a control device. A capture system
may include, but is not limited to, the following components as
applicable to a given capture system design: duct intake devices,
hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans.
Cold box mold or core making line means a mold or core making line
in which the formed aggregate is hardened by catalysis with a gas.
Combustion device means an afterburner, thermal incinerator, or
scrap preheater.
Cooling means the process of molten metal solidification within the
mold and subsequent temperature reduction prior to shakeout.
Cupola means a vertical cylindrical shaft furnace that uses coke
and forms of iron and steel such as scrap and foundry returns as the
primary charge components and melts the iron and steel through
combustion of the coke by a forced upward flow of heated air.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an
owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including operating limits), work practice standard, or operation and
maintenance requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation (including operating
limits) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Electric arc furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron and
steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted through resistance
heating by an electric current flowing through the arcs formed between
the electrodes and the surface of the metal and also flowing through
the metal between the arc paths.
Electric induction furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron
and steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted though
resistance heating by an electric current that is induced in the metal
by passing an alternating current through a coil surrounding the metal
charge or surrounding a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the
vessel.
Emissions limitation means any emissions limit or operating limit.
Exhaust stream means gases emitted from a process that by design
are captured, conveyed through ductwork, and exhausted from the foundry
building through a stack using forced ventilation.
Furan warm box mold or core making line means a mold or core making
line in which the binder chemical system used is that system commonly
designated furan warm box system by the foundry industry.
Hazardous air pollutant means any substance on the list originally
established in 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act and subsequently amended
as published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Iron and steel foundry means 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 near final shape products.
Metal casting department means the area of a foundry and associated
equipment in which all operations needed to melt metal and produce
mechanically finished castings are done, including preparation of
furnace feed, melting metal, transferring molten metal to pouring
stations, pouring metal into molds, cooling molds, and separating
castings from molds.
Metal melting furnace means a cupola, electric arc furnace, or
electric induction furnace that converts scrap, foundry returns, and/or
other solid forms of iron and/or steel to a liquid state. This
definition does not include a holding furnace, which is a furnace that
[[Page 78315]]
receives metal already in the molten state.
Mold and core making department means the area of a foundry and
associated equipment in which all operations needed to produce molds,
mold sections, and cores are done, including those operations performed
in mold or core making and mold or core coating lines.
Mold or core coating line means the collection of equipment that is
used to prepare slurry or other forms of coating materials that contain
finely divided refractory substances, coat molds or cores with the
slurry, and dry the coating.
Mold or core making line means the collection of equipment that is
used to mix an aggregate of sand and binder chemicals, form the
aggregate into final shape, and harden the formed aggregate. This
definition does not include a line for making green sand molds or
cores.
Mold vent means an opening in a mold through which gases containing
pyrolysis products of organic mold and core constituents produced by
contact with or proximity to molten metal normally escape the mold
during and after metal pouring.
Naphthalene-depleted solvent means a petroleum distillate product
or similar product used in sand binder chemical formulations that
contains 3 percent or less naphthalene by weight.
Phenolic urethane cold box mold or core making line means a cold
box mold or core making line in which the binder chemical system used
is that system commonly termed phenolic urethane system by the foundry
industry. This system typically uses triethylamine or
dimethylethylamine as the catalyst gas.
Phenolic urethane nobake mold or core making line means a mold or
core making line in which the binder chemical system used is that
system commonly designated phenolic urethane nobake system by the
foundry industry.
Pouring area means an area in which molten metal is brought to
molds that remain stationary from the time they receive the molten
metal through cooling.
Pouring, cooling, and shakeout line means the combination of either
a pouring station and its associated cooling area or a pouring area
with the area in which shakeout is done.
Pouring station means the fixed location to which molds are brought
in a continuous or semicontinuous manner to receive molten metal, after
which the molds are moved to a cooling area.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.
63.2.
Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate moisture and other volatile
impurities or tramp materials by direct flame heating or similar means
of heating.
Scrubber blowdown means liquor or slurry discharged from a wet
scrubber that is either removed as a waste stream or processed to
remove impurities or adjust its composition or pH before being returned
to the scrubber.
Shakeout means the process of separating a casting from a mold
using a mechanical unit or manual procedure designed for and dedicated
to this purpose.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.
Tables to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
[As stated in Sec. 63.7760, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject EEEEE? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................. Applicability.......... Yes.................... .......................
63.2................................. Definitions............ Yes.................... .......................
63.3................................. Units and abbreviations Yes.................... .......................
63.4................................. Prohibited activities.. Yes.................... .......................
63.5................................. Construction/ Yes.................... .......................
reconstruction.
63.6(a)-(g).......................... Compliance with Yes.................... .......................
standards and
maintenance
requirements.
63.6(h).............................. Opacity and visible No..................... Subpart EEEEE has no
emission standards. opacity or visible
emissions standards
and does not require
COMS.
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 EEEEE specifies
performance test dates. applicability and
performance test
dates.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)- Monitoring requirement. Yes.................... .......................
(c)(3), (c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e),
(f)(1)-(f)(6), (g)(1)-(g)(4).
63.8(a)(4)........................... Additional monitoring No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
requirements for require flares.
control devices in
Sec. 63.11.
63.8(c)(4)........................... Continuous monitoring No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
system requirements. requirements for
operation of CMS and
CEMS.
63.8(c)(5)........................... COMS Minimum Procedures No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
require COMS.
63.8(g)(5)........................... Data reduction......... No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
data reduction
requirements.
63.9................................. Notification Yes.................... .......................
requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii)- Recordkeeping and Yes.................... Additional records for
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), reporting requirements. CMS in Sec.
(c)(9)-(15), (d)(1)-(2), (e)(1)-(2), 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(f). (15) apply only to
CEMS.
63.10(c)(7)-(8)...................... Records of excess No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
emissions and records requirements.
parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS.
[[Page 78316]]
63.10(d)(3).......................... Reporting opacity or No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
visible emission include opacity or
observations. visible emissions
limits.
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess emission reports No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
reporting
requirements.
63.10(e)(4).......................... Reporting COMS data.... No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
require COMS.
63.11................................ Control device No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
requirements. require flares.
63.12................................ State authority and Yes.................... .......................
delegations.
63.13-63.15.......................... Addresses of State air Yes.................... .......................
pollution control
agencies and EPA
regional offices.
Incorporation by
reference.
Availability of
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-31234 Filed 12-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P