[Federal Register: December 30, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 250)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79807-79819]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30de02-10]
[[Page 79807]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary
Aluminum Production; Final Rule
[[Page 79808]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7430-6]
RIN 2060-AE77
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Secondary Aluminum Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, the EPA issued national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production
facilities under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action
amends the applicability provisions for aluminum die casters,
foundries, and extruders. The amendments also add new provisions
governing control of commonly-ducted units; revise the procedures for
adoption of operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans; revise the
criteria concerning testing of representative emission units; revise
the standard for unvented in-line flux boxes; and clarify the control
requirements for sidewell furnaces. These changes are being made
pursuant to settlement agreements in two cases seeking judicial review
of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production. A separate rule to
clarify compliance dates and defer certain early compliance obligations
which might have otherwise come due before completion of this
rulemaking was published on September 24, 2002.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket A-2002-05, containing supporting information used in
developing these final rule amendments, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room B-108, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Minerals
and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (C504-05),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0296, electronic mail address,
schaefer.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The amendments change
the applicability provisions of the NESHAP for three types of
facilities: aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities (NAICS
331316), aluminum die casting facilities (NAICS 331521), and aluminum
foundry facilities (NAICS 331524). Consequently, categories and
entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS* entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 331314 Secondary smelting and
alloying of aluminum
facilities.
.............. Secondary aluminum
production facility
affected sources that
are collocated at:
331312 Primary aluminum
production facilities.
331315 Aluminum sheet, plate,
and foil manufacturing
facilities.
331316 Aluminum extruded
product manufacturing
facilities.
331319 Other aluminum rolling
and drawing
facilities.
331521 Aluminum die casting
facilities.
331524 Aluminum foundry
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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. 63.1500 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. We have established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. A-2002-06 and E-Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0084.
The official public docket consists of the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other
information related to this action. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph
entitled ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in
the appropriate docket identification number.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's amendments will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of these actions will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed rules or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of these final rule amendments is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by February 28, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of
the CAA, only an objection to these final rule amendments that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period
[[Page 79809]]
for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover,
under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by
these final rule amendments may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
A. How Are We Amending the Applicability provisions?
B. What Amendments Are We Making Concerning Control of Commonly-
Ducted Units?
C. How Are We Amending the Procedures for Adoption of an
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan?
D. How Are We Amending the Provisions Concerning Testing of
Representative Emission Units?
E. How Are We Amending the Standards for Unvented In-Line Flux
Boxes?
F. How Are We Clarifying the Control Requirements for Sidewell
Furnaces?
G. What Other Amendments Are We Making?
III. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary
Aluminum Production
IV. 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 Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On March 23, 2000 (63 FR 15690), we promulgated the NESHAP for
secondary aluminum production (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR). Those
standards were established under the authority of section 112(d) of the
CAA to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from major
and area sources.
After promulgation of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production,
two petitions for judicial review of the standards were filed in the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first of these petitions was filed
by the American Foundrymen's Society, the North American Die Casting
Association, and the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society (American
Foundrymen's Society et al. v. U.S. EPA, Civ. No 00-1208 (D.C. Cir.)).
A second petition for judicial review was filed by the Aluminum
Association (The Aluminum Association v. U.S. EPA, No. 00-1211 (D.C.
Cir.)). There was no significant overlap in the issues presented by the
two petitions, and the cases have never been consolidated. However, we
did thereafter enter into separate settlement discussions with the
petitioners in each case.
The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability
of subpart RRR to aluminum die casters and aluminum foundries which
were considered during the initial rulemaking development. Because
aluminum die casters and foundries sometimes conduct the same type of
operations as other secondary aluminum producers, we originally
intended to apply the standards to these facilities, but only in those
instances where they conduct such operations. However, representatives
of the affected facilities argued that they should not be considered to
be secondary aluminum producers and should be wholly exempt from the
NESHAP. During the rulemaking development, we decided to permit die
casters and foundries to melt contaminated internal scrap without being
considered to be secondary aluminum producers, but their
representatives insisted that too many facilities would still be
subject to the NESHAP. At the time of promulgation of the standards, in
response to a request by the die casters and foundries, we announced we
would withdraw the standards as applied to die casters and foundries
and develop separate maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for these facilities.
After the Foundrymen's case was filed, we negotiated an initial
settlement agreement in that case which established a process to
effectuate our commitment to develop new MACT standards. In that first
settlement, EPA agreed that it would stay the current standards for
these facilities, collect comprehensive data to support alternate
standards, and promulgate alternate standards. We then published a
proposal to stay the standards for these facilities (65 FR 55491,
September 14, 2000) and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
announcing new standards for these facilities (65 FR 55489, September
14, 2000).
During the subsequent process of preparing for information
collection, the petitioners concluded that the existing standards were
not as sweeping in applicability as they had feared, and the parties
then agreed to explore an alternate approach to settlement based on
clarifications of the current standards. We subsequently reached
agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners on a new settlement which
entirely supplanted the prior settlement. Accordingly, we published a
notice withdrawing the proposed stay of the existing standards for
aluminum die casters and foundries, and announcing that we would take
no further action on new standards for those facilities (67 FR 41138,
June 14, 2002).
In the new settlement, we agreed to propose some changes in the
applicability provisions of the current standards concerning aluminum
die casters and foundries. These changes included permitting customer
returns without paints or solid coatings to be treated like internal
scrap, and permitting facilities operated by the same company at
different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining what
is internal scrap. These revisions of the applicability criteria were
proposed on June 14, 2002 (67 FR 41125) and are being adopted in
today's final rule.
In the Foundrymen's settlement, we also agreed to defer the
compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at
existing aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders until the
compliance date for existing sources, so that the rulemaking on general
applicability issues could be completed first. We took final action
concerning that element of the Foundrymen's settlement in a final rule
published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 59787).
In entirely separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of
the Aluminum Association case. That settlement required that we propose
a number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards,
which we are also adopting in today's final rule. The Aluminum
Association settlement also required that we clarify and simplify the
compliance dates for the standards, and defer certain early compliance
obligations which might otherwise come due during the rulemaking
process. We took final action concerning those compliance issues in the
final rule published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 59787).
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
A. How Are We Amending the Applicability Provisions?
We originally intended to regulate aluminum die casting facilities,
[[Page 79810]]
aluminum foundries, and aluminum extruders under subpart RRR only when
they engage in the same types of operations as other secondary aluminum
producers. We decided during rulemaking development that such
facilities should be permitted to melt their own internally-generated
scrap without being automatically treated the same as secondary
aluminum producers, who typically process contaminated aluminum scrap
obtained from other sources. Thus, Sec. 63.1500(d) in the current
standards exempts such facilities if:
[sbull] The facility does not melt any materials other than clean
charge and materials generated within the facility; and
[sbull] The facility does not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat
furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
However, it became apparent during discussions with representatives
of these facilities that some aluminum die casting facilities that do
not otherwise engage in secondary aluminum operations might fall within
the rule solely because they melt certain materials which do not fit
clearly within the phrase ``materials generated within the facility.''
In particular, some facilities routinely have defective or incorrect
aluminum castings returned by customers and then remelt them. In
addition, some companies conduct operations at multiple locations and
may melt scrap initially generated at one location at a different
location.
To address these issues, the amendments contain new applicability
language which permits aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders
to melt customer returns which contain no paint or other solid coatings
without thereby becoming subject to the standards. The amendments also
include a new definition of internal scrap which includes all scrap
originating from aluminum castings or extrusions that remains at all
times within the control of the company that produced the castings or
extrusions. We do not regard either of these changes in the
applicability language as materially altering our original intent to
only cover those aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders who
conduct secondary aluminum operations. Under the new language we are
adopting, customer returns would not qualify if they have been painted
or are contaminated with other solid coatings because these castings
would normally require prior cleaning to avoid excess emissions.
Moreover, scrap obtained from an external source does not qualify
unless it fits within the definition of clean charge.
The amendments also change the existing definitions of ``secondary
aluminum production facility,'' ``clean charge,'' ``internal
runaround'' (now called ``runaround scrap''), and ``thermal chip
dryer,'' and add new definitions of ``customer returns'' and ``internal
scrap.'' In the aggregate, these revisions clarify the circumstances
when aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders are considered to
be secondary aluminum production facilities and, thus, within the
applicability of the rule.
We are also adding a new section to the general applicability
provisions which permits aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders
which are area sources to operate thermal chip dryers subject to the
requirements of the rule without automatically subjecting their furnace
operations to the rule. We are making this change to eliminate an
incentive which might exist for small facilities, which are otherwise
outside the applicability of the rule, to discontinue their use of
thermal chip dryers. As long as such chip dryers are operated in
conformity with the rule, we think their use will promote safety and
lower emissions at some small operations.
We are mindful that some may question why contaminated internal
scrap generated by aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders
should be treated differently than external scrap with similar
contamination levels which is processed by the secondary aluminum
industry. We stress that the decision we made during the original
secondary aluminum rulemaking process to make this distinction was
based on the qualitative differences in the operations being undertaken
by the facilities in question, rather than on any conclusions regarding
the likely magnitude of emissions from such operations. Moreover, we
think that the additional revisions and clarifications of applicability
for aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders which we have made
are reasonable clarifications and fully consistent with that original
decision.
B. What Amendments Are We Making Concerning Control of Commonly-Ducted
Units?
The current rule permits secondary aluminum producers to combine
existing group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a particular
facility in a ``secondary aluminum processing unit'' or SAPU. The
facility can then demonstrate compliance by determining the permissible
emissions for the entire SAPU and then controlling emissions for the
SAPU to that level. This broader definition of the affected source
which must be controlled gives a secondary aluminum production facility
added flexibility in fashioning the most cost-effective control
strategies which will meet the standards.
The existing rule also permits new group 1 furnaces and new in-line
fluxers to be included in a new SAPU. However, it does not afford a
facility the latitude to combine new and existing sources in the same
SAPU. This is because the respective standards for existing sources and
new sources are separate legal requirements, and we construe the CAA to
require that standards be separately applied to all affected units.
Because the standards for an existing SAPU and the standards for a
new SAPU happen to be identical in this instance, the legal constraints
on combining existing emission units with new emission units have been
understandably frustrating to some facilities. Moreover, in some
facilities it may make the most sense from an engineering perspective
to manifold emissions from units which are subject to differing
standards to the same emission control device. In order to help
facilities meet the standards in the most efficient and cost-effective
manner, we are adding additional language pertaining to commonly-ducted
units. The new language reflects two different approaches to this
problem. A facility subject to the standards may use either approach or
both approaches if it wishes.
First, the amendments add a new paragraph to Sec. 63.1505(k) for
SAPU. The new paragraph (k)(6) allows the owner or operator to
redesignate any existing group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer at a
secondary aluminum processing facility as a new emission unit. Any
redesignated emission unit may then be included in a new SAPU at that
facility. Any such redesignation (which requires prior approval of the
responsible permitting authority) applies only under subpart RRR and is
irreversible.
Second, we are also adding new language which clarifies the
procedures by which units which are subject to differing standards but
are manifolded to the same control device can demonstrate compliance.
We believe that this new language is not required to permit this type
of combined compliance demonstration, but we think it will give useful
additional guidance to permitting authorities in establishing sound and
defensible procedures for documenting compliance when units
[[Page 79811]]
are commonly-ducted but subject to separate standards.
We are adding two new paragraphs to Sec. 63.1511 pertaining to
compliance demonstrations for commonly-ducted units. The first of these
paragraphs simply confirms other provisions of the rule which provide
that aggregate emissions can be measured to demonstrate compliance for
all emission units within a SAPU.
The second new paragraph covers those situations where commonly-
ducted units are not within a single existing or new SAPU. In this
instance, the following criteria apply:
[sbull] Testing must be designed to verify that each affected
source or emission unit individually satisfies all applicable emission
requirements.
[sbull] Emissions must be tested at the outlet of each individual
affected source or emission unit while it is operating under the
highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur, prior to the
point that the emissions are combined with those from other affected
sources or emission units.
[sbull] Combined emissions for the affected sources and emission
units must be tested at the outlet of the control device while they are
operating simultaneously under the highest load or capacity reasonably
expected to occur.
[sbull] When determining compliance for a commonly-ducted unit,
emissions of a particular pollutant from the individual unit are
presumed to be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of
that pollutant from all commonly-ducted units.
C. How Are We Amending the Procedures for Adoption of an Operation,
Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan?
In the final rule amendments published on September 24, 2002 (67 FR
59787), we clarified the timing of submission of an operation,
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan to the permitting authority,
which is ambiguous in the rule as initially promulgated on March 23,
2000. In this action, we are clarifying the procedures by which a
facility submits an OM&M plan to the permitting authority and by which
the permitting authority can require any necessary revisions of the
plan.
Section 63.1505(k) of the existing rule refers to approval of an
OM&M plan by the permitting authority, and the necessary elements of an
OM&M plan are described in Sec. 63.1510(b), but the procedures for
submission and approval of the plan are not specified. We are amending
the existing rule to correct that omission.
Under the amendments, the facility is required to certify that the
OM&M plan it is submitting complies with all requirements of the
standards and to comply with the OM&M plan as submitted to the
permitting authority, unless and until the plan is revised. If the
permitting authority determines that any revisions of the plan are
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the standards, the facility is
required to promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the
revised plan. If the facility itself determines that revisions of the
OM&M plan are necessary, such revisions will not become effective until
the owner or operator submits a description of the changes and a
revised plan incorporating them to the permitting authority. These same
general procedures also apply to the site-specific monitoring plan,
which is one element of the OM&M plan.
D. How Are We Amending the Provisions Concerning Testing of
Representative Emission Units?
Section 63.1511(f) of the existing rule establishes a procedure
which permits a secondary aluminum production facility to test a
representative group 1 furnace or in-line flux box in order to
determine the emission rate for other units of the same type at that
facility. We are clarifying the criteria for demonstrating compliance
by testing of representative emission units.
In particular, the existing rule provides that the emission unit
being tested must use ``identical feed/charge and flux materials in the
same proportions'' as those emission units it represents. Industry
representatives have expressed concern that this language could be
given an unduly restrictive construction. To clarify our original
intent, we are amending the criteria to require ``feed materials and
charge rates which are comparable'' and ``the same type of flux
materials in the same proportions'' as the emission units the tested
unit represents.
E. How Are We Amending the Standards for Unvented In-Line Flux Boxes?
The existing rule requires that all in-line flux boxes meet the
same emission standards and be tested in the same manner. Industry
representatives have argued that the testing procedures in the rule are
not practicable for in-line flux boxes which are unvented (units which
have no ventilation ductwork manifolded to an outlet or emission
control device). Documenting compliance with the particulate matter
(PM) standard for such units might require construction of a temporary
enclosure around the unit to capture and measure emissions.
Industry representatives have also argued that the emissions of
hydrogen chloride (HCl) and PM from such units are intrinsically low,
but we believe it is quite possible for the HCl emissions from such
units to exceed the applicable standards. The existing rule provides a
procedure by which a facility can demonstrate compliance for HCl by
limiting its use of reactive chlorine flux and then assuming that all
chlorine used is emitted as HCl. However, because of the greater
complexity of the reactions which generate PM emissions, there is no
analogous procedure for PM.
While we do not agree with the industry that all emissions from
unvented in-line flux boxes are intrinsically low, we do agree that the
physical characteristics of these units and the nature of the reactions
that generate PM mean that we can reliably conclude that an unvented
unit which demonstrates compliance with the emission standards for HCl
by limiting reactive chlorine flux will also be in compliance with the
emission standards for PM. Therefore, we are adding new language to
Sec. 63.1512(h) which permits a facility with an unvented in-line flux
box, which elects to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards
for HCl by limiting use of reactive chlorine flux, to infer compliance
with the emission standards for PM as well. This gives facilities an
alternative to testing of actual emissions, which could require costly
construction of an enclosure around the unit or other engineering
modifications. If a facility infers compliance with the PM standard in
this manner, the facility is also required to use the maximum
permissible PM emission rate for the flux box when determining the
total emissions for any secondary aluminum processing unit which
includes the flux box.
F. How Are We Clarifying the Control Requirements for Sidewell
Furnaces?
Industry representatives have pointed out that Sec. 63.1506(m)(6)
includes language that could require installation of an additional
control device on sidewell furnaces whenever the level of molten metal
is permitted to fall below the passage between the sidewell and the
hearth, or reactive flux is added in the hearth. While we believe that
a control device will sometimes be necessary in these circumstances,
this result was not our intent.
As indicated in the preamble to our original proposal, we believe
that there is a potential for additional emissions if
[[Page 79812]]
the level of molten metal is permitted to fall below the top of the
passage between the sidewell and the hearth, or if reactive flux is
added in the hearth. Therefore, if these events occur, the emissions
from both the sidewell and the hearth must be captured and tested in
order to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
If the emission tests show that a control device is necessary to attain
compliance, it must be installed. We are revising the language in
question to clarify our intent.
In addition, we are amending Sec. 63.1505(i)(7) to correct an
erroneous cross-reference. As amended, certain sidewell group 1
furnaces are required to meet the limits in paragraphs (i)(1) through
(4) rather than (j)(1) through (4).
G. What Other Amendments Are We Making?
We are amending Sec. 63.1510(w) to clarify the procedures for
obtaining approval of alternative monitoring methods. The new language
makes it clear that this section refers to alternative monitoring
methods other than those which may be separately authorized pursuant to
Sec. 63.1510(j)(5) or Sec. 63.1510(v).
We are also clarifying the recordkeeping requirements for in-line
fluxers which do not use reactive flux. Section 63.1517(b)(11) is
amended to permit the facility to document that a particular in-line
fluxer does not use reactive flux through the use of operating logs
that show that no source of reactive flux was used, labels that
prohibit use of reactive flux, or operating logs which document the
type of flux used during each operating cycle.
We are amending Sec. 63.1505(f)(1), which establishes emission
standards for sweat furnaces, to correct an erroneous residence time.
We are clarifying the definition of a melting/holding furnace in
Sec. 63.1503.
We are amending Sec. 63.1517(b)(16) to clarify that both major and
area sources must keep a copy of the OM&M plan on-site by deleting
language in Sec. 63.1517(b)(16)(ii) that requires only major sources
to keep a copy of the OM&M plan on-site.
We are also making minor amendments to correct printing or
technical errors in the final rule. These include:
[sbull] Revising Tables 2 and 3 of subpart RRR to correct entries
which were inadvertently printed in the wrong columns and an incorrect
specification for a weight measurement device.
[sbull] Revising Equation 2 of Sec. 63.1505(k)(2) to correct the
HCl emission limit (LcHCl).
[sbull] Revising the entry for Sec. 63.14 in appendix A to subpart
RRR to include incorporation by reference for a second document.
III. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary
Aluminum Production
Comment: One commenter opposes the proposed revision of the
applicability criteria which would permit facilities to melt customer
returns. This commenter argues that there is no reason to conclude that
melting scrap contaminated with oils and coating applied outside the
facility is less likely to result in dioxin formation than melting
purchased scrap with similar contaminants.
Response: In considering this comment, it should be noted that
those customer returns which are contaminated with paints or other
solid coatings are not included in the proposed applicability change.
In any case, our decision to permit melting of certain customer returns
is based on a decision to treat this scrap like contaminated internal
scrap in deciding whether a facility is engaged in secondary aluminum
production. Our decision is not based on any technical assessment
regarding the likelihood of dioxin formation.
Comment: One commenter argues that the amendments would allow
foundries and die casters, including those facilities which are major
sources of HAP, to permanently avoid emission limitations, testing
requirements and monitoring requirements.
Response: We recognize that some aluminum foundries and die casters
may have the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of chlorine
(a listed HAP), but we do not agree with the conclusion of the
commenter that the rule will permit such facilities to escape
regulation entirely. We note that the same argument could be made
concerning the applicability exclusion in the existing subpart RRR. Our
decision to exclude certain aluminum die casters, foundries, and
extruders from the applicability of subpart RRR does not constitute a
determination that such facilities should be entirely unregulated. We
believe that most, if not all, of the excluded facilities are only area
sources of HAP. However, if there is any aluminum foundry or die caster
which would be entirely exempt under the revised applicability
provisions for the secondary aluminum source category and which also
has the potential to emit major source quantities of HAP, a separate
MACT standard may ultimately be necessary. If the commenter identifies
any facility which is a major source of HAP but is not included in any
listed source category, EPA has authority to augment the source
category list as provided in CAA section 112(c)(5).
Comment: One commenter opposes the provisions permitting
redesignation of existing emission units as new, on the basis that
uncontrolled or poorly controlled new emission units could comply by
averaging their emissions with well-controlled redesignated older
units.
Response: We believe the commenter has misconstrued the effect of
the new provisions. The existing rule provides that certain types of
emission units may be included within a secondary aluminum processing
unit or SAPU, which is the affected source to which the standards
apply. We construe the statute to prohibit combining new emission units
with existing emission units. The final rule amendments pursuant to the
settlement provide that existing emission units may be permanently
redesignated as new. Because the standard for an existing SAPU and the
standard for a new SAPU are identical, this procedure will not alter
the basic control requirements which apply to the redesignated units.
The final rule amendments also establish a procedure under which
multiple units can be ducted to the same control device, but compliance
will still be separately demonstrated for each commonly-ducted unit.
Comment: One commenter states that there are no data to support the
change in residence time requirements for sweat furnace afterburners.
Response: We established the emission limits for sweat furnaces
based on limited performance test data. The EPA established the work
practice standards for sweat furnaces on the basis of conditions which
were thought to have existed during these performance tests. Upon
review of the performance test data, we determined incorrect
dimensional data provided in the test report led to an incorrect
calculation of afterburner residence time. The amendments do not make
the emission limits less stringent but only alter the work practice
requirements which are necessary to ensure compliance with the emission
limits. We have no further sweat furnace emission data and the
commenter has not provided any such data.
Comment: The same commenter who questioned the technical basis for
the decreased residence time for sweat furnaces argues that EPA is
obligated to
[[Page 79813]]
consider longer residence times as a ``beyond the floor control
option.''
Response: We are not aware of any technologies which could decrease
the HAP emission rate for sweat furnaces beyond the floor technology
and have no data upon which to evaluate any such technologies. While an
increase in the residence time for the floor technology may increase
the overall control efficiency by a marginal amount, no data are
available to make this determination.
Comment: One commenter requests that the amendments include a work
practice standard for thermal chip dryers, analogous to the work
practice requirement for sweat furnaces.
Response: The amendments requested by the commenter are outside of
the scope of these amendments and cannot be considered in this
rulemaking. In any event, the commenter supplied no test data in
support of a work practice standard for thermal chip dryers, and EPA
has no data that would support the suggested change in the standard.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review
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 OMB and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
and was not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved
the information collection requirements in the existing rule (subpart
RRR) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0433. This action does
not change the information collection requirements in subpart RRR, but
does reduce the number of facilities subject to the rule. An amended
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1894.01), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail
at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy
may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov.icr.
The information requirements in the existing rule include mandatory
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information requirements
are needed to confirm the compliance status of major sources, to
identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards and any new
or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, and to confirm that
emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained.
Based on the recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which
facilities, records, or processes should be inspected. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized
under section 114 of the CAA. All information submitted to EPA for
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according
to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Under the amendments, fewer facilities would be subject to the
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. For
this reason, the overall burden estimate for the existing rule will be
reduced by approximately 20 percent.
As a result of these amendments, the annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information (averaged over
the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) is estimated to
decrease by 28,000 labor hours per year and $8.5 million per year.
Total capital costs associated with monitoring requirements over the 3-
year period of the ICR remain unchanged at an estimated $1.3 million;
this estimate includes the capital and startup costs associated with
installation of monitoring equipment.
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; process and maintain information and disclose
and provide 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 numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. et seq.
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule
amendments. The EPA has also determined that these final rule
amendments 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 today's final rule
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business whose parent company has fewer than 750 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; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule
amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action
will not create any new costs for affected firms, large or small. In
fact, the amendments will reduce the economic impact on small
businesses because of the revised applicability requirements for die
casters, extruders, and foundries. Because these plants will not incur
any significant costs or economic impact, EPA has determined that it is
not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in
connection with these final rule amendments. After
[[Page 79814]]
considering the economic impact of today's final rule amendments on
small entities, the EPA has concluded that they will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 these final rule amendments do 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. No incremental costs
are attributable to these amendments. In addition, the amendments do
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not
apply to these amendments.
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.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law
unless the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
These rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They do
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 plants are
owned or operated by State governments. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to these rule amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
These rule amendments do not have tribal implications. They do not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments own plants subject to the existing rule or today's
amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these rule
amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we 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.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. These final rule amendments
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on
technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are 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 (Public Law 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be
[[Page 79815]]
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (such as material
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The EPA's response to the NTTAA requirements are discussed in the
preamble to the final rule (65 FR 15690). These amendments do not
change the required methods or procedures, but would expand provisions
for the use of alternative methods. If a plant wishes to use an
alternative method other than those identified in the existing rule,
the owner or operator may submit an application to EPA according to the
procedures described in the existing rule.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. These final rule amendments are not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 19, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RRR--[AMENDED]
2. Section 63.1500 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Removing existing paragraph (d);
c. Redesignating existing paragraphs (e) and (f) as (d) and (e);
and
d. Adding new paragraph (f).
The addition and revision reads as follows:
Sec. 63.1500 Applicability.
(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator
of each secondary aluminum production facility as defined in Sec.
63.1503.
* * * * *
(f) An aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum
extrusion facility shall be considered to be an area source if it does
not emit, or have the potential to emit considering controls, 10 tons
per year or more of any single listed HAP or 25 tons per year of any
combination of listed HAP from all emission sources which are located
in a contiguous area and under common control, without regard to
whether or not such sources are regulated under this subpart or any
other subpart. In the case of an aluminum die casting facility,
aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which is an area
source and is subject to regulation under this subpart only because it
operates a thermal chip dryer, no furnace operated by such a facility
shall be deemed to be subject to the requirements of this subpart if it
melts only clean charge, internal scrap, or customer returns.
3. Section 63.1503 is amended by:
a. Adding in alphabetical order new definitions for the terms
``aluminum scrap,'' ``customer returns,'' ``internal scrap,'' and
``runaround scrap''; and
b. Revising definitions for the terms ``clean charge,'' ``cover
flux,'' ``group 1 furnace,'' ``group 2 furnace,'' ``melting/holding
furnace,'' ``reactive fluxing,'' ``scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln,'' ``secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU),''
``secondary aluminum production facility,'' and ``thermal chip dryer.''
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1503 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aluminum scrap means fragments of aluminum stock removed during
manufacturing (i.e., machining), manufactured aluminum articles or
parts rejected or discarded and useful only as material for
reprocessing, and waste and discarded material made of aluminum.
* * * * *
Clean charge means furnace charge materials including molten
aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, billet, pig, alloying elements, aluminum
scrap known by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints,
coatings, and lubricants; uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have
been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum
scrap dried at 343 [deg]C (650 [deg]F) or higher; aluminum scrap
delacquered/decoated at 482 [deg]C (900 [deg]F) or higher, and
runaround scrap.
Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a
group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of the molten aluminum,
for the purpose of preventing oxidation.
Customer returns means any aluminum product which is returned by a
customer to the aluminum company that originally manufactured the
product prior to resale of the product or further distribution in
commerce, and which contains no paint or other solid coatings (i.e.,
lacquers).
* * * * *
Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes aluminum that contains paint, lubricants, coatings, or other
foreign materials with or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean
charge with reactive fluxing.
Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs
fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating
gases or agents.
* * * * *
Internal scrap means all aluminum scrap regardless of the level of
contamination which originates from castings or extrusions produced by
an aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum
extrusion facility, and which remains at all times within the control
of the company that produced the castings or extrusions.
* * * * *
Melting/holding furnace means a group 1 furnace that processes only
clean charge, performs melting, holding, and fluxing functions, and
does not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace except for
purposes of alloy changes, off-specification product drains, or
maintenance activities.
* * * * *
Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux
(other than cover flux) that results in a HAP emission. Argon and
nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAP.
* * * * *
[[Page 79816]]
Runaround scrap means scrap materials generated on-site by aluminum
casting, extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/stamping,
cutting, and trimming operations and that do not contain paint or solid
coatings. Uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips generated by turning,
boring, milling, and similar machining operations may be clean charge
if they have been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner,
but are not considered to be runaround scrap.
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit used
primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint,
lacquer, ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including
used beverage containers) prior to melting.
Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU). An existing SAPU means
all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a
secondary aluminum production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace
or existing in-line fluxer is considered an emission unit within a
secondary aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of
individual group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a secondary
aluminum processing facility which either were constructed or
reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently
redesignated as new emission units pursuant to Sec. 63.1505(k)(6).
Each of the group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new SAPU is
considered an emission unit within that secondary aluminum processing
unit.
Secondary aluminum production facility means any establishment
using clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum production,
as the raw material and performing one or more of the following
processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating,
thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding,
sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of aluminum from
dross, in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. A secondary aluminum
production facility may be independent or part of a primary aluminum
production facility. For purposes of this subpart, aluminum die casting
facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extrusion facilities are
not considered to be secondary aluminum production facilities if the
only materials they melt are clean charge, customer returns, or
internal scrap, and if they do not operate sweat furnaces, thermal chip
dryers, or scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns. The
determination of whether a facility is a secondary aluminum production
facility is only for purposes of this subpart and any regulatory
requirements which are derived from the applicability of this subpart,
and is separate from any determination which may be made under other
environmental laws and regulations, including whether the same facility
is a ``secondary metal production facility'' as that term is used in 42
U.S.C. Sec. 7479(1) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(A) (``prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality'').
* * * * *
Thermal chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate oil
or oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips. Pre-
heating boxes or other dryers which are used solely to remove water
from aluminum scrap are not considered to be thermal chip dryers for
purposes of this subpart.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1505 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraph (f)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (i)(7);
d. Republishing the introductory text of paragraph (k)(2) and
revising Equation 2; and
e. Adding new paragraph (k)(6).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission
units.
* * * * *
(f) Sweat furnace. * * *
(1) The owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard of paragraph
(f)(2) of this section, provided that, on and after the compliance date
of this rule, the owner or operator operates and maintains an
afterburner with a design residence time of 0.8 seconds or greater and
an operating temperature of 1600 [deg]F or greater.
* * * * *
(i) Group 1 furnace. * * *
(7) The owner or operator of a sidewell group 1 furnace that
conducts reactive fluxing (except for cover flux) in the hearth, or
that conducts reactive fluxing in the sidewell at times when the level
of molten metal falls below the top of the passage between the sidewell
and the hearth, must comply with the emission limits of paragraphs
(i)(1) through (4) of this section on the basis of the combined
emissions from the sidewell and the hearth.
* * * * *
(k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. * * *
(2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average
emissions of HCl in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30DE02.001
* * * * *
(6) With the prior approval of the responsible permitting
authority, an owner or operator may redesignate any existing group 1
furnace or in-line fluxer at a secondary aluminum production facility
as a new emission unit. Any emission unit so redesignated may
thereafter be included in a new SAPU at that facility. Any such
redesignation will be solely for the purpose of this MACT standard and
will be irreversible.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1506 is amended by:
a. Removing existing paragraph (a)(2);
b. Redesignating existing paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5) as
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4); and
c. Revising paragraphs (m)(6)(i) and (ii).
The revisions read as follows.
Sec. 63.1506 Operating requirements.
* * * * *
(m) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. * *
*
(6) * * *
(i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage
between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless
emissions from both the sidewell and the hearth are included in
demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits.
(ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell, unless emissions
from both the sidewell and the hearth are included in demonstrating
compliance with all applicable emission limits.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1510 is amended by:
a. Removing the last sentence in the introductory text of paragraph
(b), ``Each plan must contain the following information'', and adding,
in its place, five new sentences;
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (o)(1); and
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (w).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1510 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. * * * The
plan must be accompanied by a written certification by the owner or
operator that the OM&M plan satisfies all
[[Page 79817]]
requirements of this section and is otherwise consistent with the
requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must comply with
all of the provisions of the OM&M plan as submitted to the permitting
authority, unless and until the plan is revised in accordance with the
following procedures. If the permitting authority determines at any
time after receipt of the OM&M plan that any revisions of the plan are
necessary to satisfy the requirements of this section or this subpart,
the owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and
resubmit the revised plan. If the owner or operator determines that any
other revisions of the OM&M plan are necessary, such revisions will not
become effective until the owner or operator submits a description of
the changes and a revised plan incorporating them to the permitting
authority. Each plan must contain the following information:
* * * * *
(o) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. *
* *
(1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the
responsible permitting authority, a written site-specific monitoring
plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the
permitting authority as part of the OM&M plan. The site-specific
monitoring plan must contain sufficient procedures to ensure continuing
compliance with all applicable emission limits and must demonstrate,
based on documented test results, the relationship between emissions of
PM, HCl, and D/F and the proposed monitoring parameters for each
pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM, HCl, and
D/F that will be emitted from the furnace. This may be determined by
conducting performance tests and monitoring operating parameters while
charging the furnace with feed/charge materials containing the highest
anticipated levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest
anticipated rate. If the permitting authority determines that any
revisions of the site-specific monitoring plan are necessary to meet
the requirements of this section or this subpart, the owner or operator
must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised
plan to the permitting authority.
* * * * *
(w) Alternative monitoring methods. If an owner or operator wishes
to use an alternative monitoring method to demonstrate compliance with
any emission standard in this subpart, other than those alternative
monitoring methods which may be authorized pursuant to Sec.
63.1510(j)(5) and Sec. 63.1510(v), the owner or operator may submit an
application to the Administrator. Any such application will be
processed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in
paragraphs (w)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.1511 is amended by revising paragraph (f) and adding
paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1511 Performance test/compliance demonstration general
requirements.
* * * * *
(f) Testing of representative emission units. With the prior
approval of the permitting authority, an owner or operator may utilize
emission rates obtained by testing a particular type of group 1 furnace
which is not controlled by any add-on control device, or by testing an
in-line flux box which is not controlled by any add-on control device,
to determine the emission rate for other units of the same type at the
same facility. Such emission test results may only be considered to be
representative of other units if all of the following criteria are
satisfied:
(1) The tested emission unit must use feed materials and charge
rates which are comparable to the emission units that it represents;
(2) The tested emission unit must use the same type of flux
materials in the same proportions as the emission units it represents;
(3) The tested emission unit must be operated utilizing the same
work practices as the emission units that it represents;
(4) The tested emission unit must be of the same design as the
emission units that it represents; and
(5) The tested emission unit must be tested under the highest load
or capacity reasonably expected to occur for any of the emission units
that it represents.
* * * * *
(h) Testing of commonly-ducted units within a secondary aluminum
processing unit. When group 1 furnaces and/or in-line fluxers are
included in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, and the emissions from
more than one emission unit within that existing SAPU or new SAPU are
manifolded to a single control device, compliance for all units within
the SAPU is demonstrated if the total measured emissions from all
controlled and uncontrolled units in the SAPU do not exceed the
emission limits calculated for that SAPU based on the applicable
equation in Sec. 63.1505(k).
(i) Testing of commonly-ducted units not within a secondary
aluminum processing unit. With the prior approval of the permitting
authority, an owner or operator may do combined performance testing of
two or more individual affected sources or emission units which are not
included in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, but whose emissions are
manifolded to a single control device. Any such performance testing of
commonly-ducted units must satisfy the following basic requirements:
(1) All testing must be designed to verify that each affected
source or emission unit individually satisfies all emission
requirements applicable to that affected source or emission unit;
(2) All emissions of pollutants subject to a standard must be
tested at the outlet from each individual affected source or emission
unit while operating under the highest load or capacity reasonably
expected to occur, and prior to the point that the emissions are
manifolded together with emissions from other affected sources or
emission units;
(3) The combined emissions from all affected sources and emission
units which are manifolded to a single emission control device must be
tested at the outlet of the emission control device;
(4) All tests at the outlet of the emission control device must be
conducted with all affected sources and emission units whose emissions
are manifolded to the control device operating simultaneously under the
highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur; and
(5) For purposes of demonstrating compliance of a commonly-ducted
unit with any emission limit for a particular type of pollutant, the
emissions of that pollutant by the individual unit shall be presumed to
be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of that
pollutant from all commonly-ducted units are controlled at the outlet
of the emission control device.
8. Section 63.1512 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1512 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements
and procedures.
* * * * *
(h) In-line fluxer. (1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer
that uses reactive flux materials must conduct a performance test to
measure emissions of HCl and PM or otherwise demonstrate compliance in
accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If the in-line fluxer
is equipped with an add-on control device, the emissions must be
measured at the outlet of the control device.
[[Page 79818]]
(2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which
reactive chlorine flux is added to an in-line fluxer and assume, for
the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit,
that all chlorine in the reactive flux added to the in-line fluxer is
emitted as HCl. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not
required to conduct an emission test for HCl. If the owner or operator
of any in-line flux box which has no ventilation ductwork manifolded to
any outlet or emission control device chooses to demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit for HCl by limiting use of reactive chlorine
flux and assuming that all chlorine in the flux is emitted as HCl,
compliance with the HCl limit shall also constitute compliance with the
emission limit for PM, and no separate emission test for PM is
required. In this case, the owner or operator of the unvented in-line
flux box must utilize the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the
in-line flux boxes when determining the total emissions for any SAPU
which includes the flux box.
* * * * *
9. Section 63.1515 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(8) and
(b)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1515 Notifications.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design
residence time of no less than 0.8 seconds and design operating
temperature of no less than 1,600 [deg]F for each afterburner used to
control emissions from a sweat furnace that is not subject to a
performance test.
(9) The OM&M plan (including site-specific monitoring plan for each
group 1 furnace with no add-on air pollution control device).
* * * * *
10. Section 63.1517 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(11) and
(b)(16)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1517 Records.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(11) For each in-line fluxer for which the owner or operator has
certified that no reactive flux was used:
(i) Operating logs which establish that no source of reactive flux
was present at the in-line fluxer;
(ii) Labels required pursuant to Sec. 63.1506(b) which establish
that no reactive flux may be used at the in-line fluxer; or
(iii) Operating logs which document each flux gas, agent, or
material used during each operating cycle.
* * * * *
(16) * * *
(ii) OM&M plan; and
* * * * *
11. Table 2 to subpart RRR is amended under the entry for ``Group 1
furnace with lime-injected fabric filter (including those that are part
of secondary aluminum processing unit)'' by revising in column 2 the
entry ``Fabric filter inlet temperature'' to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Summary of Operating Requirements
for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/ Operating
Affected source/emission unit operation/process requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime- * * * * * * * * * *
injected fabric filter filter Fabric filter Maintain average
(including those that are inlet fabric filter inlet
part of a secondary aluminum temperature. temperature for each
processing unit). * * * * *........ 3-hour period at or
below average
temperature during
the performance test
+14 [deg]C (+25
[deg]F).
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
12. Table 3 to subpart RRR is amended by:
a. Under the entry for ``Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric
filter'', revising in column 2 the entry ``Reactive flux injection rate
Weight measurement device accuracy of +1%b; calibrate every 3 months;
record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 15-
minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and record
total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time
period used in performance test; or Alternative flux injection rate
determination procedure per Sec. 63.1510(j)(5).''; and
b. Under the entry for ``Group 1 furnace without add-on controls'',
revising in column 2 the entry for ``Feed material (melting/holding
furnace)''.
The revisions read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements
for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/ Monitoring
Affected source/emission unit Operation/Process requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime- * * * * * * * * * *
injected fabric filter.
Reactive flux Weight measurement
injection rate. device accuracy of +/
* * * * *........ -1%\b\; calibrate
every 3 months;
record weight and
type of reactive
flux added or
injected for each 15-
minute block period
while reactive
fluxing occurs;
calculate and record
total reactive flux
injection rate for
each operating cycle
or time period used
in performance test;
or Alternative flux
injection rate
determination
procedure per Sec.
63.1510(j)(5).
[[Page 79819]]
* * * * *
Group 1 furnace without add-on * * * * * * * * * *
controls.
Feed material Record type of
(melting/holding permissible feed/
furnace). charge material;
certify charge
materials every 6
months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
13. Appendix A to subpart RRR is amended under the entry for
``Sec. 63.14'' by revising in column 2 the entry for ``Incorporation
by reference'' to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.14......................... Incorporation by Yes.................... Chapters 3 and 5 of
Reference. ACGIH Industrial
Ventilation Manual for
capture/collection
systems; and Interim
Procedures for
Estimating Risk
Associated with
Exposure to Mixtures
of Chlorinated
Dibenzofurans (CDDs
and CDFs) and 1989
Update (incorporated
by reference in Sec.
63.1502).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-32779 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P