[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49052-49075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23631]



[[Page 49051]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Steel Pickling Facilities--HCI Process; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 49052]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5887-8]
RIN 2060-AE41


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
process steel pickling lines and HCl regeneration plants pursuant to 
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in November 1990. 
Steel pickling lines that employ the HCl process and associated HCl 
acid regeneration plants have been identified by the EPA as potentially 
significant emitters of hydrochloric acid, a chemical identified in the 
Act as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). Chronic exposure to HCl has 
been reported to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and 
photosensitization. Acute inhalation exposure may cause coughing, 
hoarseness, inflammation and ulceration of the respiratory tract, chest 
pain, and pulmonary edema. Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants have 
been identified as significant emitters of HCl and chlorine 
(CL2), the latter of which is also identified in the Act as 
a HAP. Acute exposure to high levels of CL2 in humans 
results in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, 
and death. At lower levels CL2 is a potent irritant to the 
eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and lungs. This rulemaking will 
affect steel pickling lines that use HCl as the primary acid, acid 
regeneration plants, and acid storage tanks. The purpose of the 
proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HCl by about 8,360 megagrams 
per year (Mg/yr) and CL2 by about 19 Mg/yr. The NESHAP 
provides protection to the public by requiring all HCl pickling lines, 
acid regeneration plants, and acid storage tanks to meet emission 
standards that reflect the application of maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or 
before November 17, 1997.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by October 9, 1997, a public hearing will be held on 
October 20, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in 
duplicate, if possible) to: Docket No. A-95-43 at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to 
the contact person listed below. The docket is located at the above 
address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor).
    A copy of today's notice, technical background information 
document, and other materials related to this rulemaking are available 
for review in the docket. Copies of this information may be obtained by 
request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by 
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.
    Background Information Document. The background information 
document (BID) for the proposed standard may be obtained from the 
docket or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by contacting Mary 
Hinson, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27511, telephone number (919) 541-5601.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the public hearing will be 
held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 
Park, NC. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring 
as to whether a hearing is to be held should notify the contact person 
listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Maysilles, Metals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3265, 
facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address 
``[email protected].''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those industrial 
facilities that perform steel pickling using the HCl process. Regulated 
categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             entities          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Steel pickling plants (SIC  
                                             3312, 3315, 3317) using HCl
                                             process.                   
Federal Government:                                                     
  Not affected.                                                         
State/local/tribal governments:                                         
  Not affected.                                                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final 
action on this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that 
the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by final action on 
this proposal. To determine whether your facility is regulated by final 
action on this proposal, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in section V.A of this document, and in Sec. 63.1155 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.

Technology Transfer Network

    The text of today's notice also is available on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The 
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 
air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a 
phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN 
also is accessible through the Internet at ``TELNET 
ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov.'' If more information on the TTN is needed, call 
the HELP line at (919) 541-5348. The HELP desk is staffed from 11 a.m. 
to 5 p.m.; a voice menu system is available at other times.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, has been established under Docket No. A-95-43 (including 
comments and data submitted electronically). A public version of this 
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which 
does not include any information claimed as confidential business 
information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official 
rulemaking record is located at the address in ADDRESSES at the 
beginning of this document.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA's Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center at: ``A-

[[Page 49053]]

and-R-D[email protected].'' Electronic comments must be submitted 
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and 
data in electronic form must be identified by the docket number (A-95-
43). No CBI should be submitted through electronic mail. Electronic 
comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries.

Outline

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority
II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
III. Background
    A. Description of Steel Pickling Source Category
    B. Emissions
    C. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule
IV. NESHAP Decision Process
    A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
    B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
    C. Determining the MACT Floor
V. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Sources to be Regulated
    B. Emission Limits and Requirements
    C. Compliance Provisions
    D. Monitoring Requirements
    E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. Facilities Affected by This NESHAP
    B. Air Quality Impacts
    C. Water Quality Impacts
    D. Solid Waste Impacts
    E. Energy Impacts
    F. Cost Impacts
    G. Economic Impacts
VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants
    B. Selection of Affected Sources
    C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for 
Existing and New Sources
    1. Background
    2. Selection of MACT
    D. Selection of Format
    1. Pickling Lines and Acid Regeneration Plants
    2. Acid Storage Tanks
    E. Selection of Emission Limits
    1. Continuous Pickling Lines
    2. Batch Pickling Lines
    3. Acid Regeneration Plants
    F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
    1. Pickling Lines
    2. Acid Regeneration Plants
    G. Selection of Test Methods
    H. Selection of Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements
    I. Solicitation of Comments
VIII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Public Hearing
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    E. Unfunded Mandates Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources

    Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA promulgate regulations 
requiring the control of HAP emissions from major and area sources. The 
control of HAP emissions is achieved through promulgation of emission 
standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and operational and work 
practice standards under section 112(h) for categories of sources that 
emit HAP.
    An initial list of categories of major and area sources of HAP 
selected for regulation in accordance with section 112(c) of the Act 
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 
``Steel Pickling--HCl Process'' is one of the 174 categories of sources 
listed. The category consists of facilities engaged in the pickling of 
steel using HCl as the pickling acid. This category does not include 
facilities that pickle steel with other acids. The listing was based on 
the Administrator's determination that HCl steel pickling facilities 
may reasonably be anticipated to emit hydrochloric acid, one of the 
listed HAP, in quantities sufficient to designate them as major 
sources. Information subsequently collected by the EPA as part of this 
rulemaking confirms that more than three-fourths of HCl pickling 
facilities emit or have the potential to emit HCl at levels greater 
than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 standard tons per year (tpy)) 
and therefore are major sources.

III. Background

A. Description of Steel Pickling Source Category

    The ``Steel Pickling--HCl Process'' source category includes any 
facility engaged in the pickling of steel using hydrochloric acid as 
the pickling acid. Steel pickling is the process in which the heavy 
oxide crust or mill scale that develops on the surface of steel during 
hot forming or heat treating is removed chemically in a bath of aqueous 
acid solution. Removal of the oxide layer is necessary to prepare the 
surface for subsequent shaping or finishing. The source category does 
not include facilities which pickle steel using acids other than HCl.
    The category includes both continuous and batch pickling 
operations. In the continuous pickling process the steel is fed through 
a sequence of tanks in a countercurrent direction to the flow of the 
acid solution; next, the steel is passed through a series of rinse 
tanks or a rinsing section. In the batch pickling process, the steel is 
immersed in an acid solution until the scale or oxide film is removed, 
lifted from the bath, allowed to drain, and then rinsed by spraying or 
immersion in rinse tanks.
    To obtain current data on the industry, the EPA compiled data 
supplied by the industry in response to an information collection 
request (ICR) issued in May 1992. Facilities on the mailing list were 
identified from trade publications and other generally available 
information. Information reported included capacity and annual 
production or processing rate as well as design information for 
existing air pollution control systems. Some data were reported for 
acid storage tanks.
    Data were also reported on HCl regeneration plants, which are 
operated at several facilities that conduct HCl pickling. Regeneration 
plants are an integral part of the pickling operation at those 
facilities.
    Based on the sources of information used to develop the mailing 
list and the completeness of responses, the EPA believes that the 
reported information comprises a data base that adequately describes 
the industry and its air pollution control equipment for development of 
the MACT standards.
    According to the data base, one Federal agency and 77 privately 
owned companies operated 101 steel pickling facilities and 10 acid 
regeneration facilities during 1991. Operations were located in 20 
States in seven EPA Regions. Eight of the facilities operating acid 
regeneration plants are collocated with pickling facilities, while two 
are stand-alone custom or toll facilities. Therefore, a total of 103 
facilities in this source category were operating in 1991. Many of the 
facilities are located adjacent to integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing plants or mini-mills that produce electric-furnace steel 
from scrap.
    Five types of pickling processes have been identified. Table 1 
summarizes the number of facilities and production for each process 
type.

[[Page 49054]]



                          Table 1.--HCl Steel Pickling and Acid Regeneration Processes                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Number of                                                            
                 Process                     plants      Number of lines or units      1991 Production (10 \6\) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous Pickling:                                                                                            
  Continuous Strip......................           36  64 (lines)..................  33.3 tons.                 
  Push-Pull Strip.......................           19  22 (lines)..................   4.5 tons.                 
  Rod/Wire..............................           20  55 (lines)..................   0.6 tons.                 
  Tube..................................            4  11 (lines)..................   0.5 tons.                 
Batch Pickling..........................           26  59 (lines)..................   0.9 tons.                 
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Pickling Total *..................          101  211 (lines).................  39.8 tons.                 
Acid Regeneration.......................           10  13 (units)..................  98.0 gal.                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Four facilities perform batch and continuous rod/wire pickling processes. Eight facilities have acid          
  regeneration plants on site. The total number of facilities is 103.                                           

    Steel pickling operations are characterized by the form of metal 
processed and the type of pickling equipment used. The principal forms 
of steel pickled include coils of sheet or strip, rod, wire, pipe, and 
various discreet shapes. Pickling operations may be continuous, 
semicontinuous, and batch.
    A reported 39.8 million tons of steel, valued at about $18 billion 
based on the price of hot-rolled strip, were pickled in 1991, 
representing 65 percent of the industry capacity.
    Hydrochloric acid used in the pickling bath can be recovered as 
regenerated acid, typically 16 to 20 percent HCl, from the spent pickle 
liquor. A marketable iron oxide product is also produced as a byproduct 
of the spray roasting or fluidized bed roasting processes used in the 
acid plants. Waste liquor conversion and acid recovery are complete in 
both of these processes. Annual facility capacities range from 3.15 to 
38.9 million gallons of acid.
    In 1991, actual production of regenerated acid from the ten 
facilities was 98 million gallons, which is estimated to be more than 
40 percent of pickling acid requirements for the industry for that 
year. Without the savings provided by use of the regenerated acid, 
additional costs would be incurred for treatment or disposal of the 
waste pickle liquor (K062) that are otherwise avoided.

B. Emissions

    Pickling lines of all types employ processing tanks that contain 
HCl solution. Emissions of HCl in the forms of HCl gas and mist of HCl 
in water are formed at the surface of the acid bath. The EPA estimates 
that pickling facilities emit approximately 8,920 Mg/yr of HCl at the 
current level of control.
    Acid regeneration plants produce emissions containing HCl that is 
not recovered as acid solution and also Cl2, which is formed 
as an unwanted byproduct of the process. The EPA estimates that acid 
regeneration facilities emit about 390 Mg/yr of HCl and 35 Mg/yr of 
Cl2. Emissions in the forms of HCl gas and acid mist from 
tanks used to store virgin or regenerated acid are released from 
uncontrolled tank vents. An estimated 24 Mg/yr of HCl is emitted from 
tanks nationwide.

C. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Rule

    The Clean Air Act was created in part to protect and enhance the 
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public 
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. (See 
section 101(b)(1)). Section 112(b) of the Act lists HAP believed to 
cause adverse health or environmental effects. Section 112(d) of the 
Act requires that emission standards be promulgated for all categories 
and subcategories of major sources of these HAP and for many smaller 
``area'' sources listed for regulation under section 112(c) in 
accordance with the schedules listed under section 112(e). On December 
3, 1993, the EPA published a schedule for promulgating these standards 
(58 FR 63941).
    In the 1993 Amendments to the Act, Congress specified that each 
standard for major sources must require the maximum reduction in 
emissions of HAP that the EPA determines is achievable considering 
cost, health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In 
essence, these MACT standards would ensure that all major sources of 
air toxic emissions achieve the level of control already being achieved 
by the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each category. 
This approach provides assurance to citizens that each major source of 
toxic air pollution will be required to effectively control its 
emissions. At the same time, this approach provides a level economic 
playing field, ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner processes 
and good emission controls are not disadvantaged relative to 
competitors with poorer controls.
    Emission data collected during the development of this rule show 
that pollutants that are listed in section 112(b)(1) and are emitted by 
HCl steel pickling processes include hydrochloric acid and chlorine. 
Hydrochloric acid and chlorine emissions would be reduced by 
implementation of the proposed emission limits and equipment and 
operating standards.
    Adverse health effects from exposure to HCl and Cl2 have 
been documented.1 Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has 
been reported to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and 
photosensitization in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations 
may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. Acute inhalation 
exposure may cause coughing, hoarseness, inflammation and ulceration of 
the respiratory tract, chest pain, and pulmonary edema in humans. No 
information is available on the reproductive, developmental, or 
carcinogenic effects of HCl in humans. The EPA has not classified HCl 
with respect to potential carcinogenicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hydrochloric Acid. Hazardous Substance Data Bank. National 
Library of Medicine. National Institute of Health. Printouts dated 
August 13, 1992 and November 12, 1993. See also: Hydrogen Chloride. 
Integrated Risk Information System. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. Printout dated July 10, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acute exposure to high levels (>30 parts per million (ppm) of 
Cl2 in humans results in chest pain, vomiting, toxic 
pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and death.2 At lower levels 
(<3 ppm) Cl2 is a potent irritant to the eyes, the upper 
respiratory tract, and lungs. Limited information is available on the 
chronic effects in humans. A recent epidemiologic study reported no

[[Page 49055]]

adverse effects in workers exposed to Cl2 at 0 to 64 ppm 
over an average of 20 years. No information is available on the 
developmental, reproductive, or carcinogenic effects in humans via 
inhalation exposure. The EPA has not classified Cl2 for 
carcinogenicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Chlorine. Hazardous Substance Data Bank. National Library of 
Medicine. National Institute of Health. Printout dated August 18, 
1993. See also: Chlorine. Integrated Risk Information System. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Printout dated September 1, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the 
health effects may be experienced is dependent upon: (1) The ambient 
concentrations observed in the area (e. g., as influenced by emission 
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency and 
duration of exposure, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., 
genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle) that vary 
significantly with the population, and (4) pollutant-specific 
characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in the environment, 
bioaccumulation, and persistence).

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

    Section 112 specifically directs the EPA to develop a list of all 
categories of all major and such area sources as appropriate emitting 
one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b). (See section 112(c)). 
Section 112 of the Act replaces the previous system of pollutant-by-
pollutant health-based regulation that proved ineffective at 
controlling the high volumes and concentrations of HAP in air 
emissions. The provision directs that this deficiency be redressed by 
imposing technology-based controls on sources emitting HAP, and that 
these technology-based standards may later be reduced further to 
address residual risk that may remain even after imposition of 
technology-based controls. A major source is any source that emits or 
has the potential to emit considering controls 10 tpy or more of any 
one HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. The EPA published 
an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), 
and may amend the list at any time.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out 
in section 112, as amended. The statute requires the standard to 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is 
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and 
energy requirements.
    Emission reductions may be accomplished through application of 
measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but 
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions 
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, 
or other modifications, (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate 
emissions, (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point, 
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards 
(including requirements for operator training or certification) as 
provided in subsection (h), or (5) a combination of the above. (See 
section 112(d)(2)).
    To develop a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about the 
industry, including information on emission source characteristics, 
control technologies, data from HAP emissions tests at well-controlled 
facilities, and information on the costs and other energy and 
environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this 
information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.
    Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical 
emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In 
some cases, for example, physically measuring emissions from a source 
may be impossible, or at least impractical, because of technological 
and economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator 
to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standard, or a combination thereof, in those cases where it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
    If sources in the source category are major sources, then a MACT 
standard is required for those major sources. The regulation of the 
area sources in a source category 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.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

    After the EPA has identified the specific source categories or 
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must 
set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 limits 
the EPA's discretion by establishing a minimum baseline or ``floor'' 
for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or 
subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator. (See section 112(d)(3)).
    The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent that the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent 
of existing sources (excluding certain sources) for categories and 
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing 5 sources 
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. (See 
section 112(d)(3)).
    After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in 
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT 
standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards 
must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory.
    Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the EPA shall establish standards 
that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous 
air pollutants

    * * * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost 
of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is 
achievable * * *

    In establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among 
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. 
(See section 112(d)(1)). For example, the Administrator could establish 
two classes of sources within a category or subcategory based on size 
and establish a different emissions standard for each class, provided 
both standards are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for that 
class of sources.
    The next step in establishing MACT standards is the investigation 
of regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at 
least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the 
industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting 
national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels, costs, 
energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative levels 
(which may be different levels of emissions control or different levels 
of applicability or both) are then evaluated to select the regulatory 
alternative that best reflects the appropriate MACT level.
    The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, 
but the

[[Page 49056]]

control level selected must be technically achievable. In selecting a 
regulatory alternative that represents MACT, the EPA considers the 
achievable emission reductions of HAP (and possibly other pollutants 
that are co-controlled), cost, and economic impacts, energy impacts, 
and other environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the 
maximum degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or 
other impacts. (See section 112(d)(2)). The regulatory alternatives 
selected for new and existing sources may be different because of 
different MACT floors, and separate regulatory decisions may be made 
for new and existing sources.
    The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a 
proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT decision 
typically includes sections on applicability, standards, test methods 
and compliance demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. 
The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an explanation of the 
rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the 
proposed regulation during the public comment period. Based on an 
evaluation of these comments, the EPA reaches a final decision and 
promulgates the standard.

V. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Sources To Be Regulated

    The proposed NESHAP would apply to new and existing pickling lines 
that use an acid solution in which 50 percent or more by weight of the 
acid in solution is HCl, HCl regeneration plants, and adjunct tanks 
used to store virgin or regenerated HCl at steel pickling facilities or 
acid regeneration plants that are major sources or are part of a major 
source. A steel pickling line employing a pickling solution in which 
less than 50 percent by weight of the acid in solution is HCl would not 
be subject to the proposed NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

    Emission limits are being proposed for HCl and Cl2. For 
existing continuous and batch pickling lines, HCl emissions would be 
limited to either: (1) Emissions from an air pollution control device 
(APCD) with a minimum HCl collection efficiency of 97.5 percent; or (2) 
an HCl concentration no greater than 10 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv) in the APCD or process exhaust gas. For new or reconstructed 
continuous and batch pickling lines, HCl emissions would be limited to 
either: (1) Emissions from an APCD with a minimum HCl collection 
efficiency of 99 percent; or (2) a maximum HCl concentration of 3 ppmv 
in the exhaust gas.
    Emissions of HCl from existing acid regeneration plants would be 
limited to a maximum concentration of 8 ppmv HCl in the exhaust gas. A 
limit of a maximum concentration of 3 ppmv HCl in the exhaust gas is 
proposed for new or reconstructed acid regeneration plants.
    Emissions of Cl2 from existing and new acid regeneration 
plants would be limited to either a maximum concentration of 4 ppmv 
Cl2 in the exhaust gas or an optional source specific 
maximum concentration limitation to be established for each source. The 
way in which the optional limitation is established is described in 
section VII.E of this document, ``Selection of Emission Limits''.
    Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator of an existing or 
new tank used to store virgin or regenerated acid would be required to 
cover and seal all openings on the tank and route emissions from the 
atmospheric vent to an APCD. Acid loading and unloading would be 
conducted either through enclosed lines or with a local fume capture 
system, ventilated through an APCD, at each point where the acid is 
exposed to the atmosphere.

C. Compliance Provisions

    Compliance with the standards would need to be achieved within 24 
months of promulgation for existing sources, and upon startup or the 
promulgation date, whichever is later, for new or reconstructed 
sources. As provided by section 112(i), an owner or operator may 
request the Administrator or applicable permitting authority in a State 
with an approved permit program to grant 1 additional year if necessary 
to install controls.
    For pickling lines and acid regeneration plants, an initial 
performance test would be required to demonstrate compliance. Sampling 
locations for all compliance tests would be determined by EPA Method 1 
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow 
rate would be determined by EPA Method 2; gas analysis would be 
conducted according to EPA Reference Methods 3 and 4 in appendix A to 
40 CFR part 60. Testing of HCl and Cl2 emissions would be 
performed using EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources--Isokinetic Method'', in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A. If testing is conducted to demonstrate 
compliance with a collection efficiency limitation, sampling at the 
APCD inlet and at the outlet must be simultaneous. An average of three 
runs of sufficient duration to provide adequate samples for the 
expected concentration would be used to determine compliance. The owner 
or operator also would establish limiting values for control device 
operating parameters and regeneration process operating conditions 
based on the values measured during this test.
    The installation of the required ventilation systems for acid 
storage tanks would be confirmed to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator by means of a visual inspection.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    The proposed NESHAP allows two monitoring options for HCl, one 
option for Cl2. For HCl, the owner or operator must either: 
(1) Monitor and record control device operating parameters and perform 
annual emission tests; or (2) operate a continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS) for the measurement and recording of HCl emissions. If a 
wet scrubber is used, the control device operating parameters monitored 
would be the pressure drop across the scrubber and the acidity of the 
scrubber effluent. The allowable range of values for pressure drop 
would be either the range of values recorded during multiple 
performance tests or a value within 1-inch of water column of the 
average value measured during the three test runs of one compliance 
test. Acidity would be monitored either by the use of instruments that 
measure acidity continuously or manual tests made once each shift for 
each operating day. If a device other than a wet scrubber is used, the 
owner or operator must monitor parameters appropriate for that device.
    Each owner or operator also must develop and implement a written 
program to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of each emission 
control device and submit the written program to the applicable 
permitting authority as part of the operating permit. If a wet scrubber 
is used, the plan must include the minimum elements contained in the 
operating manual, e.g., it must: Require the manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance at the recommended intervals for pumps, scrubber fans and 
motors, and the exhaust system; require cleaning of the scrubber 
internals and mist eliminators at sufficient intervals to prevent 
fouling; and require periodic inspections of each scrubber to identify, 
repair, or replace specified elements as needed. If another type of 
control device is used, the owner or operator must develop and submit a 
similar written plan appropriate for the

[[Page 49057]]

device for approval by the applicable permitting authority.
    If a defect is found during an inspection, the owner or operator 
must initiate corrective action procedures to remedy the defect within 
1 working day of detection. Failure to perform the inspection as stated 
in the written maintenance plan or to initiate corrective actions would 
be a violation of the maintenance requirement.
    Operation of the control device with excursions of operating 
parameters outside the ranges established during the initial 
performance test requires initiation of corrective action as specified 
by the maintenance requirement. Failure to initiate the required action 
is a violation of the maintenance requirements.
    If excursions of control device operating parameters occur more 
often than six times during any 6-month reporting period, the owner or 
operator is required to install a CEMS and comply with all the 
requirements applicable to a continuous monitoring system (CMS) that 
are specified in Sec. 63.8 in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. For 
compliance with the exhaust gas concentration requirement, the CEMS 
shall be employed to monitor the process or control device exhaust gas. 
For compliance with the collection efficiency requirement, the CEMS 
shall be employed to monitor the APCD inlet and outlet gas streams. For 
compliance with the collection efficiency requirement, a single 
analyzer may be used to monitor both streams, with each stream being 
monitored 50 percent of the time during each 24-hour period.
    For Cl2, the owner or operator must perform annual 
emission tests and monitor and record roaster operating conditions. 
Operating conditions would include process offgas temperature and a 
measure of excess air fed to the process, the latter of which would 
consist of a measure of air feed rate, combustion fuel feed rate, and 
feed rate of iron in the spent liquor or any other acceptable 
combination of parameters. The operator could establish new allowable 
operating parameter values by conducting another performance test.
    The owner or operator of a pickling facility would be found in 
violation of the emission limit if an annual performance test or 
reduced data from the CEMS show that the HCl emission limitation is 
being exceeded. The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant 
would be found in violation of the emission limit if an annual emission 
test shows that the HCl and/or Cl2 emission limitation is 
being exceeded, if reduced data from the CEMS show that the HCl 
emission limitation is being exceeded, or if the acid plant roaster is 
operated under conditions outside the values established during the 
initial performance test.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    The owner or operator would be required to submit notifications 
described in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which 
include initial notification of applicability, notifications of 
performance tests, and notification of compliance status.
    As required by the general provisions, the owner or operator would 
be required to submit a report of performance test results; develop and 
implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and report 
semiannually any events where the plan was not followed; and submit 
semiannual reports of excess emissions if any measured emissions are 
greater than the limits, or if any monitored parameters fall outside 
the range of values established during the performance test. If excess 
emissions are reported, a quarterly report would be required until 
there have been no excess emissions for one year; the owner or operator 
could then report semiannually unless excess emissions reoccur.
    The owner or operator also would be required to maintain records 
required by the general provisions and records needed to document 
compliance with the standard. These records would mainly include 
operating parameter measurements, a copy of the written maintenance 
plan, and APCD inspection records.
    All records must be retained for at least 5 years following the 
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, 
report, or record. The records for the most recent 2 years must be 
retained on site; records for the remaining 3 years may be retained off 
site but still must be readily available for review. The files may be 
retained on microfilm, microfiche, on a computer, or on computer or 
magnetic disks. The owner or operator may report required information 
on paper or a labeled computer disk using commonly available and 
compatible computer software.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by This NESHAP

    The proposed standards would apply to all HCl steel pickling 
facilities and HCl regeneration facilities that are major sources or 
are part of a major source. The EPA estimates that approximately 80 
pickling facilities and all 10 regeneration facilities emit HCl in 
amounts that are greater than major source levels (i. e., greater than 
10 tpy). At least one regeneration facility is a major source for 
Cl2.
    Sixty-nine pickling facilities control emissions from all lines 
(119). In the remaining 32 facilities, 90 of 92 lines are uncontrolled. 
Twelve of the 13 acid regeneration processes are equipped with control 
systems. Of an estimated 369 storage tanks, about one-third, at 40 
pickling and 4 acid regeneration facilities, are equipped with control 
equipment.
    Many of the 69 controlled pickling facilities not already meeting 
the requirements of the proposed rule could possibly achieve compliance 
with minor equipment modifications or changes in operating conditions. 
Of the 32 facilities that would require additional control systems, 17 
are batch picklers and 12 are continuous rod and wire picklers.
    Many acid regeneration facilities may be able to comply with the 
proposed NESHAP using existing control equipment and operating 
procedures. Three plants are known to already meet the proposed 
standard for HCl, three plants are known to meet the standard for 
Cl2. Other plants may already be in compliance or able to 
comply using only improved operating or maintenance procedures.
    All impacts were estimated by determining the effect of the 
proposed regulation on model plants that were developed to represent 
the industry rather than estimating the impact on each facility on a 
case-by-case basis, which was considered impractical. Seventeen model 
plants were developed to represent the five types of pickling 
operations and one acid regeneration process. The model plants include 
small, medium, and large plant size variations (except for continuous 
tubing pickling, for which only small and large size variations were 
used) with associated emission control systems.

B. Air Quality Impacts

    At current levels of control, nationwide HCl emissions from this 
source category are estimated to be 9,330 Mg/yr; 6,980 Mg/yr for 
continuous pickling lines, 1,940 Mg/yr for batch pickling lines, 390 
Mg/yr for acid regeneration plants, and 24 Mg/yr from acid storage 
tanks. Nationwide Cl2 emissions from acid regeneration 
plants are estimated to be 35 Mg/yr. Application of the proposed 
standards would reduce HCl emissions by approximately 8,360 Mg/yr to 
about 970 Mg/yr from all regulated sources, or about 90 percent, and 
Cl2 emissions by

[[Page 49058]]

approximately 19 Mg/yr to about 16 Mg/yr, or about 54 percent.

C. Water Quality Impacts

    The additional amount of water discharged from wet scrubbers would 
increase by approximately 460,000 cubic meters per year (m\3\/yr) over 
current levels: 320,000 m\3\/yr from continuous pickling processes, 
130,000 m\3\/yr from batch pickling processes, and 6,000 m\3\/yr from 
acid regeneration plants. The portion of this water that would need to 
be treated on site prior to discharge is projected to be small because 
the scrubber discharge water can be, and is in many cases, recycled to 
the pickling process to provide makeup water and recover the acid 
values collected by the scrubber. The additional wastewater to be 
treated would be insignificant compared with the amount of waste pickle 
liquor generated by pickling operations. Treatment of both waste 
products can be accomplished by the same procedures.

D. Solid Waste Impacts

    The volume of sludge generated by additional control could increase 
by up to 1,680 Mg/yr: 1,370 Mg/yr from continuous pickling processes, 
280 Mg/yr from batch pickling processes, and 30 Mg/yr from acid 
regeneration plants. The sludge is produced by the treatment of 
scrubber discharge water. This amount of sludge is insignificant 
compared with the amount of sludge generated by treatment of waste 
pickle liquor. Also, the amount of sludge generated would be reduced 
proportionally by the amount of scrubber discharge water that is 
recycled to the pickling process, as described above in paragraph C, 
Water Quality Impacts.

E. Energy Impacts

    Additional energy use is expected to result from implementation of 
the proposed standards. Increases would result from operation of 
additional ventilation systems and emission control devices. Energy use 
is expected to increase by about 10.2 million kilowatt hours per year 
(kWh/yr) over current levels. About 7.1 million additional kWh/yr would 
be needed for continuous pickling lines, 3.0 million kWh/yr for batch 
lines, and 140,000 kWh/yr for acid regeneration plants.

F. Cost Impacts

    Nationwide capital costs of the proposed standards are estimated at 
$20 million with annual costs for operation and maintenance of about 
$7.1 million. Capital cost estimates include costs for purchasing new 
emission control devices (assumed to be scrubbers) for uncontrolled 
lines, upgrading existing scrubbers (assumed to be 40 percent of the 
cost of a new unit), and installing vent piping from acid storage tanks 
to the pickling line control device. Annual costs for these facilities 
are based on costs calculated for the model plants. Estimates of annual 
costs for facilities with existing controls include improved 
maintenance consisting of operating labor, shift supervision, 
materials, and overhead for each emission source based on the type and 
size of model plant. Annual costs were also added for upgrading 
existing scrubbers and for new control devices (assuming scrubbers), 
the costs for increased pressure drop, solids (sludge) disposal, 
wastewater treatment costs, and additional energy requirements.
    Cost-to-sales ratios and percent increase in the cost of production 
statistics were estimated in order to determine the level of impact 
this regulation will have on steel pickling facilities and steel 
producers that conduct pickling activities. The analysis was completed 
on a national basis and for all 17 model plants. In addition, the 
ratios were evaluated on two alternative bases. The first utilizes all 
facilities in the industry to estimate the control cost per ton of 
steel produced. The second estimates the cost of control using only 
those facilities that will be required to install controls. The control 
costs were compared to the market price per ton of the relevant type of 
steel for each model plant to compute cost-to-sales ratios for each 
model plant. An average market price for steel was used to compute the 
national average ratio. Cost of production was estimated to be 93 
percent of market price.
    Nationally, the control costs for the steel pickling industry are 
0.033 percent of sales revenues and represent a 0.035 percent increase 
in the cost of production. For those facilities that will be required 
to install controls to meet the MACT standard, the costs represent 
0.052 percent of revenues and an increase in the cost of production of 
0.056 percent. The costs for individual model plants vary from a low of 
0.011 to a high of 0.79 percent increase in the cost of production and 
from 0.010 to 0.73 percent of revenues for all facilities in the 
industry. The costs range from 0.023 to 1.15 percent increase in the 
cost of production and from 0.021 to 1.07 percent of sales for the 
individual facilities required to install emission controls and incur 
costs.
    The cost-to-sales ratios and percent increase in the cost of 
production are well below 1 percent for the industry as a whole and for 
the portion of the industry required to incur control costs as a result 
of this regulation. The costs on a model plant basis approximate or are 
less than a 1 percent increase in the cost of production and are an 
equivalent percent of sales for all model plants. The magnitude of the 
costs relative to production cost of the industry and sales revenues 
leads to a conclusion that this standard will not significantly 
adversely impact firms in the steel pickling industry. The results also 
indicate that a more sophisticated economic impact analysis is not 
required. No plant closures are anticipated nor are significant 
employment losses. Significant regional impacts are also not expected.
    Costs for model pickling and acid regeneration facilities and acid 
storage tanks are given in the background information document, along 
with additional information on the model plant parameters.

G. Economic Impacts

    Estimated annual costs of emission control for pickling steel would 
range from approximately $0.10 per ton of steel processed for large 
operations to $8.00 per ton of steel for facilities with low production 
rates. For producers of hot-rolled products, the estimated contribution 
of pickling and coiling to total steel production costs in 1992 was 
$7.27 per ton, or 2.3 percent of the total production cost. Based on 
these values, the cost of adding emission control systems can be 
proportionally higher for small producers and of comparable magnitude 
to the cost of pickling, but would still be small compared with the 
total cost of the steel product. The economic impact of the proposed 
rule on the industry as a whole is projected to be minor.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

    This section describes the rationale for the decision made by the 
Administrator in selecting the proposed standards.

A. Selection of Source Category and Pollutants

    Steel pickling facilities emit HCl, and acid regeneration 
facilities emit HCl and Cl2. Both HCl and Cl2 are 
among the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the Act.
    In the most common type of continuous coil process used for steel 
strip, individual coils are welded end-to-end and continuously run 
through a series of, typically, three to four horizontal pickling 
tanks. Virgin or regenerated acid is added near the end where the strip 
exits; the pickling solution then cascades over weirs

[[Page 49059]]

toward the strip entry, countercurrent to the motion of the strip. The 
pickling liquor is typically maintained at 170 to 200 deg.F by live 
steam injection or by internal or external heat exchange. The pickling 
section of a line may be up to 400 feet long. Following pickling, the 
material is rinsed with fresh water in another series of tanks to 
remove residual acid liquor. The rinsed material is then dried with 
heated air.
    Hydrochloric acid is emitted as HCl gas by evaporation from the 
surface of the acid bath in the pickling tanks. Emissions may be 
substantial because of the high vapor pressure of HCl at high 
concentrations and temperatures. Also, mist of HCl in water can be 
produced by mechanical action such as agitation of the bath by steam 
sparging and movement of the steel through the bath.
    A second, less common, type of continuous operation uses a vertical 
spray tower in which pickle liquor is sprayed onto moving strip in 
multiple vertical passes in an enclosed tower. Spray rinsing with fresh 
water follows. Currently, a total of three units are in operation in 
the country. Emissions are of a form similar to those from horizontal 
tanks, and emission control requirements are virtually the same.
    Push-pull lines are physically similar to continuous lines. In this 
process, each coil is threaded through the pickling tanks separately. 
Push-pull lines are generally shorter than continuous lines because the 
speed is usually slower. The pickle liquor usually is maintained at 
180 deg.F or higher by external heat exchangers. Emissions are the same 
as those produced by continuous coil lines.
    Continuous rod/wire and tubing lines are similar to but smaller 
than continuous strip lines. Emissions are of the same form as those 
from continuous coil and push-pull lines.
    In batch lines, rod or wire in coils, pipe, and metal parts are 
dipped into the pickling tank until the scale is dissolved. When 
pickling is completed, the material is lifted from the bath, allowed to 
drain, and rinsed by spraying or by immersion in one or more rinse 
tanks. To reduce emissions, particularly from draining, batch pickling 
temperatures are usually lower, typically 100 to 105 deg.F, than for 
continuous operations. Emissions from batch lines are produced in the 
same way as those from continuous lines and also from acid that is 
entrained in the steel removed from the bath, most of which 
subsequently flows or drips back into the bath.
    Of the 13 acid regeneration plants identified at ten facilities, 
twelve are spray roaster designs; the other plant is a fluidized bed 
roaster. In the spray roasting process, waste pickle liquor is fed into 
a venturi evaporator where it is mixed with hot gas from the spray 
roaster. The liquor cools and cleans the gas of carryover iron oxide 
particles, while the gas evaporates some of the water and HCl in the 
liquor. Concentrated pickle liquor from the evaporator is fed to the 
roaster, in which the liquor is evaporated by hot gas fed to the 
chamber at about 1,200 deg.C. The ferrous chloride reacts with oxygen 
and water vapor to form ferric oxide and HCl. The gases are drawn into 
the absorber, where the contained water and acid are condensed and 
combined with blowdown from the wet scrubber to form an acid solution 
containing 16 to 20 percent HCl. Exhaust from the absorber is usually 
drawn through a wet scrubber, which also acts as a final recovery 
system for HCl, provided that water without chemical additives is used 
as the scrubbing medium.
    Equipment for the fluidized bed roasting process is similar, and 
emission control requirements are virtually the same as those for the 
spray roasting process.
    Emissions of HCl that are not collected by the absorber or the wet 
scrubber are released from both types of regeneration plants.
    Acid regeneration plants also emit Cl2. Formation of 
Cl2 increases as the operating temperature in the roaster 
decreases and as excess air increases. These processes are normally 
operated with sufficient excess air to insure that conversion to ferric 
iron is complete.
    Acid storage tanks are present at nearly all facilities to contain 
the acid needed for pickling operations and the acid solution produced 
by the regeneration plants. These storage tanks are typically totally 
enclosed, except for loading and unloading of acid, with emissions from 
the atmospheric vent commonly routed to the pickling or acid plant 
emission control device or to a dedicated control device. Emissions 
from tanks in the form of HCl gas and acid mist are released from 
uncontrolled vents, especially during filling.
    Emission tests at six continuous horizontal, one continuous 
vertical, and two push-pull steel pickling facilities and one acid 
regeneration facility showed that without controls, all of these 
facilities were major sources for HCl and the acid plant was a major 
source for Cl2. With existing controls, one of the 
continuous horizontal pickling facilities was still a major source for 
HCl and the acid plant was still a major source for both HCl and 
Cl2.
    In order to assess emissions from other types of pickling 
operations, the EPA used an air emissions model for predicting HCl 
emission rates from open surface baths. This model, submitted to the 
EPA by a private engineering company that is experienced in the design 
and evaluation of emission control systems for steel pickling 
operations, takes into account the essential factors that affect 
emissions, including temperature, HCl concentration, concentration of 
dissolved ferrous chlorine, and air velocity across the tank surface. 
Application of this model showed that without controls, pickling 
operations of all five types can emit more than 10 tpy of HCl.
    In view of the above findings, the EPA has determined that the 
source category includes all five types of pickling operations and also 
acid regeneration plants and that pickling operations are subject to 
regulation for emissions of HCl and acid plants for emissions of HCl 
and Cl2, two of the HAP listed in section 112 of the Act. 
The standards being proposed would apply to all new and existing steel 
pickling lines that use the HCl process and all new and existing HCl 
regeneration plants.
    The emission, equipment, and work practice standards being proposed 
would substantially limit emissions of HCl from the above sources. 
Lesser reductions of Cl2 emissions from acid regeneration 
facilities would be achieved. The standards address HCl and 
Cl2 directly rather than surrogates.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

    The proposed standards apply to three types of emission sources at 
steel pickling and acid regeneration facilities:
    (1) Continuous and batch pickling lines using HCl as the pickling 
acid, (2) HCl regeneration plants, and (3) acid storage tank sources.
    Affected process sources include all acid tanks employed in HCl 
pickling lines and all acid regeneration plants. In order to prevent 
acid fumes from invading the working environment, most pickling tanks 
are equipped with close fitting, overhead, push-pull, or side draft 
hoods exhausted through induced draft fans. Emissions from these tanks 
are found in the process exhaust gases that are discharged to the 
atmosphere. Standards are therefore being proposed to limit emissions 
of HCl from pickling tank exhaust gas vents.
    Acid regeneration plant emissions are contained in the gases 
exhausted from the acid recovery or absorber unit. The proposed 
standards would limit HCl and Cl2 emissions from absorber 
exhaust gases.

[[Page 49060]]

    Fumes from the vents of acid storage tanks that are open to the 
atmosphere contain emissions of HCl. Acid storage tank vents were 
therefore selected for regulation. The proposed regulation would limit 
emissions of HCl from storage tanks by requiring that the tank 
atmospheric vents be equipped with APCDs and that any lines or vents 
used for transport of acid into or out of the tanks be enclosed or 
equipped with a local ventilation system exhausted through an APCD.
    A fourth source considered for regulation was waste and wastewater 
treatment operations. The spent pickle liquor is typically managed by 
on site pretreatment and discharge to a publicly owned treatment works 
(POTW) or removal by waste disposal contractors. Available data 
indicate that wastewater treatment emissions are not significant 
because the low vapor pressure of HCl inhibits volatilization. For 
example, at 86 deg.F the vapor pressure of HCl over a solution 
containing 4 percent HCl in water is below 0.0008 millimeters of 
mercury.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Perry, R.H., D.W. Green, and J.O. Maloney, eds. Chemical 
Engineers' Manual. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1984. p. 3-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for Existing 
and New Sources

1. Background
    As described previously in the NESHAP decision process discussion, 
section 112 establishes a minimum baseline, or ``floor'', for 
standards. For new sources, the standards cannot be less stringent than 
the emission control achieved in practice by the best controlled 
similar source. The standards for existing sources can be less 
stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and 
subcategories with 30 or more sources or the best performing five 
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
    When setting standards above the floor, the EPA may distinguish 
among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or 
subcategory. Furthermore, consideration must be given to the 
incremental impacts on emission reduction, cost, economics, energy, and 
other environmental concerns. The objective is to achieve the maximum 
degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable adverse impacts.
    Subcategorization within a source category is considered only when 
there is enough evidence to demonstrate clearly that sources contained 
in the source category are significantly dissimilar. The criteria to 
consider include process operations (including differences between 
continuous and batch operations), emission characteristics, control 
device applicability and costs, safety, and opportunities for pollution 
prevention.
    Steel pickling processes are differentiated by the form of metal 
treated and the configuration and operating cycle of the process. The 
different types of continuous processes vary little except in size and 
ancillary equipment. Batch operations differ significantly from 
continuous operations in three ways: (1) The physical arrangement of 
the unit must allow the steel to be placed into and withdrawn from the 
top instead of the ends of the tank, (2) emissions may vary 
substantially between the immersion and draining phases of the 
operation, and (3) emission capture requirements are different for the 
two types of operations.
    Pickling tanks for all types of continuous lines are typically 
equipped with lids or close fitting hoods. Emission capture systems for 
batch pickling tanks may consist of two separate units: A push-pull 
ventilation system to capture fumes from the tank surface, and a side 
draft hood to capture fumes from steel that is suspended above the tank 
to drain. Although some batch picklers use canopy hoods, at least 15 of 
the 26 batch facilities employ side draft hoods. Emissions ventilated 
through these hoods vary substantially because the drain phase occurs 
for only a portion of the pickling cycle. Because of the different 
emission characteristics, the EPA proposes to regulate continuous/
semicontinuous pickling lines and batch pickling lines as separate 
subcategories.
    The EPA also examined the processes, the process operations, and 
other factors to determine if separate classes of units, operations, or 
other criteria have an effect on air emissions. Acid emission rates are 
affected by tank size, acid concentration and temperature, iron 
concentration, ventilation system, gas flow rate, bath temperature 
control method, and degree of agitation in the tank. The performance 
requirements for an emission control system may be affected by these 
process variables. A qualitative review of the data revealed that 
processes that employ steam sparging for bath temperature control 
tended to produce more HCl emissions than processes employing heat 
exchange, but no differences in control device requirements or control 
efficiencies could be attributed to differences in temperature control 
method. No effect of other process variables on control device 
requirements or control efficiency could be identified. The EPA 
therefore did not identify separate subcategories of sources based on 
process variables.
2. Selection of MACT
    The EPA has taken alternative approaches to establishing MACT floor 
conditions for new and existing sources depending on the type, quality, 
and applicability of available data. The three approaches most commonly 
examined include reliance on: (1) Information on State regulations and/
or permit limitations, (2) source test data that characterize actual 
emissions discharged by sources, and (3) use of a technology floor and 
an accompanying demonstrated achievable emission level that accounts 
for process and air pollution control device variability.
    No Federal air emission standards currently apply to steel pickling 
or acid regeneration sources. Four states have established emission 
limits for HCl, which range from 0.73 to 3 pounds per hour of HCl. At 
least 18 states and territories have established ambient air limits for 
HCl; these limits are values for allowable concentrations of HCl 
outside the facility boundaries or in adjacent neighborhoods downwind 
from the source.4 These limits vary widely. For example, 
one-hour exposure limits range from 75 to 2,000 g/m\3\, and 
24-hour limits range from 2.03 to 700 g/m\3\. Similarly, at 
least 18 states and territories have established ambient air limits for 
Cl2.5 One-hour exposure limits range from 29 to 
69 g/m\3\, and 24-hour limits range from 3.6 to 75 g/
m\3\. These standards cannot be directly related to the requirements of 
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ World-Wide Limits for Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals in Air, 
Water, and Soil. M. Sittig. Noyes Publications. Park Ridge, NJ. 
1994. pp. 425-426.
    \5\ Reference 4. pp. 178-179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicable test data to characterize actual emissions from pickling 
lines are available for only 10 of the 152 continuous pickling lines 
and none of the 59 batch pickling lines. These data points are too few 
to establish 12 percent MACT floors for pickling lines; 18 points would 
be required for continuous lines and seven points for batch lines.
    By comparison with the limited utility of state regulations and 
source test data, a substantial body of information is available on the 
types, configurations, and operating conditions of air pollution 
control devices applied across the industry. This information was 
collected through the

[[Page 49061]]

comprehensive survey by the EPA of known HCl steel pickling facilities 
that was conducted in 1992 through the information collection request 
(ICR), which was approved by the Office of Management and Budget for 
NESHAP information gathering. This survey produced substantial 
information on the design and operation of emission control equipment 
but little information on actual emissions. The EPA therefore used the 
technology floor approach to establishing MACT for pickling lines.
    For acid regeneration plants, sufficient source test data are 
available to pursue an actual emissions approach for determining MACT 
floors. Only five data points would be required to establish the floor 
for acid regeneration plants because there are fewer than 30 plants in 
this subcategory. Enough data were available to construct average or 
median emission values for both HCl and Cl2.
    Continuous pickling lines. Wet scrubbers are the only kind of 
device known to control HCl emissions from pickling lines of all types. 
MACT for continuous pickling lines is therefore wet scrubbing. The two 
variations of scrubbers employed are packed bed and sieve tray.
    Data from the ICR responses show that emissions from 107 of 152 
continuous pickling lines are controlled, including 60 of 64 continuous 
coil, all 22 push-pull coil, 19 of 55 rod/wire, and five of 11 tubing 
picklers. Twenty-five lines are controlled with sieve tray scrubbers, 
41 with vertical packed bed scrubbers, 16 with horizontal packed bed 
scrubbers, 14 with packed bed scrubbers of unidentified configuration, 
eight with scrubbers in series, and three with unidentified types of 
systems.
    The use of a droplet eliminator (DE) in conjunction with a wet 
scrubber is considered standard practice, and mesh pad or chevron 
(vane) type DEs were identified in 13 control systems; they are assumed 
to be employed in the majority of systems. Data were available to 
determine the effectiveness of vertical packed bed and sieve tray 
scrubbers in combination with both types of DEs. No distinction could 
be made in the effectiveness of the mesh pad and chevron devices. Both 
types are therefore considered to be equally effective.
    The effectiveness of a scrubber may depend on the collection medium 
used. The medium used in pickling line scrubbers is either 
unneutralized water from plant or public sources or water to which an 
alkaline substance has been added. Most of the wet scrubbers employed 
to control pickling emissions use water as the collection medium, but 
alkaline solution is used in some units. In principle, the use of 
alkaline solution could result in increases of HCl removal efficiency 
by reducing the vapor pressure of HCl in equilibrium with the scrubbing 
solution. In practice, however, increased efficiencies were not 
observed for pickling process scrubbing systems that could be 
attributed solely to the use of alkaline medium. Also, the equilibrium 
vapor pressure of HCl for weak hydrochloric acid solutions is 
inherently very low. The EPA concludes that use of an alkaline 
collection medium does not constitute a more effective level of control 
than the use of water for this application.
    The characteristics of the scrubbers constituting the existing 
source and new source levels of control were determined by evaluating 
the results of emission tests conducted on units currently employed in 
the industry. Ten valid sets of emission test data on scrubbers applied 
to representative continuous strip and push-pull strip pickling lines 
were collected. All tests were conducted on sieve tray and vertical 
packed bed scrubbers. Fundamental design measures of performance for 
units of these types include the number of trays in sieve tray 
scrubbers and the depth of the packing in packed bed scrubbers.
    The data from these tests are presented and discussed in detail in 
the background information document. The data are from four source 
tests conducted by the EPA and six tests conducted by industry. All 
data sets consist of results from sampling runs conducted under 
conditions representing normal scrubber and pickling line operations, 
and all data sets include simultaneous inlet and outlet measurements.
    Six tests include a minimum of three sampling runs each, three 
tests include two runs each, and one test consists of one run. Of the 
six tests that include three or more sampling runs each, two were 
conducted on sieve tray scrubbers with six and three plates, 
respectively, and four were conducted on vertical packed bed scrubbers 
that contained packing ranging from 5 to 10 feet in depth. One sieve 
tray unit was equipped with a mesh pad DE, the other with a chevron DE. 
Two packed bed units were equipped with mesh pad DEs, two with chevron 
or vane DEs. Thus, all four combinations of scrubber and DE type are 
represented in these six tests. Of the three tests that included two 
sampling runs each, all were conducted on vertical packed bed scrubbers 
with mesh pad DEs. The test with one sampling run was conducted on a 
five-plate sieve tray scrubber equipped with a chevron DE.
    Of the remaining lines using the same types of devices, at least 10 
employ sieve tray scrubbers with a number of trays in the range of 
those tested (3 to 6) and 15 employ vertical packed bed units with 
packing depth in the same range as those tested (5 to 10 feet). Thus, 
on these design criteria, the control devices tested represent those 
employed by at least 35 lines. No scrubber designs employed in this 
source category have been demonstrated to be more effective than these. 
The EPA therefore assumes that the best controlled 12 percent (18 
lines) are found in this group of 35.
    All tests were conducted using either EPA Method 26A in appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 60 or a method equally valid for this application. Field 
evaluations indicate that Method 26A is an acceptable procedure for 
measuring HCl from municipal waste combustors at levels as low as 3 
ppmv.6 The EPA considers the method to be equally valid for 
measuring emissions from pickling and acid regeneration sources. 
Emission reduction efficiency values on the above tests were adjusted 
on the premise that measured outlet HCl concentrations below 3 ppmv may 
not be accurate enough to determine numerical emission standards. 
Reported outlet concentrations of less than 3 ppmv were assumed to be 3 
ppmv for purposes of calculating reduction efficiencies and determining 
the numerical emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Laboratory and Field Evaluation of a Methodology of 
Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Municipal and 
Hazardous Waste Incinerators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Office of Research and Development. Atmospheric Research and 
Exposure Assessment Laboratory. EPA-600/3-89-064. 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reduction efficiencies for HCl for the ten scrubbers range from 
99.9 to 92.7 percent; HCl outlet concentrations range from 3.0 to 92 
ppmv.
    The best controlled lines are two lines that achieve both 99 
percent or greater HCl collection efficiencies and 3 ppmv or lower HCl 
outlet concentrations. One line is served by a six-plate sieve tray 
scrubber and one by a packed bed scrubber. These control devices are 
the most effective devices demonstrated in this application and 
therefore constitute the new source MACT floor for continuous pickling 
operations.
    For the remaining eight scrubbers, neither sieve tray nor vertical 
packed bed units as groups were superior to the other type of device. 
The existing source MACT floor therefore is sieve tray scrubbers with 3 
to 5 trays and vertical packed bed scrubbers with 5 to 10 feet of 
packing.

[[Page 49062]]

    The EPA is required to consider levels of control more stringent 
than the floor level if such levels exist. No higher level of control 
exists for new sources than the level proposed. For existing sources, 
the new source level of control is more stringent and therefore was 
considered. As discussed below in section VII.E of this document, 
``Selection of Emission Limits'', the proposed emission limits for 
existing source MACT are 97.5 percent minimum HCl reduction efficiency 
or 10 ppmv maximum HCl outlet concentration. According to a cost 
analysis, the additional cost of controls to reduce emission levels 
from either an outlet concentration of 10 to 3 ppmv HCl or increase 
reduction efficiencies from 97.5 to 99 percent is estimated to be $20.7 
million for capital costs and $3.0 million for annual costs. The 
associated emission reduction is estimated to be 450 Mg/yr. The cost 
effectiveness is therefore $46,000 per Mg of HCl reduction for capital 
cost, $6,700 per Mg for annual cost. The EPA considers this burden to 
be excessive and therefore is not proposing the higher level of control 
for existing sources. By comparison, the cost effectiveness of the 
proposed rule is $2,400 per Mg of HCl reduction for capital cost and 
$850 per Mg of reduction for annual cost for pickling lines and acid 
regeneration units combined.
    Batch pickling lines. According to data from the ICR responses, 
only 14 of the 59 batch pickling lines are controlled, although 36 
lines are equipped with local ventilation. As with continuous picklers, 
wet scrubbers are the only type of control device identified. MACT for 
batch pickling lines is therefore wet scrubbing. Nine lines employ 
vertical packed bed scrubbers, two employ horizontal packed bed units, 
and two employ wet scrubbers of unknown types.
    No valid test data are available for batch operations. The MACT 
floor must therefore be determined by an assessment of scrubbers of 
these types in similar applications, e. g., continuous pickling lines. 
Of the vertical packed bed systems employed, at least five scrubbers 
have packing depths equal to or greater than those found in continuous 
pickling line scrubbers (5 to 10 feet) and would be expected to perform 
as well as those units. The use of DEs will be inferred by the fact 
that they are standard equipment in similar types of applications. The 
existing source MACT floor technology therefore includes packed bed 
scrubbers of the same capability as the packed bed scrubbers in the 
existing source MACT floor technology for continuous pickling lines. 
The expected level of performance is assumed to be the same as that for 
existing continuous lines. The EPA therefore believes that selection of 
the same existing source MACT floor for batch pickling lines as for 
continuous lines is justified.
    Unlike continuous pickling, data are not available on batch 
pickling to allow differentiation in terms of scrubber performance. No 
distinction could be made among the scrubbers constituting the existing 
source MACT floor. Consequently, the new source MACT floor is the same 
as the existing source MACT floor for this subcategory of sources.
    The EPA considered one higher level of control than the MACT floor, 
namely the level of control for new continuous pickling sources, for 
application to both existing and new batch pickling sources. According 
to a cost analysis, the additional cost of controls for existing batch 
pickling lines to reduce emission levels of existing sources from 
either an outlet concentration of 10 to 3 ppmv HCl or increase 
reduction efficiencies from 97.5 to 99 percent was estimated to be 
$610,000 for capital costs and $140,000 for annual costs. The 
associated emission reduction is estimated to be 61 Mg/yr. The cost 
effectiveness is therefore $10,000 per Mg of HCl reduction for capital 
cost, $2,300 per Mg for annual cost. This burden is considerably lower 
than the additional burden required for existing continuous lines to 
reduce emissions to new source levels instead of existing source 
levels. The emissions reduction that would be achieved, however, is 
very low; 61 Mg/yr is less than one percent of the total of 8,360 Mg/yr 
that would be achieved by implementation of the proposed rule. In view 
of the minimal gain to be achieved, the EPA proposes that the more 
stringent level of control not be required for existing batch pickling 
sources.
    The EPA proposes that the new source level of control for 
continuous pickling lines be required for new source batch pickling 
lines because the control technologies are virtually identical for both 
subcategories of sources.
    Acid regeneration plants. Ten acid regeneration facilities, eight 
of which are collocated at pickling facilities, operate 13 regeneration 
plants. Based on information submitted in ICR responses from all 10 
facilities, the following control devices are employed to reduce 
emissions. Nine plants use single-stage vertical packed bed scrubbers 
with water as the collection medium. Each scrubber is equipped with a 
DE and packing that ranges from 6 to 25 feet in depth. Two plants use 
two-stage vertical packed towers, with water as the collection medium 
in the first stage and alkaline solution in the second stage. One plant 
uses two-stage packed tower absorption, which is similar to single 
stage absorption followed by a stage of scrubbing; the second absorber 
is followed by a venturi scrubber that uses alkaline solution. The 
thirteenth plant is uncontrolled.
    Similarly to EPA's technical judgement on the effectiveness of 
scrubbing with alkaline media versus unneutralized water for HCl 
control on pickling lines, the EPA does not believe that the use of 
alkaline media in scrubbers necessarily enhances control over the use 
of unneutralized water for HCl control on acid regeneration plants, 
even though the use of alkaline media does enhance Cl2 
control. Consequently, any improvement in HCl control by the control 
systems that employ dual stages of absorption or scrubbing plus use of 
an alkaline medium is due in EPA's opinion to the existence of multiple 
stages rather than the use of alkaline media.
    Because the source category includes fewer than 30 acid 
regeneration plants, the MACT floor for existing sources is determined 
by the average emission limitation achieved by the best controlled five 
plants.
    HCl collection efficiency data were available for only one plant. 
Collection efficiency could therefore not be used as a basis for 
determining MACT. By comparison, scrubber outlet concentration data 
were available for five plants; this information was used to determine 
the MACT floors for new and existing sources.
    Measured scrubber outlet concentration values are 0.9, 1.0, 3.1, 
16, and 137 ppmv HCl. The 137 ppmv value is far out of line with the 
other values and is considered to be the result of a malfunction in the 
acid regeneration plant, specifically inefficient absorber operation. 
This value is therefore not included in any determinations.
    Referring to the limitation of the test method employed discussed 
previously in this section, concentration values below 3 ppmv cannot be 
measured with assurance. Measured values of less than 3 ppmv are 
assumed to be 3 ppmv for the purpose of determining MACT and the 
numerical emission limit. The outlet concentration values used were 
therefore 3, 3, 3.1, and 16 ppmv HCl.
    New source MACT for HCl control is based on the lowest exhaust gas 
concentration achieved in practice by the best similar source or 
sources. Three plants currently achieve measured HCl

[[Page 49063]]

concentrations of 3.1 ppmv or lower and constitute MACT. These plants 
employ two-stage scrubbing with vertical packed bed scrubbers or two-
stage absorption followed by a venturi scrubber. Consequently, the 
floor and MACT for new sources is the level of control demonstrated by 
two-stage scrubbing or two-stage absorption.
    If the MACT floor for existing sources is to be determined by the 
median of the concentrations achieved by the best 5 controlled plants, 
the value will be 3 ppmv (3.1 ppmv rounded off). If the floor is to be 
determined by the average of the concentrations achieved by the best 5 
controlled plants, a fifth value will have to be assumed. The assumed 
value would be 16 ppmv because it cannot be determined that any of the 
other 8 plants employing single-stage scrubbing performs at either a 
higher or lower level than the plant for which information is 
available. The average of 3, 3, 3.1, 16, and 16 ppmv is 8 ppmv.
    In choosing between using the average or the median concentration 
to determine the MACT floor, the EPA considered the capabilities of the 
control technology currently in use and also the relative costs and 
benefits of the two options. As described above, three plants have been 
shown to achieve the 3 ppmv HCl median value. These include two plants 
that employ two-stage scrubbing with vertical packed bed scrubbers and 
a third plant that employs two-stage absorption and single-stage 
scrubbing with a venturi scrubber. Nine of the twelve plants that are 
controlled, however, employ single-stage scrubbing, which has not been 
demonstrated to be capable of achieving the 3 ppmv level of control. 
Also, according to a cost analysis that is presented later in this 
section, the incremental annual cost of increasing control from 8 ppmv 
to 3 ppmv is $7,600 per Mg of HCl reduction, which EPA considers to be 
excessive. Based on these considerations, the EPA is proposing to use 
the average level of control, 8 ppmv HCl outlet concentration, to 
determine the existing source MACT floor. Although no single-stage 
scrubber employed in an acid regeneration plant has been demonstrated 
to meet this level of control, it would be more achievable than 3 ppmv. 
Also, the existing source level of control proposed for pickling lines 
is a similar value, 10 ppmv, and the scrubbers used to control pickling 
lines are mainly single-stage units.
    MACT for chlorine emission control was determined from the best 
five controlled plants for Cl2. Collection efficiency data 
were too limited to be used. Data were available from three plants; two 
were the plants that use two-stage scrubbing with alkaline media in the 
second stages, and the third was a plant that uses single-stage water 
scrubbing. Chlorine reduction was virtually nil from the latter plant 
because water does not absorb Cl2 effectively. The secondary 
scrubbers using alkaline solution reduce Cl2 emissions from 
5.1 to 2.1 ppmv and from 7.8 to 0.27 ppmv. Respective Cl2 
collection efficiencies are 53 and 94 percent, a wide variation for two 
identical units operated with the same goal. The EPA consequently 
believes that neither MACT nor a numerical emission limit for 
Cl2 can be determined from collection efficiency data.
    Outlet Cl2 concentration data were available from four 
plants. Measured values are 0.3, 2.1, 3.3, and 60 ppmv. As discussed 
previously in this section, EPA Method 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 
60 is considered acceptable for HCl concentrations as low as 3 ppmv. 
Although no lower limit is given for Cl2, the EPA believes 
that the limit would be similar to that for HCl considering the details 
of the test method. Consequently, the actual Cl2 outlet 
concentrations are taken to be 3, 3, 3.3, and 60 ppmv.
    The 60 ppmv value appears to be high enough compared with the other 
values to be considered a result of inefficient operation and therefore 
was not included in the data used to determine MACT or the numerical 
limit.
    The existing source MACT floor for Cl2 control was 
determined from the median level of achievement of the best five 
performing sources, i. e., the third best controlled source. Because 
the best performing three plants have virtually identical performance, 
all three technologies constitute MACT. Two of these plants are those 
that employ two-stage scrubbing with caustic media in the second 
stages. The third plant uses only single-stage scrubbing with water. 
The latter facility, however, controls Cl2 emissions through 
control of process operating conditions. The existing source MACT floor 
for Cl2 control therefore is scrubbing with an alkaline 
medium or control of plant operating conditions.
    Wet scrubbing systems that do not use alkaline solution as the 
collection medium do not effectively control Cl2 emissions. 
Scrubbing with alkaline solution, however, has a significant 
disadvantage in that the scrubber blowdown cannot be recycled to either 
an acid plant or a pickling process but must be disposed of; thus, 
alkaline scrubbing creates an additional waste product.
    By comparison, control of process conditions does not create a 
waste product nor require a control device. Formation of Cl2 
in acid regeneration can be reduced by increasing the operating 
temperature and decreasing the amount of the excess oxygen in the 
roaster.7 These processes are normally operated with 
sufficient excess air to insure that conversion of ferrous iron to 
ferric iron is complete. At least one facility, however, operates under 
conditions that are chosen to reduce Cl2 formation. The EPA 
therefore believes that regeneration plants can be operated to minimize 
Cl2 formation while maintaining product quality. The 
facility that operates with a specific goal of reducing Cl2 
formation has measured a Cl2 concentration of 3.3 ppmv in 
the process offgas. As discussed above, the facility operating two 
regeneration plants has measured Cl2 concentrations in the 
process offgases prior to alkaline scrubbing of 5.1 and 7.8 ppmv, which 
are of the same order as 3.3 ppmv. The EPA believes that controlling 
process operating conditions can result in reducing Cl2 
formation to a demonstrated concentration level and therefore proposes 
that control of process operating conditions be included in the MACT 
floor for reducing Cl2 emissions from acid regeneration 
plants. Because of the limited data available to support this 
conclusion, the EPA solicits comment on this selection of MACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Chlorine Control of Pickling Acid Regeneration Plants. E. 
Th. Herpers, B. Schweinsberg, N. Ozer, and J. Bozcar. International 
Chemical Engineering Symposium Series No. 57. pp. BB1-BB14. 
Available from University of California, Los Angeles, PSTL/
Interlibrary Loans, 8251 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New source MACT for Cl2 control is determined by the 
single best performing plant. The outlet concentration values of 3, 3, 
and 3.3 ppmv are virtually identical, and therefore the best performing 
plant could be any one of the best three. The new source MACT floor for 
Cl2 control is therefore the technology used by all three 
plants, i.e., the same as the existing source MACT floor.
    As in the case of the standard for pickling lines, the EPA 
considered levels of control more stringent than the MACT floor. For 
HCl control, no higher level of control exists for new sources than the 
level proposed. For existing sources, the new source level of control 
is more stringent and therefore was considered. The additional cost of 
controls to reduce outlet concentrations from 8 to 3 ppmv HCl is 
estimated to be $2.9 million for capital costs and $1.0 for annual 
costs. The associated

[[Page 49064]]

emission reduction is estimated to be 133 tpy. The cost effectiveness 
is therefore $22,000 per Mg of HCl reduction for capital cost, $7,600 
per Mg for annual cost. The EPA considers this burden to be excessive 
and therefore is not proposing the higher level of control for existing 
sources.
    For Cl2 control, no higher level of control is known 
than that proposed, and therefore no higher level could be considered.
    Acid storage tanks. Storage tanks typically provide complete 
enclosure of the acid. Based on data from ICR responses, 40 pickling 
facilities and four regeneration plants employ emission control systems 
on tanks used for storage of virgin and regenerated acid. A total of 24 
of the 40 pickling facilities and all four regeneration plants vent 
tank fumes to the scrubbers that service the associated pickling 
process or acid plant. The control systems at the remaining 16 
facilities were not determined to be more or less effective than the 
pickling process and acid plant control systems at the 24 facilities. 
The MACT floor for existing acid storage tanks therefore includes 
covering and sealing all openings on the tank, except during loading 
and unloading of acid, and routing emissions from the atmospheric vent 
to a control device. The EPA is not requiring that fumes be vented to 
the same control device used to service the associated pickling line or 
acid plant because the tank may be in a remote location; in this case, 
a separate device may be used.
    At least 15 facilities control acid fumes during acid transfer to 
and from the tanks by either conducting the transfer through sealed 
lines and connections or providing local ventilation through a control 
device at the point of transfer. The existing source MACT floor 
therefore also includes acid transfer fume control through either a 
sealed connection or use of local ventilation at the transfer point 
through a control device.
    The effectiveness in HCl control of these systems could not be 
differentiated, and thus no one system that was more effective than the 
others could be identified. The new source MACT floor is therefore the 
same as the existing source floor.

D. Selection of Format

    Section 112 of the Act requires the Administrator to prescribe 
emission standards for HAP control unless, in the Administrator's 
judgement, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission 
standards. Section 112(h) defines two conditions under which it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards: (1) If the HAP 
cannot be emitted through a conveyance device designed and constructed 
to emit or capture the HAP; and (2) if the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable because 
of technological or economic limitations. If it is not feasible to 
prescribe or enforce emission standards, then the Administrator may 
instead promulgate equipment, work practice, design, or operational 
standards, or a combination thereof.
    Format options for numerical emission standards or limits include 
mass concentration (mass per unit volume), volume concentration (volume 
per unit volume), mass emission rate (mass per unit time), process 
emission rate (mass per unit of production or other process parameter), 
and degree or percentage of reduction.
1. Pickling Lines and Acid Regeneration Plants
    A mass emission rate for HCl is not proposed for pickling lines 
because of the large variation in the size of the operations. The EPA 
did not propose a process emission rate because no correlation between 
HCl emissions and the amount of steel processed or the amount of acid 
used has been established. For acid regeneration plants, mass and 
process emission rates are not proposed for HCl or Cl2 
because too little information is available to establish any applicable 
relationship.
    Wet scrubbers constitute MACT for HCl for pickling lines and acid 
regeneration plants. Control systems of this type are normally designed 
for a target emission reduction efficiency for these applications. For 
these reasons, EPA proposes that a minimum HCl reduction efficiency be 
established for subcategories where sufficient data are available to 
establish a numerical limit.
    Concentration of a soluble pollutant in the scrubber outlet gas 
cannot be reduced below the value that corresponds to the equilibrium 
vapor pressure of the pollutant in contact with the inlet scrubbing 
medium. Furthermore, depending on temperature and humidity, some HCl 
may be present as an aerosol or in water droplets as well as a gas. The 
effect on control efficiency of the presence of aerosol or droplets is 
not known. High reduction efficiencies for process gases that contain 
low concentrations of HCl or HCl in aerosol or droplet form may 
therefore not be achievable. The EPA therefore proposes that a maximum 
exhaust gas concentration be established as an alternative to reduction 
efficiency in recognition of these limitations of MACT.
    As discussed previously in section VII.C of this document, 
``Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for Existing 
and New Sources'', technical information on acid regeneration processes 
plus measured Cl2 exhaust gas concentration values for three 
plants suggest that these processes can be operated under conditions 
that achieve a target outlet gas concentration of Cl2.
    Based on the above considerations, the EPA is proposing: (1) The 
options of meeting either an HCl reduction efficiency limit for APCD 
performance or an HCl exhaust gas concentration limit for pickling 
lines; and (2) meeting an HCl exhaust gas concentration limit for acid 
regeneration plants. The EPA is also proposing a Cl2 exhaust 
gas concentration limit for acid regeneration plants.
2. Acid Storage Tanks
    An equipment standard is proposed for acid storage tanks because 
emission measurements may be neither practicable nor cost-effective. 
Also, if the air pollution control system that services the associated 
pickling process or acid regeneration unit is used to control tank 
emissions, the need for making a separate measurement is precluded.

E. Selection of Emission Limits

1. Continuous Pickling Lines
    Several types of information were available to determine the 
proposed emission limits for HCl:
    (1) Emission tests conducted by a method valid for this source; (2) 
emissions data derived by other means; (3) emissions data reported by 
the facility with no basis given; and (4) information from vendors and 
designers that would indicate an expected level of performance. For 
purposes of this discussion, the term ``valid'' means data from tests 
conducted by EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources--Isokinetic Method'' in 
appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, or an applicable equivalent method. The 
EPA decided to use only data from tests conducted by valid methods.
    In selecting the emission limits for pickling line sources, the EPA 
decided to select limits that could demonstrably be met by a compliance 
test, i. e., a test conducted using EPA Method 26A (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) with a minimum of three sampling runs. Referring to the 
discussion in section VII.C above, the two scrubbers

[[Page 49065]]

constituting new source MACT are a six-tray scrubber and a packed bed 
scrubber. The six-tray scrubber was tested with three sampling runs. 
The average measured HCl outlet concentration was 2.0 ppmv, and the 
average measured HCl collection efficiency was 99.96 percent. The 
average scrubber inlet HCl loading for the three runs was 5,150 ppmv, 
which is the highest of all scrubbers tested. The packed bed scrubber 
was tested with 11 sampling runs. The average measured HCl outlet 
concentration was 1.6 ppmv, and the average measured HCl collection 
efficiency was 99.5 percent. The average scrubber inlet HCl loading was 
260 ppmv, which is near the low end of the range for all scrubbers 
tested (the lowest being 98 ppmv). For the three worst consecutive runs 
of the eleven, the average measured HCl outlet concentration was 2.6 
ppmv, and the average measured HCl collection efficiency was 98.9 
percent. Except for one run, all collection efficiencies were above 99 
percent, and all measured outlet concentrations were below 2.0 ppmv.
    In view of this information, the EPA believes that the proposed 
numerical limit options of 99 percent HCl collection efficiency and 3 
ppmv HCl outlet concentration are reasonable and can be met in 
compliance tests. Although the measured collection efficiency achieved 
by the best scrubber is considerably better than 99 percent (i.e., 
99.96 percent), the EPA believes that this level of efficiency is 
achieved primarily because of the exceptionally high inlet scrubber 
loading. This level of efficiency may not be demonstrable for scrubbers 
with lower inlet loading, even at the middle of the expected range, 
because the required outlet concentration would be too low to measure 
with accuracy.
    Four lines currently achieve a 3 ppmv or lower exhaust gas 
concentration limit and/or a 99 percent or greater reduction efficiency 
based on actual test results. Twenty-one additional lines would meet 
the standard based on reported outlet concentrations or reduction 
efficiencies.
    Existing source MACT consists of the level of control that is 
achieved by the remainder of the scrubbers for which test data are 
available. Data from three or more runs are available for four of the 
scrubbers constituting existing source MACT. The averages of the runs 
were as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             HCl outlet 
           HCl collection efficiency  (percent)            concentration
                                                               (ppmv)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
98.1.....................................................          62   
97.5.....................................................          42   
97.0.....................................................          12.7 
94.7.....................................................           8.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section VII.D of this document, ``Selection of Format'', EPA 
presented its rationale for proposing options of collection efficiency 
or outlet concentration. Because each owner or operator of a pickling 
facility has two options for meeting the proposed standard, the EPA 
decided to derive each numerical limits from the best performing 
scrubbers for that option. For collection efficiency, three scrubbers 
are clearly the best. The average performance for these three is 97.5 
percent efficiency. For outlet concentration, two scrubbers are 
superior. The average performance for these two is 10 ppmv 
concentration. The numerical standards proposed for existing sources 
are therefore 97.5 percent minimum HCl reduction efficiency and 10 ppmv 
maximum outlet HCl concentration.
    Seven continuous pickling lines meet the maximum 10 ppmv exhaust 
gas concentration standard and/or the minimum 97.5 percent reduction 
efficiency standard based on actual test results. Fifty additional 
lines would meet the standard based on reported outlet concentrations 
of 10 ppmv or lower or reduction efficiencies of 97.5 percent or 
higher.
2. Batch Pickling Lines
    Referring to the discussion above in section VII.C of this 
document, given that MACT for existing batch lines is the same as MACT 
for existing continuous lines, the EPA believes that selection of the 
same emission limits for existing batch pickling lines as for existing 
continuous lines is justified. The numerical standards proposed for 
existing sources are 97.5 percent minimum HCl reduction efficiency and 
10 ppmv maximum outlet HCl concentration. New source MACT for batch 
pickling lines is the same as existing source MACT for batch lines. 
However, as discussed in section VII.C of this document, the EPA is 
proposing the same level of control for new batch lines as for new 
continuous lines because the control technologies for the two 
subcategories of sources are indistinguishable from each other. The 
numerical standards proposed for new sources are therefore 99 percent 
minimum HCl reduction efficiency and 3 ppmv maximum outlet 
concentration.
3. Acid Regeneration Plants
    Referring again to the discussion in section VII.C of this 
document, the proposed HCl outlet concentrations derived in determining 
the existing source and new source MACT floors were 8 ppmv and 3 ppmv, 
respectively.
    Two plants currently meet the HCl exhaust gas concentration limit 
of 3 ppmv based on test results. A third plant achieves an outlet 
concentration of 3.1 ppmv HCl. No additional plants meet the 8 ppmv 
limit based on actual test results available; one additional plant 
meets the 8 ppmv limit based on reported outlet concentration.
    As discussed in section VII.C of this document, the levels of 
control achieved by the new and existing MACT floors for Cl2 
control are virtually the same. The proposed maximum outlet 
concentrations for new and existing sources are therefore the same.
    Because only one of the three plants for which Cl2 
emission data are available was tested with three sampling runs, the 
EPA considered results of individual runs in establishing the 
Cl2 numerical limit. Measured values for Cl2 
outlet concentrations from one plant were 1.1, 1.9, and 3.4 ppmv; 
values measured for the second plant were 0.16 and 0.38 ppmv; and 
values measured for the third plant were 3.0 and 3.6 ppmv. Because of 
the limited number of data points, the EPA decided to propose an 
emission limit of 4 ppmv Cl2 to accommodate the uncertainty 
of meeting a lower limit in a compliance test.
    Three plants are known to meet the 4 ppmv Cl2 maximum 
outlet gas concentration limit based on test results. The EPA notes 
that one plant that achieves this limit employs single stage scrubbing 
without the use of alkaline solution; the limit is achieved through 
process control. No additional plants meet this limit based on reported 
information.
    The EPA is not aware that all existing acid regeneration plants are 
designed to operate at conditions under which this limitation can be 
achieved and therefore proposes that a plant can be operated at a 
higher concentration provided that it can demonstrate that a 
concentration of 4 ppmv cannot be achieved within the design operating 
conditions of the unit. Each facility will be allowed to conduct a 
demonstration test at maximum design operating temperature and minimum 
excess air consistent with iron oxide production of acceptable quality 
while measuring Cl2 concentration in the exhaust gas. The 
measured concentration will become the standard for that regeneration 
plant.

[[Page 49066]]

    As in the case of existing sources, a new source would have the 
opportunity to conduct a demonstration test at maximum design 
temperature and minimum excess air to establish a higher concentration 
limitation. However, a new source would also have to provide a reason 
why the process could not be designed to operate under conditions that 
would allow it to meet the 4 ppmv Cl2 limitation.

F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

    The EPA evaluated the hierarchy of monitoring options available for 
the HCl pickling process and proposed control equipment. This hierarchy 
includes measurement of HCl and C12 by a CEMS, installation 
of measurement devices for continuous monitoring of process and control 
device operating parameters, and periodic performance tests. Each 
option was evaluated relative to its technical feasibility, cost, ease 
of implementation, and relevance to the process or control device.
    CEMSs provide a direct measurement of emissions. Monitors for HCl 
and C12 emissions are commercially available. Although these 
systems have not yet been demonstrated for pickling and acid 
regeneration operations, the EPA believes that HCl monitors can be used 
for these applications; the technical feasibility of monitoring 
C12, however, is in question. The nationwide capital cost of 
this option (CEMSs for all scrubbers) is estimated at $18 million, with 
annual costs of $9.2 million for operation and maintenance, quality 
assurance and quality control performance evaluation, and reporting/
recordkeeping requirements. Because of the high cost of using CEMSs 
compared with the cost of monitoring control device and process 
parameters, the EPA is not considering requiring the use of CEMSs to 
demonstrate compliance.
    Another option is monitoring process and/or control device 
operating parameters plus conducting annual emission tests. Process 
parameters were not selected as indicators for HCl emissions because a 
good correlation does not exist between production and emission rates. 
Control device operating parameters were selected instead because 
measurements outside a range of values established during an initial 
performance test would indicate the control device was not operating 
properly. The estimated nationwide capital costs of this option are 
$450 thousand; annual costs are $1.5 million.
    Annual emission tests by Method 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 
would not require a capital investment. The estimated cost assumes the 
use of a test contractor and includes time for participation by plant 
personnel.
    The EPA believes that reasonable assurance of compliance is 
achieved through monitoring control device operating parameters and 
annual emission tests.
1. Pickling Lines
    The proposed NESHAP offers the owner or operator a choice of two 
monitoring options for HCl. The owner or operator would either install, 
operate, and calibrate devices for the continuous measurement and 
recording of scrubber pressure drop and scrubbing medium acidity and 
conduct annual performance tests by Method 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR 
part 60 or install and operate a CEMS and comply with all the 
requirements in the general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 
that apply to a CMS.
    A number of facilities may be able to meet the proposed HCl 
emission limits if the existing control systems were maintained in 
improved working order. To ensure continued proper operation of the wet 
scrubber control devices, the proposed NESHAP includes a requirement 
for the development and implementation of a written maintenance 
program. The elements required to be included in the maintenance plan 
are:
     Perform the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the 
recommended intervals on fresh solvent pumps, recirculating pumps, 
discharge pumps, and other liquid pumps, and exhaust system and 
scrubber fans and those motors associated with pumps and fans;
     Clean the scrubber internals and mist eliminators at 
intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of solids or other fouling that 
degrades performance below emission limits or standards;
     Conduct a periodic inspection of each scrubber and (1) 
clean or replace any plugged spray nozzles or other liquid delivery 
devices, (2) repair or replace missing, damaged, or misaligned baffles, 
trays, and other internal components, (3) repair or replace droplet 
eliminator elements as needed, (4) repair or replace heat exchanger 
elements used for temperature control of fluids entering or leaving the 
scrubber, and (5) check damper settings for consistency with the air 
flow level used to maintain compliance and adjust as required;
     Initiate appropriate repair, replacement, or other 
corrective action within one working day of detection; and
     Maintain a daily record (i. e., checklist), signed by a 
responsible plant official, showing the date of each inspection for 
each requirement, the problem, a description of the repair, 
replacement, or other action taken, and the date of repair or 
replacement.
    In addition to correcting defects detected during inspections, the 
owner or operator would be required to ensure that the equipment is 
being operated at an appropriate level of reliability, i.e. without the 
need for continual or unusually frequent repairs or alterations that 
require down time. Excursions of control device operating parameters 
that occur with unacceptable frequency would indicate that some aspect 
of the maintenance program or procedures is flawed. Occurrences more 
frequent than an average of once per month over any reporting period 
would be unacceptable, and the owner or operator would be required to 
install a CEMS and comply with all requirements that apply to a CMS, in 
order to provide assurance of compliance. A frequency of once per month 
would correspond to operation out of compliance approximately five 
percent of the operating time, assuming one day of such operation for 
each occurrence and also assuming that the process will experience some 
down time each month for routine maintenance.
2. Acid Regeneration Plants
    Monitoring requirements for HCl for acid regeneration plants are 
the same as those for pickling lines.
    For Cl2 monitoring, process parameters were selected to 
determine compliance with the Cl2 emission limit for acid 
regeneration plants because process control is the means by which 
Cl2 emissions are reduced. The cost of would be 
insignificant because these parameters are currently monitored 
routinely as part of normal operation.
    For Cl2 control, the owner or operator would install (if 
necessary), operate, and calibrate devices for the continuous 
measurement and recording of roaster temperature, rate of addition of 
iron in the spent liquor process feed, combustion gas feed rate, and 
air or oxygen feed rate.
    To ensure proper operation of the acid regeneration plant, 
development and implementation of a written maintenance program is 
required. Elements required to be included in the plan are:
     Perform the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the 
recommended intervals on all required systems and components;
     Initiate appropriate repair, replacement, or other 
corrective action within one working day of detection; and

[[Page 49067]]

     Maintain a daily record (i.e., checklist), signed by a 
responsible plant official, showing the date of each inspection for 
each requirement, the problem, a description of the repair, 
replacement, or other action taken, and the date of repair or 
replacement.
    In addition to continuously monitoring process operating 
parameters, the owner or operator would conduct annual performance 
tests by Method 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

G. Selection of Test Methods

    The proposed NESHAP would require an initial performance test to 
determine compliance. The initial test would consist of emission 
testing of the exhaust gases from the scrubbers used to control HCl 
emissions from pickling lines and acid regeneration plants.
    Test Method 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 has been developed 
and validated for the measurement of HCl and Cl2 emissions. 
The following methods, also from 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, would be 
used for sampling and analysis. EPA Method 1 would be used to determine 
the number and location of sampling points. Method 2 would be used to 
determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 3 would be used 
for gas analysis, and Method 4 would be used to determine the 
volumetric moisture content of the gas. The EPA selected these methods 
for use in the proposed rule because these methods and equivalent 
procedures are those used by EPA and other parties to collect the data 
upon which the proposed emission limits are based. Consistent with the 
methods and standard practice, the initial compliance test would 
consist of three runs by Method 26A conducted under conditions 
representative of normal operation. Compliance would be determined 
based on the average of the three runs. Simultaneous measurements and 
sampling must be done at the APCD inlet and outlet if compliance with 
the collection efficiency limitation is being demonstrated.

H. Selection of Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    The proposed rule requires the owner or operator to comply with the 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the general 
provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63.
    Recordkeeping requirements for all MACT standards are established 
in Sec. 63.10(b) of the general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 
63. In addition to these requirements, for wet scrubber operations the 
proposed NESHAP would require the owner or operator to maintain a copy 
of the scrubber maintenance program with records of inspections and 
repairs, records of pH or acidity levels taken manually (if 
applicable), and records of certification for accuracy of monitoring 
devices (if applicable). For acid regeneration operations, the owner or 
operator would maintain records of certification for accuracy of 
monitoring devices. All requirements that apply to a CMS would apply if 
a CEMS is used.

I. Solicitation of Comments

    The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this 
proposal from all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed 
analyses should be submitted with comments to allow the EPA to make 
maximum use of the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-95-43 (see 
ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the 
date specified in DATES.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information'' 
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be 
sent directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, 
to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in 
the docket: Attention: Jim Maysilles, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA 
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information covered by such a claim of 
confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed 
and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 
confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by the 
EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without further 
notice to the commenter.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Public Hearing

    If a request to speak at a public hearing is received, a public 
hearing on the proposed standards will be held in accordance with 
section 307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to present oral testimony 
or to inquire as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact EPA 
(see ADDRESSES). To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to 
speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.
    Any member of the public may file a written statement on or before 
November 17, 1997. Written statements should be addressed to the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES) and refer 
to Docket No. A-95-43. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public 
inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center.

C. Executive Order 12866

    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 ``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 entitlements, 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 rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the

[[Page 49068]]

listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not 
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, we have involved State 
regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No tribal 
governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. Although 
not directly impacted by the rule, State governments will be required 
to implement the rule by incorporating the rule into permits and 
enforcing the rule upon delegation. They will collect permit fees that 
will be used to offset the resources burden of implementing the rule. 
Comments have been solicited from state partners and have been 
carefully considered in the rule development process. In addition, all 
states are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule during the 
public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider these 
comments in the development of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any one 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 this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA 
has determined that this 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 rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small government 
jurisdictions.
    Only four companies in the steel pickling industry are considered 
small entities. Of these four, one company is expected to meet the 
standard. Two companies are projected to be nonmajor sources based on 
calculations using an emissions estimating model along with information 
supplied by these firms. It is not anticipated that these three firms 
will be adversely impacted by the regulation. The remaining small firm 
employs a scrubber that may meet the emission limitation. If this firm 
incurs emission control costs, the costs would likely relate to 
upgrading existing equipment or improved maintenance practices. Any 
regulatory impacts for this firm are not expected to be significant. 
Based on this information, the EPA has concluded that this proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information 
collection request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR 
No.1821.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE 
Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 
260-2740.
    The proposed 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 
owners or operators subject to national emission standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
section 114 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to 
the EPA 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 maintenance inspections of the 
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the general provisions. The proposed 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection, per respondent (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 410 labor hours per year 
at a total annual cost of $14,800.
    This estimate includes a one-time performance test and report (with 
repeat tests where needed); one-time submission of a startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event when the 
procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess emission 
reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. 
There are no capital/startup costs associated with these reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. Operational and maintenance (O and M) cost 
burden is estimated at $13,800/yr. per respondent. These O and M costs 
are for performance testing, which is anticipated to be conducted by 
outside contractors.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons

[[Page 49069]]

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; processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
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.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE 
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2137), 401 M Street SW., 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 
Office 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 September 18, 1997, comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by October 20, 1997. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. 
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of 
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the 
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in 
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air Pollution Control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steel pickling.

    Dated: August 28, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    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 CCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
From Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process
Sec.
63.1155  Applicability.
63.1156  Definitions.
63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.
63.1158  Emission standards for new or reconstructed sources.
63.1159  Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.
63.1160  Performance testing and test methods.
63.1161  Monitoring requirements.
63.1162  Notification requirements.
63.1163  Reporting requirements.
63.1164  Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1165  Delegation of authority.
63.1166-63.1174  [Reserved]
Appendix A to Subpart CCC of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to subpart CCC

Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants From Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process


Sec. 63.1155  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all new and existing 
steel pickling facilities that pickle steel using an acid solution in 
which 50 percent or more by weight of the acid in solution is 
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and/or regenerate spent HCl from steel pickling 
operations that are major sources or are parts of facilities that are 
major sources. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to 
facilities that pickle using other acids or mixtures of acids in which 
the acid in solution is less than 50 percent HCl by weight or to 
facilities that regenerate other acids.
    (b) For the purposes of implementing this subpart, the affected 
sources at a steel pickling facility subject to this subpart are as 
follows: batch and continuous pickling lines, acid regeneration plants, 
and virgin or regenerated acid storage tanks.
    (c) Appendix A to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart 
A that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of HCl 
steel pickling facilities and acid regeneration plants. The following 
sections of part 63 apply to this subpart as stated in subpart A and 
appendix A to this subpart: Sec. 63.1 (Applicability), Sec. 63.2 
(Definitions), Sec. 63.3 (Units and abbreviations), Sec. 63.4 
(Prohibited activities and circumvention), Sec. 63.5 (Construction and 
reconstruction), Sec. 63.7 (Performance testing requirements), 
Sec. 63.12 (State authority and delegations), Sec. 63.13 (Addresses of 
State air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices), 
Sec. 63.14 (Incorporations by reference), and Sec. 63.15 (Availability 
of information and confidentiality). The following sections of part 63 
apply to the extent specified in this subpart and appendix A to this 
subpart: Sec. 63.6 (Compliance with standards and maintenance 
requirements), Sec. 63.8 (Monitoring requirements), Sec. 63.9 
(Notification requirements), and Sec. 63.10 (Recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements). Section 63.11 (Control device requirements) 
does not apply to this subpart.


Sec. 63.1156  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
    Acid regeneration plant means the collection of equipment and 
processes configured to reconstitute fresh hydrochloric acid pickling 
solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal treatment process.
    Acid storage tank means a vessel used for the bulk containment of 
virgin or regenerated hydrochloric acid.
    Batch pickling line means the collection of equipment and vessels 
configured for pickling metal in any form but usually in discrete 
shapes where the material is lowered in batches into a bath of 
hydrochloric acid solution, allowed to remain until the scale is 
dissolved, then removed from the solution, drained, and rinsed by 
spraying or immersion in one or more rinse tanks to remove residual 
acid.
    Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and that is composed of piping, ductwork,

[[Page 49070]]

connections, and flow-inducing devices that transport emissions from a 
process unit or piece of equipment (e. g., pumps, pressure relief 
devices, sampling connections, open-ended valves or lines, connectors, 
and instrumentation systems) to a control device or back into a closed 
system.
    Continuous pickling line means the collection of equipment and 
vessels configured for pickling metal strip, rod, wire, tube, or pipe 
that is passed through an acid solution in a continuous or nearly 
continuous manner and rinsed in another vessel or series of vessels to 
remove residual acid. This definition includes continuous spray towers.
    Spray tower means an enclosed vertical tower in which hydrochloric 
acid pickling solution is sprayed onto moving steel strip in multiple 
vertical passes.
    Steel pickling means the chemical removal of iron oxides and scale 
that is formed on steel surfaces during hot rolling or forming of semi-
finished steel products through contact with an aqueous solution of 
hydrochloric acid. This definition does not include operations for the 
removal of light rust or for activation of the metal surface prior to 
plating.
    Steel pickling facility means any facility that operates one or 
more batch or continuous steel pickling lines or one or more acid 
regeneration plants.


Sec. 63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.

    (a) Pickling lines. (1) No owner or operator of an existing 
affected pickling line at a steel pickling facility shall cause or 
allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected pickling 
line a hydrochloric acid (HCl) emission rate corresponding to a 
collection efficiency of less than 97.5 percent.
    (2) As an alternative to the requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section, no owner or operator of an existing affected pickling 
line at a steel pickling facility shall cause or allow to be discharged 
into the atmosphere from the affected pickling line any gases that 
contain HCl in excess of 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv).
    (b) Acid regeneration plant. (1) No owner or operator of an 
existing affected acid regeneration plant shall cause or allow to be 
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected acid regeneration 
plant any gases that contain HCl in excess of 8 ppmv.
    (2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, no owner or operator shall cause or allow to be discharged 
into the atmosphere from the affected acid regeneration plant any gases 
that contain chlorine (Cl2) in excess of either 4 ppmv or an 
optional maximum concentration limitation to be established for each 
source. The maximum concentration limitation shall be established 
according to Sec. 63.1160(c)(2) of this subpart.
    (c) Acid storage tank. The owner or operator of an existing 
affected acid storage tank shall provide and operate, except during 
loading and unloading of acid, a closed-vent system for each tank. 
Loading and unloading shall be conducted either through enclosed lines 
or each point where the acid is exposed to the atmosphere shall be 
equipped with a local fume capture system, ventilated through an air 
pollution control device.


Sec. 63.1158  Emission standards for new or reconstructed sources.

    (a) Pickling line. (1) No owner or operator of a new or 
reconstructed affected pickling line at a steel pickling facility shall 
cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected 
pickling line an HCl emission rate corresponding to a collection 
efficiency of less than 99 percent.
    (2) As an alternative to the requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section, no owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected 
pickling line at a steel pickling facility shall cause or allow to be 
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected pickling line any 
gases that contain HCl in excess of 3 ppmv.
    (b) Acid regeneration plant. (1) No owner or operator of a new or 
reconstructed affected acid regeneration plant shall cause or allow to 
be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected acid regeneration 
plant any gases that contain HCl in excess of 3 ppmv.
    (2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, no owner or operator shall cause or allow to be discharged 
into the atmosphere from the affected acid regeneration plant any gases 
that contain Cl2 in excess of either 4 ppmv or an optional 
maximum concentration limitation to be established for each source. The 
maximum concentration limitation shall be established according to 
Sec. 63.1160(c)(2) of this subpart. Also, the owner or operator shall 
explain in writing to the Administrator's satisfaction why the process 
could not be designed to operate under conditions that would allow it 
to meet the 4 ppmv Cl2 limitation. The explanation shall be 
submitted to the Administrator within 30 days after completion of the 
emission test made according to Sec. 63.1160(c) of this subpart.
    (c) Acid storage tank. The owner or operator of a new or 
reconstructed affected acid storage tank shall provide and operate, 
except during loading and unloading of acid, a closed-vent system for 
each tank. Loading and unloading shall be conducted either through 
enclosed lines or each point where the acid is exposed to the 
atmosphere shall be equipped with a local fume capture system, 
ventilated through an air pollution control device.


Sec. 63.1159  Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.

    (a) Compliance dates. (1) The owner or operator of an affected 
existing steel pickling facility and/or acid regeneration plant subject 
to this subpart shall achieve initial compliance with the requirements 
of this subpart no later than ____________ [Insert date 2 years from 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register].
    (2) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed steel pickling 
facility and/or acid regeneration plant subject to this subpart that 
commences construction or reconstruction after September 18, 1997 shall 
achieve compliance with the requirements of this subpart immediately 
upon startup of operations or by ____________ [Insert date of 
publication of final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later.
    (b) Operation and maintenance requirements. (1) The owner or 
operator of an affected source shall comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 63.6(e) of subpart A of this part.
    (2) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section, the owner or operator shall develop and implement a 
written maintenance plan for each emission control device. The owner or 
operator shall submit the plan no later than the date of compliance to 
the applicable permitting authority. For a scrubber emission control 
device, the written program must include the minimum elements contained 
in the operating manual provided by the manufacturer and:
    (i) Require the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the 
recommended intervals on fresh solvent pumps, recirculating pumps, 
discharge pumps, and other liquid pumps, in addition to exhaust system 
and scrubber fans and motors associated with those pumps and fans;
    (ii) Require cleaning of the scrubber internals and mist 
eliminators at intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of solids or 
other fouling;
    (iii) Require an inspection of each scrubber at intervals of no 
less than 3 months with:

[[Page 49071]]

    (A) Cleaning or replacement of any plugged spray nozzles or other 
liquid delivery devices;
    (B) Repair or replacement of missing, misaligned, or damaged 
baffles, trays, or other internal components;
    (C) Repair or replacement of droplet eliminator elements as needed;
    (D) Repair or replacement of heat exchanger elements used to 
control the temperature of fluids entering or leaving the scrubber; and
    (E) Adjustment of damper settings for consistency with the required 
air flow.
    (iv) If the scrubber is not equipped with a viewport or access 
hatch allowing visual inspection, alternate means of inspection 
approved by the Administrator may be used.
    (v) The owner or operator shall initiate corrective action within 
one working day of detection of an operating problem and provide 
appropriate repair, replacement, or other corrective action. Failure to 
initiate or provide appropriate repair, replacement, or other 
corrective action is a violation of the maintenance requirement.
    (vi) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of each 
inspection, including each item identified in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of 
this section, that is signed by the responsible plant official and that 
shows the date of each inspection, the problem identified, a 
description of the repair, replacement, or other corrective action 
taken, and the date of the repair, replacement, or other corrective 
action taken.
    (3) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (b)(2) of this section, the owner or operator of each acid 
regeneration plant shall develop and implement a written maintenance 
program. The program shall require:
    (i) Performance of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at 
the recommended intervals on all required systems and components;
    (ii) Initiation of appropriate repair, replacement, or other 
corrective action within one working day of detection; and
    (iii) Maintenance of a daily record, signed by a responsible plant 
official, showing the date of each inspection for each requirement, the 
problems found, a description of the repair, replacement, or other 
action taken, and the date of repair or replacement.


Sec. 63.1160  Performance testing and test methods.

    (a) The owner or operator shall conduct an initial performance test 
for each process or emission control device to determine and 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit or 
performance standard according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 of this 
part and in this section.
    (1) Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or 
operator shall conduct an emission test for each process or control 
device to measure either the mass flows of HCl at the inlet and the 
outlet of the control device (to determine compliance with the 
applicable collection efficiency standard) or the concentration of HCl 
(and Cl2 for acid regeneration plants) in gases exiting the 
process or the emission control device (to determine compliance with 
the applicable emission concentration standard).
    (2) Compliance with the applicable emission concentration or 
collection efficiency standard shall be determined by the average of 
three runs. Each run shall be conducted under conditions representative 
of normal process operations.
    (3) Compliance is achieved if either the average collection 
efficiency as determined by the HCl mass flows at the control device 
inlet and outlet is greater than or equal to the applicable collection 
efficiency requirement or the average measured concentration of HCl or 
Cl2 exiting the process or the emission control device is 
less than or equal to the applicable emission concentration 
requirement.
    (b) During the emission test for each emission control device, the 
owner or operator using a wet scrubber to achieve compliance and 
electing to monitor emission control device operating parameters as 
described in Sec. 63.1161(a)(2) of this subpart shall establish as 
site-specific operating parameters the pressure drop across the 
scrubber and the maximum acidity of the scrubber effluent.
    (1) The owner or operator shall determine the operating parameter 
monitoring values as the average of the values recorded during each of 
the three runs constituting the test. An owner or operator may conduct 
multiple performance tests to establish a range of compliant operating 
parameter values.
    (2) As an alternative to the requirement specified in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section, the owner or operator may set as the compliant 
value for pressure drop the average value measured over the three test 
runs of one compliance test and accept 1 inch of water 
column from the pressure drop value as the compliant range.
    (c)(1) During the emission test for Cl2 at an acid 
regeneration plant, the owner or operator shall establish as site-
specific operating parameters the minimum process offgas temperature 
and the maximum proportion of excess air fed to the process as 
described in Sec. 63.1161(d)(2) of this subpart. The owner or operator 
shall determine the operating parameter monitoring values as the 
average of the values recorded during each of the three runs 
constituting the test. An owner or operator may conduct multiple 
performance tests to establish a range of compliant operating parameter 
values.
    (2) During this emission test, the owner or operator may establish 
an optional maximum concentration limitation for Cl2. If the 
owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction 
that the plant cannot meet the 4 ppmv maximum concentration limitation 
by operating the plant within its design parameters, the plant shall be 
operated at maximum design temperature and with the minimum excess air 
that allows production of iron oxide of acceptable quality while 
measuring Cl2 concentration in the process exhaust gas. The 
measured concentration shall be the maximum concentration allowed for 
that plant.
    (d) The following test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter shall be used to determine compliance under Secs. 63.1157(a), 
63.1157(b), 63.1158(a), and 63.1158(b) of this subpart:
    (1) Method 1, to determine the number and location of sampling 
points;
    (2) Method 2, to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3, to determine the molecular weight of the stack gas;
    (4) Method 4, to determine the moisture content of the stack gas; 
and
    (5) Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen 
Emissions from Stationary Sources--Isokinetic Method'', to determine 
the HCl mass flows at the inlet and outlet of a control device or the 
concentration of HCl discharged to the atmosphere and also to determine 
the concentration of Cl2 discharged to the atmosphere from 
acid regeneration plants. If compliance with a collection efficiency 
standard is being demonstrated, inlet and outlet measurements shall be 
performed simultaneously. The minimum sampling time for each run shall 
be 60 minutes and the minimum sample volume 0.85 dry standard cubic 
meters (dscm) [30 dry standard cubic feet (dscf)]. The concentration of 
HCl and Cl2 shall be calculated as follows:

CHCl (ppmv)=0.659 CHCl (mg/dscm),
CCl2 (ppmv)=0.339 CCl2 (mg/dscm),

where:

    C (ppmv) is concentration in ppmv and C(mg/dscm) is concentration 
in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

[[Page 49072]]

as calculated by the procedure given in Method 26A in appendix A to 
part 60 of this chapter.
    (e) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative 
measurement methods approved by the Administrator.


Sec. 63.1161  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of a new, reconstructed, or existing 
steel pickling facility or acid regeneration plant subject to this 
subpart shall:
    (1) Conduct annual performance tests to measure the HCl mass flows 
at the control device inlet and outlet or the concentration of HCl 
exiting the control device according to the procedures described in 
Sec. 63.1160 of this subpart. If an annual performance test shows that 
the HCl emission limit is being exceeded, then the owner or operator is 
in violation of the HCl emission limit.
    (2) In addition to conducting annual performance tests, if a wet 
scrubber is used as the emission control device, install, operate, and 
maintain systems for the measurement and recording of the:
    (i) Pressure drop across the scrubber, which shall be measured and 
recorded at least once every 24-hour period, and
    (ii) Acidity of the scrubber effluent, which shall be measured and 
recorded at least once every 8-hour period.
    (3) If an emission control device other than a wet scrubber is 
used, install, operate, and maintain systems for the appropriate 
measurement and recording of the operating parameters.
    (4) Each monitoring device shall be certified by the manufacturer 
to be accurate to within 5-percent and shall be calibrated semiannually 
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (5)(i) Operation of the control device with excursions of operating 
parameters listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section outside the 
ranges established during the initial performance test will require 
initiation of corrective action as specified by the maintenance 
requirement in Sec. 63.1159(b)(2) of this subpart. Failure to initiate 
the required action is a violation of the maintenance requirements.
    (6) Failure to record each of the operating parameters listed in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section is a violation of the monitoring 
requirements.
    (b) As an option to the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(6) of this section, the owner or operator of a new, reconstructed, 
or existing steel pickling facility or acid regeneration plant subject 
to this subpart may do the following:
    (1) Install, calibrate, certify, operate, and maintain according to 
the manufacturer's specifications a continuous emission monitoring 
system (CEMS) capable of measuring HCl concentrations in the ranges 
required to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Any owner or 
operator employing a CEMS shall be subject to all the requirements 
applicable to a continuous monitoring system (CMS) specified in 
Sec. 63.8 of subpart A of this part and in this section.
    (i) If the compliance option chosen is collection efficiency 
(Secs. 63.1157(a)(1) or 63.1158(a)(1) of this subpart, whichever 
applies), then the air pollution control device inlet and outlet gases 
shall both be monitored. The owner or operator may employ a single 
analyzer to monitor both streams, with each stream being monitored 50-
percent of the time during each 24-hour period.
    (ii) If the compliance option chosen is concentration 
(Secs. 63.1157(a)(2), 63.1157(b)(1), 63.1158(a)(2), or 63.1158(b)(1) of 
this subpart, whichever applies), then the air pollution control device 
or process offgas shall be monitored continuously.
    (c) If excursions of the control device operating parameters listed 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section outside the ranges established 
during the initial performance test occur more often than six times 
during any 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator shall 
install a CEMS and comply with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (d) The owner or operator of a new or existing acid regeneration 
facility subject to this subpart shall also:
    (1) Conduct annual performance tests to measure the concentration 
of Cl2 exiting the process or the control device according 
to the procedures described in Sec. 63.1160 of this subpart. If an 
annual performance test shows that the Cl2 emission limit is 
being exceeded, then the owner or operator is in violation of the 
Cl2 emission limit.
    (2) In addition to conducting annual performance tests, install, 
operate, and maintain systems for the measurement and recording of the:
    (i) Process offgas temperature, which shall be monitored and 
recorded continuously, and
    (ii) Excess air feed rate, which shall be measured and recorded at 
least once every 8-hour period. Proportion of excess air shall be 
determined by a combination of total air flow rate, fuel flow rate, 
spent pickle liquor addition rate, and amount of iron in the spent 
pickle liquor or by any other combination of parameters approved by the 
Administrator.
    (3) Each monitoring device must be certified by the manufacturer to 
be accurate to within 5-percent and must be calibrated semiannually in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Operation of the process with operating parameters listed in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section in exceedance of the ranges 
established during the initial performance test is a violation of the 
emission limit specified in Secs. 63.1157(b)(2) or 63.1158(b)(2) of 
this subpart, whichever applies. Failure to record each of these 
parameters is a violation of the monitoring requirements.
    (e) The owner or operator of an affected acid storage tank shall 
inspect each tank monthly to determine that the closed-vent system and 
either the air pollution control device or the enclosed loading and 
unloading line, whichever is applicable, are installed and operating 
when required.


Sec. 63.1162  Notification requirements.

    (a) Initial notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A 
of this part, the owner or operator shall submit the following written 
notifications to the Administrator:
    (1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently 
becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide 
notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by 
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A of this part.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of an affected source that has an initial startup 
before the effective date of the standard shall notify the 
Administrator that the source is subject to the requirements of the 
standard. The notification shall be submitted not later than 120 
calendar days after the effective date of this standard (or within 120 
calendar days after the source becomes subject to this standard) and 
shall contain the information specified in Secs. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 
63.9(b)(2)(v) of subpart A of this part.
    (3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected source, or a 
source that has been reconstructed such that it is an affected source, 
that has an initial startup after the effective date and for which an 
application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not 
required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this part, shall notify the 
Administrator in writing that the source is subject to the standards no 
later than 120 days after initial startup. The notification shall 
contain the information specified

[[Page 49073]]

in Secs. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v) of subpart A of this part, 
delivered or postmarked with the notification required in 
Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of this part.
    (4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed major affected source that 
has an initial startup after the effective date of this standard and 
for which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction 
is required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this part shall provide 
the information specified in Secs. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through 63.9(b)(4)(v) 
of subpart A of this part.
    (5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator who, after the effective date of this standard, 
intends to construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected 
source subject to this standard, or reconstruct a source such that it 
becomes an affected source subject to this standard, shall notify the 
Administrator, in writing, of the intended construction or 
reconstruction.
    (b) Request for extension of compliance. As required by 
Sec. 63.9(c) of subpart A of this part, if the owner or operator of an 
affected source cannot comply with this standard by the applicable 
compliance date for that source, or if the owner or operator has 
installed BACT or technology to meet LAER consistent with 
Sec. 63.6(i)(5) of subpart A of this part, he/she may submit to the 
Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) a request 
for an extension of compliance as specified in Secs. 63.6(i)(4) through 
63.6(i)(6) of subpart A of this part.
    (c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance 
requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of subpart A of this part, an 
owner or operator of a new source that is subject to special compliance 
requirements as specified in Secs. 63.6(b)(3) and 63.6(b)(4) of subpart 
A of this part shall notify the Administrator of his/her compliance 
obligations not later than the notification dates established in 
Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A of this part for new sources that are not 
subject to the special provisions.
    (d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e) 
of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an affected source 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of his or her intention to 
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test is scheduled to begin to allow the Administrator to 
review and approve the site-specific test plan required under 
Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A of this part, if requested by the 
Administrator, and to have an observer present during the test.
    (e) Additional notification requirements for sources with 
continuous emission monitoring systems. The owner or operator of an 
affected source using a CEMS shall furnish the Administrator written 
notification that applies to a CMS as specified in Secs. 63.9(g)(1) 
through 63.9(g)(3) of subpart A of this part.
    (f) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an 
affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as 
required by Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A of this part when the source 
becomes subject to this standard.


Sec. 63.1163  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by 
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of this part, the owner or operator of an affected 
source shall report the results of the initial performance test as part 
of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.1162 of 
this subpart.
    (b) Progress reports. The owner or operator of an affected source 
who is required to submit progress reports under Sec. 63.6(i) of 
subpart A shall submit such reports to the Administrator (or the State 
with an approved permit program) by the dates specified in the written 
extension of compliance.
    (c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Section 
63.6(e) of subpart A of this part requires the owner or operator of an 
affected source to operate and maintain each affected emission source 
and associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent 
with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions (at 
least to the level required by the standard) at all times, including 
during any period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. Malfunctions 
must be corrected as soon as practicable after their occurrence in 
accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (1) Plan. As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this part, 
the owner or operator shall develop and implement a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan that provides a detailed description of 
the procedures for operating the emission source or control system 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction and a program of 
corrective action for malfunctioning process and air pollution control 
equipment. If applicable, Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i) of subpart A also requires 
that the plan shall identify all routine or otherwise predictable 
malfunctions for a CEMS used to comply with the standard.
    (2) Reports. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A of 
this part, if actions taken by an owner or operator during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken 
to correct a malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified 
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator 
shall state such information in a semiannual report. The report, to be 
certified by the owner or operator or other responsible official, shall 
be submitted semiannually and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 
following the end of each calendar half; and
    (3) Any time an action taken by an owner or operator during a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures in the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall comply with 
all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A of this part.
    (d) CEMS performance evaluations. If a CEMS is used, the owner or 
operator is required to conduct an annual performance evaluation of the 
CEMS and submit a written report of the results as described for a CMS 
under Sec. 63.10(e)(2) of subpart A of this part. The owner or operator 
shall submit the report simultaneously with the results of the initial 
performance test.
    (e) Excess emissions and CEMS performance report and summary 
report. The owner or operator of an affected source required to install 
a CEMS shall comply with all requirements of Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of 
subpart A of this part.


Sec. 63.1164  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) General recordkeeping requirements. As required by 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator shall 
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of:
    (1) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment and control devices);
    (2) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the source 
or air pollution control equipment;
    (3) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control 
equipment;
    (4) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual 
manner of operation) when such actions are different from the 
procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;

[[Page 49074]]

    (5) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (including corrective 
actions) are consistent with the procedures specified in such plan. 
This information can be recorded in a checklist or similar form. (See 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v) of subpart A. of this part.);
    (6) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with 
the standard and to support data that the source is required to report, 
including, but not limited to, performance test measurements (including 
initial and any subsequent performance tests) and measurements as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of the initial test or 
subsequent tests;
    (7) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;
    (8) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f) of subpart 
A of this part, any information demonstrating whether a source is 
meeting the requirements for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements;
    (9) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the 
initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h) of subpart A of this part, 
a copy of the full request and the Administrator's approval or 
disapproval;
    (10) All documentation supporting initial notifications and 
notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9 of subpart A 
of this part; and
    (11) Records of any applicability determination, including 
supporting analyses.
    (b) Subpart CCC records. (1) In addition to the general records 
required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator shall 
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of:
    (i) Records of pressure drop across the scrubber and of pH levels 
or other measures of acidity of the scrubber effluent if a wet scrubber 
is used and readings are taken manually;
    (ii) Records of manufacturer certification that monitoring devices 
are accurate to within 5-percent and of semiannual calibration;
    (iii) Copy of the written maintenance plan for each emission 
control device; and
    (iv) Records of each maintenance inspection and repair, 
replacement, or other corrective action.
    (2) The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant shall also 
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of process 
offgas temperature and excess air feed rate.
    (c) General records and subpart CCC records for the most recent 2 
years of operation must be maintained on site. Records for the previous 
3 years may be maintained off site.
    (d) CEMS recordkeeping requirements. The owner or operator using a 
CEMS shall also comply with the recordkeeping requirements in 
Secs. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) and Sec. 63.10(c) of 
subpart A of this part that apply to a CMS, including:
    (1) Each period when a CEMS is malfunctioning or inoperative 
(including out of control periods);
    (2) All required measurements needed to indicate compliance with 
the standard that support data that the source is required to report 
including, but not limited to, 15-minute averages of continuous 
emission monitoring data and raw performance evaluations;
    (3) All results of CEMS performance evaluations;
    (4) All measurements necessary to determine the conditions of 
performance evaluations;
    (5) All calibration checks on the continuous emission monitor;
    (6) All adjustments and maintenance performed on a CEMS;
    (7) All emission levels relative to obtaining permission to use an 
alternative to the relative accuracy test, if the owner or operator has 
been granted permission under Sec. 63.8(f)(6) of subpart A of this 
part;
    (8) All required CEMS measurements (including monitoring data 
recorded during unavoidable breakdowns and out of control periods);
    (9) The date and time identifying each period during which the CEMS 
was inoperative (except for span checks) or out of control periods. 
(See Sec. 63.8(c)(7) of subpart A of this part):
    (10) The specific identification (i.e., the date and time of 
commencement and termination) of each time period of excess emissions 
and parameter exceedances and excursions that occurs during startups, 
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the emission source;
    (11) The specific identification of each time period of excess 
emissions and parameter exceedances and excursions that occurs during 
periods other than startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the 
emission source;
    (12) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known);
    (13) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted;
    (14) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the CEMS that was 
inoperative or out of control;
    (15) The total process operating time during the reporting period; 
and
    (16) All procedures that are a part of a quality control program 
developed and implemented for the CEMS under Sec. 63.8(d) of subpart A 
of this part.


Sec. 63.1165  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator 
and not transferred to a State.
    (b)(1) Section 63.1160(e) of this subpart for approval of an 
alternative measurement method; and
    (2) Section 63.6(g) of subpart A of this part for approval of an 
alternative nonopacity emission standard.


Secs. 63.1166 through 63.1174  [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart CCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       CCC                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Reference                         Applies to subpart CCC                     Comment            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5...............................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.6(a)-63.6(f).........................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.6(g).................................  Yes..................................  EPA reserves approval of       
                                                                                  alternative nonopacity        
                                                                                  emission standard.            
63.6(h).................................  No...................................  Subpart does not contain an    
                                                                                  opacity or visible emission   
                                                                                  standard.                     
63.6(i)-63.6(j).........................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.7....................................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.8....................................  Yes..................................  Sections that apply to a CMS   
                                                                                  apply to a CEMS when used.    

[[Page 49075]]

                                                                                                                
63.9(a)-63.9(f); 63.9(h)-63.9(j)........  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.9(g).................................  Yes..................................  Applies only when a CEMS is    
                                                                                  used.                         
63.10(a)................................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.10(b)(1).............................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.10(b)(2)(i)-63.10(b)(2)(v);            Yes..................................  ...............................
 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-63.10(b)(2)(ix);                                                                              
 63.10(b)(2)(xii)-63.10(b)(2)(xiv).                                                                             
63.10(b)(2)(vi); 63.10(b)(2)(x)-          Yes..................................  Applies only when a CEMS is    
 63.10(b)(2)(xi).                                                                 used.                         
63.10(b)(3).............................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.10(c)................................  Yes..................................  Applies only when a CEMS is    
                                                                                  used.                         
63.10(d)(1)-63.10(d)(2).................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.10(d)(3).............................  No...................................  Subpart does not contain an    
                                                                                  opacity or visible emission   
                                                                                  standard.                     
63.10(d)(4)-63.10(d)(5).................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.10(e)................................  Yes..................................  Applies only when a CEMS is    
                                                                                  used.                         
63.10(f)................................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.11...................................  No...................................  The use of flares is not       
                                                                                  required.                     
63.12-63.15.............................  Yes..................................                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-23631 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P