[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6946-7025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1475]



[[Page 6945]]

_______________________________________________________________________

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 Secondary Aluminum Production; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 6946]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6217-2]
RIN 2060-AE77


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

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 sources at secondary 
aluminum production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted 
by the facilities that would be regulated by this proposed rule include 
HAP organics, inorganic HAPs (hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and 
chlorine), and particulate HAP metals. Some of these pollutants, 
including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, are considered to be 
known or suspected carcinogens and all can cause toxic effects 
following sufficient exposure. Emissions of other pollutants include 
particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.
    The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (the Act) and are based on the Administrator's 
determination that secondary aluminum production plants are major 
sources of HAP emissions and emit several of the HAPs listed in section 
112(b) of the Act from the various process operations found within the 
industry. The proposed NESHAP would reduce risks to public health and 
environment by requiring secondary aluminum production plants to meet 
emission standards reflecting application of the maximum available 
control technology (MACT). Secondary aluminum production plants that 
are area sources would be subject to limitations on emissions of 
dioxins and furans (D/F) only. Implementation of the proposed NESHAP 
would reduce emissions of HAPs and other pollutants by about 16,600 
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (18,300 tons per year (tpy)).

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule 
until April 12, 1999.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by March 4, 1999, a public hearing will be held on March 
15, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m., at the EPA Office of Administration 
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC. For more information, see 
section VII.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-92-61 at the following address: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 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 document, technical background information, and 
other materials relating to this rulemaking are available for review in 
the docket. Copies of this information may be obtained by request from 
the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket materials.
    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 making oral presentations should notify 
Ms. Tanya Medley, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5422.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed regulation, contact Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic 
Chemicals Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-1084, facsimile 
number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address, 
``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are ``secondary 
aluminum production facilities'' using post-consumer scrap, aluminum 
scrap, ingots, foundry returns, and/or dross as the raw material and 
operating one or more of the following affected sources: Scrap 
shredders, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns, chip dryers, group 
2 process furnaces (i.e., clean charge furnaces using no reactive 
flux), sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, 
secondary aluminum processing units, new and reconstructed group 1 
furnaces (i. e., melting, holding, fluxing, refining or alloying), and 
new and reconstructed in-line fluxers. The EPA identified more than 400 
facilities which include one or more of these affected sources, 86 of 
which are estimated to be major sources. Most establishments are 
included in SIC 3341 (Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous 
Metals), although others may fall in SIC 3353 (Aluminum Sheet, Plate, 
and Foil), SIC 3354 (Aluminum Extruded Products), and SIC 3355 
(Aluminum Rolling and Drawing NEC). Affected sources at facilities that 
are major sources of HAPs would be regulated under the proposed 
standards. In addition, emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) from 
affected sources at facilities that are area sources of HAPs would also 
be regulated.
    The proposed standards would not apply to facilities in SIC 336 
(Nonferrous Foundries/Casting), such as manufacturers of aluminum die 
castings (SIC 3363) that use only clean aluminum and aluminum foundries 
(SIC 3365) that process only clean aluminum. Secondary aluminum 
production facilities that are collocated with primary aluminum 
production are regulated under the proposed standard.
    Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  Owners or operators of
                                          secondary aluminum production
                                          facilities in SIC 3341, 3353,
                                          3354, 3355, or that are
                                          collocated with primary
                                          aluminum production
                                          facilities, that are major
                                          sources of HAPs, or that emit
                                          dioxins and furans and are
                                          area sources of HAPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table also could be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1500 of the proposed 
rule. If you have 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 proposed regulatory text 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.

[[Page 6947]]

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) 541-5384. 
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-92-61 (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 the EPA's Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center at: ``A-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 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data 
in electronic form must be identified by the docket number (A-92-61). 
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.

Outline

    The information in this preamble is organized as shown below.

I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. NESHAP for Source Categories
    C. Health Effects of Pollutants
    D. Secondary Aluminum Industry
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Limits and Requirements
    C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements
IV. Selection of Proposed Standards
    A. Selection of Source Category
    B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants
    C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
    1. Background
    2. Selection of MACT Floor Technology
    3. Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Technologies
    4. Selection of Emission Limits
    D. Selection of Operating and Monitoring Requirements
    1. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for 
Affected Sources and Emission Units
    2. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for 
Affected Sources and Emission Units Equipped with a Fabric Filter 
and Subject to PM Limits
    3. Other Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Procedures
    E. Selection of Performance Test Methods and Requirements
    1. Rationale for Performance Test Methods, Procedures and 
Surrogates
    2. General Requirements
    3. Performance Test Requirements and Options for Affected 
Sources and Emission Units
    4. Performance Test Requirements and Options for Affected 
Sources and Emission Units Equipped with a Fabric Filter or Lime-
Injected Fabric Filter
    F. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Standards
    A. Air Quality Impacts
    B. Cost Impacts
    C. Economic Impacts
    D. Non-air Health and Environmental Impacts
    E. Energy Impacts
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Public Hearing
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Executive Order 13045
    E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Unfunded Mandates Act
    H. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    I. Paperwork Reduction Act
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Pollution Prevention Act
    L. 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. Introduction

A. Background

    The EPA estimates that about 28,600 Mg/yr (31,500 tpy) of HAPs and 
other air pollutants are released from production processes in 86 
major-source secondary aluminum production facilities. The HAPs in 
these emissions consist of several organic compounds, including 
2,3,7,8-TCDD (a compound in the dioxin/furans (D/F) group); inorganic 
``acid gas'' compounds such as hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen 
fluroride (HF), and chlorine (Cl2); and 11 nonvolatile HAP 
metals. NonHAP particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) are also emitted.
    The proposed standard reduces emissions of HAPs and other 
pollutants using a combination of emission limits and pollution 
prevention/work practice standards based on MACT floor controls. 
Depending on the type of affected source, plants affected by the 
standards could achieve the proposed requirements by upgrading or 
installing a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter (i.e., a 
fabric filter to which lime or other alkaline reagent is continuously 
injected). Or, plants may be required to add a thermal incinerator 
(also known as an afterburner), a thermal incinerator followed by a 
lime-injected fabric filter, and/or apply pollution prevention 
techniques to limit the type of scrap charged and the type and amount 
of fluxing agents used. Raising the control performance of affected 
sources with MACT-level standards would reduce emissions of HAPs by 70 
percent and other pollutants by about 42 percent from the current 
level, with higher reductions achieved at particular sites. Emissions 
of HCl would be decreased by about 74 percent.
    The nationwide total capital and annualized costs of control 
equipment are estimated at $148 million and $68 million/yr, 
respectively. An additional $5.1 million per year is estimated for 
monitoring/implementation costs for the first 3 years following 
promulgation. The economic impacts of the proposed regulation are 
expected to be minimal with price increases and production decreases of 
less than one percent. The regulation is not expected to result in a 
significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities. 
Only one of the 33 small entities is anticipated to experience 
significantly adverse economic impacts as a result of this regulation.
    The proposed NESHAP was developed by EPA with input from industry 
representatives and associated groups including the Aluminum 
Association and STAPPA/ALAPCO (State and Territorial Air Pollution 
Program Administrators Association/Association of Local Air Pollution 
Control Officials). The rule development process included a cooperative 
effort with the industry in identifying data needs; collecting 
additional data; planning and conducting emission tests; and meeting 
with these representatives to share technical information and resolve 
issues.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

    Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations for 
the

[[Page 6948]]

control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. The 
regulations must reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions 
of HAPs that is achievable taking into consideration the cost of 
achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control 
is commonly referred to as MACT.
    The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of 
technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) 
and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that 
emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the 
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 section (h); or (5) a 
combination of the above. (See section 112(d)(2).)

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

    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 contains a list of HAPs 
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 HAPs and for 
many smaller ``area'' sources listed for regulation under section 
112(c) in accordance with the schedules listed under section 112(c). 
Major sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to 
emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any 
combination of HAPs.
    In the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress specified 
that each standard for major sources must require the maximum reduction 
in emissions of HAPs that EPA determines is achievable considering 
cost, health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts. 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 emissions control are not disadvantaged relative to competitors 
with poorer controls.
    Emission data, collected during development of this NESHAP, show 
that pollutants listed in section 112(b)(1) are emitted by secondary 
aluminum production processes and include organic HAPs (e.g., D/F, 
benzene, styrene, xylene, acrylonitrile, methylene chloride, 
naphthalene, and formaldehyde); inorganic HAPs (HCl, HF, and 
Cl2), and HAP metals (antimony, arsenic, lead, manganese, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, and selenium). 
Emissions of these pollutants would be decreased by implementation of 
the proposed emission limits. Some of these pollutants are either known 
or probable human carcinogens when inhaled, and can cause reversible 
and irreversible toxic effects other than cancer following sufficient 
exposure. These effects include respiratory and skin irritation, 
effects upon the eye, various systemic effects including effects upon 
the liver, kidney, heart and circulatory system, neurotoxic effects, 
and in extreme cases, death. Following is a summary of the potential 
health and environmental effects associated with exposures, at some 
level, to emitted pollutants that would be reduced by the standard.
    Almost all metals appearing on the section 112(b) list of HAPs are 
emitted from affected sources in secondary aluminum plants. These 
metals can cause a range of effects including irritation of the 
respiratory tract; gastrointestinal effects; nervous system disorders 
(including loss of coordination and mental retardation); skin 
irritation; and reproductive and developmental disorders. Additionally, 
these metals accumulate in the environment and several of them 
accumulate in the human body, and may cause adverse health effects 
after exposure has ceased. Cadmium, for example, is a cumulative 
pollutant that can cause kidney effects after the cessation of 
exposure. Similarly, the onset of effects from beryllium exposure may 
be delayed by months to years. Many of the metal compounds also are 
known (arsenic, chromium (VI)) or probable (cadmium, nickel carbonyl, 
lead, and beryllium) human carcinogens.
    Each HAP organic compound has a range of potential health effects 
associated with exposures above toxic thresholds. Effects generally 
associated with short-term inhalation exposure to these pollutants 
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract; central 
nervous system effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, 
depression, nausea, abnormal electrocardiograms); and reproductive and 
developmental effects. Health effects associated with long-term 
inhalation exposure in humans to the organic compounds which will 
potentially be decreased by the proposed standard may include mild 
symptoms such as nausea, headache, weakness, insomnia, gastrointestinal 
effects, and burning eyes; disorders of the blood; toxicity to the 
immune system; reproductive disorders in women (e.g., menstrual 
irregularity or increased risk of spontaneous abortion); developmental 
effects; and injury to the liver and kidneys. In addition to non-cancer 
effects, some of the organic HAPs that would be controlled under this 
proposed NESHAP are either known or probable human carcinogens.
    Hydrogen chloride is highly corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous 
membranes. Short-term inhalation of HCl by humans may cause coughing, 
hoarseness, inflammation and ulceration of the respiratory tract, as 
well as chest pain and pulmonary edema. Long-term occupational exposure 
of humans to HCl has been reported to cause inflammation of the 
stomach, skin, and lungs, and photosensitization.
    Acute exposure to hydrogen fluoride will result in irritation, 
burns, ulcerous lesions, and necrosis of the eyes, skin, and mucous 
membranes. Total destruction of the eyes is possible. Other effects 
include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, pneumonitis (inflammation of the 
lungs), and circulatory collapse. Ingestion of an estimated 1.5 grams 
produced sudden death without gross pathological damage. Repeated 
ingestion of small amounts resulted in moderately advanced hardening of 
the bones. Contact of skin with anhydrous liquid produces severe burns. 
Inhalation of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride or hydrogen fluoride mist or 
vapors can cause severe respiratory tract irritation that may be fatal.
    The irritating properties of Cl2 make this HAP a serious 
acute respiratory hazard, as well as a skin, eye, and throat irritant. 
Prolonged exposure to low concentrations can cause respiratory 
problems, tooth corrosion, inflammation

[[Page 6949]]

of the mucous membranes, and susceptibility to tuberculosis. Prolonged 
exposure at moderate concentrations can cause decreased lung capacity.
    Several of the HAP whose emissions will be reduced by this rule 
have been found to cause serious developmental effects in animals or 
humans. For example, children are more sensitive than adults to the 
neurotoxic effects of lead, suffering neurobehavioral deficits such as 
loss of IQ at relatively low exposures. Chlorinated dibenzodioxins and 
furans are now understood to be potent developmental toxins, disrupting 
a wide variety of developmental events in embryos of numerous 
vertebrate species at exposures that are not toxic to adults. Although 
this rule is based on emission reduction technology rather than risk 
reduction per se, EPA anticipates that reductions in emissions of 
developmentally-toxic HAP will especially benefit children.
    In addition to the HAPs, the proposed NESHAP also would reduce some 
of the pollutants whose emissions are controlled under the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. These pollutants include 
particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC--precursors to 
tropospheric ozone formation), and lead (also a HAP metal). The health 
effects of lead, PM, and VOC are described in EPA's Criteria Documents, 
which support the NAAQS. Briefly, PM emissions have been associated 
with aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and 
increased risk of premature death. At elevated levels, ozone has been 
shown in human laboratory and community studies to be responsible for 
the reduction of lung function, respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, 
chest pain, throat and nose irritation), increased hospital admissions 
for respiratory causes, and increased lung inflammation. Animal studies 
have shown increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung 
structure changes. Exposure to ozone also has been linked to harmful 
effects on agricultural crops and forests. Depending on the degree of 
exposure, lead can cause subtle effects on behavior and cognition 
(particularly in children), increased blood pressure, reproductive 
effects, seizures, and even death.
    The EPA recognizes 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 of 
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals 
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle) 
which vary significantly with the population, and (4) pollutant-
specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in the environment, 
bioaccumulation, and persistence).

D. Secondary Aluminum Industry

    At least 400 facilities which include one or more secondary 
aluminum affected sources currently operate in 36 States. Based on 
industry responses to EPA's information collection request (ICR) and 
responses to a voluntary supplemental industry/EPA survey, the 86 
facilities identified as major sources operate at least 69 scrap 
shredders, 5 chip dryers, 44 scrap dryers/decoating kilns/delacquering 
kilns, 12 sweat furnaces, 15 dross-only furnaces, 86 secondary aluminum 
processing units, and 26 rotary dross coolers.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

    The proposed NESHAP applies to each new, existing or reconstructed 
scrap shredder, chip dryer, scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/decoating 
kiln, group 2 furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, and rotary 
dross cooler; each secondary aluminum processing unit (composed of all 
existing group 1 furnace emission units and all existing in-line fluxer 
emission units); and each new or reconstructed group 1 furnace and in-
line fluxer located at a secondary aluminum production plant that is a 
major source of HAP. The proposed NESHAP also applies to each new, 
existing or reconstructed chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln, and sweat furnace; each secondary aluminum processing 
unit and each new or reconstructed group 1 furnace and in-line fluxer 
located at a secondary aluminum production plant that is an area source 
of HAP. The proposed NESHAP also applies to these secondary aluminum 
production affected sources if they are collocated at a primary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source of HAP.
    As discussed further in section IV of this document, the EPA 
categorized process furnaces into two classes. A group 1 furnace 
includes any furnace that processes aluminum scrap containing paint, 
lubricants, coatings, or other foreign materials or within which 
reactive fluxing is performed, regardless of the type of scrap charged. 
Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux 
(including chlorine gas or magnesium chloride) that results in a HAP 
emission.
    Group 2 (``clean charge'') furnaces process only molten aluminum, 
T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying elements, noncoated runaround scrap, 
uncoated aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F) or higher, and 
aluminum scrap dried, decoated, or delacquered at a temperature at 
482 deg.C (900 deg.F) or higher. A group 2 furnace performs no fluxing 
or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/nonHAP-
generating gases such as argon and nitrogen.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

    The proposed NESHAP for secondary aluminum production applies to 
major sources. In addition, affected sources located at area sources of 
HAPs, which emit D/F are regulated for emissions of D/F. The proposed 
limits are summarized in Table 1.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6950]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.000



[[Page 6951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.001



[[Page 6952]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.002



[[Page 6953]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.003



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    PM emission limits would apply to new, reconstructed and existing 
scrap shredders, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns, dross-only 
furnaces, rotary dross coolers; secondary aluminum processing units; 
and new and reconstructed in-line fluxers, and group 1 furnaces at 
secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources. 
Controlling PM emissions would also control emissions of HAP metals. A 
surrogate approach to emission limits is used to allow easier and less 
expensive measurement and monitoring requirements.
    The proposed rule limits total hydrocarbon emissions (THC) from new 
and existing chip dryers and from new and existing scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kilns at secondary aluminum production 
facilities that are major sources. THC represents emissions of HAP 
organics. HCl emission limits would apply to new, reconstructed and 
existing scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns; new and 
reconstructed in-line fluxers and Group 1 furnaces; and secondary 
aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum production facilities 
that are major sources. HCl serves as a surrogate measure of HAP 
inorganics including hydrogen fluoride (HF) and chlorine 
(Cl2) emissions. The proposed rule limits emissions of D/F 
from new, reconstructed and existing chip dryers, scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kilns and sweat furnaces; new and reconstructed 
group 1 furnaces; and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary 
aluminum production facilities that are major or area sources. No 
surrogate is used for D/F emissions. A detailed explanation of the 
proposed limits and the rationale for their selection is given in 
section IV.C. of this document.

C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements

    The proposed NESHAP includes operating and monitoring requirements 
for each affected source and emission unit within a secondary aluminum 
processing unit to ensure continuous compliance with the emissions 
standards. The proposed standard would incorporate all requirements of 
the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The proposed 
operating and monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 2. A 
detailed explanation of the monitoring requirements and the rationale 
for their selection is given in section IV.D. of this document. \1/
2\Federal Register

   Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Operating and Monitoring Requirements for Affected Sources and Emission Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Monitor type/
   Affected source/emission unit      operation/process      Operating requirements     Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission   Labeling.............  Identification, emission    Check monthly to confirm
 units.                                                     limits and means of         that labels are intact
                                                            compliance posted on all    and legible.
                                                            affected sources and
                                                            emission units.
All affected sources and emission   Emission capture and   Design and install in       Annual inspection of all
 units with add-on control device.   collection system.     accordance with             emission capture,
                                                            Industrial Ventilation: A   collection, and
                                                            Handbook of Recommended     transport systems to
                                                            Practice; operate in        ensure that systems
                                                            accordance with O, M & M    continue to operate in
                                                            plan.b                      accordance with ACGIH
                                                                                        standards.
All affected sources and emission   Charge/feed weight...  Operate a device or use an  Record the weight of each
 units subject to production based                          equivalent procedure to     charge; weight
 [lb/ton of feed] emission limits                           record the weight of each   measurement device or
 a.                                                         charge; operate in          other procedure accuracy
                                                            accordance with O, M, & M   of 1
                                                            plan.                       percent; calibration
                                                                                        every 3 months.
Scrap shredder with fabric filter.  Bag leak detector....  Initiate corrective action  Install and operate in
                                                            within 1 hour of alarm      accordance with ``Fabric
                                                            and complete in             Filter Bag Leak
                                                            accordance with O, M, & M   Detection Guidance'' and
                                                            plan; b operate such that   record voltage output
                                                            alarm does not sound more   from bag leak detector.
                                                            than 5% of operating time
                                                            in 6-month period.
 

[[Page 6954]]

 
                                              or
 
                                    COM..................  Initiate corrective action  Design and install in
                                                            within 1-hour of a 6-       accordance with PS-1;
                                                            minute average opacity      collect data in
                                                            reading of 5% or more and   accordance with subpart
                                                            complete in accordance      A of 40 CFR 63;
                                                            with O, M, & M plan; b.     calculate and record 6-
                                                                                        minute block averages.
 
                                              or
 
                                    VE...................  Initiate corrective action  Conduct and record
                                                            within 1 hour of any        results of 30 minute
                                                            observed VE and complete    daily test in accordance
                                                            in accordance with the O,   with Method 9.
                                                            M, & M plan.b
Chip Dryer with afterburner.......  Afterburner operating  Maintain average            Continuous measurement
                                     temperature.           temperature, averaged       device to meet EPA
                                                            over each 3-hour period,    specifications;
                                                            at or above the average     calculate and record
                                                            operating temperature       average temperature for
                                                            during the performance      each 15-minute block;
                                                            test.                       determine 3-hour block
                                                                                        averages; calibrate
                                                                                        every 3 months.
                                    Afterburner operation  Operate in accordance with  Conduct annual inspection
                                                            O, M, and M plan.b          of afterburner internal
                                                                                        parts to maintain good
                                                                                        working order.
                                    Feed material........  Operate using only          Record identity of charge
                                                            unpainted aluminum chips.   daily; certify charge
                                                                                        materials every 6
                                                                                        months.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating  Afterburner operating  Maintain average            Continuous measurement
 kiln with afterburner and lime      temperature.           temperature, averaged       device to meet EPA
 injected fabric filter.                                    over each 3-hour period,    specifications; record
                                                            at or above the average     temperatures in 15-
                                                            operating temperature       minute block averages;
                                                            during the performance      calculate 3-hour block
                                                            test.                       averages; calibration
                                                                                        every 3 months.
                                    Afterburner operation  Operate in accordance with  Annual inspection of
                                                            O, M, & M plan.b            afterburner internal
                                                                                        parts; complete repairs
                                                                                        in 10 days.
                                    Bag leak detector....  Initiate corrective action  Install and operate in
                                                            within 1 hour of alarm      accordance with ``Fabric
                                                            and complete in             Filter Bag Leak
                                                            accordance with the O, M,   Detection Guidance'' and
                                                            & M plan; b operate such    record voltage output
                                                            that alarm does not sound   from bag leak detector.
                                                            more than 5% of operating
                                                            time in 6-month period.
 
                                              or
 
                                    COM..................  Initiate corrective action  Design and install in
                                                            within 1 hour of a 6-       accordance with PS-1;
                                                            minute average opacity      collect data in
                                                            reading of 5% or more and   accordance with subpart
                                                            complete in accordance      A of 40 CFR 63;
                                                            with the O, M, & M plan.b   calculate and record 6-
                                                                                        minute block averages.
                                    Lime injection rate    Maintain free-flowing lime  Inspect each feed hopper
                                     and schedule.          in the feed hopper or       or silo every 8 hours to
                                                            silo at all times.          verify that lime is free-
                                                                                        flowing; record results
                                                                                        of each inspection. If
                                                                                        blockage occurs, inspect
                                                                                        every 4 hours for 3
                                                                                        days; return to 8-hour
                                                                                        inspections if
                                                                                        corrective action
                                                                                        results in no further
                                                                                        blockage during 3-day
                                                                                        period.
                                                           Maintain average lime       Weight measurement device
                                                            injection rate (lb/hr) at   accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            during the successful       calibration every 3
                                                            compliance test and         months; record weight of
                                                            adhere to the same lime     lime injected for each
                                                            injection schedule used     15-minute block period
                                                            during the performance      and determine 3-hour
                                                            test for each 3-hour        block averages or;
                                                            period or
                                                           Maintain average lime       Weight measurement device
                                                            injection rate (lb/ton of   accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            rate used during the        calibrate every 3
                                                            performance test and        months; record weight of
                                                            adhere to the same lime     lime added or injected
                                                            injection schedule used     for each 15-minute block
                                                            during the performance      period and determine
                                                            test for each operating     lime injection rate (lb/
                                                            cycle or time period used   ton of feed) for each
                                                            in performance test or      operating cycle or time
                                                                                        period used in
                                                                                        performance test or;
                                                           Maintain feeder setting at  Record feeder setting
                                                            level established at        daily.
                                                            performance test.

[[Page 6955]]

 
                                    Fabric filter inlet    Maintain average fabric     Continuous measurement
                                     temperature.           filter inlet temperature    device to meet EPA
                                                            at or below the average     specifications; record
                                                            temperature during the      temperatures in 15
                                                            successful compliance       minute block averages;
                                                            test +14  deg.C (25         calculate 3 hour block
                                                            deg.F) for each three       averages; calibration
                                                            hour period.                every three months.
Sweat furnace with afterburner....  Afterburner operating  Maintain average            Continuous measurement
                                     temperature.           temperature, averaged       device to meet EPA
                                                            over each 3-hour period,    specifications; record
                                                            at or above the average     temperatures in 15-
                                                            operating temperature       minute block averages;
                                                            during the performance      calculate 3-hour block
                                                            test.                       averages; calibration
                                                                                        every 3 months.
                                    Afterburner operation  Operate in accordance with  Annual inspection of
                                                            O, M, & M plan.b            afterburner internal
                                                                                        parts; complete repairs
                                                                                        in 10 days.
Dross-only furnace with fabric      Bag leak detector....  Initiate corrective action  Installation and
 filter.                                                    within 1 hour of alarm      operation requirements
                                                            and complete in             in accordance with
                                                            accordance with the O, M,   ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak
                                                            & M plan; b operate such    Detection Guidance'' and
                                                            that alarm does not sound   record voltage output
                                                            more than 5% of operating   from bag leak detector.
                                                            time in 6-month period.
 
                                              or
 
                                    COM..................  Initiate corrective action  Design and install in
                                                            within 1 hour of a 6-       accordance with PS-1;
                                                            minute average opacity      collect data in
                                                            reading of 5% or more and   accordance with subpart
                                                            complete in accordance      A of 40 CFR 63;
                                                            with the O, M, & M plan.b   calculate and record 6-
                                                                                        minute block averages.
                                    Feed/charge material.  Operate using only dross    Record identity of each
                                                            as the feed material.       charge; certify charge
                                                                                        materials every 6
                                                                                        months.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric     Bag leak detector....  Initiate corrective action  Install and operate in
 filter.                                                    within 1 hour of alarm      accordance with ``Fabric
                                                            and complete in             Filter Bag Leak
                                                            accordance with the O, M,   Detection Guidance'' and
                                                            & M plan; b operate such    record voltage output
                                                            that alarm does not sound   from bag leak detector.
                                                            more than 5% of operating
                                                            time in 6-month period.
 
                                              or
 
                                    COM..................  Initiate corrective action  Design and install in
                                                            within 1 hour of a 6-       accordance with PS-1;
                                                            minute average opacity      collect data in
                                                            reading of 5% or more and   accordance with subpart
                                                            complete in accordance      A of 40 CFR 63;
                                                            with the O, M, & M plan.b   calculate and record 6-
                                                                                        minute block averages.
In-line fluxer with lime injected   Bag leak detector....  Initiate corrective action  Install and operate in
 fabric filter (including those                             within 1 hour of alarm      accordance with ``Fabric
 that are part of a secondary                               and complete in             Filter Bag Leak
 aluminum processing unit).                                 accordance with the O, M,   Detection Guidance'' and
                                                            & M plan; b operate such    record voltage output
                                                            that alarm does not sound   from bag leak detector.
                                                            more than 5% of operating
                                                            time in 6-month period.
 
                                              or
 
                                    COM..................  Initiate corrective action  Design and install in
                                                            within 1 hour of a 6-       accordance with PS-1;
                                                            minute average opacity      collect data in
                                                            reading of 5% or more and   accordance with subpart
                                                            complete in accordance      A of 40 CFR 63;
                                                            with the O, M, & M plan.b   calculate and record 6-
                                                                                        minute block averages.
                                    Reactive flux          Maintain the reactive flux  Weight measurement device
                                     injection rate and     injection rate at or        accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            injection rate used         calibration every 3
                                                            during the performance      months; record weight
                                                            test and adhere to the      and type of reactive
                                                            same flux injection         flux added or injected
                                                            schedule used during the    for each 15-minute block
                                                            test.                       period.
                                    Lime injection rate    Maintain free-flowing lime  Inspect each feed hopper
                                     and schedule.          in the feed hopper or       or silo every 8 hours to
                                                            silo at all times.          verify that lime is free-
                                                                                        flowing; record results
                                                                                        of each inspection. If
                                                                                        blockage occurs, inspect
                                                                                        every 4 hours for 3
                                                                                        days; return to 8-hour
                                                                                        inspections if
                                                                                        corrective action
                                                                                        results in no further
                                                                                        blockage during 3-day
                                                                                        period.

[[Page 6956]]

 
  In-line fluxer with lime                                 Maintain average lime       Weight measurement device
 injected fabric filter (including                          injection rate (lb/hr) at   accuracy of 1 percent;
 secondary aluminum processing                              during the performance      calibrate every 3
 unit) cont'd                                               test and adhere to the      months; record weight of
                                                            same lime injection         lime injected for each
                                                            schedule used during the    15-minute block period
                                                            test for each 3-hour        and determine 3 hour
                                                            period or.                  block averages or;
                                                           Maintain average lime       Weight measurement device
                                                            injection rate (1b/ton of   accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            rate used during the        calibrate every 3
                                                            performance test and        months; record weight of
                                                            adhere to the same lime     lime injected for each
                                                            injection schedule used     15-minute block period
                                                            during the test for each    and determine lime
                                                            operating cycle or time     injection rate (lb/ton
                                                            period used in              of feed) for each
                                                            performance test or.        operating cycle or time
                                                                                        period used in
                                                                                        performance test or;
                                                           Maintain feeder setting at  Record feeder setting
                                                            level established at        daily.
                                                            performance test.
                                    Fabric filter inlet    Maintain average fabric     Continuous measurement
                                     temperature.           filter inlet temperature    device to meet EPA
                                                            at or below the average     specifications; record
                                                            temperature during the      temperatures in 15-
                                                            performance test +14        minute block averages;
                                                            deg.C (25 deg.F) for each   calculate 3-hour block
                                                            3-hour period.              averages; calibrate
                                                                                        every 3 months.
Clean (group 2) furnace...........  Charge materials.....  Use only clean charge.....  Record identity of all
                                                                                        charge materials;
                                                                                        certify every 6 months.
                                    Flux materials.......  Use no reactive flux......  Record identity of all
                                                                                        flux materials; certify
                                                                                        every 6 months that no
                                                                                        reactive flux was used.
Group 1 furnace with lime injected  Bag leak detector....  Initiate corrective action  Install and operate in
 fabric filter (including those                             within 1 hour of alarm      accordance with ``Fabric
 that are part of a secondary                               and complete in             Filter Bag Leak
 aluminum processing unit).                                 accordance with the O, M,   Detection Guidance'' and
                                                            & M plan; b operate such    record voltage output
                                                            that alarm does not sound   from bag leak detector.
                                                            more than 5% of operating
                                                            time in 6-month period.
 
                                              or
 
                                    COM..................  Initiate corrective action  Design and install in
                                                            within 1 hour of a 6-       accordance with PS-1;
                                                            minute average opacity      collect data in
                                                            reading of 5% or more and   accordance with subpart
                                                            complete in accordance      A of 40 CFR 63;
                                                            with the O, M, & M plan.b   calculate and record 6-
                                                                                        minute block averages.
                                    Lime injection rate    Maintain free-flowing lime  Inspect each feed hopper
                                     and schedule.          in the feed hopper or       or silo every 8 hours to
                                                            silo at all times.          verify that lime is free-
                                                                                        flowing; record results
                                                                                        of each inspection. If
                                                                                        blockage occurs, inspect
                                                                                        every 4 hours for 3
                                                                                        days; return to 8-hour
                                                                                        inspections if
                                                                                        corrective action
                                                                                        results in no further
                                                                                        blockage during 3-day
                                                                                        period.
                                                           Maintain average lime       Weight measurement device
                                                            injection rate (lb/hr) at   accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            during the performance      calibrate every 3
                                                            test and adhere to the      months; record weight of
                                                            same lime injection         lime injected for each
                                                            schedule used during the    15-minute block period
                                                            test for each 3-hour        and determine 3-hour
                                                            period or;                  block averages.
                                                           Maintain average lime       Weight measurement device
                                                            injection rate (lb/ton of   accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            rate used during the        calibrate every 3
                                                            performance test and        months; record weight of
                                                            adhere to the same lime     lime injected for each
                                                            injection schedule used     15-minute block period
                                                            during the test for each    and determine lime
                                                            operating cycle or time     injection rate (lb/ton
                                                            period used in              of feed) for each
                                                            performance test or;        operating cycle or time
                                                                                        period used in
                                                                                        performance test or;
                                                           Maintain feeder setting at  Record feeder setting
                                                            level established at        daily.
                                                            performance test.
                                    Reactive flux          Maintain the reactive flux  Weight measurement device
                                     injection rate and     injection rate at or        accuracy of 1 percent;
                                                            injection rate used         calibrate every 3
                                                            during the performance      months; record weight
                                                            test.                       and type of reactive
                                                                                        flux added or injected
                                                                                        for each 15-minute block
                                                                                        period.

[[Page 6957]]

 
                                    Fabric filter inlet    Maintain average fabric     Continuous measurement
                                     temperature.           filter inlet temperature    device to meet EPA
                                                            at or below the average     specifications; record
                                                            temperature during the      temperature in 15-minute
                                                            performance test +14        block averages;
                                                            deg.C (25  deg.F) for       calculate 3-hour block
                                                            each 3 hour period.         averages; calibrate
                                                                                        every 3 months.
                                    Maintain molten        Operate side-well furnaces  Maintain aluminum level
                                     aluminum level.        such that the level of      operating log; certify
                                                            molten metal is above the   every 6 months.
                                                            top of the passage
                                                            between side well and
                                                            hearth during reactive
                                                            flux injection.
                                    Fluxing in sidewell    Add reactive flux only to   Maintain flux addition
                                     furnace hearth.        the sidewell of the         operating log; certify
                                                            furnace unless the hearth   every 6 months.
                                                            is also controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add-on      Reactive flux          Maintain the reactive flux  Weight measurement device
 controls (including those that      injection rate and     injection rate at or        accuracy of 1 percent;
 processing unit).                                          injection rate used         calibrate every 3
                                                            during the performance      months; record weight
                                                            test and adhere to same     and type of reactive
                                                            flux injection schedule     flux added or injected
                                                            used in performance test.   for each 15-minute block
                                                                                        period.
                                    Feed material (melter/ ..........................  Record identity of each
                                     holder).                                           charge; certify charge
                                                                                        materials every 6
                                                                                        months.
                                    Site-specific          Operate furnace within the  Demonstration of site-
                                     monitoring plan        range of charge             specific monitoring plan
                                     (approved by           materials, contaminant      to provide data and show
                                     permitting agency).    levels, and parameter       correlation of emissions
                                                            values established in the   across the range of
                                                            site-specific monitoring    charge and flux
                                                            plan.c                      materials and furnace
                                                                                        operating parameters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers (including
  those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) and group 1 furnaces including melter holders
  (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit).
b O, M, & M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
c Site-specific monitoring plan--Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces without control devices must develop a site-
  specific monitoring plan that identifies process or feed parameter-based operating requirements. This plan
  would be part of the O, M, & M plan. This plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the monitoring plan
  and correlation of parameters over the range of charge materials and fluxing practices must be developed in
  coordination with and be approved by the permitting authority.

IV. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Source Category

    Section 112(c) of the Act directs the EPA to list each category of 
major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the 
HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an initial 
list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and may amend 
the list at any time. ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' is one of the 
174 categories of sources included on the revised list of source 
categories (63 FR 7155, February 12, 1998). This list includes major 
and area sources of HAPs for which the EPA intends to issue regulations 
between November 1992 and November 2000. The category as defined in the 
EPA report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category 
List'' (docket item II-A-6) for the listing includes any facility 
engaged in the cleaning, melting, refining, alloying, and pouring of 
aluminum recovered from scrap, foundry returns, and dross.
    The listing of the secondary aluminum production major source 
category was based on the Administrator's determination that some 
secondary aluminum production facilities would be major sources of 
HAPs. These facilities are known to emit HAPs, including PM metal HAP 
(including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 
lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel), gaseous organic HAPs (including 
dioxins, furans, polycyclic organic matter, benzene and formaldehyde) 
and gaseous inorganic HAPs (including hydrogen chloride, hydrogen 
fluoride, and chlorine).
    A major source must have the potential to emit 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) 
or more of a single HAP or 23 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of a combination 
of HAPs. The EPA has estimated that there are approximately 86 major 
source facilities that practice one or more secondary aluminum 
production processes.
    Section 112(c)(6) of the Act states that by November 15, 2000, EPA 
must list and promulgate section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards (i.e., 
standards reflecting MACT) for categories (and subcategories) of 
sources emitting seven specific pollutants, including 2,3,7,8 
tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin which 
are emitted by secondary aluminum production affected sources. The EPA 
must assure that source categories accounting for not less than 90 
percent of the aggregated emissions of the enumerated pollutant are 
subject to MACT standards. Congress (docket item II-I-13, p. 155 to 156 
(cement) singled out the HAPs enumerated in section 112(c)(6) as being 
of ``specific concern'' not just because of their toxicity but because 
of their propensity to cause substantial harm to human health and the 
environment via indirect exposure pathways (i.e., from the air through 
other media, such as water, soil, food uptake, etc.). Furthermore, 
these pollutants have exhibited special potential to bioaccumulate, 
causing pervasive environmental harm in biota (and, ultimately, human 
health risks).
    The EPA estimates that secondary aluminum production facilities 
emit in aggregate approximately 0.4 lb per year of D/F (from June 20, 
1997; 62 FR 33635), or 3.5 percent (from April 10, 1998; 63 FR 17849), 
of the total national anthropogenic emissions of D/F per year

[[Page 6958]]

(docket item II-J-2, docket item II-J-4). To assure that this pollutant 
is subject to MACT, EPA has added the secondary aluminum production 
area source category to the list of source categories and subcategories 
listed pursuant to section 112(c)(6). (See 63 FR 17838, 17849; April 
10, 1998.) The EPA has done so because area and major source secondary 
aluminum D/F emitting processes emit this HAP at about equal rates per 
ton of feed, because the D/F emitted by area sources are equally toxic 
per amount of emissions as that emitted by major sources (i.e., the 
distribution of dioxin and furan isomers is the same for both area and 
major sources), and because this is a particularly toxic class of HAP. 
In addition, EPA's strategy for assuring 90 percent of these pollutants 
are addressed includes control of these pollutants from secondary 
aluminum production facility area sources through the MACT process. 
(See 62 FR 33635, 33636; June 20, 1997.)
    The EPA notes, however, as it did in the April 10th document, that 
although the section 112(c)(6) listing process makes sources subject to 
standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4), the language of section 
112(c)(6) does not specify either a particular degree of emissions 
control or a reduction in emissions of these specific pollutants to be 
achieved by such regulations. Rather, the specific control requirements 
will result from determining the appropriate level of control under 
MACT (section 112(d)(2), or section 112(d)(4)), and this interpretation 
will be made during the section 112(d) rulemakings affecting the 
particular source category, not as part of the section 112(c)(6) 
listing process. (See 63 FR 17841; April 10, 1998.)
    As noted above, EPA is interpreting section 112(c)(6) to require 
the EPA to establish standards under section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) for 
all sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(6), whether such sources 
are major or area sources. This interpretation reflects the express 
language of section 112(c)(6) that sources * * * of each such pollutant 
are subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4) and is in 
accord with the function of section 112(c)(6):
    * * * to assure that sources emitting significant amounts of the 
most dangerous HAPs are subject to the rigorous MACT standard-setting 
process.

(See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 155, 166.)
    In addition, the EPA is interpreting section 112(c)(6) to require 
that, for sources listed under section 112(c)(6), MACT (or section 
112(d)(4)) controls apply only to the section 112(c)(6) HAPs emitted by 
the source. Thus, in this proposed rule, secondary aluminum production 
area sources would be subject only to the D/F emission limitations of 
the MACT standards. (Since the language of section 112(c)(6) is 
ambiguous as to whether the entire source must comply with MACT, or 
just for the HAPs enumerated in section 112(c)(6), (see 61 FR 17365, n. 
12), either interpretation is legally permissible.) Applying the 
provision to the entire source could result in applying MACT to all 
HAPs emitted by area sources under circumstances where control would 
not otherwise be warranted. The EPA specifically requests comments and 
data regarding the decision to include area sources of D/F in this 
proposed rule. The Agency seeks information and data regarding the 
level of emissions from area sources, the degree to which controls are 
in place, and the burden that would be imposed on affected sources.

B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants

    The secondary aluminum production source category consists of the 
following operations:
    (1) Preprocessing of scrap aluminum, including size reduction and 
removal of oils, coatings, and other contaminants;
    (2) Furnace operations including melting, in-furnace refining, 
fluxing, and tapping;
    (3) Additional refining, by means of in-line fluxing; and
    (4) Cooling of dross.
    The following sections include descriptions of the affected sources 
in the secondary aluminum production source category, the origin of HAP 
emissions from these affected sources, and factors affecting the 
emissions. The affected sources for which MACT standards are being 
proposed include new, reconstructed and existing scrap shredders, chip 
dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering/decoating kilns, group 2 furnaces, 
sweat furnaces and dross coolers; secondary aluminum processing units 
(composed of all existing group 1 furnace emission units and all 
existing in-line fluxer emission units); and new and reconstructed 
group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. Each of these affected sources 
emits one or more of the HAPs listed in section 112 of the Act.
    Scrap aluminum is often preprocessed prior to melting. 
Preprocessing steps may include shredding to reduce the size of 
aluminum scrap; drying of oily scrap such as machine turnings and 
borings; and/or heating in a scrap dryer, delacquering kiln or 
decoating kiln to remove coatings or other contaminants that may be 
present on the scrap. Heating of high iron content scrap in a sweat 
furnace to reclaim the aluminum content is also a preprocessing 
operation.
    Crushing, shredding, and grinding operations are used to reduce the 
size of scrap aluminum. Emissions of PM and HAP metals are generated as 
dust from coatings and other contaminants contained in the scrap 
aluminum. A typical shredder with a capacity of 90,900 Mg/yr (100,000 
tpy), is estimated to produce 190 Mg/yr (212 tpy) of PM, before 
controls (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo). PM emitted from 
shredders contains HAP metals.
    A chip dryer is used to evaporate oil and/or moisture from uncoated 
aluminum chips and borings. Chip dryers typically operate at 
temperatures ranging between 150 deg.C to 400 deg.C (300 deg.F to 
750 deg.F). An uncontrolled chip dryer with a typical capacity of 
36,400 Mg/yr (40,000 tons/yr), is estimated to emit 2.4 g TEQ/yr (.0053 
lb/yr) of D/F, and 385 Mg/yr (424 tpy) of THC (of which some fraction 
is organic HAP) (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo).
    Painted and/or coated materials are processed in a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln to remove coatings and other 
contaminants that may be present in the scrap prior to melting. 
Coatings, oils, grease, and lubricants represent up to 20 percent of 
the total weight of these materials. Organic HAPs, D/F, and inorganic 
HAPs including particulate metal HAP are emitted during the drying/
delacquering/decoating process.
    Used beverage containers (UBC) comprise a major portion of the 
recycled aluminum scrap used as feedstock by the industry. In scrap 
drying/delacquering/decoating operations, UBC and other post-consumer, 
coated products (e.g., aluminum siding) are heated to an exit 
temperature of up to 540 deg.C (1,000 deg.F) to volatilize and remove 
various organic contaminants such as paints, oils, lacquers, rubber, 
and plastic laminates prior to melting. An uncontrolled scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with a typical capacity of 45,500 Mg/
yr (50,000 tpy) is estimated to emit 43.3 Mg/yr (47.7 tpy) PM (of which 
some fraction is particulate metal HAP), 76.0 Mg/yr (83.6 tpy) HCl, 68 
Mg/yr (75 tpy) THC (of which some fraction is organic HAP), and 3.5 g 
TEQ/yr (0.0077 lb TEQ/yr) of D/F (See docket item II-B-16, impacts 
memo).
    A sweat furnace is typically used to reclaim (or ``sweat'') the 
aluminum from scrap with high levels of iron. These furnaces operate in 
batch mode at a

[[Page 6959]]

temperature that is high enough to melt the aluminum but not high 
enough to melt the iron. The aluminum melts and flows out of the 
furnace while the iron remains in the furnace in solid form. The molten 
aluminum can be cast into sows, ingots, or T-bars that are used as 
feedstock for aluminum melting and refining furnaces. Alternately, 
molten aluminum can be fed directly to a melting or refining furnace. 
An uncontrolled sweat furnace, with a typical capacity of 4,500 Mg/yr 
(5,000 tpy) is estimated to emit 0.071 g TEQ/yr (0.00016 lb TEQ/yr) of 
D/F (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo).
    Process (i. e. melting, holding or refining) furnaces are 
refractory-lined metal vessels heated by an oil or gas burner to 
achieve a metal temperature of about 760 deg.C (1,400 deg.F). The 
melting process begins with the charging of scrap into the furnace. A 
gaseous (typically, chlorine) or salt flux may be added to remove 
impurities and reduce aluminum oxidation. Once molten, the chemistry of 
the bath is adjusted by adding selected scrap or alloying agents, such 
as silicon. Salt and other fluxes contain chloride and fluoride 
compounds that may be released when introduced to the bath. HCl may 
also be released when chlorine-containing contaminants (such as 
polyvinyl chloride coatings) present in some types of scrap are 
introduced to the bath. Argon and nitrogen fluxes are not reactive and 
do not produce HAPs. In a sidewell melting furnace, fluxing is 
performed in the sidewell and fluxing emissions from the sidewell are 
controlled. In this type of furnace, fluxing is not typically done in 
the hearth and hearth emissions (which include products of combustion 
from the oil and gas fired furnaces) are typically uncontrolled.
    Process furnaces may process contaminated scrap which can result in 
HAP emissions. In addition, fluxing agents may contain HAPs, some 
fraction of which is emitted from the furnace. Process furnaces are 
large sources of HAP emissions in the secondary aluminum industry. An 
uncontrolled melting furnace with a typical capacity of 18,100 Mg/year 
(20,000 tpy) which processes contaminated scrap and uses reactive 
fluxes is estimated to emit 177 Mg/yr (195 tpy) of PM (of which 
approximately 0.80 Mg/yr [0.88 tpy] is particulate metal HAP), 29.7 Mg/
yr (32.6 tpy) of HCl, and 8 g TEQ/yr (0.018 lb TEQ/yr) D/F (See docket 
item II-B-16, impacts memo).
    As described in section IV.C.1 of this document, process furnaces 
have been divided into group 1 (unrestricted scrap content, 
unrestricted fluxing) and group 2 (clean charge, no reactive flux). 
Existing group 1 furnaces are emission units within the secondary 
aluminum processing unit affected source.
    Dross-only furnaces are furnaces dedicated to reclamation of 
aluminum from drosses formed during the melting/holding/alloying 
operations carried out in other furnaces. Exposure to the atmosphere 
causes the molten aluminum to oxidize, and the flotation of the 
impurities to the surface along with any salt flux creates ``dross''. 
Prior to tapping, the dross is periodically skimmed from the surface of 
the aluminum bath, and cooled. Dross-only furnaces are typically rotary 
barrel furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). A dross only furnace 
without controls with a typical capacity of 18,200 Mg/yr (20,000 tpy) 
is estimated to emit 113 Mg/yr (125 tpy) of PM (of which some fraction 
is particulate metal HAP (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo).
    Rotary dross coolers are devices used to cool dross in a rotating, 
water-cooled drum. A rotary dross cooler without controls with a 
typical capacity of 9,090 Mg/yr (10,000 tpy) is expected to emit 15.4 
Mg/yr (17.0 tpy) of PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal 
HAP) (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo, docket item II-B-15, 
Peters Risk Memo 3/27/97).
    In-line fluxers are devices used for aluminum refining, including 
degassing, outside the furnace. The process involves the injection of 
chlorine, argon, nitrogen or other gases to achieve the desired metal 
purity. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAPs. 
In-line fluxers are found primarily at facilities that manufacture very 
high quality aluminum or in facilities with no other means of 
degassing. An in-line fluxer operating without emission controls, of 
typical capacity of 45,500 Mg/yr (50,000 tpy) is estimated to emit 60.8 
Mg/yr (66.8 tpy) of HCl and 1.9 Mg/yr (2.1 tpy) of PM (see docket item 
II-B-16, impacts memo). Existing in-line fluxers are emission units 
within the secondary aluminum processing unit affected source.
    Given that these processes release significant quantities of HAPs 
and the availability of emission control systems, the EPA selected to 
develop and propose NESHAP for the following emission sources: New, 
reconstructed and existing scrap shredders, chip dryers, scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kilns, sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces, 
rotary dross coolers, and group 2 (clean charge, no reactive flux) 
furnaces; new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers; 
and secondary aluminum processing units (composed of existing group 1 
furnaces and in-line fluxers).
    The proposed standards would limit emissions of metal HAPs, organic 
HAPs (including D/F), and HCl from secondary aluminum production 
facilities. (Pollutant health effects were discussed in section II.C. 
of this document). As described above, these HAPs are emitted in 
significant quantities from secondary aluminum production sources.

C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

1. Background
    After the EPA has identified the specific source categories or 
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, MACT 
standards must be set for each category or subcategory. Section 112 
establishes 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. (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 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 average or median of the best-performing five sources 
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
    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. In 
establishing the standards, the EPA may distinguish among classes, 
types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. (See 
section 112(d)(1).)
    The next step in establishing MACT standards is to investigate 
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 plants for projecting national 
impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels and cost, energy, and 
secondary impacts. Regulatory alternatives (which may be different 
levels of emissions control, equal to or more stringent than the floor 
levels) are then evaluated to select the regulatory alternative that 
best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The

[[Page 6960]]

selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the 
control level selected must be technologically achievable. The 
regulatory alternatives and emission limits selected for new and 
existing sources may be different because of different MACT floors.
    The Agency may consider going beyond the floor to require more 
stringent controls. Here, the EPA considers the achievable emission 
reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled) and the cost impacts.
    Subcategorization within a source category may be considered when 
there is enough evidence to demonstrate clearly that there are 
significant differences among the subcategories. The criteria to 
consider include process operations (including differences between 
batch and continuous operations), emission characteristics, control 
device applicability, safety, and opportunities for pollution 
prevention.
    The EPA 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 from emission sources, or the 
controllability of those emissions. Based on differences in emissions, 
the type of materials processed and the fluxing practices employed, the 
EPA has distinguished two specific classes of melting, holding, and 
refining furnaces. Because HAP emission potential is strongly 
influenced by the contaminants present in the materials that are melted 
and the type and amount of flux added, these furnaces would be subject 
to separate standards under the proposed rule.
    The classes of process furnaces which are characterized by the 
types of scrap charged to the furnace and the operations carried out in 
the furnace are: (1) Group 1 (all process furnaces except group 2) 
furnaces and (2) group 2 (``clean charge/no reactive flux'') furnaces.
    Dross-only furnaces and sweat furnaces are distinctly different 
from the other types because they each specialize in recovering 
aluminum from a particular type of raw material. As the name implies, 
``dross-only'' furnaces charge only dross collected from other furnace 
operations. Sweat furnaces recover aluminum from materials with a high 
iron (or other ferrous material) content. Both of these furnaces are 
unique in their method of operation and are treated as separate sources 
in development of the proposed NESHAP.
2. Selection of MACT Floor Technology
    In establishing these proposed emission standards, the technology 
representative of the MACT floor level of control was determined for 
each affected source. Add-on control technologies were considered as 
well as work practices and pollution prevention techniques. Data 
related to operating procedures and emissions for secondary aluminum 
plants were obtained through a combination of site visits, an ICR, an 
EPA/industry voluntary follow-up questionnaire, and emissions tests.
    Emission tests were conducted at 12 facilities to measure 
uncontrolled and controlled emissions from selected production 
processes and to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology 
representative of the MACT floor level of control. Sites for these 
tests were selected jointly by the EPA and industry as operating 
technology representative of the MACT floor level of control. Funding 
for tests was provided by the EPA, The Aluminum Association, and 
individual facilities. The EPA also met frequently with industry 
representatives to discuss the test program and available data, and to 
identify and resolve issues. In addition to the data from the emission 
testing program, the Agency also used emissions data from the ICR 
database (docket item II-D-105, ICR database). Data from all these 
sources were considered in the selection of emission limits for 
individual emission points at secondary aluminum plants. Additional 
details on the emission test data can be found in the docket. (See 
Docket Item II-B-17. Memorandum. M. Wright, Research Triangle 
Institute, to J. Santiago, EPA:MICG. Summary of Emissions Data. 1998.)
    One important aspect of the more effective control technologies is 
the system that captures and collects the HAPs generated by each of the 
processes. Well-designed hoods and their proper placement, adequate air 
flows or ventilation rates, and adequately sized ductwork and fans, in 
well-maintained systems are representative of the MACT floor technology 
control systems. These well-designed capture and collection systems can 
be achieved by following the design standards in the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) ``Industrial 
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.'' The standards 
described in Chapters 3 and 5 of this manual are incorporated by 
reference in the rule as a requirement applicable to affected sources 
equipped with add-on control devices.
    Scrap shredders. Based on information provided in the ICR 
responses, the EPA identified 69 shredding and crushing operations at 
51 facilities. Emissions test measurements show that shredders and 
crushers are sources of PM (containing particulate metal HAP). Fabric 
filters are used to control emissions at 49 of the 69 shredders and 
crushers in the industry. The best performing 12 percent of the 
existing 69 scrap shredders and crushers are equipped with a fabric 
filter for controlling PM and HAP metals. Therefore, the floor level of 
control for existing sources is determined by the average/median of the 
best performing 8 sources within the category. This median level of 
control is represented by a well designed and operated pulse-jet fabric 
filter using fiberglass bags with an air to cloth ratio of about 6.0.
    This same level of control is also the MACT floor for new sources 
since it is also the level of control achieved by the best controlled 
source.
    Chip dryers. The EPA identified five chip dryers based on 
information provided in the ICR responses. Emissions test measurements 
show that these sources emit THC (containing organic HAP) and D/F. Four 
of these five dryers are equipped with an afterburner. The MACT floor, 
for categories of less than 30 sources is determined by the median of 
the five best controlled sources in the category. The best performing 4 
of the existing 5 chip dryers are equipped with an afterburner for 
organics (i.e., THC and D/F) control. Therefore, the floor level of 
control for existing sources is determined by the median of the best 
performing 5 sources within the category. This median level of control 
is represented by a well designed and operated afterburner with a 
minimum of 1-second residence time and operated at a temperature of 
1,200 deg.F.
    The same level of control which represents the existing source MACT 
is also the MACT floor for new sources since it is also the level of 
control achieved by the best controlled source.
    Scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns. Based on 
information provided in the ICR responses, the EPA identified 46 scrap 
dryers, delacquering kilns, and decoating kilns. Emissions test 
measurements show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate 
metal HAP), HCl, THC (containing organic HAP) and D/F.
    Afterburners followed by a lime injected fabric filter system are 
used to control emissions at 13 of the 46 scrap dryers/delacquering 
kilns/decoating kilns in the industry. The best performing 12 percent 
of the existing 46 scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns are 
equipped with an

[[Page 6961]]

afterburner for organics (i.e., THC and D/F) control and a lime 
injected fabric filter for controlling HCl, D/F, PM and HAP metals. 
Therefore, the floor level of control for existing sources is 
determined by the average/median of the best performing 6 sources 
within the category. This median level of control is represented by a 
well designed and operated afterburner with a minimum of 1-second 
residence time and operated at a temperature of 1400 deg.F followed by 
a pulse-jet fabric filter using fiberglass bags with an air to cloth 
ratio of about 4.0 and continuous lime injection.
    The existing source MACT is also the MACT floor for new sources 
since it is also the level of control achieved by the best controlled 
source.
    Sweat furnaces. Based on data provided in the ICR responses, the 
EPA identified 12 sweat furnaces in the industry. These sources reclaim 
aluminum from scrap containing high levels of iron by heating the scrap 
to a temperature above the melting point of aluminum but below that of 
iron. Emissions test measurements show that these sources emit THC and 
D/F. Six of the 12 sweat furnaces are equipped with afterburners to 
control THC and D/F. The MACT floor, for categories of less than 30 
sources is determined by the median of the five best controlled sources 
in the category. Therefore, afterburners represent the MACT floor level 
of control for existing sweat furnaces. An afterburner representative 
of this median level of control is designed for a minimum of 1-second 
residence time and operated at a temperature of 1600 deg.F.
    The existing source MACT is also the MACT floor for new sources 
since it is also the level of control achieved by the best controlled 
source.
    Group 1 furnaces. Existing group 1 furnaces are emission units 
within a secondary aluminum processing unit affected source. Each new 
and reconstructed group 1 furnaces is a separate affected source. The 
EPA identified 528 Group 1 furnaces based on information provided in 
the ICR responses. Approximately one-half of these furnaces operate 
with no add-on air pollution control devices. Emissions test 
measurements show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate 
metal HAP), HCl, and D/F. The add-on controls used on group 1 furnaces 
include fabric filters, lime coated fabric filters, lime injected 
fabric filters, cyclones, incinerators and wet scrubbers.
    Other furnaces in group 1 limit emissions through the use of work 
practices, design practices, and pollution prevention approaches. These 
techniques include, but are not limited to, charging only clean scrap 
to the furnaces and design and work practice approaches for fluxing, 
limiting oil and coatings content of furnace charges through the use of 
scrap purchasing specifications and scrap inspection, fluxing only in 
holding furnaces, fluxing in in-line fluxers, and limiting the use of 
reactive fluxes. Work practices and pollution prevention approaches may 
also be combined with add-on controls to achieve HAP reductions.
    Lime injected fabric filter systems are used to control emissions 
at 68 of the 528 group 1 furnaces in the industry. The best performing 
12 percent of the existing 528 group 1 furnaces are equipped with a 
lime injected fabric filter for controlling HCl, PM and HAP metals, and 
for controlling D/F from those furnaces which process scrap containing 
oil and coatings. Therefore, the floor level of control achievable by 
existing emission units is determined by the average/median of the best 
performing 63 sources within the category. This median level of control 
is represented by a well designed and operated pulse jet fabric filter 
with an air to cloth ratio of about 6.5 and continuous lime injection.
    The level of control achievable by existing emission units 
represents the MACT floor for new sources since it is also the level of 
control achieved by the best controlled source.
    Group 2 furnaces. Based on the ICR data, the EPA estimates that 
about 75 group 2 furnaces are currently in operation. None of the 
furnaces in group 2 are equipped with add-on air pollution control 
devices. Emissions from these furnaces are typically controlled by work 
practices that require charging only clean charge materials, coupled 
with fluxing operations using only non-reactive agents (i.e. fluxes 
which do not contain or produce HAPs). Since emissions from these units 
are at very low levels and considering the cost of emissions testing, 
the application of emission measurement methodology and setting 
specific emissions limits for this particular class of source is not 
practicable due to economic limitations. Thus, work practice procedures 
under section 112(h) of the Act (limitations on type of charge and type 
of flux used) constitute the MACT floor level of control for existing 
Group 2 furnaces as well as MACT for new group 2 furnaces.
    Dross-only furnaces. Based on the information reported in the ICR, 
the EPA identified 15 dross-only furnaces. Emissions test measurements 
show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate metal HAP). All 
dross-only furnaces are equipped with control systems that include a 
fabric filter, some of which have lime injection systems. The MACT 
floor, for categories of less than 30 sources is determined by the 
median of the five best controlled sources in the category. The ICR 
data show that the control technology in place at the five best-
controlled sources is a lime injected fabric filter. Therefore, lime 
injected fabric filters represent the MACT floor level of control for 
existing dross-only furnaces. The technology at the median level of 
control is represented by a well designed and operated fabric filter 
with polyester bags at an air to cloth ratio of 6.5 to 1 with 
continuous lime injection.
    The existing source MACT floor is also the MACT floor for new 
sources since it is also the level of control achieved by the best 
controlled source.
    Rotary dross coolers. The EPA identified 26 rotary dross coolers 
based on the information provided in the ICR responses. Emissions test 
measurements show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate 
metal HAP). All 26 rotary coolers are equipped with fabric filters. The 
MACT floor, for categories of less than 30 sources is determined by the 
median of the five best controlled sources in the category. Therefore, 
fabric filters represent the MACT floor level of control for existing 
rotary dross coolers. A fabric filter representative of the median of 
the best 5 controlled sources is a well designed and operated pulse-jet 
fabric filter system using polyester bags with an air to cloth ratio of 
3.0.
    The existing source MACT floor is also the MACT floor for new 
sources since it is also the level of control achieved by the best 
controlled source.
    In-line fluxers. Existing in-line fluxers are emission units within 
a secondary aluminum processing unit affected source. Each new and 
reconstructed in-line fluxer is a separate affected source. The EPA 
identified a total of 120 in-line fluxers (also referred to as 
degassing boxes) from the information reported in the ICR responses. 
Emissions test measurements show that in-line fluxers are sources of 
low concentrations of PM (containing particulate metal HAP) and HCl. 
Eleven in-line fluxers are controlled by fabric filters and 7 of these 
have lime (or other alkaline reagent) injection systems. The average of 
the best performing 12 percent of the existing 120 in-line fluxers is 
represented by a lime injected fabric filter for controlling HCl, PM 
and HAP metals. The level of control achievable by existing emission 
units is represented by a well designed and operated pulse-jet fabric 
filter using

[[Page 6962]]

fiberglass bags with an air to cloth ratio of about 7.0 and continuous 
lime injection.
    The level of control achievable by existing emission units 
represents the MACT floor for new sources since it is also the level of 
control achieved by the best controlled emission unit.
    Secondary aluminum processing units. A secondary aluminum 
processing unit consists of all of the existing group 1 furnace 
emission units and all of the existing in-line fluxer emission units at 
a secondary aluminum production facility. The MACT floor level of 
control is determined by applying the level of control achievable to 
each emission unit within the affected source. As described in the 
paragraphs in this section of the document which address the 
determination of the MACT floor for group 1 furnaces and in-line 
fluxers, this is represented by the level of control achieved by a lime 
injected fabric filter of appropriate design, coupled with continuous 
lime injection. Each new or reconstructed group 1 furnace or in-line 
fluxer is a separate affected source subject to the MACT floor emission 
limitations as described in the paragraphs in this section of the 
document which address the determination of the MACT floor for group 1 
furnaces and in-line fluxers.
3. Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Technologies
    The EPA investigated beyond-the-floor controls for each pollutant 
and affected source regulated by the proposed rule. For each of the 
cases evaluated, the Agency did not identify cost-effective emission 
control technologies that would accomplish additional emission 
reductions to a level below that achieved by the MACT floor technology. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing emission limits at the MACT floor 
level of control.
4. Selection of Emission Limits
    The EPA and industry conducted comprehensive emission tests at 12 
facilities to characterize uncontrolled and controlled emissions from 
the various processes and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing 
control devices and work practice and pollution prevention approaches. 
Sites with add-on control technologies selected for emission testing 
represented the use of technology identified by the EPA as the MACT 
floor technology. Other sites were tested where work practice and 
pollution prevention approaches were used to achieve HAP emission 
reductions. Data from these sites showed that work practices and 
pollution prevention approaches could achieve HAP emission levels 
similar to those achieved with add-on MACT floor technologies. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing a combination of work practice/
pollution prevention based standards and MACT floor control technology 
based numerical emission limits for control of HAP from affected 
sources subject to the proposed rule.
    The EPA is, in most cases, proposing emission limits in a mass per 
unit (e.g., kg/Mg or lb/ton) of feed format. This format provides 
several advantages. For example, for process units that release 
emissions from more than one stack and where multiple similar affected 
sources are controlled by a common control device, total emission rates 
can be determined by measuring emissions for a particular pollutant 
from each stack or discharge point, e.g. lbs/hr, adding those, and 
dividing by the sum of all affected source feed rates, e.g. tons/hr. In 
addition, this format is tied to production and the emission limits are 
unaffected by dilution. In specific cases, concentration based 
numerical emission limits, or minimum percentage reduction standards 
are appropriate; the format of these standards is explained in the 
discussion of these emission standards.
    All limits on particulate metal HAP emissions are expressed in 
terms of a surrogate pollutant, PM. The use of the surrogate PM 
emissions limit will require the installation and operation of the 
appropriate MACT floor technology for metal HAPs control from new and 
existing sources. Use of PM as a surrogate for metal HAPs also has the 
advantage of simplifying and reducing the cost of performance testing 
and monitoring.
    Except for D/F which merits special consideration due to high 
toxicity, all emission standards for gaseous organic HAPs are expressed 
in terms of a surrogate pollutant, THC. The use of a surrogate THC 
emissions limit for gaseous organic HAPs will require facilities to 
install and operate the appropriate MACT floor technology for gaseous 
organic HAPs from new and existing sources.
    All limits on D/F emissions are expressed in units of toxic 
equivalent (TEQ). Toxic equivalent refers to the international method 
of expressing toxicity equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in 
the EPA report, ``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated 
with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and -
dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (docket item II-A-1).
    In addition to the emission limits discussed below, the EPA is also 
proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to affected sources 
with fabric filter control devices that choose to monitor with a COM 
and affected scrap shredders that choose to monitor with a COM or by 
visible emissions monitoring. During the course of many emission tests 
conducted at secondary aluminum facilities, the EPA has determined that 
the exhaust gases from properly designed, operated, and maintained 
fabric filters have essentially zero opacity. An opacity of 10 percent 
or greater following a successful performance test on a fabric filter 
controlled affected source is a clear indication that the control 
device is not functioning properly.
    Scrap shredders. The proposed PM limit for scrap shredders and 
crushers of 23 mg/dscm, (0.010 gr/dscf) is based on test results from 
four facilities equipped with well designed and operated fabric filters 
representative of the MACT floor technology for new and existing 
sources where PM measured emissions ranged from 0.0002 gr/dscf to 
0.0069 gr/dscf. The EPA took into consideration the wide variation in 
controlled emissions for the four MACT floor fabric filter systems in 
selection of the emission limits of 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). Such a 
range in performance represents the typical variations associated with 
the process and with application of the floor technology. The proposed 
PM emission limit represents a level that can be achieved by all scrap 
shredders and crushers using the MACT floor technology. The supporting 
emissions data are presented in Figure 1 and Table 3 below.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.004



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

                Table 3.--Summary of Scrap Shredders and Crushers Particulate Emissions Test Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Average PM emissions
                   Plant                                Control device           -------------------------------
                                                                                   PM (gr/dscf)    PM (mg/dscm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24.........................................  Fabric Filter......................          0.0022            5.0
25.........................................  Fabric Filter......................          0.0069           15.8
26.........................................  Fabric Filter......................          0.0002            0.46
27.........................................  Fabric Filter......................          0.0008            1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this affected source, a concentration format is appropriate 
because PM concentration is easily and reliably measured from these 
sources and PM concentration reflects fabric filter performance, the 
technology representative of MACT for new and existing sources.
    The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to 
fabric filters applied to scrap shredder waste gas streams if the owner 
or operator chooses to monitor either with a COM or by visible 
emissions monitoring. As noted above, the EPA has determined that the 
presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a fabric 
filter following a successful performance test is a clear indication 
that the device is not functioning properly.
    Chip dryers. One chip dryer with a well designed and operated 
afterburner representative of the MACT floor was tested. The controlled 
THC emissions from tests at this facility averaged 0.21 kg/Mg (0.42 lb/
ton) of feed and the D/F emissions averaged 1.3 /Mg D/F TEQ 
(1.7 x 10 -5 gr/ton) of feed. The data are shown in Figure 2 
below.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6964]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.005



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6965]]

    Based on these data the EPA is proposing a THC limit of 0.40 kg/Mg 
(0.80 lb/ton) of feed and a D/F (TEQ) limit of 2.5 ``g/Mg (3.5 
 x  10-5 gr/ton) of feed.
    Scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns.
    The same process equipment can function as a scrap dryer, a 
delacquering kiln, or a decoating kiln. Equipment of an identical 
design is capable of performing different functions by changing the 
operating temperature and charge make-up. In addition, the control 
technology representative of MACT for new and existing sources is the 
same for kilns operating as scrap dryers and kilns operating as 
delacquering/decoating kilns. The EPA/industry task group spent 
considerable effort trying to define scrap dryers and delacquering/
decoating kilns such that separate emission standards could be set for 
each. Despite this substantive effort, the task group was unable to 
develop consistent, unambiguous definitions which would permit the 
establishment of different classes of scrap dryers, delacquering kilns, 
or decoating kilns. In recognition of the different operating modes 
applicable to these affected sources such as operating temperatures, 
charge make-up, difference in uncontrolled emission levels; to provide 
operational flexibility; and to ensure that the technology 
representative of the MACT floor for new and existing sources is 
installed and properly operated at these sources, the EPA is proposing 
two alternate sets of emission standards.
    One set of emission standards is based on emissions data obtained 
from a kiln operating as a delacquering/decoating kiln with an 
operating temperature about 1,000  deg.F and processing only coated 
materials, such as painted siding and used beverage containers, and 
operating a well designed afterburner/lime injected fabric filter 
system representative of MACT for new and existing sources. This set of 
standards for PM, HCl, THC, and D/F is summarized in Table 4.

   Table 4. Summary of Emission Limits for Scrap Dryers, Delacquering Kilns, and Decoating Kilns Operating as
                                               Delacquering Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PM (lb/ton of    HCl (lb/ton of   THC (lb/ton of  D/F (g/
                   Process                         feed)            feed)            feed)         Mg of feed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrap Dryer, Delacquering Kiln, Decoating
 Kiln.......................................           0.080             0.80            0.060             0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other set of emission standards is based on the emissions data 
obtained from a kiln that had an operating temperature of about 
700 deg.F and was processing scrap with oils, coatings, paints, 
insulation, etc. The control technology in use was an afterburner/lime 
injected fabric filter system representative of MACT for new and 
existing sources. That set of standards and control device design and 
operating requirements is summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.--Summary of Alternate Emission Limits and Control Equipment Requirements for Scrap Dryers, Delacquering Kilns, and Decoating Kilns Operating as
                                                                      Scrap Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Afterburner design and operating
                                                                                                                                  requirements
                      Process                        PM (lb/ton of    HCl (lb/ton of   THC (lb/ton of  D/F (g/---------------------------------
                                                         feed)            feed)            feed)         Mg of feed)     Temperature (   Residence timea
                                                                                                                             deg.F)          (seconds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrap Dryer, Delacquering Kiln, Decoating Kiln....            0.30             1.50             0.20              5.0            1,400              1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Afterburner design residence time.

    The first set of proposed emission limits for scrap dryers, 
delacquering kilns, decoating kilns in Table 4 is supported by the 
delacquering emissions data summarized in Table 6 and Figure 3. Under 
this set of standards an operator is required to meet a more stringent 
set of emission limits, but the afterburner design parameters are not 
requirements.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.006



[[Page 6967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.007



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6968]]



      Table 6.--Summary of Scrap Dryer, Delacquering Kiln, Decoating Kiln Emissions Data With MACT Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   D/F (g/Mg of
                                                       feed)           feed)           feed)           feed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--Scrap Dryer..................................         0.167             0.827  ..............  ..............
3--Scrap Dryer..................................         0.214             1.26          a 0.072         a 2.66
4--Delacquering.................................       b 0.00057         b 0.544         b 0.006         b 0.118
5--Delacquering.................................       c 0.024    ..............         c 0.037  ..............
                                                       d 0.051    ..............         d 0.035  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Calculated by applying the afterburner efficiency to the uncontrolled fugitive emissions escaping from the
  kiln product discharge point. These emissions are supposed to be captured and controlled by the afterburner
  but problems during testing allowed emissions to escape from the kiln end where material leaves the process.
b Emissions test of kiln processing used beverage containers for D/F test and painted siding for all other
  tests.
c Emissions test of kiln processing used beverage containers.
d Emissions test of kiln processing painted siding.

    Because of the lower level of uncontrolled emissions generated when 
a kiln is operated as a delacquering kiln (i.e., operating temperature 
of about 1,000 deg.F and processing used beverage containers and 
painted siding only), an operator could conceivably operate a kiln 
primarily as a delacquering/decoating kiln but add a small amount of 
materials, such as oils or insulation, and classify it as a scrap 
dryer. In this case the operator could thereby operate with less than 
the MACT floor control equipment 1400 deg.F and 1 second residence time 
afterburner design, while only reducing emissions to the level of the 
less stringent alternate emission 
limits. To preclude this, the EPA is specifying minimum afterburner 
design and operating requirements of 1 second residence time and 
1400 deg.F, MACT floor technology, for those operators electing to 
process material with oils, coatings, and insulation, in addition to 
used beverage containers and painted siding, thus operating the 
equipment as a scrap dryer rather than a delacquering/decoating kiln. 
The EPA is proposing the second, or alternate, set of emission 
standards based on data obtained from a kiln being operated as a scrap 
dryer. These alternate limits are combined with control device design 
and operating requirements to ensure that 
control technology representative of MACT is used when an operator 
chooses to comply with the higher, or less stringent, emission limits 
associated with a scrap dryer processing scrap with oils, coatings, 
paints, etc.
    As noted above, the emissions data supporting the second or 
alternate emission limits were obtained from a kiln operating as a 
scrap dryer at a temperature of about 700 deg.F. These data are 
summarized in Table 6 and shown in Figure 4. The control technology in 
use was an afterburner/lime injected fabric filter system 
representative of MACT for new and existing sources.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.008



[[Page 6970]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.009



BILLINC CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6971]]

    The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to 
fabric filters applied to scrap dryer, and delacquering and decoating 
kiln waste gas streams if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option. As 
noted above, the EPA has determined that the presence of a 10 percent 
or greater opacity discharge from a fabric filter following a 
successful performance test is a clear indication that the device is 
not functioning properly.
    Sweat furnaces.  EPA tested one sweat furnace equipped with a well 
designed and operated afterburner representative of MACT for new and 
existing sources.
    Controlled D/F emissions averaged 0.35 ng/dscm (1.5  x  
10-10 gr/dscf) and are shown in Figure 5. Based on these 
data, the EPA is proposing a D/F limit for sweat furnaces of 0.80 ng/
dscm D/F TEQ (3.5  x  10-10 gr/dscf) corrected to an 11 
percent oxygen basis.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.010


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    A concentration limit, as opposed to a production based limit, is 
proposed for this source because materials charged to these furnaces 
are typically introduced in a random fashion without being weighed. 
Consequently, determining an emission rate per unit of feed is not a 
practical option as a format for the emission limit.
    Dross-only furnaces. The EPA/industry tested one dross only furnace 
equipped with a well designed and operated fabric filter representative 
of the MACT floor for new and existing sources. The PM emissions from 
tests at this facility averaged 0.104 kg/Mg of feed (0.207 lb/ton). 
Based on these data as shown in Figure 6, the EPA is proposing a PM 
limit of 0.15 kg/Mg of feed (0.30 lb/ton).

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.011



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to 
fabric filters applied to dross-only furnace waste gas streams if a COM 
is chosen as the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has 
determined that the presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity 
discharge from a fabric filter following a successful performance test 
is a clear indication that the device is not functioning properly.
    Rotary dross coolers. The EPA/industry tested two rotary dross 
coolers equipped with a well designed and operated fabric filter 
representative of the MACT floor technology for new and existing 
sources. The PM emissions from tests at these facilities averaged 2.29 
and 75.5 mg/dscm (0.001 and 0.033 gr/dscf), respectively. These data 
are summarized in Table 7 and Figure 7.

         Table 7.--Summary of Rotary Dross Cooler Emission Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               PM (gr/
                    Plant                      PM (mg/dscm)     dscf)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21...........................................          2.29        0.001
22...........................................       a 75.5       a 0.033
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Plant 22 is equipped with a lime-injected fabric filter.


BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.012



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    Based on these data the EPA is proposing a PM limit of 92 mg/dscm 
(0.040 gr/dscf). The proposed PM emission limit represents a level that 
can be achieved by all rotary dross coolers using the floor technology 
for new and existing sources.
    The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to 
fabric filters applied to rotary dross cooler waste gas streams if a 
COM is chosen as the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has 
determined that the presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity 
discharge from a fabric filter following a successful performance test 
is a clear indication that the device is not functioning properly.
    In-line fluxers. The EPA/industry tested one in-line fluxer 
equipped with a well designed and operated fabric filter with 
continuous lime injection representative of the control which is 
achievable for these emission units. Additional performance test data 
from the same in-line fluxer was also available (see docket item II-B-
19, historical data memo). The PM emissions from tests performed at 
this facility averaged 0.00170 kg/Mg (0.00340 lb/ton) of feed and are 
shown in Figure 8. Based on these data the EPA is proposing a PM limit 
of 0.005 kg/Mg (0.01 lb/ton) of feed for new and reconstructed in-line 
fluxers. The HCl emissions from tests at this facility averaged 0.0072 
kg/Mg (0.014 lb/ton) of feed and are also shown in Figure 8. Based on 
these data the EPA is proposing an HCl limit of 0.02 kg/Mg (0.040 lb/
ton) of feed for new and reconstructed in-line fluxers.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6974]]

=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.013


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6975]]

    The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to 
fabric filters applied to in-line fluxer waste gas streams if a COM is 
chosen as the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has determined 
that the presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a 
fabric filter following a successful performance test is a clear 
indication that the device is not functioning properly.
    Furnace Operations The EPA spent considerable effort analyzing ICR 
data and emissions data to evaluate the need for different classes for 
the remaining furnace types and configurations. Operating practices, 
control practices, work practices, pollution prevention efforts, 
furnace charge materials, flux rates and methods, and emissions vary 
widely within the industry. All of these factors entered into the 
consideration of different classes (Ref. ICR database, emission data 
summaries). In addition, there were many meetings and discussions with 
the industry to discuss and evaluate a multitude of options and issues 
associated with each factor. At one time, as many as five potential 
classes were under consideration and discussion. As analyses of the 
potential classes progressed, many issues were raised regarding 
definitions of the classes, process operating practices, and control 
approaches. Further, as potential emissions limits for these classes 
were discussed, it became evident to the EPA that these furnaces could 
be compressed into two classes. Therefore, based on evaluation of these 
options, the EPA is proposing two classes for process furnace 
operations:
     Group 2 furnaces--clean charge materials with no reactive 
fluxing.
     Group 1 furnaces--furnaces charging different gradations 
of clean materials with reactive fluxing to dirty materials with 
various fluxing amounts/techniques.
    Group 2 furnaces. For group 2 furnaces the EPA is proposing work 
practice/pollution prevention practices under section 112(h) of the 
Act. Section 112(h) of the Act provides for the establishment of work 
practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 
emission standard.
    The MACT floor for new and existing sources for this group of 
furnaces consists of work practices/pollution prevention practices 
including charging and melting only ``clean'' charge materials, as 
defined in the proposed regulation (molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, 
alloying elements, uncoated aluminum chips, aluminum scrap dried/
delacquered/decoated, and noncoated runaround scrap), and no reactive 
fluxing. Compliance with the standard would be demonstrated by labeling 
of the furnace as group 2, and record keeping of charge and flux 
materials along with certification every six months that only clean 
charges were used and that no reactive flux was used in the furnace. 
The Administrator has determined it is not feasible to prescribe an 
emission standard for this class of furnaces because the application of 
measurement methodology is not practicable due to economic limitations.
    Group 1 furnaces. Group 1 furnaces consist of all process (melting, 
holding, refining) furnaces that do not meet the requirements for a 
group 2 furnace. These include combinations of:
    (1) Dirty furnace charge materials and fluxing with or without 
reactive fluxes, and
    (2) Clean furnace charge materials (work practices) with use of 
reactive fluxing.
    The achievable emissions limitation for group 1 furnace emission 
units and the standard for new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces is 
based on furnaces in which dirty charge materials and unlimited fluxing 
are used, and that are equipped with the MACT floor control technology, 
a fabric filter with a continuous lime injection system. The proposed 
limits for new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces are shown in Table 8. 
The basis and rationale for these limits are provided in the emission 
test data graphs and discussion below.

  Table 8.--Summary of Group 1 Furnace Emission Limits for New and Reconstructed Sources (Except Melter/Holders
                                            Processing Clean Charge)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              HCla
                   Process                      PM (lb/ton)    D/F (g ---------------------------------
                                                                   TEQ/Mg)          (lb/ton)       Removal (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Furnaces............................            0.40               15             0.40               90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Facilities with add-on control devices will choose which requirement to comply with.

    To meet the emission limits based on MACT floor technology, not all 
new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces will have to be equipped with 
lime injected fabric filter systems. Work practices, pollution 
prevention practices, process design changes, charging clean or almost 
clean materials, and reduced use of reactive fluxes while controlling 
the reactive flux injection rate are some control approaches that may 
be applied to some group 1 furnace installations with varying add-on 
control approaches such that the resulting HCl and other HAP emissions 
are below the emission limits being proposed.
    To determine the emissions limitations achievable by group 1 
furnace emission units and to establish the emission limits for new and 
reconstructed group 1 furnaces, the EPA and industry tested furnaces in 
6 facilities (Plants 6 through 11) with the MACT floor technology 
applied. The emissions data are presented in Figures 9, 10, and 11 
below. The furnace emissions data with control status labeled as ``lime 
baghouse'' were equipped with the MACT floor technology.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.014



[[Page 6977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.015



[[Page 6978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.016



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6979]]

    In addition, the EPA and industry tested group 1 furnaces that had 
no add-on control technologies, but used work practices/pollution 
prevention practices such as process design changes that allowed 
reduced levels of reactive fluxing, as well as selective scrap charging 
(but not ``clean charge''), to achieve lower levels of HAP emissions. 
Both melting and holding furnaces were included in these tests. These 
results are also shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11. These furnace data are 
labeled with control status as ``work practice.''
    All of the data in Figures 9, 10, 11 were considered in determining 
the achievable emissions limitations for group 1 furnace emission units 
and in establishing the proposed emission limits for new and 
reconstructed individual Group 1 furnaces that are listed in Table 8 
above. Some of the variations in the work practice/ pollution 
prevention emissions are due to different design of process, work 
practice, and pollution prevention alternatives, and the fact that 
these emissions will vary with the differing grades of aluminum 
produced.
    Average PM emission levels from group 1 furnaces equipped with MACT 
floor add-on air pollution control devices varied from a low of 0.029 
to a high of 0.28 lb/ton of feed. Average HCl emission levels from 
furnaces equipped with MACT floor add-on air pollution control devices 
varied from a low of 0.07 to a high of 0.36 lb/ton of feed. The 
equivalent ranges of emissions for the work practice/pollution 
prevention practice furnaces were 0.019 to 0.37 lb/ton and 0.001 to 
0.36 lb/ton of PM and HCl, respectively.
    The three test results for average D/F emissions from group 1 
furnaces equipped with MACT floor add-on air pollution control devices 
ranged from a low value of 0.46 to a high value of 4.5 g D/F 
TEQ/Mg of feed. For the four work practice/pollution prevention 
practice furnaces, the range was 0.21 to 0.41 g D/F TEQ/Mg.
    To provide another perspective on the achievable D/F emission 
limitation, the 15 g/Mg of feed emission limit (proposed for 
new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces) expressed on a concentration 
basis for the furnaces tested would be about 0.9 to 15.5 ng D/F TEQ/
dscm depending on the quantity of waste gas flow from the furnace.
    The proposed standards for new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces 
shown in Table 8 provide the option of achieving a 90 percent emission 
reduction in HCl discharged from the furnace in lieu of meeting an 
emission limit of 0.40 lb/ton. The EPA considered that group 1 furnaces 
can be used to process a wide variety of scrap types (i.e., clean, with 
insulation, oils, coated, painted, etc.) and perform various fluxing 
operations with multiple agents including HAP producing and non-HAP 
producing fluxes (i.e., salts, chlorine gas, nitrogen/chlorine bi-gas, 
etc.) to produce a wide range of aluminum alloys. Because of the 
potential differences in charge make-up, fluxing, work practices, and 
final aluminum properties, there is potential for variability in HCl, 
organic HAPs, particulate metal HAPs, and D/F emitted by the group 1 
furnaces. In recognition of the different operating modes applicable to 
these emission units and affected sources and to promote the most cost-
effective and economical approach to MACT controls while achieving the 
MACT add-on air pollution control device equivalent reductions, the EPA 
is proposing a dual HCl emission standard for new and reconstructed 
group 1 furnaces. Both a numerical emission limit and an alternate 
percent reduction requirement are being proposed. Some furnaces process 
scrap that contains relatively large amounts of chloride compounds. 
This factor in combination with high fluxing rates necessary to refine 
some aluminum can yield control device inlet HCl quantities in excess 
of 4 lbs/ton of feed. In these circumstances the floor technology may 
not be able to meet the limit of 0.40 lb/ton, but can comply with the 
90 percent removal requirement which is representative of what the MACT 
floor technology is capable of achieving. Test results from Plants 7, 
9, and 10, shown in Figure 10, indicated that HCl efficiencies in 
excess of 90 percent removal were achieved. The range of variation in 
measured efficiencies was significant at two facilities with some test 
results below 90 percent. In these tests the lime usage rates were not 
adequately controlled to achieve consistent HCl removal, hence a wide 
variation in HCl removals resulted.
    The level of removal achievable became an issue with the industry 
and to resolve this issue the EPA tested another group 1 furnace in 
Plant 11 with a lime injected fabric filter. During these tests the 
lime injection rate was controlled to consistently achieve greater than 
90 percent removal of HCl. Individual test results for this furnace are 
shown in Table 9. These and other data demonstrate that fabric filters 
operated with continuous lime injection into the gas stream upstream of 
the fabric filter inlet are capable of consistently achieving at least 
90 percent removal.

             Table 9.--Plant 11 HC1 Individual Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Inlet  lb/   Outlet    Percent
                Test No.                    ton       lb/ton    removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................       2.64       .018       99.3
2......................................       2.66      0.020       99.2
3......................................       1.31      0.050       96.2
4......................................       2.10      0.028       98.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New and reconstructed group 1 furnaces processing clean charge 
materials only, that perform both melting and holding functions 
including reactive fluxing within the same unit (i.e., melter/holder), 
and that do not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace 
would be subject to alternate standards. These units perform the 
operations normally carried out in two or more separate furnaces within 
the confines of one furnace. Emission data obtained from tests on a 
melter/holder furnace are shown in Figure 12.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.017



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    Emission limits are proposed for PM and HCl emissions from new and 
reconstructed group 1 melter/holders. Those limits are shown in Table 
10. The PM standard for new and reconstructed group 1 melter/holder 
furnaces processing only clean charge materials is 0.40 kg/Mg (0.80 lb/
ton) of charge and the alternate HCl standard is 0.20 kg/Mg (0.40 lb/
ton) of charge.

                Table 10.--Summary of New and Reconstructed Group 1 Melter/Holder Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    D/Fb (g TEQ/Mg)                    HCl (lb/ton)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Melter/Holder Furnaces a.            0.80  ..............  0.40 or 90 percent removal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Performing both melting and holding functions in the same furnace and processing only clean charge materials.
b No dioxin limit because this furnace uses clean charge.


[[Page 6981]]

    Operators of group 1 side-well furnaces would be permitted to 
conduct reactive fluxing operations in the furnace side-well only. If 
reactive fluxing operations are conducted in the furnace hearth, those 
emissions must be captured and ducted to a control device. In this 
event total furnace emissions (hearth plus side-well) would be subject 
to the new and reconstructed group 1 furnace emission limits.
    In addition to the above standards, the EPA is also proposing a 10 
percent opacity limit applicable to the waste gas discharge from any 
fabric filter applied to a group 1 furnace if a COM is chosen as the 
monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has determined that the 
presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a fabric 
filter following a successful performance test is a clear indication 
that the device is not functioning properly.
    Secondary aluminum processing units. Available data from existing 
group 1 furnace emission units and existing in-line fluxers were 
analyzed to determine the emissions limitations which could be realized 
through the application of add-on control devices and pollution 
prevention/work practices. These data have been presented in the 
paragraphs in this section of this document relating to group 1 
furnaces and in-line fluxers. A secondary aluminum processing unit is 
composed of all of the existing group 1 furnace emission units and all 
of the existing in-line fluxer emission units at a secondary aluminum 
production facility. Emission standards for this affected source have 
been proposed, based on throughput weighted processing of material in 
emission units controlled to achievable emission limitations. Limits 
for PM, HCl and D/F have been proposed on a production basis. 
(Operators of group 1 furnaces with very high potential HCl emissions 
may choose to calculate the HCl limit for any or all individual group 1 
furnace emission units on the basis of achieving a 90 percent reduction 
in potential HCl emissions.) Based on the emissions achievable by 
individual emission units, the following standards are proposed:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.020

Where:

LiPM=the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in 
the secondary aluminum processing unit kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]
Ti=the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the 
secondary aluminum processing unit
LtPM=the overall PM emission limit for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]
LiHCl=the HCl emission limit for individual emission unit i 
in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]. 
Operators may choose to calculate this limit on the basis of 90 percent 
reduction in potential HCl emissions.
    LtHCl=the overall HCl emission limit for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]
LiD/F=the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i 
[g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed]
LtD/F=the overall D/F emission limit for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit [g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed], and
n=the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit.

    The emissions limits LiPM, LiHCl, and 
LiD/F to be used in calculating the proposed standards for 
secondary aluminum processing units are those proposed for individual 
new and reconstructed in-line fluxers and group 1 furnaces. Production 
in clean charge group 1 furnaces can not be included in calculating the 
overall D/F emission limit, because it is assumed that these furnaces 
are capable of operation with no D/F emissions, and because these 
emission units are not subject to D/F limits. In-line fluxers that 
operate using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in the 
calculations of the overall PM and HCl emission limits since they are 
not subject to emission limits for PM and HCl.
    In addition to the above standards, the EPA is also proposing a 10 
percent opacity limit applicable to the waste gas discharged from any 
fabric filter applied to a furnace process train if a COM is chosen as 
the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has determined that the 
presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a fabric 
filter following a successful performance test is a clear indication 
that the device is not functioning properly.

D. Selection of Operating and Monitoring Requirements

    The EPA identified and analyzed the hierarchy of monitoring options 
available for this source category. The array of monitoring options 
includes the direct measurement of HAP or HAP surrogates by a CEM or 
COM, periodic performance tests, continuous monitoring of process or 
control device operating parameters that are related to emissions of 
HAP, and recordkeeping and certification requirements. Each option that 
was relevant to a process or add-on control device was evaluated 
relative to its technical feasibility and cost.
    A CEM provides a direct measurement of emissions of HAP or HAP 
surrogates. CEMs are commercially available for HCl and THC. PM CEMs 
are also available, however, the technical feasibility of these devices 
for monitoring affected sources and emission units in this source 
category has not yet been demonstrated, and the estimated capital cost 
of PM monitoring systems is $213,000 with annual costs of $66,000 (see 
docket item II-B-24, enhanced monitoring options memo). These costs are 
significantly higher than those of other available options.
    Continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMs) do not provide a 
direct measurement of PM emissions but do provide continuous indication 
of fabric filter performance. These devices are presently in use on 
affected sources and emission units within this source category. Bag 
leak detection systems also provide a continuous indication of fabric 
filter performance and are less expensive to install and operate than 
COMs.
    Periodic performance tests by established EPA test methods are 
required by the proposed rule. These tests provide important 
information about HAP emissions. The expense of conducting performance 
tests (see docket item II-B-24, enhanced monitoring options memo) 
limits their usefulness as a means of ensuring continuous compliance 
with an emission standard.
    Another option for compliance assurance is monitoring control 
device operating parameters coupled with repeat emission tests prior to 
permit renewal (i.e., every 5 years). Control

[[Page 6982]]

device operating parameters can be monitored to ensure continued good 
operation and maintenance. Test data and operating experience have 
shown that maintaining operating parameters within a specified range of 
values (those established based on existing data or performance tests) 
can be used to ensure that the control device is operating properly and 
is well maintained. Operating parameters and defined work practices 
consistent with pollution prevention can also be used to maintain 
emissions within limits.
    In selecting monitoring requirements to ensure continuous 
compliance with the proposed emission standards, the EPA has considered 
technical feasibility and cost for all applicable options for each 
combination of pollutant, affected source and control technique. In 
some cases, where several monitoring options are technically feasible 
and equally reliable, and where the operator has already installed a 
particular type of monitor, the proposed rule allows the owner or 
operator to select a monitoring technique such that a presently 
installed, appropriate monitor may continue to be used.
    Finally, the proposed rule recognizes that the owner or operator 
may, through performance testing under varying conditions, be able to 
devise and demonstrate the feasibility of certain monitoring parameters 
and procedures. The proposed rule provides a procedure by which site-
specific monitoring plans for certain affected sources and emission 
units can be submitted with appropriate documentation for consideration 
by the permitting authority. A site-specific monitoring plan, when 
approved, would provide alternate monitoring procedures and parameter 
levels for secondary aluminum processing units, emission units and 
combinations of emission units. Performance testing requirements, 
discussed in section IV. E. of this preamble, are proposed to ensure 
that each affected source is capable of meeting the applicable emission 
standards for HAP or HAP surrogates. Operating requirements are 
proposed to ensure that affected sources continuously meet these 
emission standards. Monitoring requirements are proposed to ensure that 
each owner or operator can demonstrate that the operating requirements 
have been met.
1. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected 
Sources and Emission Units
    Owners or operators of affected sources would be required to submit 
an O, M, & M plan as part of their applications for a part 70 or part 
71 permit. The plan would include procedures for the proper operation 
and maintenance of affected sources and control devices used to comply 
with the emission limits as well as the corrective actions to be taken 
when control devices or process parameters deviate from allowable 
levels established during performance testing. The plan would also 
identify the procedures for proper operation and maintenance of 
monitoring devices including periodic calibration and verification of 
accuracy.
    Operating requirements. The proposed rule provides specific 
operating requirements for each affected source, and for emission units 
within a secondary aluminum processing unit, which are necessary to 
ensure that the conditions during initial and periodic performance 
tests are not changed between performance tests in such a way as to 
increase emissions beyond the proposed standards. Owners or operators 
of affected sources are required to operate the affected source and 
controls within established parameter ranges. In addition, the proposed 
operating requirements incorporate the applicable provisions of the 
site-specific O, M, & M plan. These plans include specific corrective 
actions to be taken to maintain emissions within acceptable levels.
    Operating requirements are also proposed which specify work 
practices for group 2 ``clean charge'' furnaces; require labeling of 
all affected sources and emission units to facilitate compliance 
assurance; specify capture system design and operating parameters for 
all affected sources and emission units with add-on control devices; 
restrict operation and fluxing practices conducted in group 1 sidewell 
furnaces; and establish a means by which site-specific operating plans 
for group 1 furnaces without add-on control devices can be developed 
and approved.
    Monitoring requirements. The EPA is proposing monitoring procedures 
for each emission limitation proposed under the rule. The EPA is not 
requiring the use of CEMs. PM CEMs have not been demonstrated for use 
with affected sources and emission units in this source category. PM 
CEMs, as well as HCl CEMs and THC CEMs, are substantially more 
expensive than other effective monitoring methods (see docket item II-
B-24, enhanced monitoring options memo).
    (a) Scrap Shredder. The proposed monitoring alternatives for scrap 
shredders are COMs, bag leak detectors or daily visual emissions 
testing by EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Continuous 
opacity monitoring systems (COMs) provide a continuous indication of 
fabric filter performance. These devices are presently in use on 
affected sources within this source category. Bag leak detection 
systems also provide a continuous indication of fabric filter 
performance and are less expensive to install and operate than COMs. 
Requirements for COMs and bag leak detectors are discussed in section 
IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and 
Options for Affected Sources and Emission Units Equipped with Fabric 
Filters or Lime Injected Fabric Filters.
    Under the visible emission monitoring option, a certified observer 
would perform daily visible emissions observations (five 6-minute 
readings in a 30-minute period) for each fabric filter according to the 
requirements of Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and the 
general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. If any visible 
emissions were observed, the owner or operator would be required to 
initiate corrective actions in accordance with the O, M, & M plan 
within 1-hour to correct the cause of the emissions. Visual emissions 
monitoring by Method 9 is an appropriate monitoring option for scrap 
shredders because these affected sources are intermittently operated 
and Method 9 can be used to determine opacity during periods of 
operation.
    (b) Chip Dryer. Monitoring requirements for chip dryers under the 
proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight monitoring as discussed in 
section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating Requirements, 
Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight, afterburner 
temperature monitoring as discussed in section V.D.3 of this document, 
Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: 
Afterburner Operating Temperature. The identity (i.e. uncoated, 
unpainted aluminum chips) of each batch of material charged must be 
recorded to ensure compliance with the requirement to process only 
uncoated, unpainted aluminum chips.
    (c) Scrap Dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
    Monitoring requirements for scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/
decoating kilns under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight 
monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other 
Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge 
Weight, afterburner temperature monitoring as discussed in section 
IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring 
Systems and Procedures: Afterburner Operating Temperature, and fabric 
filter

[[Page 6983]]

monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating 
and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Process Units Equipped with 
Fabric Filters or Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    (d) Clean Charge (Group 2) Furnace. Monitoring requirements for 
clean charge (group 2) furnaces under the proposed NESHAP are charge 
makeup and flux identity recordkeeping, and periodic certification that 
only clean charge has been processed and that no reactive flux has been 
used. No numerical emission limits are proposed for clean charge 
furnaces as discussed in section D.2. of this document, Selection of 
MACT Floor Technologies: Group 2 furnaces. Recordkeeping and 
certification requirements are necessary to ensure that the affected 
sources are operating as clean charge (group 2) furnaces.
    (e) Sweat Furnace. The monitoring requirement for sweat furnaces 
under the proposed NESHAP is afterburner temperature monitoring as 
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating 
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Afterburner Operating 
Temperature.
    (f) Dross-only Furnace. Monitoring requirements for dross-only 
furnaces under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge recordkeeping as 
described in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating 
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight, 
and fabric filter monitoring, (bag leak detection systems or COMs) as 
discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and Monitoring 
Requirements and Options for Process Units Equipped with Fabric Filters 
and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    (g) In-line Fluxer. Monitoring requirements for in-line fluxers 
under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight monitoring as 
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating 
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight, 
monitoring of chlorine injection rate as described in section IV.D.3 of 
this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and 
Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and schedule, 
and, for in-line fluxers equipped with add-on control devices, fabric 
filter monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, 
Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Process Units 
Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    (h) Rotary Dross Cooler. Monitoring requirements for rotary dross 
coolers are to comply with one of two monitoring options to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the PM standard. These options (bag leak 
detection systems or COMs), and the applicable monitoring requirements, 
are discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and 
Monitoring Requirements and Options for Process Units Equipped with 
Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    (i) Group 1 Furnace With Add-on Controls. Monitoring requirements 
for group 1 furnaces with add-on controls under the proposed NESHAP 
include feed/charge weight monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.3 of 
this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and 
Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight, monitoring of chlorine injection rate 
as described in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Monitoring 
Systems and Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and 
schedule, and fabric filter monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.2 
of this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for 
Process Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric 
Filters.
    (j) Group 1 Furnace Without Add-on Controls and Using Pollution 
Prevention/Work Practices (Processing Only Clean Charge). Monitoring 
requirements for group 1 furnaces without add-on controls (processing 
only clean charge) and employing pollution prevention/work practices to 
limit emissions under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight 
monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other 
Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge 
Weight, monitoring of chlorine injection rate as described in section 
IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring 
Systems and Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and 
schedule and a semi-annual certification that only clean charge had 
been processed.
    (k) Group 1 Furnace Without Add-on Controls Using Pollution 
Prevention/Work Practices Processing Scrap Other Than Clean Charge. 
Proposed monitoring requirements for group 1 furnaces not equipped add-
on controls using pollution prevention/work practices and processing 
scrap other than clean charge include feed/charge weight monitoring as 
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating 
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight and 
monitoring of chlorine injection rate as described in section IV.D.3 of 
this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and 
Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and schedule.
    Operators of these furnaces would be required to develop a site-
specific monitoring plan acceptable to the permitting authority. The 
plan would include additional parameters to be monitored, based on 
supporting information provided by the operator and developed in 
coordination with the permitting authority, which demonstrates the 
correlation between these parameters and the actual emissions from 
these furnaces.
    If the site-specific monitoring plan includes scrap sampling as a 
means of monitoring, the scrap sampling program must, at a minimum, 
include the elements described in section IV.D.3 of this document, 
Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Scrap 
inspection program. If the site-specific monitoring plan includes the 
use of CEMs, the operator must install, operate and maintain the CEMs 
as described in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating 
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Continuous emission 
monitoring systems. If the site-specific monitoring plan includes 
limitations on the chlorine injection rate, the operator must monitor 
reactive flux injection as described in section IV.D.3 of this 
document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and 
Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and schedule. 
The specific parameters monitored under a site-specific monitoring plan 
must be proposed by the owner or operator along with supporting 
documentation and approved by the permitting authority.
    (l) Secondary Aluminum Processing Units. All of the existing group 
1 furnaces and all of the existing in-line fluxers within a facility 
make up the secondary aluminum processing unit. Each group 1 furnace 
emission unit within the secondary emission processing unit would be 
subject to the same operating and monitoring requirements as proposed 
for group 1 furnaces. Each in-line fluxer emission unit within the 
secondary emission processing unit would be subject to the same 
operating and monitoring requirements as proposed for in-line fluxers.
    Operators of secondary aluminum processing units would be required 
to determine throughput weighted emissions of PM, HCl and D/F for each 
24 hour period. Compliance with the overall emission limits would be 
determined daily, on the basis of a rolling average of the daily 
throughput weighted emissions determined for the three most recent 24 
hour periods. The

[[Page 6984]]

daily emissions determination, coupled with the three day (24 hour) 
rolling average for compliance determination, are being proposed in 
recognition of the overlapping operating cycles of the equipment within 
the secondary aluminum emissions unit. The three day (24 hour) rolling 
average will have the effect of damping out spikes in calculated 
emissions which might occur when emission units are charged just before 
or just after the beginning of a 24 hour determination period, and will 
accommodate different furnace cycles.
2. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected 
Sources and Emission Units Equipped With a Fabric Filter and Subject to 
PM Limits
    Operating requirements. The proposed rule provides specific 
operating requirements for fabric filters and lime-injected fabric 
filters which are necessary to ensure that the conditions during 
initial and periodic performance tests are not changed between 
performance tests in such a way as to increase emissions beyond the 
proposed standards. Owners or operators of affected sources and 
emission units controlled by these devices are required to operate bag 
leak detectors or COMs (in the case of scrap shredders, visible 
emissions testing may be conducted as an alternative).
    If a bag leak detection system is used, the owner or operator must 
operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak detection 
system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time 
during a 6-month reporting period. In calculating this operating time 
fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no 
corrective action is required, no alarm time would be counted. If 
corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted as a minimum 
of one hour. The proposed standard requires that the owner or operator 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of an alarm. If the owner or 
operator takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the 
alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the 
owner or operator to initiate corrective action. If a COM is used, the 
owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 
6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the 
corrective action procedures in accordance with the O, M, & M plan.
    Additional operating requirements are proposed to ensure that lime 
injection is maintained at performance test levels and schedules, and 
(for scrap dryers/ delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces 
and in-line fluxers) that inlet gas temperatures do not exceed 
performance test levels. In addition, the proposed operating 
requirements incorporate the applicable provisions of the site-specific 
O, M, & M plan. These plans include specific corrective actions to be 
taken to maintain emissions within acceptable levels.
    (a) PM Monitoring Alternatives. The owner or operator of a scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace (including 
melter/holder), dross-only furnace, rotary dross cooler or in-line 
fluxer equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-conditioned fabric 
filter would have two monitoring options. These options are 
installation and operation of a COM in accordance with PS-1 of appendix 
B to part 60 of this chapter, or installation and operation of a bag 
leak detection system.
    Operators of scrap shredders may conduct visual emissions 
observations as an alternative to the use of bag leak detection systems 
or COMs. Requirements for the use of visual emission monitoring are 
described in section IV.D.1 of this document, Operating and Monitoring 
Requirements for Affected Sources: Scrap Shredder.
    If a bag leak detection system is the selected monitoring 
alternative, it must be installed and operated according to ``Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997. 
This document is available from the National Technical Information 
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
    The bag leak detection system also must meet equipment 
specifications included in the rule. These include: (1) Manufacturer 
certification that the system is capable of detecting PM emissions at 
concentrations of 10 mg per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per 
actual cubic foot) or less; and (2) inclusion of a sensor to provide 
output of relative emissions, a device to continuously record the 
sensor output voltage, and an audible alarm that sounds when an 
increase in relative PM emissions above the setpoint is detected. 
Following initial adjustment of the system, the owner or operator may 
not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set 
points, or alarm delay time except as described in the O, M, & M plan.
    If a COM system is the selected monitoring alternative, the 
proposed standard requires installation and operation of a COM for each 
exhaust stack. The monitor would be required to meet all specifications 
in PS-1 in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. The operational requirements 
in the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A would 
also apply. The calculation of 6-minute block averages of opacity 
readings is a monitoring requirement.
    (b) D/F and HCl Monitoring (Fabric Filter Inlet Gas Temperature). 
The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating kiln, 
group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer equipped with a lime-injected fabric 
filter would be required to install and operate a continuous 
temperature measurement device consistent with the requirements for 
continuous monitoring systems in the general provisions to this part 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
    The temperature monitoring system would be required to record the 
temperature at the inlet to the fabric filter in 15 minute block 
averages and to calculate and record the average temperature for each 
3-hour block period. The recorder response range would be required to 
include zero and 1.5 times the established operating parameter. 
Calibration drift would be required to be less than 2 percent of 1.5 
times the established operating parameter. The relative accuracy would 
be required to be no greater than 20 percent. The reference method 
would be required to be a National Institute of Standards and 
Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system, or 
an alternate reference subject to the approval of the Administrator.
    (c) D/F and HCl Monitoring (Lime Injection Rate). Where lime-
injected fabric filters are used to control emissions from scrap 
dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, in-line fluxers, and group 1 
furnaces the proposed rule includes monitoring requirements for lime 
injection. Owners or operators would be required to inspect each feed 
hopper or silo every 8 hours to verify that lime is free-flowing and 
record the results of each inspection. If a blockage is found, the 
inspection frequency would increase to every 4 hours for the next 3 
days. The owner or operator would be permitted to return to an 8-hour 
inspection interval if corrective action taken to remedy the cause of 
the blockage results in no additional blockage during the 3-day period.
    Additional monitoring requirements would depend on which operating 
requirement alternative was chosen. Operators choosing to maintain the 
feeder setting at performance test levels would be required to record 
the feeder setting daily. Operators choosing to maintain the time rate 
(lb/hr) of lime injection would be required to install and operate a 
weight measurement device and determine and record the

[[Page 6985]]

weight of lime added for each 15 minute block period. The weight 
measurement device would be required to have an accuracy of 1 percent 
and be calibrated once every 3 months. The operator would be required 
to use these data to calculate the lime injection rate for each 3-hour 
block period of operation.
    Operators choosing to maintain the throughput based rate of lime 
addition (lb/ton of feed) would be required to install and operate a 
weight measurement device and determine and record the weight of lime 
added for each 15 minute block period. The operator would be required 
to use these data to calculate the weight of lime injected per ton of 
charge for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance 
test. The weight measurement device would be required to have an 
accuracy of  1 percent and be calibrated once every 3 
months. The monitoring requirements described in section IV.D.3 of this 
document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and 
Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight would also apply.
3. Other Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Procedures
    Operating requirements. The proposed rule includes operating 
requirements to ensure that capture equipment is properly designed and 
operated, to require that affected sources and emission units are 
clearly labeled, and to ensure that operating parameters do not change 
between performance tests in such a way as to allow emissions to exceed 
the levels measured under performance test conditions.
    (a) Capture Equipment Design. As a monitoring requirement, to 
ensure continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits or 
standards, the operator would be required to inspect each capture, 
collection, and transport system annually to ensure that it is 
continuing to operate in accordance with ACGIH standards, and to record 
the results of each inspection.
    (b) Labeling. As a monitoring requirement, operators would be 
required to inspect the labels monthly and verify that they are intact 
and legible, and to maintain records of this inspection.
    (c) Feed/Charge Weight. All affected sources with throughput based 
emission limits (lb/ton, g/Mg) are required to record the 
weight of each charge within 1 percent, and to calibrate 
any weighing devices once every 3 months. This requirement is necessary 
to ensure operation within the emission limits and compliance with lime 
addition and flux injection parameters established during the 
performance test.
    (d) Afterburner Operating Temperature. The owner or operator of an 
afterburner would be required to install and operate a continuous 
temperature measurement device consistent with the requirements for 
continuous monitoring systems in the general provisions to this part 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
    The temperature monitoring system would be required to record the 
afterburner temperature in 15 minute block averages and to calculate 
and record the average temperature for each 3-hour block period. The 
recorder response range would be required to include zero and 1.5 times 
the established operating parameter. Calibration drift would be 
required to be less than 2 percent of 1.5 times the established 
operating parameter. The relative accuracy would be required to be no 
greater than 20 percent. The reference method would be required to be a 
National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated reference 
thermocouple-potentiometer system, or an alternate reference subject to 
the approval of the Administrator.
    The owner or operator would be required to further monitor 
afterburner performance by conducting an inspection of the afterburner 
at least once per year. All necessary repairs to the afterburner would 
have to be completed in accordance with the O, M, & M plan.
    (e) Total Reactive Chlorine Flux Injection Rate and Schedule. To 
monitor the flux injection rate, the operator would be required to 
install and operate a device to continuously measure the weight of 
reactive flux injected or added to the affected source. The device 
would determine and record the weight in 15-minute block averages over 
the same operating cycle or time period used in the performance test. 
The accuracy of the device would be 1 percent of the weight 
being measured and the operator would verify the calibration every 3 
months.
    The owner or operator would use the weight measurement to calculate 
and record the reactive flux injection rate using the same procedures 
as in the performance test. If a gaseous or liquid reactive flux other 
than chlorine is used, the proposed rule requires the owner or operator 
to record the type of flux and weight of each addition. The owner or 
operator also would record this information for each addition of solid 
reactive chloride flux. Using the same procedures as in the performance 
test, the owner or operator would calculate and record the total 
reactive chlorine flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time 
period used in the performance test.
    (f) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems. The proposed rule does 
not require the use of continuous emission monitors (CEMs). Operators 
may develop, submit and obtain approval for site-specific monitoring 
plans which may include the use of CEMs. The site-specific O,M,&M plan 
must include operating and monitoring requirements satisfactory to the 
permitting authority to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed 
standard.
    If an HCl or THC continuous emission monitoring system is used, a 
monitor must be installed and operated for each exhaust stack. An HCl 
continuous emission monitoring system must be installed to meet PS 13 
in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Performance Specification 13, 
``Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrochloric Acid Continuous 
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources'' was proposed April 19, 1996 
(61 FR 17509). A THC continuous emission monitoring system must be 
installed to meet PS 8A in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Performance 
Specification 8A, ``Specifications and Test Procedures for Total 
Hydrocarbon Continuous Monitoring Systems in Hazardous Waste-burning 
Stationary Sources'' was proposed April 19, 1996 (61 FR 17358). The 
proposed standard requires that HCl and THC continuous emission 
monitoring systems meet all applicable requirements in the NESHAP 
general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and the quality control 
requirements of appendix F to 40 CFR part 60.
    If a PM CEM is used it must meet all applicable performance 
specifications, general provision requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A, quality control requirements of appendix F to 40 CFR part 
60, and in addition the use of the PM CEM must be validated in 
accordance with Method 301 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
    (g) Scrap inspection Program. If a site-specific monitoring plan 
includes the use of a scrap inspection plan the program must include 
operating and monitoring requirements satisfactory to the permitting 
authority to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed standard. 
The procedures and minimum requirements for scrap inspection programs 
are described in Sec. 63.1509(o) of the proposed standard. The 
following elements must be included in a scrap inspection plan, at 
minimum:
    (1) A proven method for collecting representative samples and 
measuring the oil and coatings content of scrap samples;

[[Page 6986]]

    (2) A scrap inspector training program;
    (3) An established correlation between visual inspection and 
physical measurement of oil and coatings content of scrap samples;
    (4) Periodic physical measurements of oil and coatings content of 
randomly-selected scrap samples and comparison with visual inspection 
results;
    (5) A system for assuring only acceptable scrap is charged to an 
affected group 1 furnace; and
    (6) Recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with plan 
requirements.
    (h) Scrap Contamination Level Determination and Certification by 
Calculation. Operators of group 1 furnaces dedicated to processing a 
distinct type of charge composed of scrap with a uniform composition 
(such as rejected product from a manufacturing process for which the 
owner or operator can document the coating to scrap ratio) may develop, 
submit and obtain approval of a site-specific O,M,&M plan that includes 
provisions for scrap contamination level determination and 
certification by calculation. Under such a plan, the operator would 
characterize the contaminant level of the scrap prior to a performance 
test. Following a performance test the operator would limit the charge 
to the furnace to scrap of the same composition used in the performance 
test (through charge selection or blending of coated scrap with clean 
charge). The site-specific O,M,&M plan would be required to include 
operating and monitoring requirements to ensure that no scrap with a 
contaminant level higher than that used in the successful performance 
test was charged.

E. Selection of Performance Test Methods and Requirements

1. Rationale for Performance Test Methods, Procedures and Surrogates
    As a chemical class, THC contains a wide variety of organic 
compounds including HAPs and non-HAPs such as VOC. Both HAPs and non-
HAP VOCs are destroyed by incineration. THC can be measured by Method 
25A, ``Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a 
Flame Ionization Analyzer'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). This method 
applies to the measurement of total gaseous organic concentrations of 
vapors. The concentration is expressed in terms of propane (or other 
appropriate organic calibration gas) or in terms of carbon. 
Consequently, the Agency proposes to regulate emissions of organic HAPs 
using THC as a surrogate measure for the proposed emission limits. 
Because of the high potency of D/F at very low levels, separate 
measurements are needed and no surrogate is proposed for D/F emissions.
    Method 23, ``Determination of Poly-Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A), would be used to measure emissions of (D/F). The 
procedures and factors in the EPA report, ``Interim Procedures for 
Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated 
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 update 
(EPA-625/3-89-016, NTIS No. PB 90-145756) would be used to convert 
measured D/F emissions to TEQ units.
    Emissions of HCl would be measured using EPA Method 26A, 
``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from 
Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). 
Emissions of PM exiting the fabric filter or lime-injected fabric 
filter would be measured using EPA Method 5, ``Determination of 
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A.
    Visible emission observations by a certified observer were made 
during numerous emission tests using Method 9, ``Visual Determination 
of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A. Thus, Method 9 is specified as an option for 
demonstrating continuous compliance with the PM emission standards for 
scrap shredders in the proposed rule. Scrap shredders are 
intermittently operated and Method 9 can be used to determine opacity 
during periods of operation. Method 9 is not included as an option for 
demonstrating continuous compliance with the PM emission standards for 
other affected sources, which are in continuous operation under normal 
conditions.
2. General Requirements
    Following approval of a site-specific test plan (in accordance with 
Sec. 63.7 of subpart A of this part), the proposed NESHAP requires an 
initial performance test for most affected sources and emission units 
to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limitation(s). 
Performance tests (where required) would be conducted every 5 years to 
demonstrate continued compliance. The tests would be conducted 
according to the requirements in the NESHAP general provisions in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart A, except as specified in the rule.
    The owner or operator of an existing affected source would be 
provided 3 years from the effective date of the final rule to 
demonstrate compliance. A new or reconstructed source would be required 
to demonstrate compliance within 180 days following startup.
    All monitoring devices are to be installed and calibrated prior to 
the initial performance test (or prior to the compliance date in the 
rule if a performance test is not conducted). The owner or operator 
would also be required to post a label on each affected source as to 
its proper classification (e.g., scrap shredder, chip dryer, scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, dross cooler, in-line fluxer, 
sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, or group 1 or 2 furnace). The label 
would also include the applicable emission limit, operational standard, 
and control method (work practice or control device), the parameters to 
be monitored and the compliant value or range of each parameter. 
Emission units within secondary aluminum processing units would also be 
subject to labeling requirements which include the measured emission 
rate of all pollutants for which an emission limitation applies. New 
and reconstructed group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers and emission 
units which are part of furnace process trains would be labeled to 
specify the other affected sources and/or emission units which make up 
the furnace process train. The visible marking of the furnaces is 
intended to enable management, workers, and enforcement personnel to 
easily identify the applicable work practice requirements, emission 
limitations and monitoring requirements. The owner or operator may 
change the initial furnace classification subject to approval by the 
applicable regulatory authority.
    Each performance test would consist of three separate runs. For 
emission sources operating in a batch mode, each test run would be 
conducted over a minimum of one operating cycle of the process unit. In 
some cases, a longer sampling time may be required by the permitting 
authority upon review of the performance test plan. For sources that 
operate continuously, each test run would be conducted for the time 
period specified in the approved performance test plan. The emission 
(expressed in the units of the standard) for each test run would be 
determined. The arithmetic average of the emissions determined for the 
three test runs would be used to determine compliance.
    The proposed standard allows the owner or operator to use 
historical data to establish operating parameters in addition to the 
results of a performance

[[Page 6987]]

test provided that the full emission test reports are submitted, the 
test methods required by the rule have been used, all required 
parameters have been monitored, the process operation has been 
documented, and the owner or operator certifies that no changes have 
been made to the process or emission control equipment since the time 
of the report.
    Where multiple affected sources and/or emission units are exhausted 
through a common control device, and if the emission limit for all such 
units is in units of kg/Mg (lbs/ton) of feed, compliance may be 
demonstrated if measured emissions do not exceed the combined emission 
limit for all units that exhaust through the stack. Performance tests 
conducted on control devices used to control multiple affected sources 
and/or emission units would be conducted at the maximum processing rate 
typical of normal operation of the affected sources and/or emission 
units. The performance test run period would span one complete 
operating cycle of all cocontrolled affected sources and/or emission 
units. Where the exhausts from multiple emission units within a 
secondary aluminum processing unit, that are not equipped with add-on 
air pollution control devices, are discharged through a common stack 
similar performance test period requirements are proposed.
3. Performance Tests Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and 
Emission Units
    Scrap shredder. A PM performance test is required for each scrap 
shredder. The test would be conducted while the unit operates at the 
maximum processing rate typical of normal operation for the unit. 
During the test, the owner or operator would comply with the 
performance test requirements associated with either the COM or the bag 
leak detector monitoring option selected for a unit equipped with a 
fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These requirements are 
described in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and Monitoring 
Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and Emission Units 
Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters. As an 
alternative, the owner or operator of a scrap shredder could choose to 
monitor visible emissions.
    An owner or operator electing to monitor visible emissions would 
perform a Method 9 test of the same duration as, and simultaneously 
with, the Method 5 performance test and determine the average opacity 
for each fabric filter exhaust stack. The Method 9 performance test 
would be conducted by a certified observer according to the 
requirements of Method 9 and the NESHAP general provisions in subpart A 
of 40 CFR part 63. This test would be conducted simultaneously with any 
required initial or periodic Method 5 performance test.
    Chip dryer. The owner or operator would conduct a performance test 
to demonstrate compliance with the THC and D/F emission limits for each 
chip dryer while the unit processes only unpainted/uncoated aluminum 
chips at the maximum production rate typical for the unit during normal 
operation. During the test, the owner or operator would measure the 
weight of feed to the chip dryer during each test run and determine the 
arithmetic average of the recorded measurements. Using the monitoring 
devices and procedures required by the proposed rule, the owner or 
operator would measure and record the afterburner operating temperature 
during each of the Method 23 test runs and determine the average of the 
recorded measurements for each test run. The arithmetic average of the 
three average test run temperatures would then be determined.
    Scrap dryer/decoating kiln/delacquering kiln. The owner or operator 
of a scrap dryer/decoating kiln/delacquering kiln would conduct a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the THC, D/F, HCl, and 
PM emission limits while the affected source processes scrap containing 
the highest level of contaminants within the normal operating range. 
During the test, the owner or operator would determine and record the 
weight of feed to the unit for each test run and determine the 
arithmetic average of the recorded measurements. Using the monitoring 
devices and procedures required by the proposed rule, the owner or 
operator would measure and record the afterburner operating 
temperature, the injection rate of lime or other equivalent alkaline 
reagent, and the inlet temperature of the lime-injected fabric filter 
for each test run and determine the arithmetic average of each 
parameter of the recorded measurements, for each test run. The 
arithmetic average of the three values for each parameter would then be 
determined. The owner or operator also would comply with the 
performance test requirements associated with the monitoring option 
selected for a unit equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-injected 
fabric filter. These requirements are described in section IV.D.2 of 
this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for 
Affected Sources and Emission Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and 
Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    Group 1 furnace. The proposed standard requires the owner or 
operator to conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with 
the PM emission limits and either the HCl emission limit or the HCl 
percent reduction requirement for each group 1 furnace. Owners or 
operators, except for those that process only clean charge materials 
would also be required to conduct a performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the D/F emission limit. The test would be conducted 
while the unit operates at the maximum production rate, while charging 
scrap with the highest contaminant level within the range of normal 
operation for the furnace, and while performing all reactive fluxing 
operations at the maximum rate. During the performance test, the owner 
or operator would record the type of scrap charged and the amount of 
feed to the furnace for each test run. Using the required monitoring 
device (or procedure), the owner or operator also would measure and 
record the flux injection rate and determine the arithmetic average of 
the recorded measurements for each test run. The arithmetic average of 
the three averages would then be determined.
    In addition, owners or operators of group 1 furnaces equipped with 
add-on control devices would be required to measure and record the 
injection rate and schedule of lime or other equivalent alkaline 
reagent for each test run and determine the average injection rate for 
each run. The arithmetic average of the three averages would then be 
determined. Owners or operators choosing to demonstrate compliance with 
the percent HCl removal standard would also be required to 
simultaneously measure the HCl present in the group 1 furnace exit at a 
point before lime or other alkaline reagent is introduced and determine 
the HCl percentage reduction achieved by the lime-injected fabric 
filter.
    If an add-on control device is used, the owner or operator also 
would be required to comply with the performance test requirements 
associated with the monitoring option selected for a unit equipped with 
a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These requirements 
are described in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and 
Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and Emission 
Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    If an add-on control device is not used, owners or operators would 
be required to monitor and record

[[Page 6988]]

additional parameters in accordance with the site-specific O, M, & M 
plan developed in conjunction with and approved by the permitting 
authority.
    Sweat furnace. A D/F performance test for each sweat furnace would 
be conducted while the furnace operates at the maximum production rate 
typical of normal operation for the furnace. During the test, the owner 
or operator would use the required monitoring device and procedure to 
measure and record the afterburner operating temperature for every 15-
minute period of each test run and determine the arithmetic average of 
the recorded measurements for each test run. The average of the three 
averages would then be determined.
    Dross-only furnace. A PM performance test would be conducted for 
each furnace using dross as the sole feedstock. During the test, the 
owner or operator would record the type of feed charged and the amount 
(weight) of the dross charged for each test run and determine the 
arithmetic average of the three weights. The owner or operator also 
would be required to comply with the performance test requirements 
applicable to a unit equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-injected 
fabric filter. These requirements are discussed in section IV.D.2 of 
this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for 
Affected Sources and Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-
injected Fabric Filters.
    In-line fluxer. The proposed rule requires an HCl performance test 
to be conducted while the in-line fluxer operates at the maximum 
production rate and while performing all reactive fluxing operations at 
the maximum rate typical of normal operation for the unit. During the 
performance test, the owner or operator would record the molten 
aluminum throughput. During the test, the owner or operator would use 
the required monitoring device and procedure to calculate and record 
the reactive flux injection rate for each test run. In addition, the 
owner or operator would be required to determine the arithmetic average 
of the three averages for throughput and flux injection rate. The owner 
or operator would also comply with the performance test requirements 
associated with the monitoring option selected for a unit equipped with 
a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These requirements 
are described in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and 
Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and Emission 
Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
    Rotary dross cooler. A PM performance test would be conducted for 
each rotary dross cooler while operating at the maximum production rate 
typical of normal operation of the unit. During the performance test, 
the owner or operator would comply with the performance test 
requirements associated with the monitoring option selected for a unit 
equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These 
requirements are described in section IV.D.2 of this document, 
Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected Sources 
and Emission Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected 
Fabric Filters.

F. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The proposed standard would incorporate all requirements of the 
NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) except as 
specified in the proposed standard. The COM requirements in the general 
provisions would apply if the owner or operator elects as a monitoring 
option, to install and operate a COM to measure and record opacity from 
the exhaust stacks of a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter.
    The general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) include 
requirements for notifications of applicability; intention to construct 
or reconstruct a major source, the date construction or reconstruction 
commenced, the anticipated date of startup and the actual date of 
startup; special compliance obligations for new sources; date of 
performance test (including opacity and visible emissions observations, 
if applicable); notification a COM will be used to comply with an 
opacity standard, if applicable; notifications for sources with 
continuous monitoring systems (CMS), as provided in Sec. 63.9(g) of 
this chapter; and initial and annual notification of compliance status.
    In addition to the information required by the NESHAP general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the notification of compliance 
status must include for each affected source: the approved site-
specific test plan and a complete performance test report, performance 
evaluation test results for each CMS (including a COM or CEM), unit 
labels (e.g., process type or furnace classification), and compliant 
operating parameter value or range with supporting documentation. If 
applicable, owner or operator also must include design information and 
supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with requirements (if 
applicable) for capture/collection systems, bag leak detection systems, 
and the 1-second residence time requirement for afterburners used to 
control emissions from a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating kiln 
subject to alternative emission standards. All facilities would be 
required to submit the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan and 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The notification of compliance 
status also would include (if applicable), the approved site-specific 
monitoring plan for each group 1 furnace with no add-on air pollution 
control device; or other site-specific monitoring plan. The 
notification of compliance status must be signed by the responsible 
official who must certify its accuracy. Provisions also are included in 
the proposed standard to eliminate duplicative submissions.
    The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan would be prepared 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e) of the NESHAP general 
provisions. This plan would specify the procedures to be followed to 
minimize emissions during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction and a 
program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air 
pollution control equipment. The proposed standard requires that the 
plan also include procedures to determine and record the cause of the 
malfunction and the time the malfunction began and ended. A semiannual 
report to EPA is required when a reportable event occurs and the steps 
in the plan were not followed.
    The O, M, & M plan for each affected source, emission unit and 
control system would be submitted to the permitting authority as part 
of the initial notification of compliance status. Each plan would 
include the applicable operating requirements for each affected source 
and emission unit; process and control device parameters to be 
monitored, along with established operating levels or ranges; a 
monitoring schedule with monitoring procedures; procedures for the 
proper operation and maintenance of each affected source and emission 
unit, add-on air pollution control device, and monitoring device or 
system; maintenance schedule; and corrective action procedures to be 
taken in the event of an excursion or exceedance (including procedures 
to determine the cause of the excursion or exceedance, the time the 
excursion began and ended, and for recording the actions taken to 
correct the cause of the excursion or exceedance). The plan also must 
document the work practices and pollution prevention measures used to 
achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits for a group 1 
furnace not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device.

[[Page 6989]]

    Examples of procedures that might be used to determine the cause of 
an excursion from an operating parameter level or range for an 
afterburner include inspecting burner assemblies and pilot sensing 
devices for proper operation and cleaning; adjusting primary and 
secondary chamber combustion air; inspecting dampers, fans, blowers, 
and motors for proper operation; and shutdown procedures. Examples of 
procedures that might be used for bag leak detection systems include 
inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other defect that may cause an increase in emissions; 
sealing off defective filter bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device; replacing defective bags or filter media 
or otherwise repairing the control device; sealing off a defective 
compartment in the fabric filter; and shutting down the process 
producing the emissions.
    The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace not equipped with add-on 
air pollution control devices would be required to submit a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses monitoring and compliance 
requirements for PM, HCl, and D/F emissions. The plan would be 
developed in consultation with the applicable permitting authority and 
submitted for review as part of the O, M, & M plan. The provisions of 
the plan must ensure continuing compliance with applicable emission 
limits and demonstrate, based on documented test results, the 
relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F and the proposed 
monitoring parameters for each pollutant. The plan must include 
provisions for complying with applicable operating and monitoring 
requirements (unit labeling and measurements of feed/charge and flux 
weight). If a CEM or COM is used, provisions must be included to comply 
with installation, operation, maintenance, and quality assurance 
requirements of the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A). If a scrap inspection program for monitoring the scrap contaminant 
level of furnace charge materials is included, the site-specific 
monitoring plan must include provisions for the demonstration and 
implementation of the program to meet the requirements in the proposed 
standard. These requirements are discussed in section IV.E.3 of this 
document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and 
Procedures: Scrap inspection program.
    The owner or operator would submit a semiannual excess emissions/
progress report, which would include each excursion from compliant 
operating parameters or measured emissions exceeding an applicable 
limit or standard; inconsistencies between actions taken during a 
startup, shutdown or malfunction and the procedures in the startup, 
shutdown and malfunction plan; failure to initiate corrective action 
within 1-hour for a bag leak detection alarm, a 6-minute average 
exceeding 5 percent opacity or an observation of visible emissions from 
a scrap shredder; an excursion of a compliant process or operating 
parameter value or range; or any event where an affected source was not 
operated according to the requirements of the rule. If no excess 
emissions occurred in the reporting period, the owner or operator would 
be required to submit a report stating that no excess emissions had 
occurred. The owner or operator also would submit the results of any 
performance test conducted during the reporting period and semi-annual 
certifications attesting to compliance with restrictions on feedstock 
and other operating conditions applicable to each chip dryer, dross-
only furnace, sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution 
control devices, group 1 melter/holder without add-on air pollution 
control devices, and group 2 furnace.
    In addition to the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.10 of 
the NESHAP general provisions, the owner or operator would be required 
to maintain records of information needed to determine compliance. 
Additional recordkeeping requirements are given in Table 11.
    The NESHAP general provisions require that all records be 
maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each record. The owner 
or operator must retain the records onsite for at least 2 years but may 
retain the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. The files may be 
retained on microfilm, microfiche, on computer disks, or on magnetic 
tape. Reports may be made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using 
commonly available and compatible computer software.

                                      Table 11.--Recordkeeping Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Affected source/emission unit/control
        device/monitoring system                                       Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag leak detection systems.............  Number of total operating hours for the affected source/emission unit
                                          during each 6-month reporting period, time of each alarm, time
                                          corrective action was initiated and completed, and description of
                                          cause of alarm and corrective action taken.
COM....................................  Opacity data, times when 6-minute average exceeds 5 percent, time of
                                          exceedance, time corrective action was initiated and completed, and
                                          description of cause of emissions and corrective action taken.
Scrap shredders monitored by visible     Visible emission data, times when any visible emissions occurred during
 emissions observations.                  daily test, time of excursion, time corrective action was initiated
                                          and completed, and description of cause of emissions and corrective
                                          action taken.
Affected sources/Emission units subject  Records of feed or charge weight measurements for each operating cycle
 to throughput based emission limits.     or time period used in performance test.
Lime injected fabric filters subject to  Inlet temperature data, times when 3-hour block average exceeds
 temperature limits.                      operating parameter value by 25 deg.F, description of cause of
                                          excursion and corrective action taken.
Lime injected fabric filters...........  Lime blockage inspection records and either: (1) daily inspections of
                                          feeder settings and any deviation from established setting with cause
                                          of deviation and corrective action taken or (2) 3-hr block average
                                          lime weight, injection rate (lb/hr) and schedule with supporting
                                          calculations, times when 3-hour block average rate or schedule falls
                                          below established value, description of cause of excursion and
                                          corrective action taken or (3) lime weight for operating cycle or time
                                          period used in performance test, injection rate (lb/ton) and schedule
                                          with calculations, times when rate or schedule falls below established
                                          value, description of cause of excursion and corrective action taken.
Group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers     Weight of gaseous or liquid flux injected, total reactive chlorine flux
 where reactive flux is used.             injection rate and calculations (including identity, weight,
                                          composition of all reactive fluxing agents), times flux rate exceeds
                                          established value, description of cause of excursion and corrective
                                          action taken.

[[Page 6990]]

 
Afterburners...........................  Operating temperature data, times 3-hour block average temperature
                                          falls below established value, description of excursion and corrective
                                          action taken and annual inspections.
Group 1 furnace without add-on air       Site-specific monitoring plan with records to document conformance.
 pollution control device.
Group 1 sidewell furnace...............  Operating logs documenting conformance with operating standards for
                                          maintaining molten metal level and adding reactive flux only to the
                                          sidewell or furnace hearth equipped with controls.
Chip dryer, dross-only furnace, and      Records of all charge materials.
 group 1 melter/holder without air
 pollution control device processing
 clean charge.
Group 2 furnace........................  Records of all charge materials and fluxing materials or agents.
All affected sources/emission units....  Monthly inspections for unit labeling, current copy of all required
                                          plans with revisions, records of any approved alternative monitoring
                                          or test procedure.
Capture/collection systems.............  Annual inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Standards

    The EPA analyzed the impacts of the proposed standards by 
developing model processes and model plants based on site-specific 
information contained in responses to the ICR and voluntary follow up 
questionnaires, coupled with data obtained during site visits and 
emission tests. These model processes were then combined to form eight 
model plants used as the basis for environmental, cost, economic, and 
other regulatory impact analyses. Additional information on the model 
processes and model plants is included in the docket. (Docket Item II-
B-1. Memorandum. J. Santiago, EPA:MICG, to K. Durkee, EPA:MICG. (Date) 
Model Processes and Control Device Options for the Secondary Aluminum 
Industry.)

A. Air Quality Impacts

    As shown in Table 12, emission sources in the estimated 86 major 
source secondary aluminum production plants that would be subject to 
the NESHAP emit approximately 28,600 Mg/yr (31,500 tpy) of HAPs and 
other pollutants at the current level of control. Of these emissions, 
16,300 Mg/yr (18,000 tpy) are HAPs. The EPA estimates that 
implementation of the NESHAP would reduce all pollutants by 16,700 Mg/
yr (18,300 tpy). Nationwide HAP emissions would be reduced by about 
11,300 Mg/yr (12,500 tpy).

                                         Table 12.--Nationwide Annual Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Emission reduction
            Pollutant                 Baseline emissions (Mg/yr)      Emission reduction (Mg/yr)       Baseline emissions (tpy)             (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC \1\..........................  3,782..........................                                  4,169.........................  ....................
D/F..............................  0.81 kg/yr.....................  0.71 kg/yr....................  1.79 lb/yr....................  1.55 lb/yr.
HCl..............................  15,365.........................  11,300........................  16,902........................  12,457.
Cl 2.............................  996............................                                  1,098.........................  ....................
HAP Metals.......................  58.4...........................  36.3..........................  64.4..........................  40.
PM...............................  8,508..........................  5,331.........................  9,378.........................  5,864.
Total:
    HAPs.........................  16,420.........................  11,336........................  18,065........................  12,496.
    PM...........................  8,508..........................  5,331.........................  9,378.........................  5,864.
    HAPS and other pollutants....  28,620.........................  16,524........................  31,548........................  18,215.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ THC is a surrogate for organic HAPs.

    No reduction in THC emissions is estimated because all sources with 
a THC emission limit for which an afterburner would be required are 
already equipped with this MACT-level control.
    The estimated emission reductions are felt to represent the minimum 
that would be achieved by the proposed rule since they are based on a 
reduction in baseline emissions to a level equal to the proposed 
emission limit. In reality, if emission control equipment is installed 
to achieve compliance with the proposed rule, emissions would likely be 
reduced to a level below the emission limit and the actual emission 
reductions would be larger than the estimates. In addition, emission 
reductions would also be expected for other pollutants for which there 
are no specific emission limits. Although these potential emission 
reductions were not quantified, emission controls installed to reduce 
HCl emissions are likely to also reduce Cl2 emissions, the 
lime added or injected to fabric filters would reduce fluoride as well 
as chloride emissions, and fabric filters installed to meet PM emission 
limits also would reduce HAP metal emissions. For example, emission 
test data indicate that a fabric filter will reduce HAP metal emissions 
by approximately the same amount as PM emissions. If the same reduction 
(61.4 percent from the baseline, taking into account that some sources 
already have these controls) is applied to HAP metal emissions, an 
emission reduction of about 39.5 tpy from the estimated baseline level 
of 64.4 tpy would be achieved. Additional information on nationwide and 
model plant air quality impacts is included in the docket. (See Docket 
item II-B-16. Memorandum. M. Wright, Research Triangle Institute, to J. 
Santiago, EPA:MICG. Regulatory Impacts for Secondary Aluminum MACT 
Standards. September 17, 1998.)

B. Cost Impacts

    Nationwide total capital costs are estimated at $148 million with 
total

[[Page 6991]]

annualized costs of $68 million/yr. Estimates of total capital and 
total annualized costs for each model plant are shown in Table 13.

    Table 13.--Estimated Capital and Annualized Costs by Model Plant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total
                                           Total capital    annualized
               Model plant                     costs           costs
                                           (thousands $)   (thousands $/
                                                                yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................           1,390             541
2.......................................           1,660             574
3.......................................           1,833             702
4.......................................           2,944           1,203
5.......................................           2,159           1,400
6.......................................           3,731           2,142
7.......................................             198             134
8.......................................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost estimates are based on cost algorithms from the ``OAQPS 
Control Cost Manual'' (EPA 450/3-90-006, January 1990) applied to the 
model process control devices. The estimates include control device 
costs, auxiliary equipment, and direct and indirect installation costs, 
but do not include costs associated with retrofit situations or 
monitoring systems. The nationwide annual costs for monitoring, 
reporting and recordkeeping are estimated at $5.1 million/yr, for the 
first three years. Additional information on the model plants and cost 
estimates are included in the docket. (See Docket item II-B-16. 
Memorandum. M. Wright, Research Triangle Institute, to J. Santiago, 
EPA:MICG. Regulatory Impacts for Secondary Aluminum MACT Standards. 
September 17, 1998.)

C. Economic Impacts

    The economic impact analysis (EIA) provides an estimate of the 
anticipated regulatory impacts of the Secondary Aluminum National 
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The goal of the EIA is 
to determine the primary market impacts of the regulation on the 
secondary aluminum industry including estimated changes in market 
price, market production, industry annual revenues, and potential 
facility closures. Secondary market impacts such as potential labor 
market, energy input, and international trade impacts are also 
analyzed. The impact of the regulation on small secondary aluminum 
producers is also evaluated.
    The secondary aluminum industry includes facilities primarily 
engaged in recovering aluminum from new and used scrap and from dross 
and facilities engaged in producing aluminum sheet, plate, and foil. 
Establishments in the secondary aluminum industry produce products 
classified primarily in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 
3341 Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals and 3353 
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil. The specific processes regulated by 
the secondary aluminum maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
standard include crushing and shredding; drying; delaquering; furnace 
operations; in-line fluxers; dross-only furnaces; sweating furnaces; 
and dross cooling.
    In recent years, the secondary aluminum industry has become a major 
market force in the domestic aluminum industry. The recycling of scrap 
provides a source of aluminum that not only helps the aluminum industry 
to maintain growth, but also helps conserves energy and slows the 
depletion of bauxite sources. For many applications, secondary aluminum 
is comparable to primary aluminum. However, for certain specialized 
applications only primary aluminum is employed. The secondary aluminum 
market is highly competitive with numerous sellers, none of which is 
large enough to influence market price. Primary aluminum producers are 
typically producers of secondary aluminum also. There is competition 
between secondary and primary aluminum producers for those grades of 
metals which the secondary smelters produce.
    Although the number of facilities affected by this regulation is 
not known with precision, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of 
Census reports companies with aluminum inventory. In 1994, those 
producers reporting inventories included 12 primary aluminum producers, 
141 companies unaffiliated with primary producers reported inventories, 
and 25 smelters. The section 114 information collection request (ICR) 
reports collected for this regulation from secondary aluminum producers 
indicates that 134 facilities are potentially affected by this 
regulation. The secondary aluminum facilities are dispersed throughout 
the country in 36 different states with the largest concentration of 
facilities in California, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, 
and Pennsylvania. Approximately 28 percent of the domestic facilities 
producing secondary aluminum are owned by companies that are classified 
as small businesses.
1. Control Cost Estimates and Analytical Approach
    Eight different model plants were developed to estimate the 
facility and nationwide annualized and capital emission control costs 
for this regulation. Table 14 presents the capital and annualized costs 
for each of the model plants, as well as estimates of the nationwide 
costs. The capital costs for this regulation are estimated to be 
approximately $147.9 million while national annualized costs of 
approximately $73 million are anticipated. These annualized costs 
include the burden costs, or costs of monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping. (All values are shown in 1994 dollars.)

 Table 14.--Model Plant and Nationwide Control Cost Estimates Secondary
                             Aluminum NESHAP
                       [Thousands of 1994 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annualized
         Model plant/nationwide            Capital costs       costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Plant 1...........................         $43,094         $16,770
Model Plant 2...........................          16,603           5,740
Model Plant 3...........................          12,832           4,911
Model Plant 4...........................          26,492          10,829
Model Plant 5...........................          21,587          14,001
Model Plant 6...........................          26,119          14,992
Model Plant 7...........................           1,188             807
Model Plant 8...........................               0               0
Burden Costs............................  ..............           5,142
                                         -------------------------------
    Nationwide Totals...................         147,915          73,191
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6992]]

    Since capital costs relate to emission control equipment that will 
be utilized over a period of years, this cost is annualized or 
apportioned to each year of the anticipated equipment life. The annual 
capital costs include annual depreciation of equipment plus the cost of 
capital associated with financing the capital equipment over its useful 
life. A seven percent discount rate or cost of capital is assumed for 
this regulation. The annualized capital costs are combined with annual 
operating and maintenance costs, recordkeeping, monitoring, and 
reporting costs, and other annual costs to compute the total annualized 
costs to comply with the proposed rule.
    A market model was utilized in the EIA to estimate the impact of 
the regulation on the secondary aluminum industry and other related 
markets. For purposes of the EIA, a partial equilibrium microeconomic 
model of the secondary aluminum industry was developed that assumes the 
supply of secondary aluminum will decrease as a result of the increased 
costs of emission controls from levels that would have occurred absent 
the regulation. The decrease in supply is anticipated to increase 
market price and decrease the market equilibrium quantity of secondary 
aluminum produced domestically.
2. Economic Impacts
    Table 15 presents primary and secondary market impacts estimated 
for the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP. Primary market impacts include 
estimated changes in price, production, industry revenues, and 
potential facility closures. Secondary market impacts relate to 
potential employment losses, potential decreases in exports, and 
increases in imports.

   Table 15.--Primary and Secondary Market Impacts Secondary Aluminum
                                 NESHAP
                       [Thousands of 1994 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Estimated
                                                                impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Market Impacts:
    Price Increase (%)......................................       0.75
    Production Decrease (%).................................      (0.49)
    Industry Revenues-Value of Domestic Shipments (%).......       0.25
    Potential Facility Closures.............................        0-1
Secondary Market Impacts:
    Labor Market--Potential Employee Reductions (number of
     workers) Percent decrease..............................        117
                                                                  (0.49)
    International Trade:
        Exports (%).........................................      (0.25)
        Imports (%).........................................      1.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreases are shown in brackets (  ).

    In general, the economic impacts of this regulation are expected to 
be minimal with price increases and production decreases of less than 
one percent. A market price increase of 0.75 percent and domestic 
production decrease of 0.49 percent are predicted. Revenues or the 
value of domestic shipments for the industry are expected to increase 
by 0.25 percent. The increase in the value of shipments results because 
the price elasticity of demand for secondary aluminum is inelastic. 
Products that demonstrate inelastic price elasticity of demand are 
characterized by larger percentage price increases than production 
percentage decreases occurring with price increases. For products with 
inelastic demand, a price increase leads to increases in revenue or 
value of shipments. Individual facilities within the industry may 
experience revenue increases or decreases, but on average the industry 
revenues are anticipate to increase slightly with this regulation. 
Potentially, one facility may close as a result of the regulation.
    Approximately 117 workers may face employment losses as a result of 
the regulation. Exports of secondary aluminum products to other 
countries are expected to decline by 0.25 percent while imports of 
secondary aluminum are expected to increase 1.75 percent.

D. Non-air Health and Environmental Impacts

    Secondary aluminum plants are subject to effluent guidelines and 
standards set pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The 
EPA's effluent guidelines for secondary aluminum smelting (40 CFR part 
421, subpart C) apply to conventional pollutants and/or fluoride, 
ammonia, aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc from sources that include wet 
air pollution control systems for scrap drying, scrap screening and 
milling, dross washing, demagging, delacquering, and casting cooling. 
For several sources, either no discharge of process wastewater is 
allowed (requiring recycling) or none (zero) of the specified 
pollutants are allowed in the discharge.
    The proposed NESHAP is based on air pollution control systems which 
are of the dry type (e.g., afterburners and fabric filters), and there 
are no water pollution impacts resulting from their use. Solid waste 
generated by fabric filters in the form of particulate matter 
(including HAP metals and lime from fabric filters) is typically 
disposed of by landfilling. With the addition of fabric filters and 
lime conditioned fabric filters, the amount of solid waste is expected 
to increase by about 104,235 Mg/yr (114,900 tpy) nationwide. The 
increase in solid waste is estimated as the sum of the annual reduction 
in PM emissions and the annual increase in the use of lime in lime-
injected fabric filters. (See Docket item II-B-16. Memorandum. M. 
Wright, Research Triangle Institute, to J. Santiago, EPA:MICG. 
Regulatory Impacts for Secondary Aluminum MACT Standards. September 17, 
1998.)
    Dioxins and furans (D/F) and HAP metals (lead, cadmium, and 
mercury) have been found in the Great Lakes and other water bodies, and 
have been listed as pollutants of concern due to their persistence in 
the environment, potential to bioaccumulate, and toxicity to humans and 
the environment. (See Docket item II-A-3. Deposition of Air Pollutants 
to the Great Waters: First Report to Congress. EPA:OAQPS. EPA-453/R-93-
055. May 1994. pp. 18-21.) Implementation of the NESHAP would aid in 
reducing aerial deposition of these emissions.
    As acid gases, HCl and Cl2 contribute to the formation 
of acid rain. In addition, Cl2 is a very reactive element 
and combines easily with a variety of organic compounds; these chemical 
reactions constitute the primary mechanism for the destruction of ozone 
in the stratosphere. Both HCl and Cl2 are very corrosive and 
can cause damage to building materials such as limestone, plant 
equipment, and to all types of metals and textiles. HCl and 
Cl2 also are phototoxicants, which can be injurious to crops 
and plants including tomatoes, sugar beets, alfalfa, tobacco, 
blackberries, radishes, certain trees (box elder, crab apple, pin oak, 
sugar maple, and sweet gum), and certain flowers (roses, sunflowers, 
and zinnias). (See Docket item II-I-2. Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride. 
National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. 1976. pp. 85-86, 93, 145-
53, 161, 166.) Ambient concentrations of these HAPs would be reduced 
substantially by the proposed NESHAP.
    Occupational exposure limits under 29 CFR part 1910 are in place 
for each of the regulated HAPs (and surrogates) except D/F. The 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends an 
exposure level for D/F

[[Page 6993]]

at the lowest feasible concentration. (See Docket item II-I-110, NIOSH 
Recommendations for Occupational Safety and Health: Compendium of 
Policy Documents and Statements. National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health. January 1992. p. 124.) The proposed NESHAP would 
reduce emissions, and consequently, occupational exposure levels for 
plant employees.

E. Energy Impacts

    Operating fabric filters and afterburners requires the use of 
electrical energy to operate fans that move the gas stream. The 
additional electrical energy requirements are estimated at 116 million 
kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr), or 418 terajoules per year (TJ/yr), 
over current requirements. Afterburners may also use natural gas as 
fuel. Approximately 325,500 kilocubic feet per year (kft3/
yr) or 322 billion Btu/yr (340 TJ/yr) of additional natural gas would 
be required.
    The increased energy requirements for plants will result in an 
increase in utility emissions as more energy is generated. Nationwide 
emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) from electric power plants are estimated to increase 
by 9.8 Mg/yr (10.8 tpy), 393 Mg/yr (433 tpy), and 197 Mg/yr (217 tpy), 
respectively. (See Docket item II-B-16. Memorandum. M. Wright, Research 
Triangle Institute, to J. Santiago, EPA:MICG. Regulatory Impacts for 
Secondary Aluminum MACT Standards. September 17, 1998.)

VI. Request for Comments

    The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from 
all interested parties. In addition, the Agency is specifically 
requesting comments on the applicability section of the rule. As 
proposed, aluminum die casters (SIC 3363) and aluminum foundries (SIC 
3365) are specifically exempted from the requirements of the rule. The 
Agency is aware that some operations at these locations may include 
melting, refining, and some level of reactive fluxing as well as chip 
drying. The Agency requests data and comment regarding the extent of 
these secondary aluminum operations at these facilities and the need 
for emission controls under this NESHAP. The Agency also specifically 
requests information regarding the extent of small businesses in these 
two SIC codes which have secondary aluminum operations and which are 
also major sources as defined in the Clean Air Act. The Agency also 
requests information regarding the number of large businesses which 
operate foundry or die casting processes and which are major sources 
either independently or due to co-location (e.g., foundries or die 
casters located at automobile plants). The Agency is also requesting 
information or estimates regarding the quantities of HAP emissions from 
both major sources and area sources within these SIC codes. Full 
supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted with all 
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-92-61 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on 
this notice must be submitted on or before the date specified in DATES.
    Commentors 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: Mr. Juan Santiago, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. 
EPA Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Information covered by such a 
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by 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 
EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to 
the commentor.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is intended to be an organized and complete file of the 
administrative records compiled by EPA. 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

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. If 
a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying 
questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the 
presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting 
information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral 
statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public 
hearing. Persons wishing to attend or to make oral presentations or to 
inquire as to whether or not a hearing is to be held should contact the 
EPA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 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 
April 12, 1999. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to 
Docket A-92-61. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public 
inspection and copying, or be 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 obligation 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, the EPA has 
determined that this regulatory action is not

[[Page 6994]]

``significant'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this 
action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review 
under Executive Order 12866.

D. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) 
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonable alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled, 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866.

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule implements requirements specifically set forth by the 
Congress in 42 U.S.C. 7410 without the exercise of any discretion by 
EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 
12875 do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule implements requirements specifically set forth by the 
Congress in 42 U.S.C. 7410 without the exercise of any discretion by 
EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply to this rule.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to 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 EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative with other than the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if 
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    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, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon 
them. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) provides 
that, whenever an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. (MARK) 
553, after being required to publish a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking, an agency must prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the final rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the rule on small 
entities. The EPA received responses to an information collection 
request from 135 facilities producing products in SIC's 3341 (secondary 
smelting and refining of nonferrous metals) and 3353 (aluminum sheet, 
plate, and foil);

[[Page 6995]]

however, it is thought that there are in excess of 400 facilities which 
produce these products. To define the small business entities, the 135 
facilities were matched with their parent companies and it was 
determined that 33 of these companies meet the Small Business 
Administration definition of a small business entity (less than 750 
employees).
    The analysis of small business impacts for the secondary aluminum 
industry focused on a comparison of compliance costs as a percentage of 
sales (cost/sales ratio). Cost to sales ratio refers to the change in 
annualized control costs divided by the sale revenues of a particular 
good or goods being produced in the process for which additional 
pollution control is required. It can be estimated for either 
individual firms or as an average for some set of firms such as 
affected small firms. While it has different significance for different 
market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential impact. If 
costs for the individual (or group) of firms are completely passed on 
to the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, it is an estimate of 
the price change (in percentage form after multiplying the ratio by 
100). If costs are completely absorbed by the producer, it is an 
estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage form after 
multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of costs to sales 
ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the market, and 
profit to sales ratios are among the obvious factors that may influence 
the significance of any particular cost to sales ratio for an 
individual facility.
    Due to the number of facilities and variety of processes used in 
the affected industry, model plants were developed to categorize 
facilities based on possible combinations of processes that are 
performed. These model plant categories were used to estimate 
applicable emission control costs, including the costs of monitoring, 
reporting, and record keeping. Eight model plants were created and 
annual compliance costs were calculated for each one. The individual 
facilities were then assigned to the model plant that most closely fit 
their process structure, and the annual compliance cost for that model 
plant was used in calculating the company's cost/sales ratio.
    Two alternative approaches were used to estimate the sales revenues 
for the affected small businesses. If actual sales data were available, 
these data were used to compute cost to sales ratios for affected 
entities. In cases where the actual sales data were unavailable, model 
plant revenues were estimated based upon the estimated model plant 
annual production and the average 1994 price of secondary aluminum 
alloy A-380. Cost to sales data were developed using actual revenue 
data where available and model plant estimate revenues for each of the 
33 small businesses. Cost to sales ratios based on model plant data 
yield ratios of less than 1 percent for each model plant and range from 
0.02 percent to 0.97 percent for model plant 8 and model plant 1, 
respectively. A summary of the cost to sales ratios for the affected 
small secondary aluminum producers using model plant data and actual 
company annual revenues is shown in Table 16 below. As depicted in 
Table 16, the majority of affected small businesses had cost to sales 
ratios below 1 percent. Ten companies had cost to sales ratios above 1 
percent. Of these ten companies, only one had cost to sales above 3 
percent. A cost to sales ratio above 3 percent is an indicator that 
this small business may experience a significant economic impact as a 
result of this regulation. Based upon this analysis, the EPA concludes 
that this regulation will not result in a significant economic impact 
for a substantial number of small entities. Only one of the 33 small 
entities is anticipated to experience significantly adverse economic 
impacts as a result of this regulation.

              Table 16.--Company-Specific Cost Sales Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                                                               small
                    Cost/sales ratio                       companies in
                                                               range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00%-0.99%.............................................              23
1.00%-1.99%.............................................               7
2.00%-2.99%.............................................               2
>3.00%..................................................               1
                                                         ---------------
Mean cost/sales ratio = 0.919%
    Total...............................................              33
                                                         ---------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to 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. 
1894.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The proposed information requirements include mandatory 
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information requirements 
are needed to confirm the compliance status of major sources, to 
identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards and any new 
or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, to confirm that 
emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained, 
and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based on the 
recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which plants, 
records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized under section 114 of 
the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to 
Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (See 41 FR 36902, 
September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, 
September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the rule) is estimated to total 9,482 labor hours per 
year at a total annual cost of $4.1 million. This estimate includes 
notifications; a performance test and report (with repeat tests where 
needed); one-time preparation of a startup,

[[Page 6996]]

shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any event 
where the procedures in the plan were not followed and an operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan; semiannual excess emissions reports; 
initial and semiannual furnace certifications; and recordkeeping. This 
estimate also includes one time preparation of emissions averaging 
plans and scrap sampling plans for some respondents. Total capital 
costs associated with monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of 
the ICR is estimated at $993 thousand; this estimate includes the 
capital and startup costs associated with installation of monitoring 
equipment.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose 
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE 
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2136), 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 February 11, 1999, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 15, 1999. The final 
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless 
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to 
provide Congress, through the OMB, and explanation of the reasons for 
not using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to 
the requirements of the NTTA for the analytical test methods included 
in the proposed rule.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to identify 
voluntary consensus standards. However, no candidate consensus 
standards were identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule. The proposed rule 
requires standard EPA methods well known to the industry and States. 
Approved alternative methods also may be used. The EPA, in coordination 
with the industry and States, have agreed on the use of these test 
methods in the rule.

K. Pollution Prevention Act

    During the development of the proposed NESHAP, EPA explored 
opportunities to eliminate or reduce emissions through the application 
of new processes or work practices. The proposed NESHAP requires the 
implementation of site-specific work practices to prevent or limit the 
use of materials in furnace operations that generate HAP emissions.

L. 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, Incorporation by reference, Secondary aluminum production, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 31, 1998.
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 RRR to read as follows:

Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Secondary Aluminum Production

Sec.

General

63.1500  Applicability.
63.1501  Dates.
63.1502  Incorporation by reference.
63.1503  Definitions.
63.1504  [Reserved]

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

63.1505  Emission standards for affected sources and emission units.
63.1506  Operating requirements.
63.1507  [Reserved]
63.1508  [Reserved]
63.1509  [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

63.1510  Monitoring requirements.
63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general 
requirements.
63.1512  Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements and 
procedures.
63.1513  Equations for determining compliance.
63.1514  [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.1515  Notifications.
63.1516  Reports.
63.1517  Records.

Other

63.1518  Applicability of general provisions.
63.1519  Delegation of authority.
63.1520  [Reserved]

[[Page 6997]]

Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart RRR

Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

General


Sec. 63.1500  Applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator 
of each secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source 
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in Sec. 63.2 of this part 
or is an area source of D/F emissions.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to the following new or 
existing affected sources:
    (1) Each new and existing scrap shredder;
    (2) Each new and existing chip dryer;
    (3) Each new and existing scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln;
    (4) Each new and existing group 2 furnace;
    (5) Each new and existing sweat furnace;
    (6) Each new and existing dross-only furnace;
    (7) Each new and existing rotary dross cooler;
    (8) Each new group 1 furnace;
    (9) Each new in-line fluxer; and
    (10) Each secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (c) The owner or operator of a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source is subject to title V permitting 
requirements.


Sec. 63.1501  Dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
comply with the requirements of this subpart by: [date 3 years after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
    (b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with 
the requirements of this subpart by [date of publication of final rule 
in the Federal Register] or upon startup, whichever is later.


Sec. 63.1502  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the 
corresponding sections noted. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of 
certain publications listed in the rule will be approved by the 
Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of the date of 
publication of the final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552(a) and 1 
CFR part 51. This material is incorporated as it exists on the date of 
approval and notice of any change in the material will be published in 
the Federal Register: Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A 
Manual of Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR approved for 
Sec. 63.1506(c).
    (b) The material incorporated by reference is available for 
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW., Suite 700, 7th Floor, Washington, DC and at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC. The material also is available for purchase from the 
following address: Customer Service Department, American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, 
Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634, telephone number (513) 742-2020.


Sec. 63.1503  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as 
amended (the Act), in Sec. 63.2 of this part, or in this section as 
follows:
    Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed on a 
process vent that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted 
to the air.
    Afterburner means an air pollution control device that uses 
controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to 
noncombustible gases; also known as an incinerator.
    Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of 
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak 
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, transmittance, or other 
effect to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate water, oil, 
or oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips.
    Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of aluminum 
scrap, typically below 1\1/4\ inches in any dimension, primarily 
generated by turning, milling, boring, and machining of aluminum parts.
    Clean charge means furnace charge materials of pure aluminum, 
including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying elements, 
uncoated aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F) or higher, 
aluminum scrap dried/delacquered/decoated at 482 deg.C (900 deg.F) or 
higher, and noncoated runaround scrap.
    Dross means the slags and skimmings from aluminum melting and 
refining operations consisting of fluxing agent(s) and impurities from 
scrap aluminum charged into the furnace and/or oxidized and non-
oxidized aluminum.
    Dross-only furnace means a furnace, typically of rotary barrel 
design, dedicated to the reclamation of aluminum from dross formed 
during melting, holding, fluxing, or alloying operations carried out in 
other process units. Dross is the sole feedstock to this type of 
furnace.
    Emission unit means an existing group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer 
at a secondary aluminum production facility.
    Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to 
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter 
media; also known as a baghouse.
    Feed/charge weight means, for a furnace that operates in batch 
mode, the total weight of scrap (including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, 
ingot, etc.), alloying agents, and solid fluxes that enter the furnace 
during an operating cycle. For a furnace or other process unit that 
operates continuously, feed/charge weight means the weight of scrap 
(including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, etc.), alloying agents, 
and solid fluxes that enter the process unit within a specified time 
period (e.g., a time period equal to the performance test period).
    Fluxing means refining of molten aluminum to improve product 
quality, achieve product specifications, or reduce material loss, 
including the addition of salts such as magnesium chloride to cover the 
molten bath to reduce oxidation (cover flux), the addition of solvents 
to remove impurities (solvent flux); and the injection of gases such as 
chlorine to remove magnesium (demagging) or hydrogen bubbles 
(degassing). Fluxing may be performed in the furnace or outside the 
furnace by an in-line fluxer.
    Furnace hearth means the combustion zone of a furnace, in which the 
molten metal is contained.
    Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or 
processes aluminum scrap containing paint, lubricants, coatings, or 
other foreign materials or within which reactive fluxing is performed.
    Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or 
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs 
fluxing using only nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/nonHAP-generating 
gases or agents.

[[Page 6998]]

    HCl means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of hydrogen 
chloride that serve as a surrogate measure of the total emissions of 
the HAPs hydrogen chloride and chlorine.
    In-line fluxer means a device exterior to a furnace, typically 
located in a transfer line from a furnace, used to refine (flux) molten 
aluminum; also known as a flux box, degassing box, or demagging box.
    Lime means calcium oxide or other alkaline reagent.
    Lime-injection means the continuous mechanical addition of lime 
upstream of a fabric filter to adsorb or react with pollutants.
    Melting/holding furnace means a group 1 furnace that processes only 
clean charge, performs melting, holding, and fluxing functions, and 
does not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace.
    Operating cycle means for a batch process, the period beginning 
when the feed material is first charged to the operation and ending 
when all feed material charged to the operation has been processed. For 
a batch melting or holding furnace process, operating cycle means the 
period including the charging and melting of scrap aluminum and the 
fluxing, refining, alloying, and tapping of molten aluminum.
    PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of 
particulate matter that serve as a measure of total particulate 
emissions and as a surrogate for metal HAPs contained in the 
particulates including but not limited to: antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
and selenium.
    Pollution prevention means source reduction as defined under the 
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (e.g., equipment or technology 
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or 
redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements 
in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control), and 
other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants 
through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, 
water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by 
conservation.
    Process train means any set of group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers 
that sequentially handle the same material. A process train may consist 
of affected sources and emission units within an affected source. For 
example, a new group 1 furnace may feed a secondary aluminum processing 
unit. Other examples of a process train include:
    (1) A melting furnace (or multiple melting furnaces operating in 
parallel) and a holding furnace (or multiple holding furnaces operating 
in parallel) where molten aluminum is transferred from the melting 
furnace(s) to the holding furnace(s) and then to a casting operation;
    (2) A melting furnace (or multiple melting furnaces operating in 
parallel) and an in-line fluxer where molten aluminum is transferred 
from the furnace(s) to the in-line fluxer and then to a casting 
operation;
    (3) A melting/holding furnace (or multiple melting/holding furnaces 
operating in parallel) and an in-line fluxer where molten aluminum is 
transferred from the furnace(s) to the in-line fluxer and then to a 
casting operation; or
    (4) A melting furnace (or multiple melting furnaces operating in 
parallel), a holding furnace (or multiple holding furnaces operating in 
parallel), and an in-line fluxer where molten aluminum is transferred 
sequentially from the melting furnace(s) to the holding furnace(s) and 
to the in-line fluxer and then to a casting operation.
    Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux 
that results in a HAP emission. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and 
do not produce HAPs.
    Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an affected 
source or emission unit such that:
    (1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent 
of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a 
comparable new source; and
    (2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the 
reconstructed source to meet relevant standard(s) established in this 
subpart.
    Replacement of the refractory in a furnace is routine maintenance 
and is not a reconstruction. The repair and replacement of in-line 
fluxer components (e.g., rotors/shafts, burner tubes, refractory, 
warped steel) is considered to be routine maintenance and is not 
considered a reconstruction. In-line fluxers are typically removed to a 
maintenance/repair area and are replaced with a repaired unit. This 
replacement of an existing in-line fluxer with a repaired unit is not 
considered a reconstruction.
    Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time 
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. 
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion 
zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream 
in actual cubic feet per second.
    Rotary dross cooler means a water-cooled rotary barrel device that 
accelerates cooling of dross.
    Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln means a unit used primarily 
to remove various organic contaminants such as oils, paint, lacquer, 
ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including used 
beverage containers) prior to melting.
    Scrap shredder means a unit that crushes, grinds, or breaks scrap 
into a more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a chip 
dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln, or furnace.
    Secondary aluminum processing unit means all existing group 1 
furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a secondary aluminum 
production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace or existing in-line 
fluxer is considered an emission unit within a secondary aluminum 
processing unit.
    Secondary aluminum production facility means any establishment 
using post-consumer scrap, aluminum scrap, ingots, foundry returns, 
dross, or molten metal as the raw material and performing one or more 
of the following processes: Scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/ 
decoating, chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, 
refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. A 
secondary aluminum production facility may be independent or part of a 
primary aluminum production facility. Facilities such as manufacturers 
of aluminum die castings and aluminum foundries are included in this 
definition if the facility includes any of the affected sources subject 
to D/F emission limits or has an on-site group 1 furnace (i.e., the 
facility is an area source of D/F emissions).
    Sidewell means an open well adjacent to the hearth of a furnace 
with connecting arches between the hearth and the open well through 
which molten aluminum is circulated between the hearth, where heat is 
applied by burners, and the open well, which is used for charging scrap 
and solid flux or salt to the furnace, injecting fluxing agents, and 
skimming dross.
    Sweat furnace means a furnace used exclusively to reclaim aluminum 
from scrap that contains high iron levels by using heat to separate the 
low-melting point aluminum from the scrap while the higher melting-
point iron remains in solid form.
    TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity 
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in ``Interim Procedures 
for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of 
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-

[[Page 6999]]

Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA-625/
3-89-016), available from the National Technical Information Service 
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, NTIS no. PB 
90-145756.
    THC means, for the purposes of this subpart, total hydrocarbon 
emissions that also serve as a surrogate for the total emissions of 
organic HAP compounds.
    Three-day, 24-hour rolling average means daily calculations of the 
average 24-hour emission rate (lbs/ton of feed), over the three most 
recent consecutive 24-hour periods, for a secondary aluminum processing 
unit.
    Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate means the sum of the 
total weight of chlorine in the gaseous or liquid reactive flux and the 
total weight of chlorine in the solid reactive chloride flux as 
determined by the procedure in Sec. 63.1512(o).


Sec. 63.1504  [Reserved]

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements


Sec. 63.1505  Emission standards for affected sources and emission 
units.

    (a) Summary. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units in an approved emissions plan, 
the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source must comply 
with each applicable limit in this section. Table 1 to this section 
summarizes the emission standards for each type of source.
    (b) Scrap shredder. On and after the date the initial performance 
test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is 
earlier,
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap shredder at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of 
0.023 grams (g) of PM per dry standard cubic meter (dscm) (0.010 grain 
(gr) of PM per dry standard cubic foot (dscf)).
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap shredder at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in 
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control 
device if a COM or visible emissions monitoring is chosen as the 
monitoring option.
    (c) Chip dryer. On and after the date the initial performance test 
is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier, 
the owner or operator of a chip dryer must not discharge or cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of:
    (1) 0.40 kilogram of THC, as propane, per megagram (Mg) (0.80 lb of 
THC, as propane, per ton) of feed from a chip dryer at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source; and
    (2) 2.50 micrograms (g) of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5 x 
10-5 gr per ton) of feed from a chip dryer at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
    (d) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. On and after the date 
the initial performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, 
whichever date is earlier,
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating 
kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any 
emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.03 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.06 lb of THC, as propane, 
per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating kiln at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source;
    (ii) 0.04 kg of PM per Mg (0.08 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap 
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source;
    (iii) 0.25 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5 x 10-6 gr 
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/delacquering/ decoating 
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or 
area source; and
     (iv) 0.40 kg of HCl per Mg (0.80 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap 
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source 
must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any 
visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on 
air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring 
option.
    (e) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln: alternative limits. 
The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln may 
choose to comply with the emission limits in this paragraph as an 
alternative to the limits in paragraph (d) of this section if the scrap 
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln is equipped with an afterburner 
having a design residence time of at least 1 second and the afterburner 
is operated at a temperature of at least 750  deg.C (1,400  deg.F) at 
all times. On and after the date the initial performance test is 
conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 
kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any 
emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.10 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.20 lb of THC, as propane, 
per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source;
    (ii) 0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap 
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source;
    (iii) 5.0 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (7.0  x  10 -5 gr 
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or 
area source; and
    (iv) 0.75 kg of HCl per Mg (1.50 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap 
dryer/decoating/delacquering kiln at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source 
must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any 
visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on 
air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring 
option.
    (f) Sweat furnace. On and after the date the initial performance 
test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is 
earlier, the owner or operator of a sweat furnace at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major or area source must not 
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in 
excess of 0.80 nanogram (ng) of D/F TEQ per dscm (3.5  x  10 
-10 gr per dscf) at 11 percent O2.
    (g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the date the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a dross-only furnace at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of 
0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb of PM per ton) of feed.
    (2) The owner or operator of a dross-only furnace at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in 
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control 
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.

[[Page 7000]]

    (h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the date the performance test 
is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a rotary dross cooler at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of 
0.09 g of PM per dscm (0.04 gr per dscf).
    (2) The owner or operator of a rotary dross cooler at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in 
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control 
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
    (i) New/reconstructed group 1 furnace. The owner or operator of a 
new group 1 furnace must meet the emission standards in this paragraph. 
On and after the date the initial performance test is conducted or 
required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a 
melter/holder processing only clean charge, the owner or operator must 
not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions 
in excess of:
    (i) 0.20 kg of PM per Mg (0.40 lb of PM per ton) of feed from a 
group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a 
major source;
    (ii) 15 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (2.1 x 10-4 gr of 
D/F TEQ per ton) of feed from a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major or area source. This limit does not 
apply if the furnace processes only clean charge; and
    (iii) 0.20 kg of HCl per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl per ton) of feed or, if 
the furnace is equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, 
reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 90 percent, by weight, 
for a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that 
is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in 
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control 
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
    (3) The owner or operator of a group 1 melter/holder processing 
only clean charge at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a 
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere any emissions in excess of 0.40 kg of PM per Mg (0.80 lb of 
PM per ton) of feed.
    (j) In-line fluxer. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of 
this section for an in-line fluxer using no reactive flux material, the 
owner or operator of a new/reconstructed in-line fluxer must meet the 
emission standards in this paragraph. On and after the date the 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.02 kg of HCl per Mg (0.04 lb of HCl per ton) of feed; and
    (ii) 0.005 kg of PM per Mg (0.01 lb of PM per ton) of feed.
    (iii) The emission limits in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of 
this section do not apply to a new/reconstructed or existing in-line 
fluxer that uses no reactive flux materials.
    (2) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in 
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control 
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 
comply with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM 
and HCl in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this section for each 
secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with 
the emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph 
(k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
    (1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of PM in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.021

Where,

LtiPM=The PM emission limit for individual emission unit i 
in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section for a group 1 furnace or in 
paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section for an in-line fluxer;
Tti=The feed rate for individual emission unit i; and
LCPM=The PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

    Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be 
included in this calculation since they are not subject to the PM 
limit.

    (2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of HCl in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.022

Where,

LtiHCl=The HCl emission limit for individual emission unit i 
in paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this section for a group 1 furnace or in 
paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section for an in-line fluxer; and
LcHCl=The HCl emission limit for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

    Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be 
included in this calculation since they are not subject to the HCl 
limit.

    (3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of D/F in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.023

Where,

LtiD/F=The D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i 
in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section for a group 1 furnace; and
LcD/FK=The D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

    Note: Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this 
calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit.

    (4) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in excess of 10 
percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control device

[[Page 7001]]

if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
    (5) The owner or operator must comply with all requirements of an 
approved site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emissions 
plan and all applicable design, work practice, or operational 
standards; performance test requirements; monitoring requirements; 
recordkeeping requirements; and reporting requirements of this subpart 
for each individual emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing 
unit.
    (l) Site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emissions 
plan. An owner or operator of a secondary aluminum processing unit must 
prepare and submit a site-specific emissions plan to the applicable 
permitting authority for review and approval according to the 
procedures in this paragraph.
    (1) The owner or operator must submit the plan to the applicable 
permitting authority for review no later than 6 months before the date 
the secondary aluminum production facility intends to comply with the 
emission limits.
    (2) The owner or operator must include the following information as 
part of the application for an operating permit for each secondary 
aluminum processing unit.
    (i) The identification of each emission unit in the secondary 
aluminum processing unit;
    (ii) The specific control technology or pollution prevention 
measure to be used for each emission unit in the secondary aluminum 
processing unit and the date of its installation or application;
    (iii) The test plan for the measurement of emissions as required by 
Sec. 63.1511(a);
    (iv) The emission limit calculated for each secondary aluminum 
processing unit and performance test results with supporting 
calculations demonstrating initial compliance with each applicable 
emission limit;
    (v) Information and data demonstrating compliance for each emission 
unit with all applicable design, equipment, work practice or 
operational standards; monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirement of this subpart;
    (vi) The monitoring requirements applicable to each emission unit 
in a secondary aluminum processing unit and the monitoring procedures 
for daily calculation of the 3-day, 24 hour rolling average using the 
procedure in Sec. 63.1510(s);
    (vii) Correlation of measured emissions with the selected process 
or operating parameter to be monitored; and
    (viii) A demonstration that compliance with each of the applicable 
emission limits will be achieved under all operating conditions.
    (3) Upon receipt, the permitting authority will review and approve 
or disapprove the plan or permit application according to the following 
criteria:
    (i) Whether the plan includes all of the information specified in 
paragraph (m)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Whether the plan or permit application presents sufficient 
information to determine that compliance will be achieved and 
maintained.
    (4) The applicable permitting authority will not approve a site-
specific plan or permit application containing any of the following 
provisions:
    (i) Any averaging among emissions of differing pollutants;
    (ii) The inclusion of any affected sources other than emission 
units in a secondary aluminum processing unit. A new or reconstructed 
emission unit cannot be part of a secondary aluminum processing unit;
    (iii) The inclusion of any emission unit while it is shutdown; or
    (iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction in emission calculations.
    (5) Following review, the applicable permitting authority may 
approve the plan or permit application, request changes, or request 
additional information.
    (6) To revise the plan prior to the end of the permit term, the 
owner or operator must submit a request to the applicable permitting 
authority containing the information required by paragraph (l)(2) of 
this section and obtain approval of the applicable permitting authority 
prior to implementing any revisions.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7002]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.024



[[Page 7003]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.025



[[Page 7004]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.026



[[Page 7005]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.027



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7006]]

Sec. 63.1506   Operating requirements.

    (a) Summary. On and after the date on which the performance test is 
conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier, the 
owner or operator must operate all new and existing affected sources 
(including each emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing unit) 
and control equipment according to the requirements in this section. 
Operating requirements are summarized in Table 1 to this section.
    (b) Labeling. The owner or operator must provide and maintain 
easily visible labels posted on each affected source and emission unit 
that identifies the applicable emission limits and means of compliance, 
including:
    (1) The type of affected source or emission unit (e.g., chip dryer, 
scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace, group 2 
furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace).
    (2) The applicable emission limit(s), operational standard(s), and 
control method(s) (work practice or control device). This may include, 
but is not limited to, the type of charge to be used for a furnace 
(e.g., clean scrap only, all scrap, etc., dross only), the type of 
charge material for a chip dryer, and flux materials, system design and 
operating practices to be used.
    (3) Parameters to be monitored and the compliant value or range of 
each monitored parameter.
    (4) The identification of each emission unit that is part of a 
secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (5) The measured emission rate for each emission unit that is part 
of a secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (6) The identification of each process train, each emission unit 
that is part of a process train, and the identification of all other 
emission units in the process train.
    (c) Capture/collection systems. For each affected source or 
emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the 
owner or operator must:
    (1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of 
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates 
as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook 
of Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.1502 of 
this subpart);
    (2) Vent captured emissions through a closed system; and
    (3) Operate each capture/collection system according to the 
procedures and requirements in the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (d) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of each affected 
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton) 
of feed must:
    (1) Install and operate a device that measures and records or 
otherwise determine the weight of feed/charge (or throughput) for each 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test; and
    (2) Operate each weight measurement system or other weight 
determination procedure in accordance with the operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan.
    (e) Scrap shredder. The owner or operator of a scrap shredder with 
emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective 
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system 
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of 
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, 
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm 
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator 
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time 
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or 
operator to initiate corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (3) If visible emission observations are used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any observation of visible 
emissions during a daily visible emissions test and complete the 
corrective action procedures in accordance with the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (f) Chip dryer. The owner or operator of a chip dryer with 
emissions controlled by an afterburner must:
    (1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each 
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (3) Operate each chip dryer using only unpainted/uncoated aluminum 
chips as the feedstock.
    (g) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. The owner or operator 
of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln with emissions controlled 
by an afterburner and a lime-injected fabric filter must:
    (1) For each afterburner,
    (i) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each 
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (ii) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (2) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective 
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system 
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of 
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, 
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm 
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator 
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time 
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or 
operator to initiate corrective action.
    (3) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (4) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each 
fabric filter at

[[Page 7007]]

or below the average temperature established during the performance 
test, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
    (5) Maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at 
all times; and
    (i) Maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established 
during the performance test; or
    (ii) Maintain the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lbs/hr) 
at or above the average rate established during the performance test. 
The owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime 
injection used in the performance test; or
    (iii) Maintain the average lime injection rate for each operating 
cycle or time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed) at 
or above the average rate established during the performance test. The 
owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime 
injection used in the performance test.
    (h) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator of a sweat furnace with 
emissions controlled by an afterburner must:
    (1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each 
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (i) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator of a dross-only 
furnace with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective 
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system 
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of 
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, 
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm 
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator 
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time 
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or 
operator to initiate corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (3) Operate each furnace using dross as the sole feedstock.
    (j) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator of a rotary dross 
cooler with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective 
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system 
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of 
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, 
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm 
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator 
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time 
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or 
operator to initiate corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (k) In-line fluxer. The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer 
(including an in-line fluxer that is part of a secondary aluminum 
processing unit) with emissions controlled by a lime-injected fabric 
filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective 
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system 
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of 
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, 
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm 
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator 
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time 
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or 
operator to initiate corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (3) Maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at 
all times; and
    (i) Maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established 
during the performance test; or
    (ii) Maintain the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lbs/hr) 
at or above the average rate established during the performance test. 
The owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime 
injection used in the performance test; or
    (iii) Maintain the average lime injection rate for each operating 
cycle or time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed) at 
or above the average rate established during the performance test. The 
owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime 
injection used in the performance test.
    (4) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or 
below the average rate established during the performance test. The 
owner or operator also must maintain the same flux injection schedule 
used in the performance test.
    (5) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each 
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during 
the performance test, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
    (l) In-line fluxer using no reactive flux material. The owner or 
operator of a new or existing in-line fluxer using no reactive flux 
materials must operate

[[Page 7008]]

each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux materials.
    (m) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. The 
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (including a group 1 furnace 
that is part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) with emissions 
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective 
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system 
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting 
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of 
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, 
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm 
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator 
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time 
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or 
operator to initiate corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan.
    (3) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each 
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during 
the performance test, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
    (4) Maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at 
all times; and
    (i) Maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established 
during the performance test; or
    (ii) Maintain the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lbs/hr) 
at or above the average rate established during the performance test. 
The owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime 
injection used in the performance test; or
    (iii) Maintain the average lime injection rate for each operating 
cycle or time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed) at 
or above the average rate established during the performance test. The 
owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime 
injection used in the performance test.
    (5) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or 
below the average rate established during the performance test. The 
owner or operator also must maintain the same flux injection schedule 
used in the performance test.
    (6) Operate each side-well furnace such that:
    (i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage 
between the side-well and hearth during reactive flux injection.
    (ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell unless the hearth 
also is equipped with a control device for PM, HCl, and D/F emissions.
    (n) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. 
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (including a group 1 furnace 
that is part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) without add-on 
air pollution control devices must:
    (1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or 
below the average rate established during the performance test. The 
owner or operator also must maintain the same flux injection schedule 
used in the performance test.
    (2) Operate each furnace in accordance with the work practice/
pollution prevention measures documented in the operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan and the site-specific monitoring plan and within 
the parameter values or ranges established in the site-specific 
monitoring plan.
    (3) Operate each group 1 melter/holder subject to the emission 
standards in Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) using only clean charge as the 
feedstock.
    (o) Group 2 furnace. The owner or operator of a new or existing 
group 2 furnace must:
    (1) Operate each furnace using only clean charge as the feedstock.
    (2) Operate each furnace using no reactive flux.
    (p) Corrective action. When a process parameter or add-on air 
pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the value or 
range established during the performance test or from the parameter in 
a site-specific monitoring plan, the owner or operator must initiate 
the corrective actions specified in the operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. Corrective action taken by the owner or operator must 
restore operation of the affected source or emission unit (including 
the process or control device) to its normal or usual mode of operation 
as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions. Corrective actions taken 
must include follow-up actions necessary to return the process or 
control device parameter level(s) to the value or range of values 
established during the performance test and steps to prevent the likely 
recurrence of the cause of a deviation.

 Table 1 to Sec.  63.1506.--Summary of Operating Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
                                                      Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monitor type/operation/
   Affected source/emission unit               process                        Operating requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission    Labeling...................  Identification, emission limits and means of
 units.                                                            compliance posted on all affected sources and
                                                                   emission units.
All affected sources and emission    Emission capture and         Design and install in accordance with
 units with an add-on air pollution   collection system.           Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of
 control device.                                                   Recommended Practice; operate in accordance
                                                                   with O, M & M plan.b
All affected sources and emission    Charge/feed weight.........  Operate a device that records the weight of
 units subject to production-based                                 each charge.
 (lb/ton of feed) emission limits a.                              Operate in accordance with O, M, and M plan.b
Scrap shredder with fabric filter..  Bag leak detector..........  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
                                                                   alarm and complete in accordance with O, M, &
                                                                   M plan; b operate such that alarm does not
                                                                   sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
 
                                                  or
 

[[Page 7009]]

 
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
                                                                   complete in accordance with O, M, & M plan. b
 
                                                  or
 
                                     VE.........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of any
                                                                   observed VE and complete in accordance with
                                                                   the O, M, & M plan.b
Chip Dryer with afterburner........  Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
                                      temperature.                 period, at or above average operating
                                                                   temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with O, M, and M plan. b
                                     Feed material..............  Operate using only unpainted aluminum chips.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating   Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
 kiln with afterburner and lime-      temperature.                 period at or above average operating
 injected fabric filter.                                           temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with O, M, & M plan.b
                                     Bag leak detector..........  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
                                                                   alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
                                                                   M, & M plan; b operate such that alarm does
                                                                   not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
                                                                   complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Maintain average fabric filter inlet
                                      temperature.                 temperature for each 3-hr period at or below
                                                                   average temperature during the performance
                                                                   test +14  deg.C (25  deg.F).
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating   Lime injection rate and      Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
 kiln with afterburner and lime-      schedule.                    or silo at all times.
 injected fabric filter.
                                                                  Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/hr)
                                                                   at or above rate used during the performance
                                                                   test and adhere to the same lime injection
                                                                   schedule used during the performance test for
                                                                   each 3-hr period or:
                                                                  Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/ton
                                                                   of feed) at or above rate used during the
                                                                   performance test and adhere to the same lime
                                                                   injection schedule used during the
                                                                   performance test for each operating cycle or
                                                                   time period used in the performance test or:
                                                                  Maintain feeder setting at level established
                                                                   during the performance test.
Sweat furnace with afterburner.....  Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
                                      temperature.                 period at or above average operating
                                                                   temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with O, M, and M plan.b
Dross-only furnace with fabric       Bag leak detector..........  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
                                                                   M, & M plan; b operate such that alarm does
                                                                   not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
                                                                   complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Feed material..............  Operate using only dross as the feed material.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric      Bag leak detector..........  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
                                                                   M, & M plan b; operate such that alarm does
                                                                   not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
                                                                   complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
                                                                   plan b.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Bag leak detector..........  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 fabric filter (including those                                    alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
 that are part of a secondary                                      M, & M plan; b operate such that alarm does
 aluminum processing unit).                                        not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
                                                                   complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Lime injection rate and      Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
                                      schedule.                    or silo at all times.
                                                                  Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/hr)
                                                                   at or above rate used during the performance
                                                                   test and adhere to the same lime injection
                                                                   schedule used during the performance test for
                                                                   each 3-hr period or:

[[Page 7010]]

 
                                                                  Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/ton
                                                                   of feed) at or above rate used during the
                                                                   performance test and adhere to the same lime
                                                                   injection schedule used during the
                                                                   performance test for each operating cycle or
                                                                   time period used in the performance test or:
                                                                  Maintain feeder setting at level established
                                                                   during performance test.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Reactive flux injection      Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
 fabric filter (including those       rate and schedule.           below rate used during the performance test
 that are part of a secondary                                      and adhere to same flux injection schedule
 aluminum processing unit).                                        used during the performance test.
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Maintain average fabric filter inlet
                                      temperature.                 temperature for each 3-hour period at or
                                                                   below average temperature during the
                                                                   performance test. +14  deg.C (25  deg.F).
In-line fluxer (using no reactive    Flux materials.............  Use no reactive flux.
 flux material).
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected   Bag leak detector..........  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 fabric filter (including those                                    alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
 that are part of a secondary                                      M, & M plan; b operate such that alarm does
 aluminum processing unit).                                        not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
                                                                   complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Maintain average fabric filter inlet
                                      temperature.                 temperature for each 3-hour period at or
                                                                   below average temperature during the
                                                                   performance test +14  deg.C (25  deg.F).
                                     Reactive flux injection      Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
                                      rate and schedule.           below rate used during the performance test
                                                                   and adhere to the same schedule used in
                                                                   performance test.
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected   Lime injection rate and      Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
 fabric filter (including those       schedule.                    or silo at all times.
 that are part of a secondary
 aluminum processing unit).
                                                                  Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/hr)
                                                                   at or above rate used during the performance
                                                                   test and adhere to the same lime injection
                                                                   schedule used during the performance test for
                                                                   each 3-hr period or:
                                                                  Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/ton
                                                                   of feed) at or above rate used during the
                                                                   performance test and adhere to the same lime
                                                                   injection schedule used during the
                                                                   performance test for each operating cycle or
                                                                   time period used in the performance test or:
                                                                  Maintain feeder setting at level established
                                                                   at performance test.
                                     Maintain molten aluminum     Operate side-well furnaces such that the level
                                      level.                       of molten metal is above the top of the
                                                                   passage between side well and hearth during
                                                                   reactive flux injection.
                                     Fluxing in sidewell furnace  Add reactive flux only to the sidewell furnace
                                      hearth.                      unless the hearth is also controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add-on       Reactive flux injection      Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
 controls (including those that are   rate and schedule.           below rate used during the performance test
 part of a secondary aluminum                                      and adhere to the same flux injection
 processing unit).                                                 schedule used in performance test.
                                     Site-specific monitoring     Operate furnace within the range of charge
                                      plan.                        materials, contaminant levels, and parameter
                                                                   values established in the site-specific
                                                                   monitoring plan.c
                                     Feed material (melter/       Use only clean charge.
                                      holder).
Clean (group 2) furnace............  Charge and flux materials..  Use only clean charge.
                                                                  Use no reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Chip dryers, Scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, and in-line fluxers and
  group 1 furnaces including melter/holders (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing
  unit).
b O, M, & M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
c Site-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces without control devices must include a
  section in their O, M, & M plan that documents work practice and pollution prevention measures by which
  compliance is achieved with emission limits and process or feed parameter-based operating requirements. This
  plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the monitoring plan and correlation of parameters over the
  range of charge materials and fluxing practices must be developed in coordination with and approved by the
  permitting authority.


[[Page 7011]]

Secs. 63.1507--63.1509  [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Summary. On and after the date the performance test is 
completed or required to be completed, whichever date is earlier, the 
owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or emission unit 
must monitor all control equipment and processes according to the 
requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements for each type of 
affected source and emission unit are summarized in Table 1 to this 
section.
    (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or 
operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing affected 
source and emission unit a written operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. The owner or operator must submit the plan to the 
applicable permitting authority for review and approval as part of the 
application for a part 70 or part 71 permit. Any subsequent changes to 
the plan must be submitted to the applicable permitting authority for 
review and approval. Pending approval by the applicable permitting 
authority of an initial or amended plan, the owner or operator must 
comply with the provisions of the submitted plan. Each plan must 
contain the following information:
    (1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to 
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or 
ranges, as applicable, for each process and control device.
    (2) A monitoring schedule for each affected source and emission 
unit.
    (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each 
process unit and add-on control device used to meet the applicable 
emission limits or standards in Sec. 63.1505.
    (4) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 
monitoring devices or systems used to determine compliance, including:
    (i) Quarterly calibration and certification of accuracy of each 
monitoring device according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
    (ii) Procedures for the quality control and quality assurance of 
continuous emission or opacity monitoring systems as required by the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device 
parameters, including procedures for annual inspections of 
afterburners, and if applicable, the procedure to be used for 
determining charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a measurement device 
is not used.
    (6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating 
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the value 
or range established in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, including:
    (i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of an exceedance 
or excursion, and the time the exceedance or excursion began and ended; 
and
    (ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time 
corrective action was initiated, and the time/date corrective action 
was completed.
    (7) A maintenance schedule for each process and control device that 
is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations 
for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (8) Documentation of the work practice and pollution prevention 
measures used to achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits 
and a site-specific monitoring plan as required in paragraph (o) of 
this section for each group 1 furnace not equipped with an add-on air 
pollution control device.
    (c) Labeling. The owner or operator must inspect each affected 
source and emission unit at least once per calendar month to confirm 
that posted labels as required by the operational standard in 
Sec. 63.1506(b) are intact and legible.
    (d) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Install, operate, and maintain a capture/collection system for 
each affected source and emission unit equipped with an add-on air 
pollution control device; and (2) Inspect each capture/collection and 
closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each 
system is operating in accordance with the operational standards in 
Sec. 63.1506(c) and record the results of each inspection.
    (e) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of an affected source 
or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton) or 
g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed must install, calibrate, operate, and 
maintain a device to measure and record the total weight of feed/charge 
to the affected source or emission unit over the same operating cycle 
or time period used in the performance test. As an alternative to a 
measurement device, the owner or operator may use a procedure 
acceptable to the applicable permitting authority to determine the 
total weight of feed/charge to the affected source or emission unit.
    (1) The accuracy of the weight measurement device or procedure must 
be +1 percent of the weight being measured.
    (2) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the weight 
measurement device every 3 months.
    (f) Fabric filters and lime-injected fabric filters. The owner or 
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a fabric filter 
or lime-injected fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this 
subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a 
bag leak detection system as required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section or a continuous opacity monitoring system as required in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The owner or operator of a scrap 
shredder must install and operate a bag leak detection system as 
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, install and operate a 
continuous opacity monitoring system as required in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section, or conduct visible emission observations as required in 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing affected source or existing emission unit using a bag leak 
detection system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install and operate a bag leak 
detection system for each exhaust stack of a fabric filter.
    (ii) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (dated September 1997). 
This document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions, 
Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission Measurement Center (MD-19), 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document also is available on 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement 
Technical Information (EMTIC), Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other 
bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic 
foot) or less;
    (iv) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative or absolute PM loadings;
    (v) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output voltage from the sensor;

[[Page 7012]]

    (vi) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM 
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located 
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel;
    (vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 
detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or 
cell. For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak 
detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter;
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (ix) Calibration of the system must, at a minimum, consist of 
establishing the baseline output by adjusting the range and the 
averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points 
and the alarm delay time.
    (x) Following initial adjustment of the system, the owner or 
operator must not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, 
alarm set points, or alarm delay time except as detailed in the 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. In no case may the 
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more 
than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless such adjustment follows a 
complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric 
filter is in good operating condition.
    (2) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing affected source or an existing emission unit using a 
continuous opacity monitoring system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system to measure and record 
the opacity of emissions exiting each exhaust stack.
    (ii) Each continuous opacity monitoring system must meet the design 
and installation requirements of Performance Specification 1 in 
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
    (3) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing scrap shredder who conducts visible emission observations.
    (i) The owner or operator must perform a visible emissions test for 
each scrap shredder using a certified observer at least once a day 
according to the requirements of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of 
this chapter. Each Method 9 test must consist of five 6-minute 
observations in a 30-minute period; and
    (ii) The owner or operator must record the results of each test.
    (g) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator 
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the operating 
temperature of the afterburner consistent with the requirements for 
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
    (2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these 
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit 
of the combustion zone of each afterburner.
    (ii) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute 
block averages, and determine and record the average temperature for 
each 3-hour block period.
    (iii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times 
the average temperature established according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.1512(m).
    (iv) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed 2 
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature established according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.1512(m).
    (v) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20 
percent.
    (vi) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards 
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system 
or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (3) The owner or operator must conduct an inspection of each 
afterburner at least once a year and record the results. At a minimum, 
an inspection must include:
    (i) Inspection of all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing 
devices for proper operation and clean pilot sensor;
    (ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust, as 
necessary;
    (iii) Inspection of internal structures (e.g., baffles) to ensure 
structural integrity;
    (iv) Inspection of dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
    (v) Inspection for proper sealing;
    (vi) Inspection of motors for proper operation;
    (vii) Inspection of combustion chamber refractory lining and clean 
and replace lining as necessary;
    (viii) Inspection of incinerator shell for corrosion and/or hot 
spots;
    (ix) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that 
the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary 
adjustments; and
    (x) Generally verify that the equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    (xi) Following an equipment inspection, all necessary repairs must 
be completed in accordance with the requirements of the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (h) Fabric filter inlet temperature. These requirements apply to 
the owner or operator of an affected source or emission unit subject to 
D/F and HCl emission standards and using a lime-injected fabric filter 
to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the temperature of 
the fabric filter inlet gases consistent with the requirements for 
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
    (2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these 
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute 
block averages, and calculate and record the average temperature for 
each 3-hour block period.
    (ii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times 
the average temperature established according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.1512(n).
    (iii) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed 2 
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature established according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.1512(n).
    (iv) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20 
percent.
    (v) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards 
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system 
or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (i) Lime injection. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a lime-injected 
fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must inspect each feed hopper or silo at 
least once each 8-hour period to verify that lime is always free-
flowing and record the results of each inspection. If lime is found not 
to be free-flowing during any of the 8-hour period, the owner or 
operator must increase the frequency of inspections to at least once 
every 4-hour period for the next three days. The owner or operator may 
return to inspections at least once every 8 hour period if corrective 
action results in no further blockages of lime during the 3-day period.
    (2) The owner or operator must record the lime feeder setting once 
each day of operation or monitor the 3-hour block average lime 
injection rate (lb/hr) or

[[Page 7013]]

monitor the average lime injection rate for each operating cycle or 
time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed). To monitor 
the lime injection rate (lb/hr or lb/ton of feed):
    (i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a device to 
continuously monitor and record the weight [kg (lbs)] of lime injected 
to each fabric filter and record the weight in 15-minute block 
averages. The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be 
 1 percent of the weight being measured. The owner or 
operator must verify the calibration of the device every 3 months.
    (ii) To monitor the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lb/
hr), determine and record the average injection rate for each 3-hour 
period using the procedure in Sec. 63.1512(p)(3). The owner or operator 
also must record the injection schedule for each 3-hour period.
    (iii) To monitor the average injection rate (lb/ton of feed), 
calculate and record the average lime injection rate for each operating 
cycle or time period used in the performance test using the procedure 
in Sec. 63.1512(p)(4). The owner or operator also must record the 
injection schedule for each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (j) Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate. These requirements 
apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (with or without 
add-on air pollution control devices) or in-line fluxer.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, operate, and 
maintain a device to continuously measure and record the weight of 
gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected to each affected source or 
emission unit.
    (i) The monitoring system must record the weight for each 15-minute 
block period over the same operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (ii) The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be 
 1 percent of the weight being measured.
    (iii) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the 
device every 3 months.
    (2) The owner or operator must calculate and record the gaseous or 
liquid reactive flux injection rate (kg/Mg or lb/ton) for each 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using the 
procedure in Sec. 63.1512(o).
    (3) The owner or operator must record, for each 15-minute block 
period during each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test, the time, weight, and identity of each addition of:
    (i) Gaseous or liquid reactive chloride flux other than chlorine; 
and
    (ii) Solid reactive chloride flux.
    (4) The owner or operator must calculate and record the total 
reactive chlorine flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time 
period used in the performance test using the procedure in 
Sec. 63.1512(o).
    (k) Chip dryer. These requirements apply to the owner or operator 
of a chip dryer with emissions controlled by an afterburner.
    (1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all materials 
charged to the unit for each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance 
with the applicable operational standard for charge materials in 
Sec. 63.1506(f)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each 
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(i).
    (l) Dross-only furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of a dross-only furnace.
    (1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all materials 
charged to each unit for each operating cycle or time period used in 
the performance test.
    (2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance 
with the applicable operational standard for charge materials in 
Sec. 63.1506(i)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each 
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(ii).
    (m) In-line fluxers using no reactive flux. These requirements 
apply to the owner or operator of an in-line fluxer that uses no 
reactive flux materials.
    (1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all flux 
gases, agents, and materials in an operating log for each operating 
cycle of the in-line fluxer.
    (2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance 
with the operational standard for no reactive flux materials in 
Sec. 63.1506(l) for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification 
must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(vi).
    (n) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. 
These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace 
(including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) 
using add-on air pollution control devices.
    (1) The owner or operator must record in an aluminum level 
operating log for each charge of a sidewell furnace that the level of 
molten metal was above the top of the passage between the side well and 
hearth during reactive flux injection.
    (2) The owner or operator must record in a flux materials operating 
log for each charge that no reactive flux was added to a furnace hearth 
where hearth emissions are not controlled.
    (3) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance 
for the operational standards in Sec. 63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month 
reporting period. Each certification must contain the information in 
Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iii).
    (o) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. 
These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace 
(including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) 
not equipped with add-on air pollution control devices.
    (1) The owner or operator must develop in consultation with the 
applicable permitting authority a written site-specific monitoring plan 
as part of the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan that 
addresses monitoring and compliance requirements for PM, HCl, and D/F 
emissions.
    (i) The owner or operator must submit the proposed site-specific 
monitoring plan to the applicable permitting authority for review at 
least 6 months prior to the date the initial performance test is 
conducted or required to be conducted.
    (ii) The permitting authority will review and approve or disapprove 
a proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based on whether the 
plan contains sufficient provisions to ensure continuing compliance 
with applicable emission limits and demonstrates, based on documented 
test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F 
and the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data 
must clearly demonstrate that emissions over the entire range of charge 
and flux materials processed by the furnace are less than or equal to 
the emission limit. The relationship between emissions and monitoring 
parameters for each pollutant must be clearly demonstrated over the 
entire range of charge and flux materials processed by the furnace.
    (2) Each site-specific monitoring plan must document each work 
practice, equipment/design practice, pollution prevention practice, or 
other measure used to meet the applicable emission standards.
    (3) Each site-specific monitoring plan must include provisions for 
unit labeling as required in paragraph (c) of this section, feed/charge 
weight measurement as required in paragraph (e) of this section and 
flux weight

[[Page 7014]]

measurement as required in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (4) Each site-specific monitoring plan for a melter/holder subject 
to the clean charge emission standard in Sec. 63.1505(i)(3) must 
include these requirements:
    (i) The owner or operator must record the identity of all charge 
materials for each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test; and
    (ii) The owner or operator must submit a certification of 
compliance with the applicable operational standard for clean charge 
materials in Sec. 63.1506(n)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each 
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iv).
    (5) If a continuous emission monitoring system is included in a 
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the 
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide 
quality-assured measurements of actual or correlated pollutant 
emissions in accordance with all applicable requirements of the general 
provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (6) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is included in a 
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the 
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide 
quality-assured measurements of actual or correlated pollutant 
emissions in accordance with all applicable requirements of this 
subpart.
    (7) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a scrap inspection 
program for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace charge 
materials, the plan must include provisions for the demonstration and 
implementation of the program in accordance with all applicable 
requirements in paragraph (p) of this section.
    (8) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a calculation 
method for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace charge 
materials, the plan must include provisions for the demonstration and 
implementation of the program in accordance with all applicable 
requirements in paragraph (q) of this section.
    (p) Scrap inspection program for group 1 furnace (including those 
that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) without add-on 
air pollution control devices. A scrap inspection program must include:
    (1) Procedures for scrap inspector training and certification. An 
inspector training plan must contain:
    (i) A description of steps for a correctly performed visual 
inspection;
    (ii) Field practice of procedure with scrap above and below the 
definition of acceptable scrap;
    (iii) An explanation of procedures to mark or segregate clean 
scrap;
    (iv) An explanation of procedures for visual sampling locations 
within loads;
    (v) An explanation of verification and validation procedures; and 
(vi) Consequences of misclassification or failure to continually 
validate.
    (vii) Criteria for achieving inspector certification. This must 
include designation by the owner or operator, completion of scrap 
inspector training, and the demonstrated ability to correctly classify 
scrap.
    (2) Procedures for visual inspection, including:
    (i) Inspection procedures for each load received, such as visual 
inspection of transporting vehicle cargo area, review of relevant 
shipping documentation, visual inspection of scrap after unloading, 
inspection of those parts of the load consistent with representative 
sampling, and marking, tagging, or segregating clean purchased scrap 
from other scrap.
    (ii) Criteria for certifying clean purchased scrap. These must 
include meeting a set of visual criteria for qualifying scrap as 
acceptable for use and inspection by a certified inspector.
    (3) Procedures for representative sampling and measurements, 
including:
    (i) Procedures for subdividing and sampling within each load 
received. These must include procedures for dividing the load into 
segments for representative sampling, sampling from all volumes into 
which the load was divided, and collection of specific sample sizes.
    (ii) Analytical procedure for measuring oil and coatings content. 
These must include composite samples stored in containers to protect 
sample integrity, weighing of samples before and after processing to 
the nearest 0.1 gram, chain of custody procedures for collection, 
storage, and handling of samples, and a procedure for processing the 
sample to drive off oil and coatings at a set of reproducible 
standardized conditions. The sample collection and analytical 
procedures must clearly demonstrate that the same results are achieved 
when analyzing multiple samples from the same load including those 
collected by different inspectors.
    (iii) Procedure for visual scrap inspection validation (initial 
qualification of the scrap inspection program). These must include 
selection of loads for physical measurements and validation period 
duration including procedures for selection of random samples without 
the knowledge of visual inspectors, procedures to ensure collection of 
sufficient number of samples within a reasonable time period for 
physical measurements to provide statistical evidence of validation, 
and procedures for inclusion of off-spec scrap loads to challenge 
visual inspectors. The criteria for concluding visual inspections can 
reject unacceptable scrap must include a clear definition of the visual 
appearance and emissions potential of acceptable scrap. No scrap 
classified as acceptable may generate emissions in excess of the 
applicable emission limits during the validation period. The procedure 
must clearly show that emission limits are not exceeded while 
processing scrap over the entire range of contaminant levels used.
    (iv) Procedures for repeating validation when initial attempts 
fail. These must include a definition of the minimum time before a new 
attempt at validation and reconsideration of the definition of 
acceptable scrap, inspector training, or other procedural matters than 
may ensure future success.
    (v) Procedures for continuing scrap inspection verification 
(continuing demonstration that scrap visual inspections can reject 
scrap loads that do not meet the definition of acceptable scrap). These 
must include periodic verification of visual inspection procedure by 
physical measurements including a definition of verification intervals 
and a procedure for determining verification frequency and the number 
of repetitions. Criteria for verification of scrap inspection program 
must include provisions to ensure that samples collected for physical 
measurement meet the definition of acceptable scrap and that 
revalidation is required for frequent failures of visual inspection 
procedure.
    (vi) Procedure for preparing charge mixtures of clean purchased 
scrap with dirty scrap. These must include requirements for 
measurements and blending. All blended scrap must be physically sampled 
to verify the material meets the definition of acceptable scrap.
    (vii) Recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with the 
plan requirements and monitoring of process or operating parameters to 
demonstrate continued compliance with all applicable emission limits 
and operating requirements.
    (q) Monitoring of scrap contamination level by calculation method 
for group 1 furnace (including those that are part of a secondary 
aluminum processing unit) without add-on air pollution control devices. 
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace dedicated to processing

[[Page 7015]]

a distinct type of furnace charge composed of scrap with a uniform 
composition (such as rejected product from a manufacturing process for 
which the coating-to-scrap ratio can be documented) may include a 
program in the site-specific monitoring plan for determining, 
monitoring, and certifying the scrap contaminant level using a 
calculation method rather than a scrap inspection program. A scrap 
contaminant monitoring program using a calculation method must include:
    (1) Procedures for the characterization and documentation of the 
contaminant level of the scrap prior to the performance test.
    (2) Limitations on the furnace charge to scrap of the same 
composition used in the performance test (through charge selection or 
blending of coated scrap with clean charge).
    (3) Operating, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to ensure that no scrap with a contaminant level higher 
than that used in the performance test is charged to the furnace.
    (r) Group 2 furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of a new or existing group 2 furnace.
    (1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all materials 
charged to each furnace, including any nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/
nonHAP-generating fluxing materials or agents.
    (2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance 
with the applicable operational standard for charge materials in 
Sec. 63.1506(p) for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification 
must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(v).
    (s) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 
calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of 
PM, HCl, and D/F for each secondary aluminum processing unit on a daily 
basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average, the owner or 
operator must:
    (1) Calculate and record the total weight of material charged to 
each emission unit in the secondary aluminum processing unit for each 
24-hour day of operation using the charge weight information required 
in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Multiply the total charge weight for each emission unit for the 
24-hour period by the emission rate (in lb/ton of feed) for that 
emission unit as determined during the performance test to provide 
emissions for each emission unit for the 24-hour period, in pounds.
    (3) Divide the total emissions for each secondary aluminum 
processing unit for the 24-hour period by the total material charged 
over the 24-hour period to provide the daily emission rate for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (4) The 24-hour daily emission rate can be computed using Equation 
4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.028

Where,

Eday = The daily PM, HCl, or D/F emission rate for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit for the 24-hour period;
Ti = The total amount of feed for emission unit i for the 
24-hour period (tons);
ERi = The measured emission rate for emission unit i as 
determined in the performance test (lb/ton or g/Mg); and
n = The number of emission units in the secondary aluminum processing 
unit.

    (5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for 
each pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for each 
pollutant over the three most recent consecutive days and dividing by 
3.
    (t) Alternative monitoring method. The following procedure is an 
approved alternative method for monitoring the lime injection rate for 
use by the owner or operator of a noncontinuous lime injection system 
(i.e., lime is added manually to precoat the fabric filter).
    (1) The owner or operator must record the time and mass of each 
lime addition during each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (2) Using the recorded measurements for the total weight of feed or 
charge and the total weight of lime added, the owner or operator must 
calculate and record the average lime addition rate (lb/ton of feed) by 
dividing the total weight of lime added by the total weight of feed. 
The average lime addition rate, over the same operating cycle or time 
period used in the performance test, must not fall below the average 
lime addition rate established during the performance test.

Table 1 to Sec.  63.1510.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
                                                      Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monitor type/operation/
   Affected source/emission unit               process                        Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission    Labeling...................  Check monthly to confirm that labels are
 units.                                                            intact and legible.
All affected sources and emission    Emission capture and         Annual inspection of all emission capture,
 units with an add-on air pollution   collection system.           collection, and transport systems to ensure
 control device.                                                   that systems continue to operate in
                                                                   accordance with ACGIH standards.
All affected sources and emission    Charge/feed weight.........  Record weight of each charge; weight
 units subject to production-based                                 measurement device or other procedure
 (lb/ton of feed) emission limits a.                               accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3
                                                                   months.
Scrap shredder with fabric filter..  Bag leak detector..........  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                   ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
                                                                   Guidance''; record voltage output from bag
                                                                   leak detector.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
                                                                   averages.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     VE.........................  Conduct and record results of 30-min daily
                                                                   test in accordance with Method 9.
Chip Dryer with afterburner........  Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
                                      temperature.                 specifications; record average temperature
                                                                   for each 15-min block; determine and record 3-
                                                                   hr block averages.

[[Page 7016]]

 
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the O, M, & M plan.
                                     Feed material..............  Record identity of charge daily; certify
                                                                   charge materials every 6 months.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating   Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
 kiln with afterburner and lime       temperature.                 specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
 injected fabric filter.                                           block averages; determine and record 3-hr
                                                                   block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the O, M, & M plan.
                                     Bag leak detector..........  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                   ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
                                                                   Guidance''; record voltage output from bag
                                                                   leak detector.
                                                  or
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
                                                                   averages.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating   Lime injection rate and      Inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs
 kiln with afterburner and lime       schedule.                    to verify that lime is free-flowing; record
 injected fabric filter.                                           results of each inspection. If blockage
                                                                   occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days;
                                                                   return to 8-hr inspections if corrective
                                                                   action results in no further blockage during
                                                                   3-day period.
                                                                  Weight Measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
                                                                   weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
                                                                   period; determine and record 3-hr block
                                                                   average rate (lb/hr) and schedule or
                                                                  Weight measurement device accuracy of %; calibrate every 3 months; record
                                                                   weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
                                                                   period; calculate and record rate (lb/ton of
                                                                   feed) and schedule for each operating cycle
                                                                   or time period used in the performance test
                                                                   or:
                                                                  Record feeder setting daily.
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
                                      temperature.                 specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
                                                                   block averages; detemine and record 3-hr
                                                                   block averages.
Sweat furnace with afterburner.....  Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
                                      temperature.                 specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
                                                                   block averages; determine and record 3-hr
                                                                   block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the O, M, & M plan.
Dross-only furnace with fabric       Bag leak detector..........  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
                                                                   Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
                                                                   leak detector.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
                                                                   averages.
                                     Feed material..............  Record identity of each charge; certify charge
                                                                   materials every 6 months.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric      Bag leak detector..........  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
                                                                   Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
                                                                   leak detector.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
                                                                   averages.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Bag leak detector..........  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter (including those                                    ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
 that are part of a secondary                                      Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
 aluminum processing unit).                                        leak detector.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
                                                                   averages.
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
                                      temperature.                 specifications; record temperature in 15-min
                                                                   block averages; determine and record 3-hr
                                                                   block averages.
In-line fluxer using no reactive     Flux materials.............  Record flux materials; certify every 6 months
 flux.                                                             for no reactive flux.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Reactive flux injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
 that are part of a secondary                                      time, weight and type of reactive flux added
 aluminum processing unit) con't.                                  or injected for each 15-min block period;
                                                                   calculate and record total reactive flux
                                                                   injection rate for each operating cycle or
                                                                   time period used in performance test.

[[Page 7017]]

 
                                     Lime injection rate and      Inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs
                                      schedule.                    to verify that lime is free-flowing; record
                                                                   results of each inspection. If blockage
                                                                   occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days;
                                                                   return to 8-hr inspections if corrective
                                                                   action results in no further blockage during
                                                                   3-day period.
                                                                  Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
                                                                   weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
                                                                   period; determine and record 3-hr block
                                                                   average rate (lb/hr) and schedule or:
                                                                  Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
                                                                   weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
                                                                   period; calculate and record rate (lb/ton of
                                                                   feed) and schedule for each operating cycle
                                                                   or time period used in the performance test
                                                                   or:
                                                                  Record feeder setting daily.
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected   Bag leak detector..........  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter (including those                                    ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
 that are part of a secondary                                      Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
 aluminum processing unit).                                        leak detector.
 
                                                  or
 
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
                                                                   averages.
                                     Lime injection rate and      Inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs
                                      schedule.                    to verify that lime is free-flowing; record
                                                                   results of each inspection. If blockage
                                                                   occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days;
                                                                   return to 8-hr inspections if corrective
                                                                   action results in no further blockage during
                                                                   3-day period.
                                                                  Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
                                                                   weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
                                                                   period; determine and record 3-hr block
                                                                   average rate (lb/hr) and schedule or:
                                                                  Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibration every 3 months; record
                                                                   weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
                                                                   period; calculate and record rate (lb/ton of
                                                                   feed) and schedule for each operating cycle
                                                                   or time period used in performance test or:
                                                                  Record feeder setting daily.
                                     Reactive flux injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
                                                                   time, weight and type of reactive flux added
                                                                   or injected for each 15-min.
Group 1 furnace with lime injected   Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
 fabric filter (including those       temperature.                 specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
 that are part of a secondary                                      block averages; determine and record 3-hr
 aluminum processing unit) con't.                                  block averages.
                                     Maintain molten aluminum     Maintain aluminum level operating log; certify
                                      level.                       every 6 months.
                                     Fluxing in sidewell furnace  Maintain flux addition operating log; certify
                                      hearth.                      every 6 months.
Group 1 furnace without add-on       Reactive flux injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
 part of a secondary aluminum                                      time, weight and type of reactive flux added
 processing unit).                                                 or injected for each 15-min block period;
                                                                   calculate and record total reactive flux
                                                                   injection rate for each operating cycle or
                                                                   time period used in performance test.
                                     Site-specific monitoring     Demonstration of site-specific monitoring plan
                                      plan (approved by            to provide data and show correlation of
                                      permitting agency).          emissions across the range of charge and flux
                                                                   materials and furnace operating parameters.
                                     Feed material (melter/       Record identity of each charge; certify charge
                                      holder).                     materials every 6 months.
Clean (group 2) furnace............  Charge and flux materials..  Record charge and flux materials; certify
                                                                   every 6 months for clean charge and no
                                                                   reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, and in-line fluxers and
  group 1 furnaces or melter/holders (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit).

Sec. 63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general 
requirements.

    (a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting a performance test 
required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare and submit 
a site-specific test plan meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.7(c) of 
this part.
    (b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial 
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and 
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as 
described in Sec. 63.1515(b). The owner or operator must conduct each 
performance test according to the requirements of the general 
provisions in subpart A of this part and this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must conduct each test while the affected

[[Page 7018]]

source or emission unit is operating at the highest production level 
and, if applicable, at the highest fluxing rate and representative of 
the range of materials processed by the unit.
    (2) Each performance test for a continuous process must consist of 
three separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted 
for the time period specified in the applicable method or, in the 
absence of a specific time period in the test method, for a minimum of 
3 hours.
    (3) Each performance test for a batch process must consist of three 
separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted over 
the entire process operating cycle.
    (4) Where multiple affected sources or emission units are exhausted 
through a common stack, pollutant sampling for each run must be 
conducted for a period of time for all affected sources or emission 
units to complete one entire process operating cycle or for 24 hours, 
whichever is shorter.
    (5) Initial compliance with an applicable emission limit or 
standard is demonstrated if the average of three runs conducted during 
the performance test is less than or equal to the applicable emission 
limit or standard.
    (c) Test methods. The owner or operator must use the following 
methods to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits or 
standards:
    (1) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for sample 
and velocity traverses.
    (2) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for velocity 
and volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 3 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for gas 
analysis.
    (4) Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for moisture 
content of the stack gas.
    (5) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of PM.
    (6) Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for visible 
emission observations.
    (7) Method 23 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of D/F.
    (8) Method 25A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of THC, as propane.
    (9) Method 26A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of HCl. Where a lime-injected fabric filter is used as 
the control device to comply with the 90 percent reduction standard, 
the owner or operator must measure the fabric filter inlet 
concentration of HCl at a point before lime is introduced to the 
system.
    (d) Alternative methods. The owner or operator may use an 
alternative test method, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (e) Repeat tests. The owner or operator of new or existing affected 
sources and emission units must conduct a performance test every 5 
years following the initial performance test at the time of permit 
renewal.
    (f) Establishment of monitoring and operating parameter values. The 
owner or operator of new or existing affected sources and emission 
units must establish a minimum or maximum operating parameter value or 
an operating parameter range for each parameter to be monitored as 
required by Sec. 63.1510 that ensures compliance with the applicable 
emission limit or standard. To establish the minimum or maximum value 
or range, the owner or operator must use the appropriate procedures in 
this section and submit the information required by Sec. 63.1515(b)(4) 
in the notification of compliance status report. The owner or operator 
may use existing data instead of the results of performance tests to 
establish operating parameter values for compliance monitoring provided 
each of the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the 
applicable permitting authority:
    (1) The complete emission test report(s) used as the basis of the 
parameter(s) is submitted.
    (2) The same test methods and procedures as required by this 
subpart were used in the test.
    (3) The owner or operator certifies that no design or work practice 
changes have been made to the source, process, or emission control 
equipment since the time of the report.
    (4) All process and control equipment operating parameters required 
to be monitored were monitored as required in this subpart.


Sec. 63.1512  Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements 
and procedures.

    (a) Scrap shredder. The owner or operator must conduct performance 
tests to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control system. If 
visible emission observations is the selected monitoring option, the 
owner or operator must record visible emission observations from each 
exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM 
emission test according to the requirements of Method 9 in appendix A 
to part 60 of this chapter.
    (b) Chip dryer. The owner or operator must conduct a performance 
test to measure THC and D/F emissions at the outlet of the control 
device while the unit processes only unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips.
    (c) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. The owner or operator 
must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of THC, D/F, HCl, 
and PM at the outlet of the control device.
    (1) If the scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln is subject to 
the alternative emission limits in Sec. 63.1505(e), the average 
afterburner operating temperature in each 3-hour block period must be 
maintained at or above 760 deg.C (1,400 deg.F) for the test.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 
kiln subject to the alternative limits in Sec. 63.1505(e) must submit a 
written certification in the notification of compliance status report 
containing the information required by Sec. 63.1515(b)(7).
    (d) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. The 
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that processes scrap other than 
clean charge materials with emissions controlled by a lime-injected 
fabric filter must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of PM 
and D/F at the outlet of the control device, and emissions of HCl at 
the outlet (for the emission limit) or the inlet and the outlet (for 
the percent reduction standard).
    (e) Group 1 furnace (including melter/holder) without add-on air 
pollution control devices. In the site-specific monitoring plan 
required by Sec. 63.1510(o), the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace 
(including a melter/holder) without add-on air pollution control 
devices must include data and information demonstrating compliance with 
the applicable emission limits.
    (1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge 
material, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure 
emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F at the furnace exhaust outlet.
    (2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner 
or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure 
emissions of PM and HCl at the furnace exhaust outlet. A D/F test is 
not required. Each test must be conducted while the group 1 furnace 
(including a melter/holder) processes only clean charge.
    (f) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator must measure emissions of 
D/F from each sweat furnace at the outlet of the control device.
    (g) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure emissions of PM from each dross-only 
furnace at the outlet of each control device while the unit processes 
only dross.

[[Page 7019]]

    (h) In-line fluxer. The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure emissions of HCl and PM at the outlet of 
the control device. If the in-line fluxer uses no reactive flux 
materials, emission tests for PM and HCl are not required.
    (i) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control 
device.
    (j) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 
conduct performance tests as described in paragraphs (j)(1) through 
(j)(3) of this section. The results of the performance tests are used 
to establish emission rates in lb/ton for PM and HCl and g/Mg 
for D/F emissions from each emission unit. These emission rates are 
used for compliance monitoring in the calcuation of the 3-day, 24-hour 
rolling average emission rates using the equation in Sec. 63.1510(r) 
(Monitoring requirements). A performance test is required for:
    (1) Each group 1 furnace processing only clean charge to measure 
emissions of PM at the outlet of the control device and emissions of 
HCl at the outlet (for the emission limit) or at the inlet and outlet 
(for the percent reduction standard);
    (2) Each group 1 furnace that processes scrap other than clean 
charge to measure emissions of PM and D/F at the outlet of the control 
device and emissions of HCl at the outlet of the control device (for 
the emission limit) or at the inlet and outlet (for the percent 
reduction standard); and
    (3) Each in-line fluxer to measure emissions of PM and HCl at the 
outlet of the control device.
    (k) Feed/charge weight measurement. During the emission test(s) 
conducted to determine compliance with emission limits in a kg/Mg (lb/
ton) format, the owner or operator of an affected source or emission 
unit subject to an emission limit in a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed format 
must measure (or otherwise determine) and record the total weight of 
feed or charge to the affected source or emission unit for each of the 
three test runs and calculate and record the total weight.
    (l) Continuous opacity monitoring system. The owner or operator of 
an affected source or emission unit using a continuous opacity 
monitoring system must conduct a performance evaluation to demonstrate 
compliance with Performance Specification 1 in appendix B to part 60 of 
this chapter. Following the performance evaluation, the owner or 
operator must measure and record the opacity of emissions from each 
exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM 
emission test.
    (m) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator 
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (1) Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator 
must conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring 
device according to the requirements of Sec. 63.8 of this part and 
sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Performance Specification 2 in 
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) The owner or operator must use these procedures to establish an 
operating parameter value or range for the afterburner operating 
temperature.
    (i) Continuously measure and record the operating temperature of 
each afterburner every 15 minutes during the THC and D/F performance 
tests;
    (ii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures 
for the three test runs.
    (iii) Determine and record the 3-hour block average temperature 
measurements for the three test runs.
    (n) Inlet gas temperature. The owner or operator of a affected 
source or emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter must use 
these procedures to establish an operating parameter value or range for 
the inlet gas temperature.
    (1) Continuously measure and record the temperature at the inlet to 
the lime-injected fabric filter every 15 minutes during the HCl and D/F 
performance tests.
    (2) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures 
for the three test runs; and
    (3) Determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded 
temperature measurements for the three test runs.
    (o) Flux injection rate. The owner or operator must use these 
procedures to establish an operating parameter value or range for the 
total reactive chlorine flux injection rate:
    (1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl and D/F 
test, determine and record the 15-minute block average weights, and 
calculate and record the total weight of the gaseous or liquid reactive 
flux for the three test runs.
    (2) Record the identity, composition, and total weight of each 
addition of solid reactive chloride flux for the three test runs.
    (3) Determine the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate by 
adding the recorded measurement of the total weight of chlorine in the 
gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected and the total weight of 
chlorine in the solid reactive chloride flux using Equation 5:

Wt=F1W1+F2W2

Where,

Wt=Total chlorine usage, by weight;
F1=Fraction of gaseous or liquid flux that is chlorine;
W1=Weight of reactive flux gas injected;
F2=Fraction of solid reactive chloride flux that is chlorine 
(e.g., F=0.75 for magnesium chloride); and
W2=Weight of solid reactive flux.

    (4) Divide the weight of total chlorine usage (Wt) for 
the three test runs by the recorded measurement of the total weight of 
feed for the three test runs.
    (5) If a solid reactive flux other than magnesium chloride is used, 
the owner or operator must derive the appropriate proportion factor 
subject to approval by the applicable permitting authority.
    (p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected source or 
emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter system must use these 
procedures during the HCl and D/F tests to establish an operating 
parameter value for the feeder setting, the 3-hour block average lime 
injection rate (lb/hr), or the average lime injection rate for each 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (1) Ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo is free-flowing at 
all times.
    (2) If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the feeder rate 
setting, record the feeder setting for the three test runs. If the feed 
rate setting varies during the runs, determine and record the average 
feed rate from the three runs.
    (3) If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the 3-hour block 
average lime injection rate (lb/hr):
    (i) Record the schedule at which lime is injected to the fabric 
filter during each 3-hour period during each of the three test runs. 
Determine the average injection schedule for the three test runs.
    (ii) Continuously measure and record the weight of lime injected 
(lbs) for each 15-minute period.
    (iii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average weights for 
the three test runs.
    (iv) Determine and record the 3-hour block average lime injection 
rate (lb/hr) of feed for the three test runs.
    (4) If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the average lime 
injection rate (lb/ton of feed):
    (i) Record the schedule at which lime is added during each test 
run. Determine the average schedule for the three test runs.

[[Page 7020]]

    (ii) Continuously measure and record the weight of lime injected 
for each 15-minute period.
    (iii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average weights for 
the three test runs.
    (iv) Determine and record the total weight of injected lime for the 
three test runs.
    (v) Using the recorded measurements for the total weight of feed 
and the total weights of injected lime, calculate and record the 
average lime injection rate (kg/Mg or lb/ton of feed) by dividing the 
total weight of lime injected by the total weight of feed for the three 
test runs.
    (q) Bag leak detection system. The owner or operator of an affected 
source or emission unit using a bag leak detection system must submit 
the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(6) as part of the 
notification of compliance status report to document conformance with 
the specifications and requirements in Sec. 63.1510(f).
    (r) Labeling. The owner or operator of each affected source or 
emission unit must submit the information described in 
Sec. 63.1515(b)(3) as part of the notification of compliance status 
report to document conformance with the operational standard in 
Sec. 63.1506(b).
    (s) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator of a new or 
existing affected source or emission unit with an add-on control device 
must submit the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(2) as part of 
the notification of compliance status report to document conformance 
with the operational standard in Sec. 63.1506(c).


Sec. 63.1513  Equations for determining compliance.

    (a) THC emission limit. Use Equation 6 to determine compliance with 
an emission limit for THC:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.029

Where,

E=Emission rate of measured pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C=Measured volume fraction of pollutant, ppmv;
MW=Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole (lb/lb-mole): THC 
(as propane)=44.11;
Q=Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K1=Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/lb);
K2=Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m \3\ (1 ft \3\/ft \3\);
Mv=Molar volume, 24.45 L/g-mole (385.3 ft \3\/lb-mole); and
P=Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

    (b) PM, HCl and D/F emission limits. Use Equation 7 to determine 
compliance with an emission limit for PM, HCl, and D/F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.030

Where,

E=Emission rate of PM, HCl, or D/F, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C=Concentration of PM, HCl, or D/F, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Q=Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K1=Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P=Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

    (c) HCl percent reduction standard. Use Equation 8 to determine 
compliance with an HCl percent reduction standard:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.031

Where,

%R=Percent reduction of the control device;
Li=Inlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton); and
Lo=Outlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).

    (d) Conversion of D/F measurements to TEQ units. To convert D/F 
measurements to TEQ units, the owner or operator must use the 
procedures and equations in ``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks 
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA-625/3-89-
016), available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.
    (e) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Use the procedures in 
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) or the procedure in paragraph 
(e)(4) of this section to determine compliance with emission limits for 
a secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM emissions for a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-
weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(EcPM) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcPM) calculated using 
Equation 1 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.032

Where,

EcPM=The mass-weighted PM emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit;
EtiPM=Measured PM emissions for individual emission unit i;
Tti=The average feed rate for individual emission unit i 
during the operating cycle or performance test period; and
n=The number of emission units in the secondary aluminum processing 
unit.

    (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit (EcHCl) is less than or equal to the 
emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(LcHCl) calculated using Equation 2 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.033

Where,

EcHCl = The mass-weighted HCl emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit; and
EtiHCl = Measured HCl emissions for individual emission unit 
i.

    (3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted D/F 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcD/F) calculated using 
Equation 3 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.034

Where,

EcD/F = The mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit; and
EtiD/F = Measured D/F emissions for individual emission unit 
i.

    (4) As an alternative to using the equations in paragraphs (e)(1), 
(e)(2), and (e)(3) of this section, the owner or operator may 
demonstrate compliance for a secondary aluminum processing unit by 
demonstrating that each existing group 1 furnace is in compliance with

[[Page 7021]]

the emission limits for a new group 1 furnace in Sec. 63.1505(i) and 
that each existing in-line fluxer is in compliance with the emission 
limits for a new in-line fluxer in Sec. 63.1505(j).


Sec. 63.1514  [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.1515  Notifications.

    (a) Initial notifications. The owner or operator must submit 
initial notifications to the applicable permitting authority as 
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.
    (1) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of this part, the owner or 
operator must provide notification for an area source that subsequently 
increases its emissions such that the source is a major source subject 
to the standard.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) 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 of this subpart and for which 
an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not 
required under Sec. 63.5(d) of this part, must provide notification 
that the source is subject to the standard.
    (3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) 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 subpart and for which 
an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is 
required by Sec. 63.5(d) of this part must provide the following 
notifications:
    (i) Notification of intention to construct a new major affected 
source, reconstruct a major source, or reconstruct a major source such 
that the source becomes a major affected source;
    (ii) Notification of the date when construction or reconstruction 
was commenced (submitted simultaneously with the application for 
approval of construction or reconstruction if construction or 
reconstruction was commenced before the effective date of this subpart 
or no later than 30 days of the date construction or reconstruction 
commenced if construction or reconstruction commenced after the 
effective date of this subpart);
    (iii) Notification of the anticipated date of startup; and
    (iv) Notification of the actual date of startup.
    (4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of this part, after the 
effective date of this subpart, an owner or operator who intends to 
construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected source 
subject to this subpart, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes 
an affected source subject to this subpart must provide notification of 
the intended construction or reconstruction. The notification must 
include all the information required for an application for approval of 
construction or reconstruction as required by Sec. 63.5(d) of this 
part. For major sources, the application for approval of construction 
or reconstruction may be used to fulfill these requirements.
    (i) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable before 
the construction or reconstruction is planned to commence (but no 
sooner than the effective date) if the construction or reconstruction 
commences after the effective date of this subpart; or
    (ii) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable 
before startup but no later than 90 days after the effective date of 
this subpart if the construction or reconstruction had commenced and 
initial startup had not occurred before the effective date.
    (5) As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of this part, the owner or operator 
must provide notification of any special compliance obligations for a 
new source.
    (6) As required by Secs. 63.9(e) and 63.9(f) of this part, the 
owner or operator must provide notification of the anticipated date for 
conducting performance tests and visible emission observations. The 
owner or operator must notify the Administrator of the intent to 
conduct a performance test at least 60 days before the performance test 
is scheduled; notification of opacity or visible emission observations 
for a performance test must be provided at least 30 days before the 
observations are scheduled to take place.
    (7) As required by Sec. 63.9(g) of this part, the owner or operator 
must provide additional notifications for sources with continuous 
emission monitoring systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems.
    (b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or 
operator must submit a notification of compliance status report within 
60 days after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1501. The 
notification must be signed by the responsible official who must 
certify its accuracy. A complete notification of compliance status 
report must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(11) of this section. The required information may be 
submitted in an operating permit application, in an amendment to an 
operating permit application, in a separate submittal, or in any 
combination. In a State with an approved operating permit program where 
delegation of authority under section 112(l) of the Act has not been 
requested or approved, the owner or operator must provide duplicate 
notification to the applicable Regional Administrator. If an owner or 
operator submits the information specified in this section at different 
times or in different submittals, later submittals may refer to earlier 
submittals instead of duplicating and resubmitting the information 
previously submitted. A complete notification of compliance status 
report must include:
    (1) All information required in Sec. 63.9(h) of this part. The 
owner or operator must provide a complete performance test report for 
each affected source and emission unit. A complete performance test 
report includes all data, associated measurements, and calculations 
(including visible emission and opacity tests);
    (2) The approved site-specific test plan and performance evaluation 
test results for each continuous monitoring system (including a 
continuous emission or opacity monitoring system);
    (3) Unit labeling as described in Sec. 63.1506(b), including:
    (i) Process type or furnace classification;
    (ii) Applicable emission limit, operational standard, and control 
method;
    (iii) Parameters to be monitored and the acceptable range of each 
monitored parameter; and
    (iv) For existing group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers that are part 
of a process train or a secondary aluminum processing unit, 
identification of all emission units in the process train or secondary 
aluminum processing unit.
    (4) The compliant operating parameter value or range established 
for each affected source or emission unit with supporting documentation 
and a description of the procedure used to establish the value (e.g., 
lime injection rate/schedule, total reactive chlorine flux injection 
rate/schedule, afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet 
temperature), including the operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (5) Design information and analysis, with supporting documentation, 
demonstrating conformance with the requirements for capture/collection 
systems in Sec. 63.1506(c).
    (6) If applicable, analysis and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag 
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.1510(f).
    (7) Manufacturer specification or analysis documenting the design

[[Page 7022]]

residence time of no less than 1 second for each afterburner used to 
control emissions from a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln 
subject to alternative emission standards in Sec. 63.1505(e);
    (8) Approved site-specific monitoring plan for each group 1 furnace 
with no add-on air pollution control device.
    (9) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan and Startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, with revisions.
    (10) If applicable, the approved site-specific secondary aluminum 
processing unit emissions plan with supporting documentation 
demonstrating compliance.
    (11) If applicable, the quality improvement plan.


Sec. 63.1516  Reports.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports. The owner or 
operator must develop and implement a written plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of this part that contains specific procedures to be 
followed for operating and maintaining the source during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action 
for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to 
comply with the standard. The owner or operator shall also keep records 
of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) of this part and record and 
report if an action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is 
not consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). In addition to the information required in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan must include:
    (1) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction 
and the time the malfunction began and ended; and
    (2) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction of 
a process or control device, including procedures for recording the 
actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.
    (b) Excess emissions/summary report. As required by 
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part, 
the owner or operator must submit semi-annual reports within 60 days 
after the end of each 6-month period. Each report must contain the 
information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part. When no exceedances of parameters have 
occurred, the owner or operator must submit a report stating that no 
excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
    (1) A report must be submitted if any of these conditions occur 
during a 6-month reporting period:
    (i) The corrective action specified in the operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan for a bag leak detection system alarm was not 
initiated within 1-hour.
    (ii) The corrective action specified in the operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan for a continuous opacity monitoring exceedance was 
not initiated within 1-hour.
    (iii) The corrective action specified in the operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan for visible emissions from a scrap 
shredder was not initiated within 1-hour.
    (iv) An excursion of a compliant process or operating parameter 
value or range (e.g., lime injection rate/schedule or screw feeder 
setting, total reactive chlorine flux injection rate/schedule, 
afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet temperature, 
definition of acceptable scrap, or other approved operating parameter.
    (v) An action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction was 
not consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (vi) An affected source (including an emission unit in a secondary 
aluminum processing unit) was not operated according to the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (vii) An exceedance of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission 
limit for a secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (2) Each report must include each of these certifications, as 
applicable:
    (i) For each chip dryer: ``Only unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips 
were used as feedstock in any chip dryer during this reporting 
period.''
    (ii) For each dross-only furnace: ``Only dross was used as the 
charge material in any dross-only furnace during this reporting 
period.''
    (iii) For each side-well group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution 
control devices: ``Each furnace was operated such that the level of 
molten metal remained above the top of the passage between the side 
well and hearth during reactive fluxing and reactive flux was added 
only to the sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped with an add-on air 
pollution control device for PM, HCl, and D/F emissions during this 
reporting period.''
    (iv) For each group 1 melter/holder without add-on air pollution 
control devices and using pollution prevention measures that processes 
only clean charge material: ``Each group 1 furnace without add-on air 
pollution control devices subject to emission limits in 
Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) processed only materials of pure aluminum, including 
molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying elements, uncoated 
aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F) or higher, aluminum scrap 
dried, delacquered, or decoated at 482 deg.C (900 deg.F) or higher, and 
noncoated runaround scrap during this reporting period.''
    (v) For each group 2 furnace: ``Only clean charge materials of pure 
aluminum, including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying 
elements, uncoated aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F or 
higher), aluminum scrap dried, delacquered, or decoated at 482 deg.C 
(900 deg.F) or higher, and noncoated runaround scrap were processed in 
any group 2 furnace during this reporting period and no fluxing was 
performed or all fluxing performed was conducted using only 
nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/nonHAP-generating fluxing gases or 
agents during this reporting period.''
    (vi) For each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux: ``Only 
nonreactive, nonHAP-containing, nonHAP-generating flux gases, agents, 
or materials were used at any time during this reporting period.''
    (3) The owner or operator must submit the results of any 
performance test conducted during the reporting period, including one 
complete report documenting test methods and procedures, process 
operation, and monitoring parameter ranges or values for each test 
method used for a particular type of emission point tested.
    (c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual 
certifications of compliance required by part 70 or 71 of this chapter, 
the owner or operator must certify continuing compliance based upon the 
following conditions:
    (1) Any period of excess emissions, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section, that occurred during the year were reported as 
required by this subpart; and
    (2) All monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements were 
met during the year.


Sec. 63.1517  Records.

    (a) As required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator shall maintain files of 
all information (including all reports and notifications) required by 
the general provisions and this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5 
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of 
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of 
records may be retained off site.
    (2) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on 
computer

[[Page 7023]]

disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche; and
    (3) The owner or operator may report required information on paper 
or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
    (b) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b) of 
this part, the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source 
(including an emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing unit) 
must maintain records of:
    (1) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions 
controlled by a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter:
    (i) If a bag leak detection system is used, the number of total 
operating hours for the affected source or emission unit during each 6-
month reporting period, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, 
the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief 
description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action(s) 
taken.
    (ii) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used, records of 
opacity measurement data, including records where the average opacity 
of any 6-minute period exceeds 5 percent, with a brief explanation of 
the cause of the emissions, the time the emissions occurred, the time 
corrective action was initiated and completed, and the corrective 
action taken.
    (iii) If a scrap shredder is subject to visible emission 
observation requirements, records of all Method 9 observations, 
including records of any visible emissions during a 30-minute daily 
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the emissions, the time 
the emissions occurred, the time corrective action was initiated and 
completed, and the corrective action taken.
    (2) For each affected source with emissions controlled by an 
afterburner:
    (i) Records of 15-minute block average afterburner operating 
temperature, including any period when the average temperature in any 
3-hour block period falls below the compliant operating parameter value 
with a brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the 
corrective action taken; and
    (ii) Records of annual afterburner inspections.
    (3) For each affected source and emission unit subject to D/F and 
HCl emission standards with emissions controlled by a lime-injected 
fabric filter, records of 15-minute block average inlet temperatures 
for each lime-injected fabric filter, including any period when the 3-
hour block average temperature exceeds the compliant operating 
parameter value +14 deg. C (25 deg.F), with a brief explanation of the 
cause of the excursion and the corrective action taken.
    (4) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions 
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter:
    (i) Records of inspections at least once every 8-hour period 
verifying that lime is present in the feeder hopper or silo and 
flowing, including any inspection where blockage is found, with a brief 
explanation of the cause of the blockage and the corrective action 
taken, and records of inspections at least once every 4-hour period for 
the subsequent 3-days;
    (ii) If lime feeder setting is monitored, records of daily 
inspections of feeder setting, including records of any deviation of 
the feeder setting from the setting used in the performance test, with 
a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective 
action taken.
    (iii) If lime injection rate (lb/hr) is monitored, records of 15-
minute block average weight of lime and 3-hour block averages, 
including records of any period when the 3-hour block average rate or 
schedule falls below the compliant operating parameter value, with a 
brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective 
action taken;
    (iv) If lime injection rate (lb/ton of feed) is monitored, records 
of 15-minute block average weights for each operating cycle or time 
period used in the performance test and lb/ton of feed calculations, 
including records of any period the lime injection rate or schedule 
falls below the compliant operating parameter value, with a brief 
explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective action 
taken;
    (v) If lime addition rate for a noncontinuous lime injection system 
is monitored pursuant to the approved alternative monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510(s), records of the time and mass of each 
lime addition during each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test and calculations of the average lime addition rate 
(lb/ton of feed).
    (5) For each group 1 furnace (with or without add-on air pollution 
control devices) or in-line fluxer, records of 15-minute block average 
weights of gaseous or liquid reactive flux injection, total reactive 
chlorine flux injection rate and calculations (including records of the 
identity, composition, and weight of each addition of gaseous, liquid 
or solid reactive chlorine flux), including records of any period the 
rate exceeds the compliant operating parameter value and corrective 
action taken.
    (6) For each continuous monitoring system, records required by 
Sec. 63.10(c) of this part.
    (7) For each affected source and emission unit subject to an 
emission standard in kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed, records of feed/charge (or 
throughput) weights for each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (8) Approved site-specific monitoring plan for a group 1 furnace 
without add-on air pollution control devices with records documenting 
conformance with the plan.
    (9) Records of all charge materials for each chip dryer, dross-only 
furnace, and group 1 melter/holder without air pollution control 
devices processing only clean charge.
    (10) Operating logs for each group 1 sidewell furnace with add-on 
air pollution control devices documenting conformance with operating 
standards for maintaining the level of molten metal above the top of 
the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux 
injection and for adding reactive flux only to the sidewell or a 
furnace hearth equipped with a control device for PM, HCl, and D/F 
emissions.
    (11) Operating logs for each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux 
materials documenting each flux gas, agent, or material used during 
each operating cycle.
    (12) Records of all charge materials and fluxing materials or 
agents for a group 2 furnace.
    (13) Records of monthly inspections for proper unit labeling for 
each affected source and emission unit.
    (14) Records of annual inspections of emission capture/collection 
and closed vent systems.
    (15) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 
procedure.
    (16) Current copy of all required plans, including any revisions, 
with records documenting conformance with the applicable plan, 
including:
    (i) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
    (ii) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan;
    (iii) Site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emission 
plan (if applicable); and
    (iv) Quality improvement plan (if applicable).
    (17) For each secondary aluminum processing unit, records of total 
charge weight for each 24-hour period and calculations of 3-day, 24-
hour rolling average emissions.

[[Page 7024]]

Other


Sec. 63.1518  Applicability of general provisions.

    The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part that are applicable to the owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart are shown in appendix A to this subpart.


Sec. 63.1519  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 are retained by the Administrator and are 
not transferred to a State.
    (b) Applicability determinations pursuant to Sec. 63.1 of this 
part.


Sec. 63.1520  [Reserved]

    Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to
                                                   Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                     Requirement              Applies to RRR                Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-63.1(a)(4)............  General Applicability....  Yes
63.1(a)(5).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-63.1(a)(8)............  .........................  Yes
63.1(a)(9).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-63.1(a)(14)..........  .........................  Yes
63.1(b)..........................  Initial Applicability      Yes.....................  EPA retains approval
                                    Determination.                                       authority.
63.1(c)(1).......................  Applicability After        Yes
                                    Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2).......................  .........................  Yes.....................  Some plants may be area
                                                                                         sources.
63.1(c)(3).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-63.1(c)(5)............  .........................  Yes
63.1(d)..........................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(e)..........................  Applicability of Permit    Yes
                                    Program.
63.2.............................  Definitions..............  Yes.....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                         in Sec.  63.1503.
63.3.............................  Units and Abbreviations..  Yes
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(3)............  Prohibited Activities....  Yes
63.4(a)(4).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5).......................  .........................  Yes
63.4(b)-63.4(c)..................  Circumvention/             Yes
                                    Severability.
63.5(a)..........................  Construction and           Yes
                                    Reconstruction-
                                    Applicability.
63.5(b)(1).......................  Existing, New,             Yes
                                    Reconstructed Sources-
                                    Requirements.
63.5(b)(2).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-63.5(b)(6)............  .........................  Yes
63.5(c)..........................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.5(d)..........................  Application for Approval   Yes
                                    of Construction/
                                    Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..........................  Approval of Construction/  Yes
                                    Reconstruction.
63.5(f)..........................  Approval of Construction/  Yes
                                    Reconstruction Based on
                                    State Review.
63.6(a)..........................  Compliance with Standards  Yes
                                    and Maintenance-
                                    Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-63.6(b)(5)............  New and Reconstructed      Yes
                                    Sources-Dates.
63.6(b)(6).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7).......................  .........................  Yes
63.6(c)(1).......................  Existing Sources Dates...  Yes                       Sec.  63.1501 specifies
                                                                                         dates.
63.6(c)(2).......................  .........................  Yes
63.6(c)(3)-63.6(c)(4)............  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5).......................  .........................  Yes
63.6(d)..........................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-63.6(e)(2)............  Operation & Maintenance    Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1510 requires
                                    Requirements.                                        plan.
63.6(e)(3).......................  Startup, Shutdown, and     Yes
                                    Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)..........................  Compliance with Emission   Yes
                                    Standards.
63.6(g)..........................  Alternative Standard.....  No
63.6(h)..........................  Compliance with Opacity/   Yes
                                    VE Standards.
63.6(i)(1)-63.6(i)(14)...........  Extension of Compliance..  Yes
63.6(i)(15)......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)......................  .........................  Yes
63.6(j)..........................  Exemption from Compliance  Yes
63.7(a)-(h)......................  Performance Test           Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1511 requires
                                    Requirements-                                        repeat tests every 5
                                    Applicability and Dates.                             years.
63.7(b)..........................  Notification.............  Yes
63.7(c)..........................  Quality Assurance/Test     Yes
                                    Plan.
63.7(d)..........................  Testing Facilities.......  Yes
63.7(e)..........................  Conduct of Tests.........  Yes
63.7(f)..........................  Alternative Test Method..  Yes
63.7(g)..........................  Data Analysis............  Yes
63.7(h)..........................  Waiver of Tests..........  Yes
63.8(a)(1).......................  Monitoring Requirements-   Yes
                                    Applicability.
63.8(a)(2).......................  .........................  Yes
63.8(a)(3).......................  .........................  No......................  [Reserved].

[[Page 7025]]

 
63.8(a)(4).......................  .........................  Yes
63.8(b)..........................  Conduct of Monitoring....  Yes
  63.8(c)(1)-63.8(c)(3)..........  CMS Operation and          Yes
                                    Maintenance.
63.8(c)(4)-63.8(c)(8)............  .........................  Yes
63.8(d)..........................  Quality Control..........  Yes
63.8(e)..........................  CMS Performance            Yes
                                    Evaluation.
63.8(f)(1)-63.8(f)(5)............  Alternative Monitoring     Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1510 includes
                                    Method.                                              approved alternative
                                                                                         for non-continuous lime
                                                                                         injection systems.
63.8(f)(6).......................  Alternative to RATA Test.  Yes
63.8(g)(1).......................  Data Reduction...........  Yes
63.8(g)(2).......................    .......................  No......................  Sec.  63.1512 requires
                                                                                         five 6-min averages for
                                                                                         a scrap shredder.
63.8(g)(3)-63.8(g)(5)............    .......................  Yes
63.9(a)..........................  Notification Requirements- Yes
                                    Applicability.
63.9(b)..........................  Initial Notifications....  Yes
63.9(c)..........................  Request for Compliance     Yes
                                    Extension.
63.9(d)..........................  New Source Notification    Yes
                                    for Special Compliance
                                    Requirements.
63.9(e)..........................  Notification of            Yes
                                    Performance Test.
63.9(f)..........................  Notification of VE/        Yes
                                    Opacity Test.
63.9(g)..........................  Additional CMS             Yes
                                    Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-63.9(h)(3)............  Notification of            Yes
                                    Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4).......................    .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-63.9(h)(6)............    .......................  Yes
63.9(i)..........................  Adjustment of Deadlines..  Yes
63.9(j)..........................  Change in Previous         Yes
                                    Information.
63.10(a).........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting-   Yes
                                    Applicability.
63.10(b).........................  General Requirements.....  Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1517 includes
                                                                                         additional
                                                                                         requirements.
63.10(c)(1)......................  Additional CMS             Yes
                                    Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-63.10(c)(4)..........    .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)......................    .......................  Yes
63.10(c)(6)......................    .......................  Yes
63.10(c)(7)-63.10(c)(8)..........    .......................  Yes
63.10(c)(9)......................    .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10).....................    .......................  Yes
63.10(c)(13)
63.10(c)(14).....................    .......................  Yes
63.10(d)(1)......................  General Reporting          Yes
                                    Requirements.
63.10(d)(2)......................  Performance Test Results.  Yes
63.10(d)(3)......................  Opacity or VE              Yes
                                    Observations.
63.10(d)(4)......................  Progress Reports/Startup,  Yes
63.10(d)(5)                         Shutdown, and
                                    Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2)..........  Additional CMS Reports...  Yes
63.10(e)(3)......................  Excess Emissions/CMS       Yes
                                    Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4)......................  COMS Data Reports........  Yes
63.10(f).........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting    Yes
                                    Waiver.
63.11(a)-(b).....................  Control Device             No......................  Flares not applicable.
                                    Requirements.
63.12(a)-(c).....................  State Authority and        Yes.....................  EPA retains authority
                                    Delegations.                                         for applicability
                                                                                         determinations.
63.13............................  Addresses................  Yes
63.14............................  Incorporation by           Yes.....................  Chapters 3 and 5 of
                                    Reference.                                           ACGIH Industrial
                                                                                         Ventilation Manual for
                                                                                         capture/collection
                                                                                         systems.
63.15............................  Availability of            Yes
                                    Information/
                                    Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-1475 Filed 2-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P