[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33202-33223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12939]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6344-5]
RIN 2060-AE41


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid 
Regeneration Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid process steel 
pickling facilities and hydrochloric acid regeneration plants pursuant 
to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). Major source facilities 
subject to the rule emit hydrochloric acid (HCl), a hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP). Chronic exposure to HCl has been reported to cause 
gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and photosensitization. 
Acute inhalation exposure to HCl may cause hoarseness, inflammation and 
ulceration of the respiratory tract, chest pain, and pulmonary edema. 
Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants also emit chlorine 
(Cl2), which is also a HAP. Acute exposure to high levels of 
Cl2 results in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, 
pulmonary edema, and death. At lower levels, Cl2 is a potent 
irritant to the eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and lungs. The final 
rule provides public health protection by requiring new or existing 
pickling lines that use hydrochloric acid as the primary pickling 
solution, hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, and acid storage tanks 
to meet emission standards reflecting application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT). Implementation of the rule is 
expected to reduce HAP emissions by more than 2,200 megagrams per year 
(Mg/yr) (2,500 tons per year (tpy) from current levels.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on June 22, 1999. See the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket A-95-43, containing the information 
considered by the EPA in development of the final rule, is available 
for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above address 
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that emit 
or have the potential to emit HAP listed in section 112(b) of the Act. 
Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  HCl steel pickling plants
                                             and acid regeneration
                                             plants (SIC 3312, 3315, and
                                             3317).
Federal government........................  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 of which EPA is aware 
that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
if your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in section III.A of this document 
and in Sec. 63.1155 of the final rule. If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

    The NESHAP for Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process was proposed 
on September 18, 1997 (62 FR 49051); this action announces EPA's final 
decisions on this rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial 
review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under 
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements established by today's 
final rule may not be challenged later in any civil or criminal 
proceeding brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Technology Transfer Network

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's document, which includes the regulatory text, is available 
through the TTN at the UATW. Following promulgation, a copy of the rule 
will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed 
or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The 
TTN facilitates the exchange of information in various areas of air 
pollution control, such as technology. If more information on the TTN 
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Background Information Document

    A background information document (BID) for the promulgated 
standards containing a summary of all the public

[[Page 33203]]

comments made on the proposed rule and the EPA's response to those 
comments is available in the docket for this rulemaking. The BID also 
is available from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National 
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to ``National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl 
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants--
Background Information for Promulgated Standards,'' (EPA-453/R-98-
010b). The BID is posted on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at 
the Unified Air Toxics Website (UATW) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/
7__10yrstds.html).

Outline

    The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble 
to the final rule:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
III. Summary
    A. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
    1. Applicability
    2. Definitions
    3. Emission Standards
    4. Operational and Equipment Standards
    5. Compliance Dates
    6. Maintenance Requirements
    7. Performance Testing and Test Methods
    8. Monitoring Requirements
    9. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    10. Delegation of Authority
    11. Display of OMB Control Numbers
    B. Summary of Impacts
IV. Summary of Major Public Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability
    B. Definitions
    C. Emission Standards
    1. Pickling Lines
    2. Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
    3. Acid Storage Vessels
    4. Assessment of HCl as a Threshold Pollutant Under Section 
112(d)(4)
    D. Compliance Dates and Maintenance Requirements
    E. Performance Testing and Test Methods
    F. Monitoring Requirements
    G. Recordkeeping Requirements
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review
    C. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnerships
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Pollution Prevention Act
    K. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this rule 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. Background

    Section 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to list each category of 
major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the HAP 
listed in section 112(b) of the Act. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), 
the EPA published a list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are 
to be promulgated, followed by a schedule for promulgation of those 
standards (58 FR 63941, December 3, 1993). ``Steel Pickling--HCl 
Process'' is included on the list of major sources for which EPA must 
establish national emission standards. The term ``major source'' means 
a source emitting 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of 
any combination of HAP.
    The EPA proposed national emission standards for this source 
category on September 18, 1997 (62 FR 49052). The proposed rule, BID, 
and other materials containing information used in developing the 
proposed rule were made available for review and comment. A 60-day 
comment period from September 18, 1997 to November 17, 1997, was 
provided to accept written comments from the public. The opportunity 
for a public hearing was provided to allow interested people to present 
oral comments on the rulemaking. However, the EPA did not receive a 
request for a public hearing, so a public hearing was not held.
    The EPA received a total of 15 comments on the proposed standards 
from industry, trade associations, States and representative 
associations, vendors, and engineering firms. A copy of each comment 
letter is available for public inspection in Docket No. A-95-43. The 
EPA held followup discussions with various commenters to clarify 
specific issues raised in their written comments that were submitted to 
the Agency during the comment period. Copies of correspondence and 
other information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during 
the post-comment period are available for inspection in the docket.
    All of the comments received were reviewed and carefully considered 
by the EPA. Changes to the rule were made based on public comments 
where EPA determined it to be appropriate. The final rule and changes 
made since proposal are summarized in section III of this document; a 
summary of responses to major comments is included in section IV. 
Additional discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments is 
presented in the BID for the final rule.

III. Summary

A. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

1. Applicability
    Several changes were made to the applicability provisions of the 
proposed rule to clarify the regulated source category and affected 
sources. As proposed, the regulated source category includes steel 
pickling facilities and acid regeneration plants. Thus, the regulated 
source category may consist of a stand-alone steel pickling facility or 
acid regeneration plant that is a major source of HAP or a steel 
pickling facility and/or acid regeneration plant that is part of a 
major source of HAP. The title of the final rule has been changed to 
include acid regeneration plants as part of the source category. This 
change is made to clarify that the regulation applies to hydrochloric 
acid regeneration plants, which is not apparent in the original title.
    A steel pickling facility is a facility with a collection of 
equipment and tanks configured for the pickling process, including 
immersion, drain, and rinse tanks. A steel pickling facility may have 
one or more pickling lines. Conditions that distinguish pickling from 
other operations such as cleaning or surface activation are now defined 
such that each new or existing pickling line (batch or continuous 
process) using an acid solution in any tank in which hydrochloric acid 
is at a concentration of 6 percent by weight or greater and has a 
temperature of 100 deg. F or greater is subject to the rule. For the 
purposes of the rule, steel pickling is limited to hydrochloric acid 
pickling of carbon steels, which contain approximately 2 percent or 
less carbon, 1.65 percent or less manganese, 0.6 percent or less 
silicon, and 0.6 percent or less copper.
    An acid regeneration plant includes the collection of equipment and 
processes configured to reconstitute fresh hydrochloric acid pickling 
solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal treatment process. A 
new or existing plant that regenerates only pickling solution other 
than HCl is not subject to the rule.

[[Page 33204]]

    The rule is not applicable to facilities that pickle only specialty 
steels. Specialty steel means a category of steel that includes silicon 
electrical, alloy, tool, and stainless steels. Specialty steels are 
pickled by a process that may include the use of hydrochloric acid but 
also includes the use of other acids, which may be mixed with 
hydrochloric acid in the same pickling bath or used in separate baths 
as part of a multiacid/multibath pickling sequence. The EPA will 
determine at a later date if the specialty steel pickling process 
should or should not be subject to the requirements of a rule that 
limits HCl emissions.
2. Definitions
    The title acid regeneration plant is changed to hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plant to clarify the applicability of the rule.
    The title acid storage tank is changed to hydrochloric acid storage 
vessel to clarify the applicability of the rule. The definition is 
changed to apply only to a stationary vessel, not a temporary or mobile 
vessel, that is used for the bulk containment of virgin or regenerated 
hydrochloric acid.
    The term ``vessel'' rather than ``tank'' is used for containers 
used to store hydrochloric acid, in order to be consistent with 
terminology used in other subparts of this part to define containers 
that are used for chemical storage. Similarly, the term ``tank'' is 
used for containers that are integral parts of processes, such as acid 
baths used in pickling lines.
    A definition of carbon steel is added to identify processes to 
which the rule applies.
    The definition of closed-vent system is modified to state that 
emissions may be transported into any device that is capable of 
reducing or collecting emissions, not necessarily a control device.
    The definition hydrochloric acid regeneration plant production mode 
is added to assist in clarifying that the operating and monitoring 
requirements for hydrochloric acid regeneration plants apply only while 
the plant is operating in a manner to produce usable regenerated acid 
or iron oxide.
    The definition of responsible maintenance official is added to 
identify a person who is designated to have signature authority for 
records and reports required under this rule.
    The definition of specialty steel is added to identify similar 
processes to which the rule does not apply.
    The final rule defines steel pickling to mean ``the chemical 
removal of iron oxide mill scale that is formed on steel surfaces 
during hot rolling or hot forming of semi-finished steel products 
through contact with an aqueous solution of acid where such contact 
occurs prior to shaping or coating of the finished steel product. This 
definition does not include removal of light rust or scale from 
finished steel products or activation of the metal surface prior to 
plating or coating.''
    The definition of steel pickling facility is changed to refer only 
to facilities that conduct pickling.
    Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants are discussed separately and 
also specifically identified in the title of the final rule as distinct 
entities.
3. Emission Standards
    No changes were made regarding the technologies serving as the 
basis of the proposed standards. The emission control technology 
identified as achieving the MACT floor control level (wet scrubbing) is 
discussed in section VII.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (62 FR 
49052, September 18, 1997).
    The emission standards in Secs. 63.1157 and 63.1158 of the proposed 
rule have been revised. Sections 63.1157 and 63.1158 of the proposed 
rule included HCl emission standards for existing and new HCl pickling 
lines based on two options: An HCl emission rate corresponding to a 
minimum collection efficiency of the air pollution control device, or a 
maximum concentration of HCl in the exit gases. Based on public 
comment, EPA revised the level of the standards from that proposed for 
pickling lines and acid regeneration plants. The final standards are 
shown in Table 1.
    The final standards retain the alternative to the Cl2 
concentration standard for existing acid regeneration plants that 
allows the owner or operator to request approval for a source-specific 
standard based on the maximum design temperature and minimum excess air 
that allows production of iron oxide of acceptable quality. The owner 
or operator must establish the source-specific Cl2 standard 
using procedures specified in the final rule.
    The provision in the proposed rule that owners or operators of new 
or reconstructed hydrochloric acid regeneration plants to request 
approval for a source specific Cl2 concentration standard is 
removed. Upon reconsideration, this provision is not consistent with 
the statutory requirement that all new sources are to achieve the new 
source MACT numerical limit. The expectation is that owners and 
operators are to design and construct new sources capable of meeting 
the standard.
    For pickling lines, the concentration option has been placed ahead 
of the collection efficiency option to reflect the expectation that the 
concentration option will be the one most likely exercised. The intent 
to make either option equally acceptable has not changed.

            Table 1.--Emission Standards for Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Affected source                     Emission standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Pickling line:
    Existing                        HCl concentration in air pollution
                                     control device or process exhaust
                                     gas no more than 18 parts per
                                     million by volume (ppmv) or
                                    Air pollution control device minimum
                                     HCl collection efficiency of 97%.
    New                             HCl concentration in air pollution
                                     control device or process exhaust
                                     gas no more than 6 ppmv for
                                     continuous lines and 18 ppmv for
                                     batch lines or
                                    Air pollution control device minimum
                                     HCl collection efficiency of 99%
                                     for continuous lines and 97% for
                                     batch lines.
Hydrochloric acid regeneration
 plant:
    Existing                        HCl concentration in air pollution
                                     control device or process exhaust
                                     gas no more than 25 ppmv and
                                    Cl2 concentration in air pollution
                                     control device or process exhaust
                                     gas no more than either 6 ppmv or a
                                     source-specific maximum
                                     concentration limit.
    New                             HCl concentration in air pollution
                                     control device or process exhaust
                                     gas no more than 12 ppmv and
                                    Cl2 concentration in air pollution
                                     control device or process exhaust
                                     gas no more than 6 ppmv.

[[Page 33205]]

 
Hydrochloric acid storage vessel:
    Existing and new                Cover and seal all openings and
                                     route emissions to air pollution
                                     control device or alternative
                                     control system and
                                    Use enclosed line or local fume
                                     capture system vented to air
                                     pollution control device or
                                     alternative control system at each
                                     point where acid is exposed to
                                     atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One change was made to the requirements for new or existing acid 
storage vessels to clarify that a forced ventilation add-on air 
pollution control device is not the only method allowed for emissions 
control. The final rule requires that the owner or operator cover and 
seal all openings on each vessel and route emissions through a closed-
vent system to an air pollution control device or alternative device 
that is capable of reducing or collecting emissions. Acid loading and 
unloading must still be performed either through enclosed lines or with 
a local fume capture system, ventilated through an air pollution 
control device or alternative control device, at each point where the 
acid is exposed to the atmosphere.
4. Operational and Equipment Standards
    A new section on operational and equipment standards has been 
added. The requirement to operate hydrochloric acid regeneration plants 
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices is 
highlighted in this new section to define those practices and emphasize 
their importance. The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant 
must operate each affected source at all times while in production mode 
in a manner that minimizes that proportion of excess air fed to the 
process and maximizes the process offgas temperature consistent with 
producing usable regenerated acid or iron oxide.
    The standards for hydrochloric acid storage vessels have been moved 
to this new section to reflect the fact that these standards are 
equipment standards, not numerical emission limits.
5. Compliance Dates
    No changes to the proposed compliance dates have been made in the 
final rule. Under Sec. 63.1160 of the final rule, compliance for 
existing sources must be achieved no later than June 22, 2001. The 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after September 18, 1997, must achieve 
compliance by June 22, 1999, or upon startup, whichever is later. As 
provided under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, the owner or operator 
may request that the Administrator or applicable permitting authority 
in a State with an approved permit program grant an extension for 1 
additional year if necessary to install controls.
6. Maintenance Requirements
    The owner or operator must develop and implement a written 
operation and maintenance plan for each emission control device that is 
consistent with good maintenance practices. For a wet scrubber emission 
control device, the written plan must, at a minimum, include the 
actions described in Sec. 63.1160(b)(2)(i) through 
Sec. 63.1160(b)(2)(iv)(E) of the final rule. The plan is no longer 
required to be submitted to the applicable permitting authority, but it 
is required to be incorporated by reference into the source's title V 
permit.
    An additional maintenance requirement is to monitor and record the 
pressure drop across the scrubber once per shift to identify changes 
that may indicate a need for maintenance.
    If corrective action is required, the owner or operator is allowed 
1 working day in which to initiate procedures to correct the problem. 
Initiation of procedures is defined to be completion of the first 
applicable step or item in the maintenance plan. Required repairs must 
be completed as soon as practicable.
    Under the proposed rule, a record of each maintenance inspection 
was required to be signed by a responsible plant official. Under the 
final rule, the signature authority is assigned to a responsible 
maintenance official, defined as a person designated by the owner or 
operator as having authority to sign records and reports required under 
this rule.
    Maintenance rules regarding initiation of corrective action within 
1 working day, timely repair, and signing of maintenance records by a 
responsible maintenance official also apply to hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plants.
7. Performance Testing and Test Methods
    Changes made to the performance test requirements include adding 
provisions for new wet scrubber operating parameters and deleting the 
requirement to establish compliant values for pressure drop and 
scrubber effluent acidity.
    Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or 
operator must conduct an initial performance test for each process or 
control device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission 
standard. If the owner operator chooses to comply with the collection 
efficiency standard for a new or existing pickling line, the 
performance test must measure the mass flows of HCl at the inlet and 
outlet of the air pollution control device. Inlet and outlet 
measurements must be performed simultaneously. If the owner or operator 
chooses to comply with the HCl concentration standard for a new or 
existing pickling line or is demonstrating compliance with the HCl and 
Cl2 concentration standards for a new or existing acid 
regeneration plant, the performance test must measure the concentration 
of HCl and, for hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, Cl2 
in the gases exiting the process or the air pollution control device. 
Compliance with the applicable standards is determined by either the 
average of three consecutive sampling runs or the average of any three 
of four consecutive runs. Each run must be conducted under conditions 
representative of normal process operations. Sampling point locations 
must be determined according to EPA Method 1, and stack gas conditions 
must be determined, as appropriate, according to EPA Methods 2, 3, and 
4 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. An exception to Method 1 is made in 
that no traverse point shall be within one inch of the stack or duct 
wall. The final rule requires EPA Method 26A to determine compliance 
with the HCl and total chloride emission limits. As allowed by 
Sec. 63.7(f) of the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A, the owner or operator may use equivalent alternative test 
methods

[[Page 33206]]

subject to approval by the Administrator. The EPA does not delegate 
authority for this determination.
    If a wet scrubber is the air pollution control device, the owner or 
operator must monitor the makeup water flow rate and, for scrubbers 
that operate with recirculation, the recirculation water flow rate 
during each run to establish site-specific operating parameter values 
for the minimum makeup water flow rate and the minimum recirculation 
water flow rate. For an acid regeneration plant, the owner or operator 
must also monitor the process offgas temperature and a suite of 
parameters necessary to determine the proportion of excess air fed to 
the process to establish site-specific operating parameter values for 
the minimum process offgas temperature and the maximum proportion of 
excess air. The proportion of excess air is determined by a combination 
of total air flow rate, fuel flow rate, spent pickle liquor addition 
rate, and amount of iron in the spent pickle liquor or by any other 
combination of parameters approved by the Administrator. Compliant 
operating parameter values are determined as the averages of the values 
recorded during any of the runs for which results are used to establish 
the emission concentration or collection efficiency. Alternative 
compliant operating parameter values may be established based on 
multiple performance tests. The final rule clarifies that the owner or 
operator may reestablish operating parameter values for wet scrubbers 
and acid regeneration plants as part of any performance test (or tests) 
conducted after the initial performance test.
8. Monitoring Requirements
    The proposed monitoring requirements for wet scrubbers were revised 
to require monitoring of the makeup water flow rate and recirculation 
water flow rate. Alternative monitoring requirements may be developed 
subject to approval by the Administrator. Requirements for monitoring 
the scrubber pressure drop (as a monitoring parameter) and effluent 
acidity are eliminated. The requirement for installation and operation 
of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) if excursions of the 
control device operating parameters occur more frequently than six 
times during any 6-month reporting period is deleted. Commenters on the 
proposed rule pointed out that the use of CEMS for this application has 
not been demonstrated; manufacturers have cautioned that using such 
devices in acidic conditions with water droplets present would 
interfere with the test methodology and be corrosive to the testing 
apparatus.
    The requirement for periodic performance tests also is revised. The 
final rule requires that the owner or operator conduct performance 
tests for each air pollution control device either annually or on an 
alternative schedule that is approved by the permitting authority, but 
no less frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or twice per title V permit 
term.
    If a wet scrubber is used as the control device for a pickling line 
or acid regeneration plant, the owner or operator must install, 
operate, and maintain devices to measure continuously and record at 
least once per shift the makeup water flow rate and the recirculation 
water flow rate while the scrubber is operating. The final rule 
requires operation of the scrubber such that neither the makeup water 
flow rate nor the recirculation water flow rate are less than values 
established during the performance test (or tests). If an excursion 
occurs (i.e., either operating parameter is less than the allowed 
value), the owner or operator must initiate procedures to correct the 
problem within 1 working day of detection of the excursion.
    The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant also must 
install, operate, and maintain a device to measure continuously and 
record at least once per shift the process offgas temperature and 
devices to measure the parameters from which proportion of excess air 
is determined. The final rule requires that excess air must be 
determined and recorded at least once per shift instead of at least 
once every 8 hours while the plant is in production mode, which is in 
accordance with the original intent of the rule.
    The proposed rule inadvertently stated that exceedances of scrubber 
operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. The 
intention was to state that exceedances of acid regeneration plant 
operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. This 
requirement has been changed so that exceedances of scrubber operating 
parameters only require initiation of corrective action according to 
the maintenance plan, and exceedances of acid regeneration plant 
operating parameters are not violations of the emission limit but 
instead are violations of the operational standard.
    Each monitoring device for scrubbers and acid regeneration plants 
must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within 
5 percent and be calibrated in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, but not less frequently than once per 
year.
    Monitoring requirements for acid storage vessels are revised. The 
definition of closed-vent system now includes provisions to transport 
emissions back into any device that is capable of reducing or 
collecting the emissions. Under the final rule, the owner or operator 
must make semiannual instead of monthly inspections of each vessel to 
ensure proper operation of the closed-vent system and either the air 
pollution control device or enclosed loading and unloading line, 
whichever is applicable. Commenters to the proposed rule pointed out 
that semiannual inspections would be more consistent with other rules 
that have similar monitoring requirements.
9. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Only minor changes needed to clarify and accommodate changes in the 
final rule were made to the proposed notification, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements. Requirements pertaining to CEMS were 
deleted in the final rule because these monitoring systems are no 
longer required.
    The final notification requirements include, under Sec. 63.9 (b) 
through (h) of subpart A, one-time notifications of applicability, 
intent to construct or reconstruct (including anticipated startup date 
and actual startup date), date of performance test, compliance 
extension requests, special compliance obligations, and compliance 
status. The final rule requires that the notification of compliance 
status include identification of the selected emission limits and the 
full test report documenting the results of initial performance tests 
(including all data and calculations used to establish operating 
parameter values or ranges).
    Recordkeeping requirements are established in Sec. 63.10(b) of the 
general provisions. In addition to these requirements, the standard 
requires plants to maintain records of information needed to determine 
compliance. All records must be retained for at least 5 years following 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record. The records for the most recent 2 years must 
be retained onsite; records for the remaining 3 years may be retained 
offsite but still must be readily available for review. The files may 
be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, or on computer 
or magnetic disks.

[[Page 33207]]

    The final rule incorporates the general recordkeeping requirements 
in Sec. 63.10(b) of the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A and requirements for subpart CCC records. The final rule 
requires records of scrubber makeup water flow rate and recirculation 
water flow rate, acid regeneration plant process offgas temperature and 
parameters from which proportion of excess air is determined, 
manufacturer certification that monitoring devices are accurate to 
within 5 percent, and monitoring device calibrations. The 
owner or operator also must maintain a current copy of the operation 
and maintenance plan (with any revisions) and records of each 
maintenance inspection, repair, replacement, or other corrective action 
(whether for maintenance or an excursion).
    Minor revisions in wording were made to retain consistency with the 
wording of the general provisions to part 63 (subpart A). Referring to 
the section numbers that apply to the final rule, the following 
paragraphs were amended: Sec. 63.1164(c), Sec. 63.1164(c)(1), 
Sec. 63.1165(a)(1), and Sec. 63.1165(a)(2). These revisions do not 
change the substance or the intent of the rule.
10. Delegation of Authority
    The proposed rule specified that authority for approval of an 
alternative test method and alternative nonopacity emission standards 
would be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a State. 
Authority for approval of monitoring parameters for hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plants and alternative monitoring requirements for wet 
scrubbers is also retained by the Administrator because these 
parameters are fundamental to effective monitoring and cannot be 
delegated. The Administrator will also retain authority to waive 
recordkeeping requirements. Authority to approve an alternative 
performance testing schedule is delegated to the States.
11. Display of OMB Control Numbers
    The EPA also is amending the table of currently approved 
information collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for various regulations. This 
separate amendment updates the table to accurately display those 
information requirements contained in the NESHAP. This display of the 
OMB control number and its subsequent codification in the Code of 
Federal Regulations satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing 
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
    The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior 
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds there is ``good cause'' under 
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to 
the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be 
unnecessary.

B. Summary of Impacts

    The final standards will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from 
steel pickling facilities using the HCl process by 2,200 Mg/yr (2,500 
tpy), a 76 percent reduction from current levels. The EPA estimates 
that 70 steel pickling facilities will be subject to the rule. This 
estimate excludes any major source speciality steel pickling facilities 
pending the outcome of a new rulemaking to determine the applicability 
of the rule to this pickling process.
    No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts 
are anticipated. The amount of water discharged from wet scrubbers 
would increase by approximately 300,000 cubic meters per year over 
current levels. The volume of sludge generated by additional control 
may increase by up to 1,300 Mg/yr (1,400 tpy). Energy use for 
additional emission control systems is expected to increase by about 
6.5 million kilowatt hours per year over current levels.
    Nationwide capital costs of the final standards are estimated at 
$20 million, with annual costs for testing and monitoring of about $1.9 
million. The economic impacts are all well below one percent of the 
cost of production of the steel product and result in no significant 
adverse impacts on the industry or small entities. No plant closures, 
regional impacts, or significant employment losses are expected. The 
economic impact of the rule on the industry as a whole is minor. 
Additional information on the impacts of the rule is included in the 
BID.

IV. Summary of Major Public Comments and Responses

    The EPA received 15 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP for 
Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process. A copy of each comment letter 
is available for public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking 
(Docket No. A-95-43; see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 
information on inspecting the docket). The EPA has had followup 
discussions with commenters regarding specific issues initially raised 
in their written comments. Copies of correspondence and other 
information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the 
post-comment period are available for public inspection in the docket 
for the rulemaking.
    The EPA reviewed and carefully considered all comments received. 
The EPA made changes to the rule where appropriate. A summary of 
responses to major comments received on the proposed rule is presented 
below. Additional discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments 
is presented in the BID.

A. Applicability

    Comment: Four commenters requested clarification to show that the 
rule applies only to facilities that are major sources for HAP, not to 
facilities that are major sources for criteria pollutants or area 
sources for HAP.
    Response: A revision to Sec. 63.1155 has been made to show the 
indicated applicability.
    Comment: Four commenters requested clarification of the 50-percent 
HCl criterion proposed as the concentration above which pickling lines 
were to be subject to the rule. One of the commenters also requested 
that a de minimis HCl concentration be established that excludes rinse 
tanks.
    Response: The EPA has decided to clarify the applicability of the 
rule by establishing de minimis temperature and acid concentration 
values and is using information cited in the ``Metals Handbook, Ninth 
Edition, Volume 5: Surface Cleaning, Finishing, and Coating,'' 
published by the American Society for Metals, which gives temperature 
and acid concentration ranges for batch and continuous pickling 
operations using hydrochloric acid (page 69). The lowest hydrochloric 
acid concentration cited is 6 percent, the lowest temperature is 100 
deg.F. The EPA believes that these values are reasonable de minimis 
values and their establishment constitutes a realistic option to the 
proposed 50-percent HCl criterion. Most, if not all, rinse tanks would 
have conditions below these values and would therefore be excluded from 
the rule.
    Comment: Two commenters requested the EPA to address the use of 
different types of acids in pickling processes. Both noted that the EPA 
possesses no information on HCl control requirements for processes that 
use HCl in combination with other acids and cannot verify that data on 
HCl only operations apply to these processes.
    Response: The intent of the rule was to address carbon steel 
pickling by hydrochloric acid. After the comment period, the EPA 
received information from operators of two specialty steel

[[Page 33208]]

pickling facilities indicating that technology that is effective in 
collecting emissions from hydrochloric acid pickling of carbon steel 
may not be as effective in collecting emissions from operations in 
which specialty steel, such as stainless or electrical steel, is 
pickled, typically using other acids such as sulfuric acid in 
combination with hydrochloric acid. The EPA has consequently decided 
that the standards developed for carbon steel pickling cannot be 
applied to specialty steel pickling and therefore has clarified the 
rule to limit its applicability to carbon steel pickling. Definitions 
for carbon steel and specialty steel have been added to Sec. 63.1156 as 
part of this clarification. These definitions are taken from the 
publication ``Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Steel--A 
Glossary of Terms and Concepts,'' edited by M. G. Applebaum, Salomon 
Brothers Inc., Chicago, 1997. The facility description in Sec. 63.1155 
has been changed to ``* * * facilities that pickle carbon steel using 
hydrochloric acid solution that contains 6 percent or more by weight 
HCl and is at a temperature of 100  deg.F or higher.''
    The EPA will determine at a later date if the specialty steel 
industry should be regulated under this part of the CFR and, if so, 
whether it will be regulated by amending subpart CCC or under a 
separate subpart.
    Comment: Two commenters recommended that small mobile vessels, 
which would be expected to produce minimal emissions, not be subject to 
the rule.
    Response: The EPA agrees that small mobile vessels should be 
excluded from the rule. The definition of acid storage vessel is 
modified to read ``* * * a stationary vessel used for the bulk 
containment of virgin or regenerated hydrochloric acid.''
    Comment: One commenter believes that the proposed rule will require 
reconstruction of existing scrubber systems, forcing the process to 
become subject to new source rules. The definition of reconstructed 
source should be eliminated.
    Response: Changes or additions to air pollution control devices do 
not constitute reconstruction of the source and are not included in the 
changes that would make a facility or process subject to reconstruction 
and modification requirements.

B. Definitions

    Comment: As discussed under applicability, changes were recommended 
that required definitions for carbon steel and specialty steel.
    Response: The following definition of carbon steel is added to the 
rule: ``Carbon steel means steel that contains approximately 2 percent 
or less carbon, 1.65 percent or less manganese, 0.6 percent or less 
silicon, and 0.6 percent or less copper.''
    The following definition of specialty steel is also added to the 
rule: ``Specialty steel means a category of steel that includes silicon 
electrical, alloy, tool, and stainless steels.''
    Comment: Two commenters requested to clarify the definition of 
control devices for acid storage vessels to avoid the possible 
interpretation that emissions would have to be routed to a control 
device of the type used to control pickling or acid regeneration 
emissions.
    Response: The intent of the proposed rule was to allow any device 
that reduces HCl emissions to the atmosphere. For clarification, the 
definition of closed-vent systems was changed to include ``* * * any 
device that is capable of reducing or collecting emissions.''
    Comment: One commenter recommended that reports required by this 
rule should only require certification by an inspector who has intimate 
knowledge of the system and not necessarily by a ``responsible 
official'' as defined in subpart A, Sec. 63.2.
    Response: The EPA agrees and is allowing facilities to designate a 
``responsible maintenance official'' to have signature authority. This 
official is defined as ``* * * a person designated by the owner or 
operator as having authority to sign records and reports required under 
this rule.''
    Comment: Five commenters believe that the proposed definition of 
steel pickling is too broad and have requested the EPA to clearly 
distinguish between pickling and other operations, and have offered 
suggestions for modifying the definition of pickling.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the definition of steel pickling 
should be crafted to avoid misinterpretation. The commenters' 
suggestions are incorporated to the extent considered appropriate. The 
definition of steel pickling, with changes underlined, is modified to 
mean ``* * * the chemical removal of iron oxide mill scale that is 
formed on steel surfaces during hot rolling or hot forming of semi-
finished steel products through contact with an aqueous solution of 
acid where such contact occurs prior to shaping or coating of the 
finished steel product. This definition does not include removal of 
light rust or scale from finished steel products or activation of the 
metal surface prior to plating or coating.''
    Comment: One commenter believes that rinse tanks should be excluded 
from the definitions of batch and continuous pickling lines. The rule 
implies that an air pollution control device would be required for 
these tanks.
    Response: The rule is meant to include all ventilated tanks that 
are part of a steel pickling process to which the rule applies, which 
may include some rinse tanks. The rule does not require installation of 
ventilation systems not previously installed.

C. Emission Standards

1. Pickling Lines
    Comment: Five commenters stated that the EPA did not base the 
standards on the best performing 12 percent of sources. The language in 
the Act directs the EPA to derive numerical limits for new sources from 
the best performing scrubbers for a given option, but EPA used this 
approach in deriving existing source standards. The EPA only considered 
10 of the 152 existing continuous pickling lines (7 percent), then used 
only four of the ten available data sets and determined the 
concentration limit from only two data sets. The EPA has not justified 
not using all data sets. The averages of all ten tests, 29.3 ppmv and 
97.3 percent, are more representative of the actual variation in the 
test data which could be expected for properly controlled sources and 
should be the basis for the limits.
    Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
EPA based the MACT floor on technology. In determining MACT, the EPA 
considered alternative approaches for establishing the MACT floor; 
these include (1) information on State regulations and/or permit 
conditions, (2) source test data that characterize actual emissions 
discharged by sources, and (3) use of a technology floor and an 
accompanying demonstrated achievable emission level that accounts for 
process and air pollution control device variability. No Federal air 
emission standards currently apply to steel pickling or acid 
regeneration sources, and existing State standards cannot be directly 
related to the requirements of this rule. Applicable test data are only 
available from 10 of 152 continuous pickling lines. These data points 
are too few to establish 12 percent MACT floors based on actual 
releases. By comparison with the limited utility of State regulations 
and source test data, a substantial body of information is available on 
the types, configurations, and operating conditions

[[Page 33209]]

of air pollution control devices applied across the industry. The EPA 
therefore used the technology floor approach to establishing MACT for 
pickling lines. Details of this approach are discussed in the preamble 
to the proposed rule.
    The characteristics of the scrubbers constituting the existing 
source and new source levels of control were determined by evaluating 
the results of emission tests conducted on units currently employed in 
the industry. Data from pickling lines controlled by devices of these 
descriptions were used to represent the capabilities of MACT for this 
application. The EPA determined the standards from these data, as 
discussed in the comments and responses below.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the standards are unnecessarily 
stringent in that they do not reflect what long term performance is 
achievable on a continuous basis considering natural process and 
control device variations. One commenter submitted data showing a wide 
variation in HCl emissions over a 3-year period from one facility using 
the same control technology where no known malfunctions occurred to 
cause the variation. Data from this facility consisted of nine tests, 
with average measured HCl concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 178 ppmv. 
This commenter also stated that data presented in the EPA BID also 
illustrate a wide variation in HCl emissions between and within 
facilities. Using a statistical argument based on standard deviations 
in data, the standard should be at least 15 ppmv for new sources and 
35.8 ppmv for existing sources, according to this commenter. One 
commenter believes that inaccuracies of the sampling methods do not 
permit setting an emission standard as low as that proposed.
    Response: The EPA is not required to use a specific statistical 
procedure in arriving at values for emission standards. The commenter's 
facility's nine tests are comprised of seven tests for which all data 
points, including individual sampling runs, are within a 13 ppmv 
concentration limit. The remaining two tests have averages that are 
about 19 and 37 times the average of the other seven tests. The EPA 
believes these two tests cannot be the result of normal air pollution 
control device operation during normal process operation.
    Regarding accuracy of sampling, this issue is discussed in section 
E below. The EPA believes that the test method is sufficiently accurate 
for the proposed emission standards for new and existing facilities.
    Relative to the broad issues of stringency and achievability of the 
proposed standards, the EPA agrees with the commenters in that the data 
used to determine the numerical limits are sparse and that variations 
in operations and in test results should be considered. The numerical 
limit determination was therefore reexamined. The EPA conducted a 
thorough review of the scrubber design and source test data base used 
to develop the pickling standard. Details of this review are given in 
the BID. Data from all tests, including those with only one or two 
sampling runs, were examined primarily in regard to variability in 
individual test run results. The data were considered separately for 
new and existing source MACT.
    Performance of the scrubbers used as the basis for new source MACT 
was considered on the basis of long term performance and variability in 
individual sampling runs. All three scrubbers served continuous 
pickling lines. The average outlet HCl concentrations were 1.6, 2.1, 
and 7.7 ppmv, with corresponding average HCl collection efficiencies of 
99.5, 99.96, and 99.0 percent, respectively. Thus, on the basis of 
average performance, all three scrubbers meet the proposed new source 
standard for collection efficiency of 99 percent, and two meet the 
proposed new source standard for outlet concentration of 3 ppmv. The 
worst results of individual sampling runs for these scrubbers were HCl 
outlet concentrations of 5.9, 3.5, and 7.7 ppmv, with worst results for 
HCl collection efficiencies of 97.6, 99.94, and 99.0 percent, 
respectively. On this basis, two scrubbers meet the proposed collection 
efficiency standard but no scrubber meets the proposed concentration 
standard. To accommodate the uncertainty in sampling, particularly in 
determining outlet concentration at these low levels, the EPA decided 
to consider a new source standard for outlet concentration that could 
be met by the new source MACT scrubbers that did not meet the 
collection efficiency standard. This concentration is 6 ppmv HCl, which 
is 5.9 rounded up to the nearest whole number. Based on the worst 
individual sampling run results, all three scrubbers meet at least one 
of the two alternative standards; one scrubber meets both the 
concentration standard of 6 ppmv and the collection efficiency standard 
of 99 percent, one meets the concentration standard, and one meets the 
collection efficiency standard. New source standards of 6 ppmv maximum 
outlet concentration and 99 percent minimum collection efficiency are 
therefore promulgated for continuous pickling lines.
    Performance of the scrubbers used for the basis of existing source 
MACT for continuous pickling lines was also considered on the basis of 
individual sampling runs. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, the concentration and collection efficiency standards were 
derived from the scrubbers that were the better performers in each 
respect. Three units produced outlet HCl concentrations of 1.7, 8.0, 
and 13 on the averages, 2.7, 15, and 18 ppmv for the worst runs; all 
the others produced HCl outlet concentrations of 42 ppmv or higher on 
the averages, 70 ppmv or higher for the worst runs. The concentration 
standard was therefore determined to be 18 ppmv HCl from the 
performance of these three scrubbers. On the basis of HCl collection 
efficiency, the seven scrubbers used as the basis for existing source 
MACT performed with average efficiencies of 98.1, 97.8, 97.5, 97.0, 
96.8, 94.7, and 92.7 percent. Worst run efficiencies were 97.5, 96.8, 
96.7, 96.6, 95.9, 94.1, and 92.1 percent. With efficiencies rounded off 
to the nearest percent, four of the seven scrubbers would meet a 
standard of 97 percent. Of the remaining three scrubbers, one is a 
marginal performer and two poor performers by comparison with the first 
four. The HCl collection efficiency standard of 97 percent was 
determined from the performance of the best four scrubbers. Five of the 
seven scrubbers meet at least one of the alternative standards.
    Comment: Two commenters questioned the rationale of using data from 
the best performing scrubbers to establish separate collection 
efficiency and concentration limits because each owner or operator 
would have two options. The logic ignores the statistical ability of 
scrubbers to comply with the proposed standard continuously and the 
very basis for proposing alternative standards in the first instance. 
The EPA ``proposed alternative standards out of the recognition that 
facilities with high HCl inlet concentrations could not meet the low 
HCl outlet concentration standard, and vice versa. Deriving the MACT 
standards from the best scrubbers for each option disregards the fact 
that the MACT floor is supposed to represent the average of the best 12 
percent and those facilities that have HCl inlet concentrations too low 
to comply with the proposed collection efficiency impossible and too 
high to comply with the proposed 10 ppmv standard.''
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. The commenter's 
logic

[[Page 33210]]

expressed above is itself not clear. The fact that the standard is not 
based on a statistical average has been discussed previously. The 
assumption of the final standards is that at least some devices will 
not be able to meet both options but all would be able to meet one or 
the other. Therefore the numerical limits for each option were 
developed separately.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA has not sufficiently 
justified its MACT determination for batch pickling lines. The 
rulemaking record contains no data specific to batch pickling. Batch 
pickling lines are significantly different from continuous lines in 
terms of design, operation, air capture rates, inlet concentrations, 
hood design, product handling, and volume throughput rates. In light of 
these differences, the absence of test data from batch lines, and 
limited data from continuous lines, it may not be appropriate for EPA 
to simply borrow and apply its MACT determination for continuous lines 
to batch operations.
    If EPA promulgates this rule prior to supporting its MACT 
determination, batch picklers will be in the position of not knowing if 
they can meet the standards until they have spent the money to install 
or upgrade their pollution control equipment. The EPA would be prudent 
to delay implementation of the proposed rule until it can demonstrate, 
based on batch pickling-specific data, that the proposed standards do 
in fact constitute MACT.
    Response: The commenters state that there are significant 
differences between batch and continuous pickling lines but do not give 
details nor any indication of how air pollution control requirements 
are different. The commenters do not express any technical 
considerations that have not already been addressed. Differences in 
fume capture systems between batch and continuous operations, for 
example, are discussed in detail in chapter 4 of the proposal BID. 
However, the effectiveness of the air pollution control system is based 
on the characteristics of the gas stream, not the capture system. 
According to scrubber manufacturers and designers, scrubber design 
considerations are the same for both types of operations. The major 
difference between batch and continuous operations is that the HCl 
concentration in batch line offgases varies during different phases of 
the operating cycle. For example, the concentration can increase when 
steel is raised out of the tank and allowed to drain before it is 
rinsed. Scrubbers can be designed on the basis of the maximum 
concentration experienced.
    Regarding the ability of batch operations to meet the same 
standards as continuous operations, the EPA notes the view expressed by 
two commenters, one with extensive relevant experience, that the 
proposed standards are reasonable and can be attained with available 
control equipment. These comments are presented in the BID.
    After the comment period, the EPA received emission data from a 
batch pickling operation in which the outlet gas was sampled in three 
runs of 1 hour each; HCl concentrations were 5.1, 4.2, and 3.6 ppmv. 
The only other information available for batch operations is from a 
test at another facility in which only one sampling run, of 1 hour 
duration, was conducted on the scrubber outlet. A concentration of 6.3 
ppmv HCl was measured. Results of these two tests give some indication 
that HCl emission control for these processes at levels achieved for 
continuous pickling lines is possible.
    Based on these considerations, the EPA believes that control of 
batch pickling lines at the level of existing source standards is 
achievable. However, the EPA agrees with the commenters to the extent 
that control of batch lines at the new source standard level is less 
certain. Because no clear limitation for new batch pickling lines could 
be determined from the available information, particularly in 
considering the variation in operating conditions and ventilation 
system design, the rule is revised to make the new source standard for 
batch pickling the same as the existing source standard.
2. Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
    Comment: One commenter disagreed that sufficient source test data 
were available to provide a basis for the MACT floor. The EPA evaluated 
five measured scrubber outlet concentration values, then noted that one 
value was far out of line with the others and did not consider this 
value in establishing the floor. No attempt to review the next 
appropriate value was made by EPA. Constructing a fifth data point in 
lieu of actual data has no technical or regulatory basis under section 
112 of the Act. The EPA should have used another facility's actual test 
data or conducted additional tests to establish a fifth point.
    A second commenter observed that the MACT floor on which EPA bases 
its standard is not representative of single stage water scrubbing. 
Caustic scrubbing technology, contrary to EPA's belief, has been shown 
to be more effective in reducing HCl emissions than scrubbing with 
unneutralized water. The EPA notes in the proposed rule that no single 
stage scrubber has demonstrated the capability of meeting the proposed 
existing source standard of 8 ppmv HCl. The EPA should consider the 
cost impacts to the industry for waste water treatment and sludge 
disposal if the standard is to be based on caustic scrubbing.
    A third commenter provided additional data from the two acid plants 
that use two stage scrubbing. Details are presented in the BID. The 
data include outlet concentration data for the first stage water 
scrubbers. These data are from tests conducted on both plants in April 
1994, March 1996, and November 1996. All tests except for two consisted 
of three sampling runs of 3 hours each using EPA Method 26A; the 
remaining two tests consisted of two sampling runs. Average HCl 
concentrations in the first stage water scrubber outlet gas for one 
plant vary between 5.6 and 20 ppmv, with the highest concentration 
measured for an individual run of 25 ppmv; average HCl concentrations 
for the other plant vary between 11.2 and 23 ppmv, with the highest 
concentration measured for an individual run of 31 ppmv.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the first commenter in that the 
method used to determine the proposed floor was not appropriate, 
specifically, the manufacturing of a fifth data point in lieu of having 
actual data followed by averaging. Furthermore, the EPA agrees with the 
suggestion of the second commenter that the proposed existing source 
standard of 8 ppmv HCl is not demonstrated to be achievable with single 
stage water scrubbing, the predominant control technology used in the 
industry.
    The floor has therefore been reexamined on the basis of the median 
of the best five controlled sources on a technology basis. The best two 
controlled sources employ either two stage acid recovery or two stage 
scrubbing, with neutralized water used in the last scrubbing stages in 
both cases. The third best controlled source employs single stage 
scrubbing with unneutralized water; this technology is also used by all 
of the remaining sources in this subcategory. The final standard for 
existing sources is therefore developed based on the performance of 
single stage water scrubbing, which addresses the main concern of the 
second commenter.
    With the inclusion of the above information, long term data from 
two acid regeneration plants are now available. Data from the plant for 
which the measured HCl concentration was 16 ppmv were still restricted 
to the one test, which consisted of two sampling

[[Page 33211]]

runs with measured HCl concentrations of 15.6 and 15.8 ppmv. The final 
data point available was 137 ppmv HCl, which is so far out of line with 
the other data that the plant tested could not be considered well 
controlled; data from this plant could therefore not be used to 
establish an emission standard.
    In order to determine a numerical concentration standard from all 
of the available information, process and control system variability 
over time were taken into account by considering HCl concentration 
averages and also values for individual sampling runs. On the basis of 
average outlet concentrations, it seems clear that the first three 
plants meet a limit of 25 ppmv HCl. Considering all 19 individual runs 
from the three plants, except for one run of 31 ppmv, all others are 25 
ppmv or less. A maximum outlet concentration of 25 ppmv HCl therefore 
seems reasonable for a standard based on single stage water scrubbing.
    Regarding the new source standard for HCl, the additional data 
discussed above include outlet concentration data from second stage 
scrubbers that use neutralized water. Data are from four tests 
conducted between March 1993 and March 1996. In all tests, three 
sampling runs of 2 or 3 hours were made using Method 26A. Results of 
the first tests average 49 and 19.6 ppmv HCl; these results are much 
higher than those from the more recent three tests and apparently do 
not reflect current operations. Results of the last three tests are 
average HCl concentrations ranging from 0.9 to 11.1 ppmv, with results 
of individual runs ranging up to 11.9 ppmv.
    The only other HCl concentration data that have not already been 
discussed are from the plant that employs two-stage acid recovery plus 
a venturi scrubber that uses neutralized water. Results from only one 
test are available; the average HCl outlet concentration was 1.0 ppmv.
    Considering the capability of a scrubber to meet a long-term 
standard, results from the first two plants seem more meaningful. These 
plants clearly meet an outlet concentration HCl standard of 12 ppmv 
over the most recent three tests based on individual runs. A new source 
maximum outlet concentration standard of 12 ppmv HCl therefore has been 
reasonably demonstrated. Consequently, the final standard is a maximum 
outlet HCl concentration of 25 ppmv for existing sources, 12 ppmv for 
new sources.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA did not demonstrate that 
its standards for existing and new sources are based on a sustainable 
level of performance. One commenter stated that there is a wide 
variation in HCl emissions at different times using the same control 
technology. This commenter provided additional data at EPA's request to 
support the statement. Average emissions range from 31 to 470 ppmv and 
results of individual tests range from 26 to 542 ppmv HCl, with, 
according to the commenter, no obvious anomalies in the acid 
regeneration data. The EPA's data illustrate that there is a wide 
variation between and within facilities. The standard deviation for all 
data from which EPA determined its standard is 7.2 ppmv, which is far 
out of range of the proposed limit.
    Response: By comparison with data from other facilities, the plant 
from which the data provided by the above commenter were taken cannot 
be well controlled in EPA's opinion, particularly considering the 
extreme range in values between the lowest and highest measurements. 
Data from this facility are not relevant in determining a standard 
based on the best performing plants. The issue of sustainable 
performance is addressed in the previous comment and response.
    Comment: Two commenters state that the Cl2 limit should 
be based on five sources instead of three. The small sample size 
probably does not reflect variability at each source. The 4 ppmv limit 
has not been shown to be continuously achievable. One commenter states 
that the existing source emission limits should be determined from the 
average of five facilities plus two standard deviations; the standard 
should be at least 74.3 ppmv. For new sources, the standard should be 
60 ppmv based on two standard deviations from the mean of EPA's data. 
The other commenter did not recommend specific standards but provided 
additional data at EPA's request.
    Response: As discussed under the HCl numerical standard, the 
standards for hydrochloric acid regeneration plants are being revised. 
The existing source standard is based on technology, which is single 
stage water scrubbing. As in the case of the HCl standard, the 
Cl2 numerical standard was reconsidered based on the body of 
data available for this technology.
    The data provided by the second commenter included results of the 
three tests discussed above, conducted between April 1994 and November 
1996, of outlet Cl2 concentrations from first stage water 
scrubbers. Average Cl2 concentrations are between 0.4 and 
5.1 ppmv with the exception of a measurement of 9.9 ppmv from one test 
conducted in 1994. Results of the more recent tests on this plant were 
0.4 ppmv in each case. Excluding this one test, which is assumed to be 
not representative of current operations, average Cl2 
concentrations range from 0.4 to 5.1 ppmv. Results of all 13 individual 
runs, except for one value of 7.3 ppmv, range from 0.3 to 5.6 ppmv.
    In addition to the data discussed above, Cl2 outlet 
concentration data from other facilities are 3.3 and 60 ppmv, each 
based on one test. The 60 ppmv value is so far out of line with the 
others that it cannot be considered representative of effective 
operation and therefore cannot be used in determining the standard.
    Considering all of the data, it appears that a limit of 6 ppmv 
Cl2 can be met by these operations, considering the 
variability in measurements (except for the one nonrepresentative 
value); only one sampling run gives a higher result (7.3 ppmv). The 
concentration standard for Cl2 is therefore revised to 6 
ppmv for existing sources.
    Regarding the standard for new sources, the EPA is required to set 
the standard according to the capabilities of the best controlled 
facility. The additional data discussed above included results of the 
four tests conducted between March 1993 and March 1996 on the outlets 
of second stage scrubbers that use neutralized water. Results are 
similar to those for the first stage water scrubbers. Average 
Cl2 concentrations range from 0.4 to 5.3 ppmv, with results 
of individual runs ranging from 0.1 to 7.1 ppmv. An individual plant 
cannot be identified that provides better performance than existing 
source MACT. The new source standard for Cl2 is therefore 
the same as the existing source standard, 6 ppmv.
    Comment: One commenter supported the optional Cl2 
standard to be established for each source.
    Response: The optional standard is retained for existing sources 
but removed for new sources, as discussed above.
3. Acid Storage Vessels
    Comment: Two commenters believe EPA should clarify that ``control 
devices'' for storage vessels are not a specific control technology, 
and that facilities can use any method that is demonstrated to minimize 
emissions to the atmosphere (e.g., bubbling through a drum or small 
vessel of caustic solution or water).
    Response: The EPA agrees with this commenter. No specific control 
device is required for storage vessels. The definition of closed-vent 
system is reworded to make the EPA's intention

[[Page 33212]]

clear. Examples of devices that might be used include systems that 
bubble emissions through a small tank of water or caustic without the 
aid of a fan. However, larger facilities may find it advantageous to 
route emissions from storage vessels or an acid regeneration plant to a 
pickling line scrubber or to build a separate scrubber system for 
control.
4. Assessment of HCl as a Threshold Pollutant Under Section 112(d)(4)
    Comment: After the close of the comment period on the proposal, EPA 
received a letter from a trade association requesting that the Agency 
assess HCl emissions from steel pickling under section 112(d)(4) of the 
Act, to determine whether Federal controls on these emissions were 
necessary, based upon relevant exposure and ecological assessments and 
a determination in an earlier EPA Federal Register notice that HCl was 
a ``health threshold pollutant.''
    Response: As requested by the commenter, EPA is currently 
conducting an assessment of HCl emissions from steel pickling 
operations to determine first whether the Agency would be justified in 
invoking its section 112(d)(4) authority for steel pickling, and second 
whether EPA believes it is appropriate to do so, if justified. The EPA 
does not have adequate information at this time to support development 
of a standard for the steel pickling source category that may be less 
stringent than the ``floor''-based standard in today's final rule.
    Possessing insufficient information at this time to make a decision 
for the steel pickling source category pursuant to section 112(d)(4) 
authority, and recognizing that the authority bestowed by Congress is 
fully discretionary, EPA believes that it is reasonable to finalize 
today's standard while continuing to conduct an assessment of HCl 
emissions from steel pickling operations under section 112(d)(4). 
Absent such information, EPA believes that there is ample reason to 
regulate HCl emissions from steel pickling operations at the levels of 
today's standard, as discussed more fully in the remainder of this 
preamble.

D. Compliance Dates and Maintenance Requirements

    Comment: One commenter stated that the required maintenance 
activities should be guidelines and not requirements. They do not 
further the rule (beyond required monitoring) to limit emissions and 
assure compliance with the limits.
    Response: Operational and maintenance requirements are necessary to 
help ensure that emission control equipment continues to operate at a 
level consistent with its operation at the time of compliance testing 
and are enforceable independently of emissions limitations. The EPA's 
statement of these requirements is in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii), Operation 
and Maintenance Requirements.
    Comment: Three commenters stated the following. The EPA's 
maintenance plan should not establish specific elements of the required 
maintenance plan, i.e., following manufacturer's recommended 
maintenance, cleaning scrubber internals and mist eliminators at 
intervals sufficient to prevent fouling, having set intervals for 
inspecting system components to identify, repair, or replace as needed. 
Two of the commenters recommend that EPA amend proposed Sec. 63.1159 by 
eliminating the requirement that maintenance plans must include the 
elements set forth at Sec. 63.1159(b)(2)(i)-(iv); these elements should 
be included only as potential elements that may be included in the 
plan. Another commenter believes that the operation and maintenance 
plan should not require strict adherence to the manufacturer's 
operating manual. Many manufacturer's manuals contain steps that are 
determined not be necessary and/or that only the manufacturer's 
proprietary products should be used. The EPA should change the wording 
to, for example, ``substantially include'' the elements set forth in 
the manufacturer's operating manual.
    Response: The EPA has reviewed the proposed maintenance plan 
requirements and decided that revisions are appropriate. Manufacturer's 
instructions for older equipment may require materials no longer 
available. Manufacturers may no longer be in business so that required 
parts or materials cannot be purchased except by substitution from a 
source other than the original manufacturer. Therefore, the EPA has 
revised the rule so that it no longer requires adherence to the 
manufacturer's manual. The facility must write an operation and 
maintenance plan that is consistent with good maintenance practices and 
includes, at a minimum, the list of items described in the rule. The 
EPA believes that inclusion of these items is reasonable. Additionally, 
pressure drop must be monitored once per shift as a means of 
discovering scrubber operational anomalies that may require 
maintenance. No specific pressure drop deviation limit is required, but 
the monitoring records are required to be kept along with the recycle 
and makeup water flow rates.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the operation and maintenance 
plan should not be part of the source's title V operating permit. Plan 
approval places a substantial burden on permitting authorities. The 
details of these plans are frequently changed as operational problems 
are addressed. Such a requirement could cause administrative nightmares 
if a source is required to go through the title V permit modification 
process every time it modifies a plan, especially during the early 
stages of the rule. Approval of plans by informal action would 
encourage timely revision.
    Response: The rule requires the plan to be incorporated into the 
permit only by reference and no longer requires it to be submitted to 
the permitting authority.
    Comment: One commenter believes the requirement that the 
``responsible plant official'' sign records of inspections is overly 
burdensome. The requirement is acceptable if ``responsible plant 
official'' means that an employee delegated the responsibility by the 
``responsible official'' must sign.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added the 
definition ``responsible maintenance official,'' who is a person having 
signature authority for signing reports required under the rule.
    Comment: One commenter states that the requirement to initiate 
repairs within 1 day is excessive and unworkable. It is unclear what 
``initiate corrective action'' means. In some cases, corrective action 
may require engineering analysis to determine the source of the problem 
and effective corrective action. If this provision is retained, the 
commenter recommends that it be written as a requirement that repairs 
begin promptly and provide a ``safe harbor'' that repairs commenced 
within 1 day are considered to be prompt.
    Two commenters state that the proposed requirement that maintenance 
plans be implemented within 1 working day is too stringent. There may 
be situations when initiating the plan within 24 hours would be 
impractical or impossible. In some cases, a facility may have to rely 
on an outside contractor to conduct necessary action. Instead of 
establishing a time-specific deadline, the EPA should provide that 
``facilities must initiate corrective action as soon as practically 
possible, but no later than 3 working days.''
    One commenter states that the requirement for corrective action 
within 1 day of detection of an operating problem with a control device 
is neither

[[Page 33213]]

reasonable or in keeping with the notification and repair requirements 
of other NESHAP rules. The commenter recommends that the requirement be 
changed to include a first attempt at repair within 5 working days of 
detection.
    Response: The EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect 
operators to initiate procedures toward corrective action within 1 day 
and complete repairs or maintenance as soon as practicable. Initiation 
of procedures may consist of notification of a contractor or service 
group that corrective action is necessary. The rule is revised to 
clarify that the procedures to be initiated are the actions that are 
specified in the maintenance plan.

E. Performance Testing and Test Methods

    Comment: One commenter stated that establishment of site specific 
scrubber operating parameters as a measure of compliance without first 
establishing the relationship between the parameters and the emissions 
in question is not appropriate. The EPA has made no attempt to 
establish any relationship between the proposed mandated parameters and 
actual emissions. This information was not evaluated during the MACT 
development; therefore, site specific parameters should not become 
mandated compliance parameters.
    Response: Without implementation of continuous emissions monitoring 
systems, monitoring of relevant operating parameters in combination 
with routine and preventative maintenance is essential to enhanced 
compliance assurance. The requirement for operating parameter 
monitoring is retained in the rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in setting parameter operating 
limits, the full range of values observed during a compliance test 
should be used, not the average. Because an average is being 
established, at least one of the tests must necessarily be above the 
average if all three tests are not identical. Another commenter 
believes that owners and operators should be able to establish 
compliant operating parameters using individual runs from compliance 
tests and not be restricted to multiple tests. Using multiple runs 
during a test will greatly diminish costs and repetitive sampling 
without substantially diminishing the assurance of compliance.
    Response: The EPA agrees that some flexibility in establishing 
operating parameter compliant values is appropriate. The rule is 
revised to allow an average parameter value measured during any of the 
runs used to demonstrate compliance to be used as the compliant value 
rather than the average value measured over the entire testing period.
    Comment: Two commenters believe operators should have the option of 
conducting compliance demonstration tests as needed to show appropriate 
ranges of scrubber parameters. Establishment of parameters should not 
be limited to the initial performance test.
    Response: The rule allows facilities to conduct multiple 
performance tests to establish alternative compliant operating 
parameter values and to reestablish compliant values during any 
performance test conducted after the initial performance test.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that actions such as 
installing a more effective capture system or adding a mist eliminator 
would result in increased pressure drop and hence a violation of the 
standard.
    Response: This issue is no longer a concern because the monitoring 
parameters have been changed. Pressure drop is now monitored only to 
detect potential problems with the scrubber.
    Comment: Two commenters had the following statement. Method 26A is 
not validated for steel pickling, only for municipal waste incinerators 
(MWI). The MWI have higher temperatures, less moisture (and no liquid 
droplets), and no ferric chloride content, which could interfere with 
test results. The EPA's tests also show variations of as much as 700 
percent for the same pickling line. Test bias may have resulted in an 
improperly low standard. Inexplicable negative biases are reported in 
an EPA municipal waste incinerator validation report for Method 26A. 
These biases are such that validation for pickling sources is required.
    The practical level of quantification (PLQ) for Method 26A has not 
been established for pickling sources, and should be developed using 
Method 301. Also, ferric chloride might cause a positive bias for the 
HCl measurements. One facility believes that conditions encountered 
with HCl pickling tests include high humidity in the gas stream, 
extremely high solubility of HCl gas in water, condensation in the gas 
stream, refluxing in the stack, and the use of stack tip entrainment 
eliminators. These conditions lead to several measurement problems, all 
of which tend to bias results toward improperly high HCl concentration 
because of enriched droplet capture in the sampling probe or 
maldistribution of HCl with regard to sampling probe location. Sampling 
data show six cases in which the range of measured maximum 
concentrations varies from 1.3 to 9.3 times the minimum concentration 
for heated pickling lines or acid regeneration plants. They recommend 
that the testing protocol include provisions for testing control 
devices (including stack-tip mist eliminators) and allow for discard of 
test results more than 50 percent above the average.
    Response: The comments do not bring up any technical concerns 
regarding measurements at pickling or acid regeneration sites. A well 
designed and conscientiously run field validation of Method 26A 
specifically at these source categories would not likely uncover any 
evidence that there is a problem in this application. The EPA knows 
from its studies that the method is capable of measuring to fractional 
ppmv levels. Review of data from a 1997 study at a light-weight 
aggregate kiln burning hazardous waste provides a minimum detection 
limit estimate of about 0.04 ppmv. The EPA estimated the method 
precision (reported as the standard deviation of individual runs) to be 
0.42 ppmv at 3 ppmv. This value would lead to the precision estimate of 
the mean of a 3 run test of 0.24 ppmv. If water droplets are routinely 
present, then the method has to be followed carefully to avoid 
gathering poor quality data. The EPA has not knowingly field validated 
the method in the presence of water droplets, but isokinetic sampling 
is the accepted way to address this problem.
    The commenters contended that EPA provides no justification to the 
preamble statement ``EPA considers the method is equally valid for 
measuring emissions for pickling and acid regeneration sources.'' They 
go on to say that HCl pickling emissions are generally 100 to 200 
deg.F and contain water droplets. The presence of water droplets 
increases the potential for negative bias.
    The EPA responds that the method is validated at a municipal waste 
combustor (MWC) where the sample matrix is a more severe test of the 
method in terms of potential chemical interferents, and the stack is at 
a higher temperature. The higher stack temperature at MWCs is a more 
severe test of the method in that the probe and filter temperatures are 
less than the stack temperature, which, in theory, could lead to 
condensation of HCl in the probe. An effective control system would be 
expected to include a mist eliminator, thus minimizing the potential 
for excessive water droplet effect. In addition, the test method has 
provisions to overcome the potential negative bias encountered if water 
droplets are present.
    One commenter also commented on the MWC validation being done with

[[Page 33214]]

midget impingers rather than the large impingers. The EPA report No. 
600/3-89/064 concludes that there is an inexplicable negative bias 
compared to those using midget impinges. The most likely cause of the 
low bias at low (3 to 4 ppmv) concentrations is absorption of HCl on 
alkaline particulate matter collected on the filter. This condition is 
not expected at steel pickling plants and, hence, field validation 
would not be of value.
    The commenter also stated that proper field validation of Method 
26A would provide the true PLQ that would take into account the normal 
variations resulting solely from the test procedures. Determining the 
actual PLQ of Method 26A on HCl pickling emissions is essential to 
ensure that the final NESHAP limitations are not set lower than the 
level that can be consistently quantified by the required testing. The 
recommendation already discussed in this comment should also apply to 
HCl regeneration plants since the limit of 3 ppmv HCl is at the lower 
limit of the range tested.
    The EPA notes that the commenter provided the Method 301 definition 
of PLQ. There is general agreement that the intent of the Method 301 
calculation procedure of 10 times the standard deviation should use the 
standard deviation at or near the limit of detection. (The actual 
Method 301 language adds ``* * * at the blank level.'') The EPA 
believes the commenter cites an erroneous conclusion from a Rigo and 
Rigo Associates, Incorporated, document, that a recent quad-train study 
at an MWC had a PLQ of at least 125 ppmv at 7 percent oxygen for Method 
26A. The study was done in a concentration range of 105 to 636 ppmv at 
7 percent oxygen, instead of near the acceptable blank limit of the 
method. These conditions lead to an inflated standard deviation 
estimate and a subsequent over estimate of the PLQ. Draft results from 
a 1997 EPA study using a quad-train arrangement at a light-weight 
aggregate kiln where the actual (uncorrected for dilution) stack 
concentration of HCl ranged from 0.22 to 1.29 ppmv (more closely 
approaching the theoretical lower limit of the method) results in an 
estimated method standard deviation of 0.12 ppmv at zero. The EPA used 
these data to extrapolate an estimated method standard deviation of 
0.42 ppmv at 3 ppmv as described above. This value compares favorably 
with the original MWC validation report's estimate of standard 
deviations of 0.24 ppmv and 0.49 ppmv at concentration of 3.9 ppmv and 
15.3 ppmv, respectively.
    Regarding positive bias caused by ferric chloride, it would have to 
have a significant vapor pressure at the filter temperature to pass 
through the Teflon matte filter in the test equipment. This is not the 
case.
    The EPA believes the test method is appropriate for steel pickling 
and acid regeneration operations and will continue to require its use 
(or an approved substitute) for the standard. However, in order to 
reduce the possibility of collecting water droplets from the stack 
walls that may be present because of refluxing in the stack or high 
humidity, the EPA believes that Reference Method 1 should be modified 
for this application to specify that no sampling point be closer to the 
stack wall than one inch.
    Comment: One commenter states that ammonia is commonly used as a 
precipitating agent in waste HCl, resulting in ammonium chloride 
formation. The commenter believes that some ammonium chloride will be 
decomposed in the acid regeneration plant roaster, but significant 
amounts may exit in the waste gas and will be recovered along with HCl 
in gas cleaning. The commenter is currently investigating the 
possibility of direct measurement of ammonium chloride in the acid 
plant scrubbers but does not at present have data to offer. The 
commenter understands that ammonium chloride can interfere in the 
measurement of HCl at low levels.
    Response: Ammonium chloride is identified as a possible interferent 
in EPA Reference Method 26A that would be expected to appear as 
chloride ion and thus be measured as HCl. If an acid regeneration plant 
cannot meet the standard for HCl, it would have the option of 
demonstrating that ammonium chloride is present in the waste pickle 
liquor fed to the plant and seeking relief in the HCl emission limit on 
that basis. However, the need for relief seems unlikely. Ammonium 
chloride would not be expected to pass the filter that is required for 
this method at the filter temperature. Ammonium chloride decomposes 
from the solid state at 339  deg.C, which is far above the temperature 
of 248  deg.F (120  deg.C) used for sampling acid regeneration plant 
emissions.

F. Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Four commenters stated that excessive excursions of 
operating parameters should not trigger implementation of CEMS. In 
addition, seven commenters stated that the use of CEMS should not be 
required. No systems have been demonstrated to have the capability to 
accurately measure and record compliance for this application. 
Commercially available systems for monitoring at the proposed levels 
are expensive, difficult to calibrate and maintain, and not reliable to 
the level of operation required. Manufacturers have cautioned that 
using such devices in an acidic application containing water droplets 
would interfere with the test methodology and be corrosive to the 
testing apparatus. Conditions of high humidity and acidity make it 
unlikely that an in situ sensor will ever work.
    Response: After reviewing the comments, the EPA agrees that 
reliable operation of currently available CEMS cannot be assured for 
this application. At best, inordinately burdensome maintenance and 
operating procedures would be required. The CEMS requirement is 
therefore deleted.
    Comment: Five commenters stated that pressure drop and acidity are 
not appropriate monitoring parameters. A relationship between these 
parameters and scrubber efficiency has not been demonstrated. Given the 
lack of variation of scrubbing efficiency between caustic solution and 
clear water, monitoring acidity is questionable. Also, the requirement 
to measure acidity is vague. Three commenters suggested that parameters 
other than pressure drop and acidity would be better indicators of 
scrubber performance. Scrubber water flow rate is a more valid 
indicator of efficient scrubbing. For packed bed scrubbers, betters 
parameters are pressure drop, air flow rate, and water flow rate to the 
top of the packing. For plate scrubbers, pressure drop and visual 
observation provide assurance of correct operation. Other parameters 
suggested were fan amps and liquid conductivity.
    Response: In considering all of these comments, the EPA concludes 
that scrubber makeup water and recycle water flow rates are better 
indicators of scrubber performance than pressure drop and acidity, on 
the basis that the mechanism for HCl collection is absorption in water, 
which can be done effectively even with slightly acidic water. The rule 
is revised, eliminating the requirements for monitoring scrubber 
pressure drop and scrubbing effluent acidity and replacing them with 
the requirements to monitor scrubber makeup water flow rate and, for 
scrubbers that operate with recirculation, recirculation water flow 
rate. Monitoring of pressure drop is moved from operational 
requirements to maintenance requirements. Pressure drop must be 
monitored as a means of discovering scrubber operational anomalies that 
may require maintenance. No specific pressure drop deviation limit is 
required, but the

[[Page 33215]]

monitoring records are required to be kept in addition to the recycle 
and makeup water flow rates. Flow rate increases large enough to cause 
flooding would be considered malfunctions.
    Comment: Four commenters stated that facilities should be allowed 
to develop their own monitoring protocols. The EPA should set forth 
minimum monitoring requirements and allow facilities to develop site 
specific protocols that they can justify.
    Response: Alternative monitoring options can be approved under 
Sec. 63.8(b) of the general provisions to this part. This provision is 
clarified in the final rule.
    Comment: Six commenters believe that monitoring of scrubbers should 
not be required during nonoperating periods such as stoppages for 
maintenance and repairs.
    Response: Periods of stoppage for maintenance and repairs would be 
covered under the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). The 
rule is revised to clarify that monitoring scrubber parameters is 
required only while the scrubber is operating. The rule is also revised 
to clarify that monitoring acid plant operations is required only while 
the plant is operating in production mode. Discussions with plant 
operators after proposal have revealed that plants often operate in 
modes that are designed, for example, to maintain temperature while 
acid and iron oxide production are temporarily suspended. These 
operations are conducted under conditions that are not predicted to 
produce byproduct chlorine.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that storage vessel inspections 
should be changed from monthly to semiannually to be consistent with 
the requirement under other subpart L NESHAP rules. Inspection of 
control devices on storage vessels should be conducted at the same 
frequency as compliance testing on the scrubber.
    Response: The reference is to subpart L of part 61, National 
Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Coke Byproduct Recovery 
Plants. The requirement in subpart L is to monitor connections and 
seals on each control system that recovers or destroys emissions from 
process vessels, tar storage tanks, and tar-intercepting sumps. The EPA 
believes that the requirements for this subpart should not be more 
stringent than those for rules with similar monitoring requirements and 
has revised the rule to require semiannual rather than monthly 
inspections.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that annual stack testing is 
excessive when coupled with parametric monitoring. One commenter 
recommended that stack testing only be required if the control device 
is out of range. The other commenters recommended testing no more 
frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or every 5 years.
    Response: In lieu of continuous emissions monitoring or other means 
for determining continuous compliance, enhanced compliance assurance is 
established in this rule by monitoring of relevant operating parameters 
in combination with routine and preventive maintenance plus periodic 
performance testing. Annual testing is typically required in such 
situations. The EPA believes, however, that some flexibility can be 
allowed in view of the requirement to also monitor parameters. The rule 
is revised to allow facilities to conduct performance testing on an 
alternative schedule that is approved by the applicable permitting 
authority but no less frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or twice per 
title V permit term.
    Comment: Four commenters stated that excursions of control device 
or acid plant operating parameters should not be considered violations. 
Out of range measurements should be treated as indicators of potential 
problems requiring further investigation or corrective action. A strong 
enough relationship between variations in pressure drop or acidity and 
HCl emissions has not been demonstrated.
    Response: The proposed rule inadvertently stated that exceedances 
of scrubber operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. 
The intention was to state that exceedances of acid regeneration plant 
operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. The rule is 
revised to state that excursions of scrubber monitoring parameters only 
require corrective action as specified by the maintenance requirements 
and are not violations of the emission limit.
    Regarding acid plant monitoring parameters, the EPA's policy is 
that linking excursions of operating parameters to violations of the 
emissions limit is preferred but is only defensible where a strong 
correlation between the parameters values and emissions can be 
demonstrated. The EPA reexamined the appropriateness of the linkage of 
acid regeneration plant operating parameters with emissions and agrees 
with the commenters that a strong enough correlation has not been 
demonstrated. The rule is revised so that excursions of acid 
regeneration plant operating parameters are a violation of the 
operational standard and not the emission limit.

H. Recordkeeping Requirements

    Comment: One commenter believes that the requirement for 
maintaining startup and shutdown records is ambiguous, burdensome, and 
of no environmental benefit. No guidance is provided on what 
constitutes a startup or shutdown. If required, startup and shutdown 
should be defined to exclude the normal stopping and starting of the 
pickling line during its daily operation.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that no environmental benefit is gained 
from keeping startup and shutdown records. These records can be used as 
an enforcement tool to ensure continued compliance with environmental 
rules or to show periods of inactivity when, for example, emissions 
would not be expected to occur.
    The EPA agrees that maintaining records of normal daily 
interruptions in line operations is onerous if not routinely practiced. 
This is not the intent of the recordkeeping requirement. Each facility 
writes its own SSMP and therefore can provide specific definitions of 
normal startup and shutdown versus intermittent stops and starts 
characteristic of daily operation. However, as part of the SSMP, these 
definitions are subject to approval by the facility's permitting 
authority.
    Comment: One commenter suggests that for the air pollution control 
device recordkeeping, startup and shutdown should be defined to include 
only ``abnormal'' cases, perhaps periods of a day or more.
    Response: As described in the previous response, each facility 
writes its own SSMP and can define normal startup and shutdown.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized file of information considered by the 
EPA in the development of a rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file 
because information is added throughout the rulemaking development 
process. 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 case of judicial 
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) The official rulemaking 
record, including all public comments received on the proposed rule, is 
located at the address in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 
this document.

[[Page 33216]]

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine if a 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 entitlement, 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.
    It has been determined that this final rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) concerns the environmental 
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonable 
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based 
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnerships

    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 the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA 
complies by consulting, EPA must provide 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.''
    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA involved State 
regulatory experts in the development of the rule. State and local 
governments and tribal governments are not directly affected by the 
rule, i.e., they are not required to purchase control systems to meet 
the requirements of the rule. However, State and local governments will 
be required to implement the rule; i.e., incorporate the rule into 
permits and enforce the rule. They will collect permit fees that will 
be used to offset the resource burden of implementing the rule. 
Comments were solicited from States and have been considered in the 
development of the final rule. No comments were received from any 
tribal government.
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L. 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of 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 developing EPA regulatory proposals with 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, 
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the 
regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. The EPA has determined that the total 
annualized nationwide cost of the final standard is approximately $7.9 
million per year, which is well under the $100 million per year 
threshold. The only costs to State and local governments are those 
associated with implementing this standard through the permitting 
process, and those costs are recouped through permit fees. In addition, 
the EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it does not impose any enforceable duties on small 
governments; such governments own or operate no sources subject to 
these rules and therefore would not be required to purchase control 
systems to meet the requirements of the rule. Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

[[Page 33217]]

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions whose jurisdictions are less than 50,000 people. This 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities because it does not impact small entities whose 
jurisdictions cover less than 50,000 people. Only three of 
approximately 80 affected facilities in this industry meet the criteria 
for small businesses. Of these three, one company is expected to meet 
the standard and one company is projected to be a nonmajor source based 
on calculations using an emissions estimating model along with 
information supplied by the firm. It is not anticipated that these two 
facilities will be adversely impacted by the regulation. The remaining 
small company employs a scrubber that may meet the emission limitation. 
If this facility incurs emission control costs, the costs would likely 
relate to upgrading existing equipment or improved maintenance 
practices. Any regulatory impacts for this company are not expected to 
be significant.

G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a report, which includes a copy of the rule to 
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective June 22, 1999.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No.1821.02 ) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The 
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information collection requirements include mandatory 
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information collection 
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 by section 114 of 
the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA for 
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according 
to EPA 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 collecting 
this information (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective 
date of the rule) is estimated to total 23,190 hours based on a total 
of 70 likely respondents over that period (23.3 per year) at 995 hours 
per respondent per year. The total annualized cost is estimated to be 
$1,850,000 per year, with a capital and startup cost of $8,200 per year 
and an operation and maintenance cost of $7,500 per year (excluding 
labor hours included in the previous total).
    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 purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary 
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal 
agencies like the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with 
explanations when an agency decides not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve the proposal of any new technical 
standards. It does, however, incorporate by reference existing 
technical standards. Incorporated are EPA Reference test methods 1 
through 4 and 26A, as codified under 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 
Consequently, the EPA searched for voluntary consensus standards that 
might be applicable. The search was conducted through the National 
Standards System Network (NSSN), an automated service provided by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for identifying available 
national and international standards. The search identified no 
applicable equivalent standards. Therefore, the final rule relies 
solely on use of the government-unique technical standards cited above 
for determining compliance.

[[Page 33218]]

    As part of a larger effort, the EPA is undertaking a project to 
cross-reference existing voluntary consensus standards on testing, 
sampling, and analysis with current and future EPA test methods. When 
completed, this project will assist the EPA in identifying potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards that can then be evaluated for 
equivalency and applicability in determining compliance with future 
regulations.

J. Pollution Prevention Act

    ``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.
    The steel pickling industry employs pollution prevention techniques 
through regeneration of spent pickle liquor. The 10 acid regeneration 
plants operating in 1991 recovered about 40 percent of the pickling 
acid requirements for the industry in that year. Without the savings 
provided by the use of regenerated acid, additional costs would be 
incurred for treatment or disposal of waste pickle liquor (K062) that 
are otherwise avoided. The final rule encourages use of acid 
regeneration by providing simplified and cost effective compliance 
requirements.
    The final rule also encourages pollution prevention through 
improved maintenance of air pollution control devices. Proper operation 
maintenance of control systems results in more effective emissions 
control.

K. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the 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 cost incurred by the tribal governments or the EPA consults 
with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, the EPA must 
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 the 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 the 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 does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No steel pickling facilities 
are owned or operated by Indian by tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steel pickling.

    Dated: May 12, 1999.
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 amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCC to read as follows:

Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants

Sec.
63.1155  Applicability.
63.1156  Definitions.
63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.
63.1158  Emission standards for new or reconstructed sources.
63.1159  Operational and equipment requirements for existing, new, 
or reconstructed sources.
63.1160  Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.
63.1161  Performance testing and test methods.
63.1162  Monitoring requirements.
63.1163  Notification requirements.
63.1164  Reporting requirements.
63.1165  Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1166  Delegation of authority.
63.1167-63.1174  [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart CCC--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A) to subpart CCC

Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and 
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants


Sec. 63.1155  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following 
facilities and plants that are major sources for hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) or are parts of facilities that are major sources for 
HAP:
    (1) All new and existing steel pickling facilities that pickle 
carbon steel using hydrochloric acid solution that contains 6 percent 
or more by weight HCl and is at a temperature of 100  deg.F or higher; 
and
    (2) All new and existing hydrochloric acid regeneration plants.
    (3) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to facilities that 
pickle carbon steel without using hydrochloric acid, to facilities that 
pickle only specialty steel, or to acid regeneration plants that 
regenerate only acids other than hydrochloric acid.
    (b) For the purposes of implementing this subpart, the affected 
sources at a facility or plant subject to this subpart are as follows: 
Continuous and batch pickling lines, hydrochloric acid regeneration 
plants, and hydrochloric acid storage vessels.
    (c) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of this part 
63, subpart A that apply and those that do not apply to owners and 
operators of steel pickling facilities and hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plants subject to this subpart.


Sec. 63.1156  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
    Batch pickling line means the collection of equipment and tanks 
configured for pickling metal in any form but usually in discrete 
shapes where the material is lowered in batches into a bath of acid 
solution, allowed to remain until the scale is dissolved, then removed 
from the solution, drained, and rinsed by spraying or immersion in one 
or more rinse tanks to remove residual acid.
    Carbon steel means steel that contains approximately 2 percent or 
less carbon, 1.65 percent or less manganese, 0.6

[[Page 33219]]

percent or less silicon, and 0.6 percent or less copper.
    Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and that is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, 
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport emissions from a 
process unit or piece of equipment (e.g., pumps, pressure relief 
devices, sampling connections, open-ended valves or lines, connectors, 
and instrumentation systems) back into a closed system or into any 
device that is capable of reducing or collecting emissions.
    Continuous pickling line means the collection of equipment and 
tanks configured for pickling metal strip, rod, wire, tube, or pipe 
that is passed through an acid solution in a continuous or nearly 
continuous manner and rinsed in another tank or series of tanks to 
remove residual acid. This definition includes continuous spray towers.
    Hydrochloric acid regeneration plant means the collection of 
equipment and processes configured to reconstitute fresh hydrochloric 
acid pickling solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal 
treatment process.
    Hydrochloric acid regeneration plant production mode means 
operation under conditions that result in production of usable 
regenerated acid or iron oxide.
    Hydrochloric acid storage vessel means a stationary vessel used for 
the bulk containment of virgin or regenerated hydrochloric acid.
    Responsible maintenance official means a person designated by the 
owner or operator as having the knowledge and the authority to sign 
records and reports required under this rule.
    Specialty steel means a category of steel that includes silicon 
electrical, alloy, tool, and stainless steels.
    Spray tower means an enclosed vertical tower in which acid pickling 
solution is sprayed onto moving steel strip in multiple vertical 
passes.
    Steel pickling means the chemical removal of iron oxide mill scale 
that is formed on steel surfaces during hot rolling or hot forming of 
semi-finished steel products through contact with an aqueous solution 
of acid where such contact occurs prior to shaping or coating of the 
finished steel product. This definition does not include removal of 
light rust or scale from finished steel products or activation of the 
metal surface prior to plating or coating.
    Steel pickling facility means any facility that operates one or 
more batch or continuous steel pickling lines.


Sec. 63.1157  Emission standards for existing sources.

    (a) Pickling lines. No owner or operator of an existing affected 
continuous or batch pickling line at a steel pickling facility shall 
cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected 
pickling line:
    (1) Any gases that contain HCl in a concentration in excess of 18 
parts per million by volume (ppmv); or
    (2) HCl at a mass emission rate that corresponds to a collection 
efficiency of less than 97 percent.
    (b) Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants. (1) No owner or operator 
of an existing affected plant shall cause or allow to be discharged 
into the atmosphere from the affected plant any gases that contain HCl 
in a concentration greater than 25 ppmv.
    (2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, no owner or operator of an existing affected plant shall cause 
or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected plant 
any gases that contain chlorine (Cl2) in a concentration in 
excess of either 6 ppmv or an alternative source-specific maximum 
concentration. The source-specific maximum concentration standard shall 
be established according to Sec. 63.1161(c)(2) of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1158  Emission standards for new or reconstructed sources.

    (a) Pickling lines.--(1) Continuous pickling lines. No owner or 
operator of a new or reconstructed affected continuous pickling line at 
a steel pickling facility shall cause or allow to be discharged into 
the atmosphere from the affected pickling line:
    (i) Any gases that contain HCl in a concentration in excess of 6 
ppmv; or
    (ii) HCl at a mass emission rate that corresponds to a collection 
efficiency of less than 99 percent.
    (2) Batch pickling lines. No owner or operator of a new or 
reconstructed affected batch pickling line at a steel pickling facility 
shall cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the 
affected pickling line:
    (i) Any gases that contain HCl in a concentration in excess of 18 
ppmv; or
    (ii) HCl at a mass emission rate that corresponds to a collection 
efficiency of less than 97 percent.
    (b) Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants. (1) No owner or operator 
of a new or reconstructed affected plant shall cause or allow to be 
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected plant any gases that 
contain HCl in a concentration greater than 12 ppmv.
    (2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, no owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected plant 
shall cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the 
affected plant any gases that contain Cl2 in a concentration 
in excess of 6 ppmv.


Sec. 63.1159  Operational and equipment standards for existing, new, or 
reconstructed sources.

    (a) Hydrochloric acid regeneration plant. The owner or operator of 
an affected plant must operate the affected plant at all times while in 
production mode in a manner that minimizes the proportion of excess air 
fed to the process and maximizes the process offgas temperature 
consistent with producing usable regenerated acid or iron oxide.
    (b) Hydrochloric acid storage vessels. The owner or operator of an 
affected vessel shall provide and operate, except during loading and 
unloading of acid, a closed-vent system for each vessel. Loading and 
unloading shall be conducted either through enclosed lines or each 
point where the acid is exposed to the atmosphere shall be equipped 
with a local fume capture system, ventilated through an air pollution 
control device.


Sec. 63.1160  Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.

    (a) Compliance dates. (1) The owner or operator of an affected 
existing steel pickling facility and/or hydrochloric acid regeneration 
plant subject to this subpart shall achieve initial compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart no later than June 22, 2001.
    (2) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed steel pickling 
facility and/or hydrochloric acid regeneration plant subject to this 
subpart that commences construction or reconstruction after September 
18, 1997, shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this 
subpart immediately upon startup of operations or by June 22, 1999, 
whichever is later.
    (b) Maintenance requirements. (1) The owner or operator of an 
affected source shall comply with the operation and maintenance 
requirements prescribed under Sec. 63.6(e) of subpart A of this part.
    (2) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section, the owner or operator shall prepare an operation and 
maintenance plan for each emission control device to be implemented no 
later than the compliance date. The plan shall be incorporated by 
reference into the source's title V permit. All such plans must be 
consistent with good maintenance practices and, for a scrubber emission 
control device, must at a minimum:

[[Page 33220]]

    (i) Require monitoring and recording the pressure drop across the 
scrubber once per shift while the scrubber is operating in order to 
identify changes that may indicate a need for maintenance;
    (ii) Require the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the 
recommended intervals on fresh solvent pumps, recirculating pumps, 
discharge pumps, and other liquid pumps, in addition to exhaust system 
and scrubber fans and motors associated with those pumps and fans;
    (iii) Require cleaning of the scrubber internals and mist 
eliminators at intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of solids or 
other fouling;
    (iv) Require an inspection of each scrubber at intervals of no less 
than 3 months with:
    (A) Cleaning or replacement of any plugged spray nozzles or other 
liquid delivery devices;
    (B) Repair or replacement of missing, misaligned, or damaged 
baffles, trays, or other internal components;
    (C) Repair or replacement of droplet eliminator elements as needed;
    (D) Repair or replacement of heat exchanger elements used to 
control the temperature of fluids entering or leaving the scrubber; and
    (E) Adjustment of damper settings for consistency with the required 
air flow.
    (v) If the scrubber is not equipped with a viewport or access hatch 
allowing visual inspection, alternate means of inspection approved by 
the Administrator may be used.
    (vi) The owner or operator shall initiate procedures for corrective 
action within 1 working day of detection of an operating problem and 
complete all corrective actions as soon as practicable. Procedures to 
be initiated are the applicable actions that are specified in the 
maintenance plan. Failure to initiate or provide appropriate repair, 
replacement, or other corrective action is a violation of the 
maintenance requirement of this subpart.
    (vii) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of each 
inspection, including each item identified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of 
this section, that is signed by the responsible maintenance official 
and that shows the date of each inspection, the problem identified, a 
description of the repair, replacement, or other corrective action 
taken, and the date of the repair, replacement, or other corrective 
action taken.
    (3) The owner or operator of each hydrochloric acid regeneration 
plant shall develop and implement a written maintenance program. The 
program shall require:
    (i) Performance of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at 
the recommended intervals on all required systems and components;
    (ii) Initiation of procedures for appropriate and timely repair, 
replacement, or other corrective action within 1 working day of 
detection; and
    (iii) Maintenance of a daily record, signed by a responsible 
maintenance official, showing the date of each inspection for each 
requirement, the problems found, a description of the repair, 
replacement, or other action taken, and the date of repair or 
replacement.


Sec. 63.1161  Performance testing and test methods.

    (a) Demonstration of compliance. The owner or operator shall 
conduct an initial performance test for each process or emission 
control device to determine and demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission limitation according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.7 of subpart A of this part and in this section.
    (1) Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or 
operator shall conduct a performance test for each process or control 
device to either measure simultaneously the mass flows of HCl at the 
inlet and the outlet of the control device (to determine compliance 
with the applicable collection efficiency standard) or measure the 
concentration of HCl (and Cl2 for hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plants) in gases exiting the process or the emission 
control device (to determine compliance with the applicable emission 
concentration standard).
    (2) Compliance with the applicable concentration standard or 
collection efficiency standard shall be determined by the average of 
three consecutive runs or by the average of any three of four 
consecutive runs. Each run shall be conducted under conditions 
representative of normal process operations.
    (3) Compliance is achieved if either the average collection 
efficiency as determined by the HCl mass flows at the control device 
inlet and outlet is greater than or equal to the applicable collection 
efficiency standard, or the average measured concentration of HCl or 
Cl2 exiting the process or the emission control device is 
less than or equal to the applicable emission concentration standard.
    (b) Establishment of scrubber operating parameters. During the 
performance test for each emission control device, the owner or 
operator using a wet scrubber to achieve compliance shall establish 
site-specific operating parameter values for the minimum scrubber 
makeup water flow rate and, for scrubbers that operate with 
recirculation, the minimum recirculation water flow rate. During the 
emission test, each operating parameter must be monitored continuously 
and recorded with sufficient frequency to establish a representative 
average value for that parameter, but no less frequently than once 
every 15 minutes. The owner or operator shall determine the operating 
parameter monitoring values as the averages of the values recorded 
during any of the runs for which results are used to establish the 
emission concentration or collection efficiency per paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section. An owner or operator may conduct multiple performance 
tests to establish alternative compliant operating parameter values. 
Also, an owner or operator may reestablish compliant operating 
parameter values as part of any performance test that is conducted 
subsequent to the initial test or tests.
    (c) Establishment of hydrochloric acid regeneration plant operating 
parameters. (1) During the performance test for hydrochloric acid 
regeneration plants, the owner or operator shall establish site-
specific operating parameter values for the minimum process offgas 
temperature and the maximum proportion of excess air fed to the process 
as described in Sec. 63.1162(b)(1) of this subpart. During the emission 
test, each operating parameter must be monitored and recorded with 
sufficient frequency to establish a representative average value for 
that parameter, but no less frequently than once every 15 minutes for 
parameters that are monitored continuously. Amount of iron in the spent 
pickle liquor shall be determined for each run by sampling the liquor 
every 15 minutes and analyzing a composite of the samples. The owner or 
operator shall determine the compliant monitoring values as the 
averages of the values recorded during any of the runs for which 
results are used to establish the emission concentration per paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section. An owner or operator may conduct multiple 
performance tests to establish alternative compliant operating 
parameter values. Also, an owner or operator may reestablish compliant 
operating parameter values as part of any performance test that is 
conducted subsequent to the initial test or tests.
    (2) During this performance test, the owner or operator of an 
existing affected plant may establish an alternative concentration 
standard if the owner or operator can demonstrate to the

[[Page 33221]]

Administrator's satisfaction that the plant cannot meet a concentration 
limitation for Cl2 of 6 ppmv when operated within its design 
parameters. The alternative concentration standard shall be established 
through performance testing while the plant is operated at maximum 
design temperature and with the minimum proportion of excess air that 
allows production of iron oxide of acceptable quality while measuring 
the Cl2 concentration in the process exhaust gas. The 
measured concentration shall be the concentration standard for that 
plant.
    (d) Test methods. (1) The following test methods in appendix A of 
40 CFR part 60 shall be used to determine compliance under 
Sec. 63.1157(a), Sec. 63.1157(b), Sec. 63.1158(a), and Sec. 63.1158(b) 
of this subpart:
    (i) Method 1, to determine the number and location of sampling 
points, with the exception that no traverse point shall be within one 
inch of the stack or duct wall;
    (ii) Method 2, to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate;
    (iii) Method 3, to determine the molecular weight of the stack gas;
    (iv) Method 4, to determine the moisture content of the stack gas; 
and
    (v) Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen 
Emissions from Stationary Sources--Isokinetic Method,'' to determine 
the HCl mass flows at the inlet and outlet of a control device or the 
concentration of HCl discharged to the atmosphere, and also to 
determine the concentration of Cl2 discharged to the 
atmosphere from acid regeneration plants. If compliance with a 
collection efficiency standard is being demonstrated, inlet and outlet 
measurements shall be performed simultaneously. The minimum sampling 
time for each run shall be 60 minutes and the minimum sample volume 
0.85 dry standard cubic meters (30 dry standard cubic feet). The 
concentrations of HCl and Cl2 shall be calculated for each 
run as follows:

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

where C(ppmv) is concentration in ppmv and C(mg/dscm) is concentration 
in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter as calculated by the 
procedure given in Method 26A.
    (2) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative 
measurement methods approved by the Administrator.


Sec. 63.1162  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of a new, reconstructed, or existing 
steel pickling facility or acid regeneration plant subject to this 
subpart shall:
    (1) Conduct performance tests to measure the HCl mass flows at the 
control device inlet and outlet or the concentration of HCl exiting the 
control device according to the procedures described in Sec. 63.1161 of 
this subpart. Performance tests shall be conducted either annually or 
according to an alternative schedule that is approved by the applicable 
permitting authority, but no less frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or 
twice per title V permit term. If any performance test shows that the 
HCl emission limitation is being exceeded, then the owner or operator 
is in violation of the emission limit.
    (2) In addition to conducting performance tests, if a wet scrubber 
is used as the emission control device, install, operate, and maintain 
systems for the measurement and recording of the scrubber makeup water 
flow rate and, if required, recirculation water flow rate. These flow 
rates must be monitored continuously and recorded at least once per 
shift while the scrubber is operating. Operation of the wet scrubber 
with excursions of scrubber makeup water flow rate and recirculation 
water flow rate less than the minimum values established during the 
performance test or tests will require initiation of corrective action 
as specified by the maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.1160(b)(2) of 
this subpart.
    (3) If an emission control device other than a wet scrubber is 
used, install, operate, and maintain systems for the measurement and 
recording of the appropriate operating parameters.
    (4) Failure to record each of the operating parameters listed in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section is a violation of the monitoring 
requirements of this subpart.
    (5) Each monitoring device shall be certified by the manufacturer 
to be accurate to within 5 percent and shall be calibrated in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions but not less frequently 
than once per year.
    (6) The owner or operator may develop and implement alternative 
monitoring requirements subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (b) The owner or operator of a new, reconstructed, or existing acid 
regeneration plant subject to this subpart shall also install, operate, 
and maintain systems for the measurement and recording of the:
    (1) Process offgas temperature, which shall be monitored 
continuously and recorded at least once every shift while the facility 
is operating in production mode; and
    (2) Parameters from which proportion of excess air is determined. 
Proportion of excess air shall be determined by a combination of total 
air flow rate, fuel flow rate, spent pickle liquor addition rate, and 
amount of iron in the spent pickle liquor, or by any other combination 
of parameters approved by the Administrator in accordance with 
Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of this part. Proportion of excess air shall 
be determined and recorded at least once every shift while the plant is 
operating in production mode.
    (3) Each monitoring device must be certified by the manufacturer to 
be accurate to within 5 percent and must be calibrated in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions but not less frequently than once 
per year.
    (4) Operation of the plant with the process offgas temperature 
lower than the value established during performance testing or with the 
proportion of excess air greater than the value established during 
performance testing is a violation of the operational standard 
specified in Sec. 63.1159(a) of this subpart.
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected hydrochloric acid storage 
vessel shall inspect each vessel semiannually to determine that the 
closed-vent system and either the air pollution control device or the 
enclosed loading and unloading line, whichever is applicable, are 
installed and operating when required.


Sec. 63.1163  Notification requirements.

    (a) Initial notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A 
of this part, the owner or operator shall submit the following written 
notifications to the Administrator:
    (1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently 
becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide 
notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by 
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A of this part.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of an affected source that has an initial startup 
before June 22, 1999, shall notify the Administrator that the source is 
subject to the requirements of the standard. The notification shall be 
submitted not later than October 20, 1999 (or within 120 calendar days 
after the source becomes subject to this standard), and shall contain 
the information specified in Secs. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v) 
of subpart A of this part.
    (3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed

[[Page 33222]]

affected source, or a source that has been reconstructed such that it 
is an affected source, that has an initial startup after the effective 
date and for which an application for approval of construction or 
reconstruction is not required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this 
part, shall notify the Administrator in writing that the source is 
subject to the standards no later than 120 days after initial startup. 
The notification shall contain the information specified in 
Secs. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v) of subpart A of this part, 
delivered or postmarked with the notification required in 
Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of this part.
    (4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed major affected source that 
has an initial startup after June 22, 1999, and for which an 
application for approval of construction or reconstruction is required 
under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this part shall provide the 
information specified in Secs. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through 63.9(b)(4)(v) of 
subpart A of this part.
    (5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator who, after June 22, 1999, intends to construct a new 
affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this 
standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected 
source subject to this standard, shall notify the Administrator, in 
writing, of the intended construction or reconstruction.
    (b) Request for extension of compliance. As required by 
Sec. 63.9(c) of subpart A of this part, if the owner or operator of an 
affected source cannot comply with this standard by the applicable 
compliance date for that source, or if the owner or operator has 
installed BACT or technology to meet LAER consistent with 
Sec. 63.6(i)(5) of subpart A of this part, he/she may submit to the 
Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) a request 
for an extension of compliance as specified in Secs. 63.6(i)(4) through 
63.6(i)(6) of subpart A of this part.
    (c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance 
requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of subpart A of this part, an 
owner or operator of a new source that is subject to special compliance 
requirements as specified in Secs. 63.6(b)(3) and 63.6(b)(4) of subpart 
A of this part shall notify the Administrator of his/her compliance 
obligations not later than the notification dates established in 
Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A of this part for new sources that are not 
subject to the special provisions.
    (d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e) 
of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an affected source 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of his or her intention to 
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test is scheduled to begin, to allow the Administrator to 
review and approve the site-specific test plan required under 
Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A of this part and, if requested by the 
Administrator, to have an observer present during the test.
    (e) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an 
affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as 
required by Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A of this part when the source 
becomes subject to this standard.


Sec. 63.1164  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by 
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an 
affected source shall report the results of any performance test as 
part of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.1163 
of this subpart.
    (b) Progress reports. The owner or operator of an affected source 
who is required to submit progress reports under Sec. 63.6(i) of 
subpart A of this part shall submit such reports to the Administrator 
(or the State with an approved permit program) by the dates specified 
in the written extension of compliance.
    (c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Section 
63.6(e) of subpart A of this part requires the owner or operator of an 
affected source to operate and maintain each affected emission source, 
including associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions at least to the level required by the standard at all times, 
including during any period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 
Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable after their 
occurrence in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan.
    (1) Plan. As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this part, 
the owner or operator shall develop and implement a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures 
for operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, and a program of corrective action for 
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to 
comply with the relevant standard.
    (2) Reports. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A of 
this part, if actions taken by an owner or operator during a startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken 
to correct a malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified 
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator 
shall state such information in a semiannual report. The report, to be 
certified by the owner or operator or other responsible official, shall 
be submitted semiannually and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 
following the end of each calendar half; and
    (3) Immediate Reports. Any time an action taken by an owner or 
operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions 
taken to correct a malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures 
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator 
shall comply with all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A 
of this part.


Sec. 63.1165  Recordkeeping requirements.

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

[[Page 33223]]

    (6) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with 
the standard and to support data that the source is required to report, 
including, but not limited to, performance test measurements (including 
initial and any subsequent performance tests) and measurements as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of the initial test or 
subsequent tests;
    (7) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;
    (8) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f) of subpart 
A of this part, any information demonstrating whether a source is 
meeting the requirements for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements;
    (9) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the 
initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h) of subpart A of this part, 
a copy of the full request and the Administrator's approval or 
disapproval;
    (10) All documentation supporting initial notifications and 
notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9 of subpart A 
of this part; and
    (11) Records of any applicability determination, including 
supporting analyses.
    (b) Subpart CCC records. (1) In addition to the general records 
required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator shall 
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of:
    (i) Scrubber makeup water flow rate and recirculation water flow 
rate if a wet scrubber is used;
    (ii) Calibration and manufacturer certification that monitoring 
devices are accurate to within 5 percent; and
    (iii) Each maintenance inspection and repair, replacement, or other 
corrective action.
    (2) The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant shall also 
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of process 
offgas temperature and parameters that determine proportion of excess 
air.
    (3) The owner or operator shall keep the written operation and 
maintenance plan on record after it is developed to be made available 
for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the 
affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the 
provisions of this subpart. In addition, if the operation and 
maintenance plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous 
(i.e., superseded) versions of the plan on record to be made available 
for inspection by the Administrator for a period of 5 years after each 
revision to the plan.
    (c) Recent records. General records and subpart CCC records for the 
most recent 2 years of operation must be maintained on site. Records 
for the previous 3 years may be maintained off site.


Sec. 63.1166  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the following authorities shall 
be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a State:
    (1) Approval of alternative emission standards for existing, new, 
and reconstructed pickling lines, hydrochloric acid regeneration 
plants, and hydrochloric acid storage vessels to those standards 
specified in Secs. 63.1157 and 63.1158 of this subpart;
    (2) Approval of alternative measurement methods for HCl and 
Cl2 to those specified in Sec. 63.1161(d)(1) of this 
subpart;
    (3) Approval of alternative monitoring requirements to those 
specified in Secs. 63.1162(a)(2) through 63.1162(a)(5) and 
63.1162(b)(1) through 63.1162(b)(3) of this subpart; and
    (4) Waiver of recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.1165 
of this subpart.
    (b) The following authorities shall be delegated to a State: All 
other authorities, including approval of an alternative schedule for 
conducting performance tests to the requirement specified in 
Sec. 63.1162(a)(1) of this subpart.


Secs. 63.1167--63.1174  [Reserved]

  Table 1 to Subpart CCC.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR
                   Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart CCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               Subpart CCC          Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5.....................  Yes.
63.6 (a)-(g)..................  Yes.
63.6 (h)......................  No...............  Subpart CCC does not
                                                    contain an opacity
                                                    or visible emission
                                                    standard.
63.6 (i)-(j)..................  Yes.
63.7-63.9.....................  Yes.
63.10 (a)-(c).................  Yes.
63.10 (d) (1)-(2).............  Yes.
63.10 (d)(3)..................  No...............  Subpart CCC does not
                                                    contain an opacity
                                                    or visible emission
                                                    standard.
63.10 (d) (4)-(5).............  Yes.
63.10 (e)-(f).................  Yes.
63.11.........................  No...............  Subpart CCC does not
                                                    require the use of
                                                    flares.
63.12-63.15...................  Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-12939 Filed 6-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P