[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 57 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15690-15737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4143]



[[Page 15689]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary 
Aluminum Production; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 57 / Thursday, March 23, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 15690]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6513-8]
RIN 2060-AE77


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources at 
secondary aluminum production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants 
(HAPs) emitted by the facilities that would be regulated by this final 
rule include organic HAPs, inorganic gaseous HAPs (hydrogen chloride, 
hydrogen fluoride, and chlorine), and particulate HAP metals. Some of 
these pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, are 
known or suspected carcinogens and all can cause toxic effects in 
humans following sufficient exposure. Emissions of other pollutants 
include particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.
    These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
and are based on the Administrator's determination that secondary 
aluminum production facilities are major sources of HAP emissions and 
emit several of the HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA from the 
various process operations found within the industry. The final rule 
will provide protection to the public health by requiring secondary 
aluminum production facilities to meet emission standards reflecting 
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). 
Secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources would be 
subject to limitations on emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) only. 
Implementation of this rule will reduce emissions of all identified 
pollutants by about 14,200 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (15,600 tons per 
year (tpy)) and HAP emissions would be reduced by about 11,300 Mg/yr 
(12,400 tpy).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective March 23, 2000. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 23, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-61, containing information 
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is 
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except 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 docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is 
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in the 
Supplementary Information section of this preamble. For information 
concerning the analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Mr. 
Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-1084, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, 
electronic mail address ``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are secondary 
aluminum production facilities using clean charge, post-consumer scrap, 
aluminum scrap, ingots, foundry returns, dross, or molten metal as the 
raw material, and performing one or more of the following processes: 
aluminum scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, thermal 
chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, refining, 
fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. The EPA 
identified an estimated 3,000 facilities potentially affected by the 
rule (including sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, and foundries) 
which include one or more of the designated affected sources, 86 of 
which are estimated to be major sources. Most establishments are 
included in NAICS 331314 (Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum), 
although others may fall in NAICS 331315 (Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and 
Foil Manufacturing), NAICS 331316 (Aluminum Extruded Product 
Manufacturing), NAICS 331319 (Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing), 
NAICS 331521 (Aluminum Die-Castings), and NAICS 331524 (Aluminum 
Foundries). Affected sources at facilities that are major sources of 
HAPs are regulated under the final rule. In addition, emissions of 
dioxins and furans (D/F) from affected sources at facilities that are 
area sources of HAPs are also regulated.
    The final rule does not apply to manufacturers of aluminum die 
castings, aluminum foundries, or aluminum extruders that melt no 
materials other than clean charge and materials generated within the 
facility and that also do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat 
furnace or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. Secondary 
aluminum production facilities that are collocated with primary 
aluminum production are regulated under today's final rule.
    Regulated categories and entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                     NAICS code   SIC code        Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................................     331314        3341   Secondary smelting and alloying of
                                                                          aluminum facilities.
                                                                         Secondary aluminum production facility
                                                                          affected sources that are collocated
                                                                          at:
                                                    331312        3334   Primary aluminum production facilities.
                                                    331315        3353   Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil
                                                                          manufacturing facilities.
                                                    331316        3354   Aluminum extruded product manufacturing
                                                                          facilities.
                                                    331319        3355   Other aluminum rolling and drawing
                                                                          facilities.
                                                    331521        3363   Aluminum die casting facilities.
                                                    331524        3365   Aluminum foundry facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now 
aware could potentially be

[[Page 15691]]

regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the 
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is 
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1500 of the rule. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative:

    Region I--Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, 
Region I, CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-
3595.
    Region II--Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000.
    Region III--Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, 
U.S. EPA, Region III (3AT10), 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, 
PA 19107, (215) 566-2110.
    Region IV--Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region 
IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-
3104, (404) 562-9131.
    Region V--George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, 
U.S. EPA, Region V (5AE-26), 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 
60604, (312) 353-2088.
    Region VI--John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. 
EPA, Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 
(214) 665-7220.
    Region VII--Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and 
Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, 
Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7446.
    Region VIII--Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations 
Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, 
Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6432.
    Region IX--Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-
1138.
    Region X--Dan Meyer, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region X (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128, (206) 
553-4150.

Judicial Review

    The NESHAP for secondary aluminum production was proposed on 
February 11, 1999 (63 FR 6946). Today's Federal Register action 
announces the EPA's final decision on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) 
of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is available 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. Only those objections to this rule which were raised with 
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be 
raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements that are the subject of today's final rule may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

Technology Transfer Network (TTN)

    In addition to being available in the docket, 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 provides information from 
EPA in various areas of air pollution technology or policy. If more 
information on the TTN is needed, call the TTN help line at (919)541-
5384.

Outline

    The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble 
to the final rule.

I. Background and Public Participation
II. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability and Definitions
    B. Emission Limits and Requirements
    C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements
    D. Reconsideration of Standard for Die Casters and Foundries
III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Standards and Operating Requirements
    C. Monitoring Requirements
    D. Impacts
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Impacts
    A. Air Quality Impacts
    B. Economic Impacts
    C. Non-Air Health and Environmental Impacts
    D. Energy Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Congressional Review Act
    B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    C. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background and Public Participation

    The CAA (section 101(b)(1)) was created in part ``to protect and 
enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the 
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its 
population.'' Section 112(b), as revised in 61 FR 30816 (June 18, 
1996), lists 188 HAPs believed to cause adverse health or environmental 
effects. Section 112(d) requires that emission standards be promulgated 
for all categories and subcategories of ``major'' sources of these HAP 
and for ``area'' sources listed for regulation, pursuant to section 
112(c). Major sources are defined as those that emit or have the 
potential to emit (from all emission points in all source categories 
within the facility) at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any 
combination of HAPs. Area sources are stationary sources of HAPs that 
are not major sources.
    The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate national emission standards 
for sources of HAPs. Section 112(d) provides that these standards must 
reflect:

* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the HAP * * * 
that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of 
achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is 
achievable for new or existing sources in the category or 
subcategory to which such emission standard applies (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7412(d)(2)).

    This level of control is referred to as MACT. For new sources, the 
standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall not be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator'' 
(section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards shall be no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of the existing sources for source categories and 
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the average emission 
limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for sources or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)). These two 
minimum levels of control define the MACT floor for new and existing 
sources.
    On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of 
categories of sources slated for regulation under section 112(c). This 
list included the secondary aluminum production source category 
regulated by the standards being promulgated today. The statute 
requires emissions standards for the listed source categories to be 
promulgated between November 1992 and November 2000. On June 4, 1996, 
the EPA published a schedule for promulgating these standards (61 FR 
28197). Standards for the secondary aluminum production source category 
covered by this rule were proposed on February 11, 1999 (63 FR 6946).
    As in the proposal, the final standards give existing sources 3 
years from the date of promulgation to comply. New sources that begin 
construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with 
the standards by the date of promulgation or upon startup,

[[Page 15692]]

whichever is later. The EPA believes these standards to be achievable 
by affected sources within the time provided.
    Emission limits, operating limits, methods for determining initial 
compliance, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements are included in the final rule. All of these components 
are necessary to ensure that sources will comply with the standards 
both initially and over time. However, the EPA has made every effort to 
simplify the requirements in the rule.
    The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for 
the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of 
proposal. To provide interested individuals the opportunity for oral 
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed 
standards, a public hearing was offered at proposal. However, the 
public did not request a hearing; therefore, one was not held. The 
public comment period was from February 11, 1999 to April 12, 1999. A 
total of 36 comment letters were received. Commenters included industry 
representatives, State and local agencies, and environmental groups. 
Today's final rule reflects the EPA's full consideration of all of the 
comments. Major public comments on the proposed rule along with the 
EPA's responses to these comments are summarized in this preamble. A 
more detailed discussion of public comments and the EPA's responses can 
be found in the Response to Comment Document (Docket No. A-92-61).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability and Definitions

    The rule applies to the following affected sources at secondary 
aluminum production facilities: each new, existing or reconstructed 
aluminum scrap shredder, thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering 
kiln/decoating kiln, group 2 (i.e., processing clean charge only and no 
reactive fluxing) furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, and 
rotary dross cooler; each existing secondary aluminum processing unit 
(composed of all existing group 1 (i.e., processing other than clean 
charge and/or performing reactive fluxing) furnace emission units and 
all existing in-line fluxer emission units); and each new or 
reconstructed secondary aluminum processing unit (composed of all new 
or reconstructed group 1 furnace emission units and all new or 
reconstructed in-line fluxer emission units which are simultaneously 
constructed or reconstructed after February 11, 1999) located at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source of HAP. 
The rule also limits emissions of D/F from each new, existing or 
reconstructed thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln, and sweat furnace; and from each new, existing or 
reconstructed secondary aluminum processing unit that contains one or 
more group 1 furnace(s) not processing clean charge, and that is 
located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area 
source. The rule also applies to secondary aluminum production 
processes designated as affected sources if they are collocated at a 
primary aluminum production facility.
    The rule does not apply to facilities that are aluminum extruding, 
aluminum die casting, and aluminum foundry facilities that (1) only 
process clean charge and material generated within the facility, and 
(2) do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. Those aluminum extruding, die 
casting, and foundry facilities that purchase or otherwise obtain 
materials other than ``clean charge'' and operate a group 1 furnace or 
operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are considered secondary aluminum 
production facilities under this rule and as such are subject to the 
requirements of this rule.
    The EPA categorized process furnaces into two classes. A group 1 
furnace includes any furnace that melts, holds, or processes aluminum 
containing paint, lubricants, coatings, or other foreign materials with 
or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean charge with reactive 
fluxing. Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid 
flux, other than cover flux, (including but not limited to chlorine gas 
and magnesium chloride) that results in a HAP emission.
    A group 2 (clean charge) furnace processes only molten aluminum, T-
bar, sow, ingot, billet, pig, alloying elements; thermally dried 
unpainted aluminum chips, aluminum scrap dried at 343  deg.C (650 
deg.F) or higher or delacquered/decoated at 482  deg.C (900  deg.F); 
oil- and lubricant-free unpainted/uncoated gates and risers; and oil- 
and lubricant-free unpainted/uncoated scrap, shapes, or products (e.g., 
pistons) that have not undergone any process (e.g., machining, coating, 
painting, etc.) that would cause contamination of the aluminum (with 
coatings, oils, lubricants, or paints); and internal runaround. A group 
2 furnace performs no fluxing or performs fluxing using only 
nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating gases (such as argon 
and nitrogen) or agents.
    This rule allows permitting authorities the discretion to defer 
Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permitting requirements until 
December 9, 2004, for area sources of air pollution subject to this 
NESHAP. This deferral is an option at the permitting authority's 
discretion under EPA-approved part 70 permit programs and not an 
automatic deferral that the source can invoke. Thus, Part 70 permitting 
authorities are free to require area sources subject to this NESHAP to 
obtain title V permits. In areas where no approved part 70 program is 
in effect, and the part 71 permitting program is administered by EPA, 
we will defer the requirement for title V permitting for these area 
sources until December 9, 2004. In a separate action, the Agency 
proposed final amendments on August 18, 1999 to extend title V 
operating permit deferrals for area sources in five source categories 
(64 FR 45116).

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

    The rule applies to major sources. In addition, the following 
emission sources located at secondary aluminum production facilities 
that are area sources of HAPs are regulated for emissions of D/F: new 
and existing thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/
decoating kilns, sweat furnaces, and secondary aluminum processing 
units containing group 1 furnaces that process other than clean charge. 
The emission limits for these units are summarized in Table 1 to 
subpart RRR in the final rule.
    The particulate matter (PM) emission limits apply to new, 
reconstructed and existing aluminum scrap shredders, scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross 
coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum 
production facilities that are major sources. Controlling PM emissions 
also controls emissions of HAP metals. A surrogate approach to emission 
limits is used to allow easier and less expensive measurement and 
monitoring requirements.
    The rule limits total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions from new and 
existing thermal chip dryers and from new and existing scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns at secondary aluminum production 
facilities that are major sources. The THC represents emissions of HAP 
organics. Hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limits apply to new, 
reconstructed and existing scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating 
kilns, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum

[[Page 15693]]

production facilities that are major sources. The HCl is itself a HAP, 
and it also serves as a surrogate measure of HAP inorganics including 
hydrogen fluoride (HF) and chlorine (Cl2) emissions. The 
rule limits emissions of D/F from new, reconstructed and existing 
thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns 
and sweat furnaces, and secondary aluminum processing units at 
secondary aluminum production facilities that are major or area 
sources. The D/F emission limit does not apply to facilities that are 
primarily die casting, extruding, or foundry facilities provided that 
they do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, and do not process materials 
other than materials generated within the facility unless it is ``clean 
charge'' (defined in the rule). No surrogate is used for D/F emissions.

C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements

    The rule includes operating and monitoring requirements for each 
affected source and emission unit within a secondary aluminum 
processing unit to ensure continuous compliance with the emissions 
standards. The rule incorporates all requirements of the NESHAP general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) except as provided in the 
appendix to the rule (Appendix A to subpart RRR). The operating and 
monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 2 to subpart RRR in the 
final rule.

D. Reconsideration of Standard for Die Casters and Foundries

    EPA has based its MACT standard for aluminum die casting and 
aluminum foundries, as well as its assessment of the economic impacts 
on small businesses in these industries, on information on 
representative facility practices provided to EPA by these industries 
to date. However, affected facilities in these industries have 
expressed concern that the information and assumptions upon which EPA 
has relied may be incomplete or may not adequately represent the 
processes and emissions at such facilities. Accordingly, EPA has 
decided that it would be prudent to gather further information 
concerning facilities in the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry 
industries and then to reevaluate MACT requirements and the economic 
impact on small businesses in these industries in light of this 
information.
    Accordingly, EPA will issue within three months a proposed rule to 
remove the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries from 
the present secondary aluminum standard, and a proposed rule to stay 
the applicability of the present standard to the aluminum die casting 
and aluminum foundry industries while EPA reevaluates the MACT 
requirements applicable to such facilities. EPA intends to take final 
action concerning the proposed stay as soon thereafter as practicable. 
EPA will also initiate a formal process to collect further information 
from the facilities in these industries on the activities in which they 
engage and the potential of these activities to contribute to HAP 
emissions. After evaluating this information, EPA will make a new 
determination concerning MACT requirements for both major facilities 
and area sources in these industries. EPA expects to adopt any 
alternative MACT standard applicable to these industries, and to take 
final action to remove the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry 
industries from the current standard, within two years. Any alternative 
MACT standard adopted for these industries will provide three years 
from the date of promulgation for affected facilities to achieve 
compliance.

III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    This section presents a summary of responses to selected comments. 
A more comprehensive comment summary and responses can be found in 
Docket No. A-92-61.

A. Applicability

    Comment: Several commenters wanted to exempt unvented in-line flux 
boxes from testing and monitoring requirements and suggested regulating 
them via work practices based on the following statements:
     Emissions do not have the potential to exceed the emission 
limit because small amounts ( 0.2 lbs/ton) of chlorine gas flux are 
used;
     There is no acceptable method for sampling their fugitive 
emissions, so exclusion from testing and monitoring would improve the 
SAPU concept and substantially reduce costs; and
     Unvented in-line flux boxes are a pollution prevention 
design that operate within allowable OSHA limits and should be 
considered representative of the MACT floor when properly installed.
    Response: Unvented in-line fluxers are capable of using and 
emitting chlorine and HCl in excess of the HCl emission standard for 
in-line fluxers, 0.04 lb/ton. One manufacturer of unvented in-line 
fluxers specifies a flux rate of 0.92 pounds chlorine per ton aluminum. 
The Agency has no reason to believe that fluxing at 0.2 to 0.9 lb/ton 
in an ``unvented'' in-line fluxer will meet the MACT floor level of 
emissions. Owner/operators can meet the emission limit by capturing and 
venting emissions to add-on controls or limiting the chlorine flux 
input to the fluxer. Limiting chlorine flux input to levels below the 
emission limit and monitoring flux addition is a work practice that 
would avoid the need for testing to demonstrate compliance. If testing 
is necessary, testing costs may be reduced through like-for-like 
testing allowed in the final rule, i.e., with multiple uncontrolled 
flux boxes of same design and same operating practice, only one needs 
to be tested to demonstrate compliance.
    The commenter's claim that such units cannot be tested is not 
valid. One unvented flux box at a facility that will be subject to this 
rule has been tested since proposal, and the results reported to the 
Agency. This particular unit was tested by measuring emissions at the 
point where fluxed metal exits the flux box. Another method of testing 
is to construct a temporary enclosure around the fluxer for the short 
duration of performance tests to capture fugitive emissions for 
measurement purposes (see Docket Item IV-A-1). Following the 
performance tests, flux usage must be monitored, and the flux box 
operating procedures must be maintained to ensure continuous compliance 
with the HCl standard.
    With regard to ``unvented'' fluxers being a pollution prevention 
design that should be considered a MACT floor, commenters have referred 
to perceived lower emissions that presumably are achieved by lower and 
more efficient use of fluxing agents. The MACT floor technology for 
control of in-line flux boxes upon which the emission limit is based is 
a lime-injected fabric filter; this technology can achieve an emission 
limit of 0.04 lb/ton HCl. No data were provided by the commenters to 
demonstrate equal or lower emissions from ``unvented'' fluxers over the 
full range of input flux as compared to vented fluxers with the floor 
technology.
    Comment: Several commenters opposed regulation of area 
manufacturing sources of D/F emissions, such as extrusion, die casting, 
and foundry facilities. Another commenter asserted that the EPA assumed 
area and major source D/F emitting processes emit at about equal rates 
per ton of feed, but data available to EPA for side-charge and roll top 
melters processing clean charge show those furnaces are not significant

[[Page 15694]]

sources of D/F as compared to furnaces charging dirty scrap. This 
commenter also contended the EPA assumption that 55 percent of all 
delacquering furnaces are located at area sources was the basis for 
regulating area sources. In comments on the Integrated Urban Air Toxics 
strategy, the commenter claimed there were inappropriate assumptions 
and errors in the inventories for sections 112(c)(6) and 112(k).
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the error regarding delacquering 
furnaces in the inventory for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics strategy. 
The EPA recognizes that emissions of D/F from affected sources in 
secondary aluminum processing facilities are site-specific and depend 
on the type of materials (scrap) fed to the process, flux type, flux 
rate, and flux practices among other variables. For both major and area 
sources, the materials fed to the furnace and combustion processes 
contain varying amounts of oil (hydrocarbons) and coatings 
(hydrocarbons and chlorides). These compounds found in scrap containing 
oils and coatings, as well as some fluxes, are D/F precursors. 
Processes located at facilities that are area sources and using the 
same feed and flux materials as are used at major sources will emit D/F 
at levels equal to the same processes at major source facilities.
    The EPA is not claiming that the total D/F emissions from affected 
sources located at facilities that are area sources are equal to the 
total D/F emissions from facilities that are major sources. However, 
there were also other commenters who mentioned large numbers of sweat 
furnaces in their States whose emissions were not counted, suggesting 
there are additional D/F emissions beyond those estimated in the 
national impacts at proposal. The EPA has developed an estimate of D/F 
emissions from sweat furnaces located at facilities that are area 
sources. That estimate is now included in the national impact 
calculations.
    Comment: Numerous commenters representing aluminum extruders, 
aluminum die casters, and aluminum foundries stated that their 
facilities should not be regulated because they differ fundamentally 
from large secondary aluminum production facilities in emission 
potential, particularly D/F emissions. The commenters raised the 
following issues:
     Extruders encompass a broad spectrum of facilities and 
appear to fall within the broad definition of secondary aluminum 
production facilities, which range from relatively small facilities 
owned by large companies to facilities owned by independent business 
people, many of which the commenter claimed are small businesses.
     Some extruders, die casters, and foundries use no 
purchased scrap but do use internally generated scrap, while other 
facilities use small amounts of ``clean'' purchased scrap. Some are 
concerned that regulation may interfere with the effort to recycle at 
the plant, while others who purchase scrap see the regulation as 
creating a disincentive to recycle from outside the plant.
     Impurities in scrap are a principal source of D/F 
precursors. The commenters stated that extruders, die casters, and 
foundries cannot be large contributors to D/F emissions because they 
use or process only small amounts of higher quality scrap and do 
limited fluxing. One commenter argued that EPA should exclude extruders 
as small contributors to D/F emissions as in Alabama Power vs. Costle, 
636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) using the de minimis exception 
articulated in that case.
     Previous EPA publications support the distinction between 
die casters and secondary aluminum production facilities:
     The Documentation for Developing the Initial 
Source Category List defines secondary aluminum production as 
facilities that smelt, and not including die casters;
     An EPA new source review guidance memo (Treatment 
of Aluminum Die Casting Operations for the Purposes of New Source 
Review Applicability from, Thomas Curran, Director, Information 
Transfer and Program Integration Division, December 4, 1998) states 
``die casting facilities typically need not be considered secondary 
metal production plants'' (the commenters argued that this memo 
acknowledges that die casters could engage in in-house recycling of 
castings and not be considered a secondary aluminum production 
facility); and
     The Secondary Brass and Bronze New Source 
Performance Standard (NSPS) distinguishes between facilities that 
reclaim brass and bronze and those that create a finished product.
    Applying the D/F standard to affected sources located at facilities 
that are area sources will subject facilities such as extruders, die 
casters, and foundries to the burden of title V permitting and MACT 
monitoring and reporting. One of these commenters stated that no 
environmental benefit will be gained from regulating area source 
aluminum production facilities since they already meet the emission 
limitation.
    Response: The EPA has considered these issues and responds as 
follows to the points raised:
     With respect to the first issue, the EPA agrees that based 
on the definition of secondary aluminum production facility and current 
operations of some facilities that are extruders, those extruders would 
be subject to this rule. Numerous comments on the applicability section 
and definitions in the proposed rule were received and after 
consideration of those comments, the EPA has revised those sections of 
the final rule. As part of the revisions, the EPA has concluded that 
aluminum extruding, aluminum die casting, and aluminum foundry 
facilities that process no materials other than materials generated 
within the facility and ``clean charge'' (defined in the rule), and 
that do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are not secondary aluminum 
production facilities and, therefore, are not subject to the 
requirements of the rule. Based on comments and information received in 
response to the proposal and subsequent meetings with the sources, the 
Agency believes that most small businesses will not fall under the 
definition of secondary aluminum production facility. Those aluminum 
extruding, die casting, and foundry facilities that do purchase or 
otherwise obtain materials other than ``clean charge'' and/or operate a 
thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln are secondary aluminum production facilities and are 
subject to this rule.
    The commenter's reference to some small facilities being owned by 
large companies is consistent with the EPA's knowledge that large 
companies in the secondary aluminum production industry engage in 
extruding operations. The commenter also claimed that some extruders 
are owned by independent businesses, many of which are small, however 
no specific quantitative data were provided to assist the Agency in 
assessing potential impacts.
     With regard to the second issue, the regulation 
discouraging recycling within the plant, the final rule does not 
prevent facilities that are area sources from using internally-
generated scrap as charge to their group 1 furnaces. Regarding 
purchased scrap, although some extruders, die casters, and foundries 
use only small amounts of purchased scrap in their operations, other 
information provided to the EPA since proposal indicates that some of 
this type facility use more than half scrap (purchased and internally 
generated) as feed/charge in their operations (see Docket Item IV-E-2).
    The issue with purchased scrap is the level of contamination with 
D/F

[[Page 15695]]

emission precursors. The EPA worked with industry representatives 
during the regulatory development phase to establish definitions and 
specifications for purchased scrap that would yield lower HAP 
emissions. Data collected indicated that the percentage of oil and 
coatings in scrap (hydrocarbon and chloride content) varies over a 
large range. No concurrence was achieved on the levels of scrap oil and 
coatings content that would reliably limit the processing of D/F 
precursors from affected sources, nor was concurrence achieved on a way 
to measure these levels of oil and coatings. Further, a similar 
discussion with industry representatives failed to reach a consensus on 
how to define limited reactive fluxing, the other important aspect of 
D/F emission potential. The EPA has concluded that facilities in which 
aluminum scrap is processed, whether purchased or otherwise acquired 
from outside the facility, fall within the secondary aluminum 
production source category.
     With regard to the third issue, these commenters assert 
that these facilities are not large contributors to D/F emissions 
because they purchase only small amounts of scrap or ``clean'' scrap, 
thus limiting the availability of D/F precursors in the affected 
sources. However, three factors (the total quantity of scrap fed to 
processes, the percentage of oil and coatings contamination of the 
scrap, and the flux rate) are significant variables that affect 
generation of D/F precursors. As mentioned above, some facilities use 
significant amounts of purchased scrap.
    Regarding the comment citing Alabama Power vs. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 
(D.C. Cir. 1980), and requesting de minimis exemption for extruders, 
EPA notes that CAA Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to regulate sources 
accounting in the aggregate for more than 90 percent of certain dioxin 
and furan emissions, and that EPA cannot use a de minimis rationale to 
exclude area sources from regulation if this would be inconsistent with 
this statutory mandate.
     With regard to the fourth issue, documentation for the 
Source Category Listing states that the secondary aluminum production 
source category includes ``any facility engaged in the cleaning, 
melting, refining, alloying, and pouring of aluminum recovered from 
scrap, foundry returns, and dross, to form aluminum products such as 
alloy ingots, billets, notched bars, shot, hot metals, and hardeners.'' 
The documentation also states that the category includes pretreatment 
processes which include drying, burning, and sweating, among others. 
Although there can be differences in operations and products between 
secondary aluminum production facilities and those facilities that are 
primarily die casting, foundry, and extrusion facilities, for the 
purposes of this NESHAP, the Agency considers the die casting, foundry, 
and extrusion facilities that use aluminum scrap and other coated/
painted aluminum bearing materials obtained from outside their 
facilities to be engaging in secondary aluminum production operations.
    The EPA new source review guidance memo referenced by the commenter 
has, in addition to the commenter's quote, an extensive discussion of 
the fact that some facilities whose primary activity is die casting 
also perform secondary metals production from post-consumer scrap or 
unspecified aluminum scrap. This type of facility was identified in the 
memo as a ``nested'' secondary aluminum support facility. Such 
facilities also use processing equipment that is defined as an affected 
source under this rule. It is the acquisition of aluminum-bearing 
materials from outside the facility that are not ``clean charge,'' and 
the presence of affected sources that subject the facility to this 
rule. The difference in products is not the determining factor.
    The final rule clarifies that aluminum die casting, aluminum 
foundry, and aluminum extrusion facilities that process only clean 
charge (as distinct from scrap) are not secondary aluminum production 
facilities (regardless of the remelting of internally generated scrap), 
provided they do not operate thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, or sweat furnaces. Aluminum die 
casting, extruding, and foundry facilities that process aluminum scrap, 
etc., in the furnaces (i.e., materials that are not clean charge) from 
outside the facility are secondary aluminum production facilities and 
subject to the final rule.
     Regarding the fifth issue, the burden of title V 
permitting, monitoring, and reporting for area sources, the final rule 
has been changed to allow permitting authorities the discretion to 
defer the title V permitting requirements for secondary aluminum 
production area source facilities that are not otherwise subject to 
title V permitting requirements under other regulatory actions. A 
further change that will reduce the burden for area sources is that 
they will only be required to conduct an initial performance test to 
demonstrate compliance. The requirement to repeat the performance test 
every 5 years has been eliminated for area sources.
    Facilities that use add-on controls will be required to monitor 
parameters in accordance with their approved site-specific OM&M plan. 
Facilities that are area sources which use purchased scrap, but meet 
the D/F emission limit without add-on controls, i.e., use work 
practices, will also be required to monitor in accordance with their 
site-specific OM&M plan. Their monitoring provisions will include a 
calculation method for determination of scrap contamination levels, or 
a scrap inspection program to demonstrate they are not exceeding the 
scrap quantity and oil and coatings contamination levels, and flux rate 
established during the initial performance test.
    The environmental benefit of controlling D/F from these affected 
sources is reduction of emissions of an environmentally persistent HAP. 
The benefits of monitoring for those sources who meet the limit without 
add-on controls is continuing evidence that the operating practices 
used during the compliance tests are maintained and emissions remain at 
a level below the limit.
    Comment: Commenters desired to allow new or reconstructed units 
into the SAPU and encourage EPA to do it with a discount applied to the 
new unit's allowed emissions. The commenters stated that:
     It will allow sources to take advantage of the more 
efficient fluxing achievable in new flux boxes, in particular the 
``unvented'' flux boxes.
     It promotes pollution prevention and is consistent with 
common sense initiatives and project XL innovations that allow 
plantwide applicability limits.
     It is not standard avoidance, but a more effective way of 
complying.
    Response: To allow new or reconstructed units into a SAPU 
consisting of existing units would involve averaging the emission 
reductions achieved by new and existing affected sources. Since new and 
existing sources are subject to separate standards and must 
individually demonstrate compliance, creation of a source which has 
both new and existing emission units is not permitted by the CAA. 
Therefore, EPA will not allow new units to become part of a SAPU 
comprised of existing units. In order for new units to have the same 
benefits available to existing emission units, the Agency has revised 
the rule to allow for a new SAPU, that is composed entirely of 
simultaneously constructed new sources and/or simultaneously 
reconstructed sources, in addition to the SAPU for existing emission 
units.

[[Page 15696]]

    Comment: In comments on combining and treating emissions from 
existing sources with those from new sources in a single control 
system:
     One commenter asked to group an existing or new furnace 
with a new in-line fluxer as a separate affected source (outside the 
SAPU). The combined unit would have the same limits as the furnace by 
itself for PM, HCl, and D/F (i.e., no emission increment for the new 
fluxer). The industry claimed a significant improvement in fluxing 
efficiency with much lower emissions is associated with moving fluxing 
from the furnace to in-line fluxers.
     Another commenter requested that the rule be expanded to 
affirm that new emission units may be ducted to existing control 
systems if capacity is available or can be expanded to accommodate the 
new source.
    Response: The problem with combining a new affected source with an 
existing affected source is that the new source is required to meet the 
specified emission limits, but once combined, the new source emissions 
are not measurable separately from the emissions from the existing 
source. As noted in the response to the previous comment, there is no 
legal construct under the CAA that permits combining control 
requirements for existing and new sources, therefore, the combination 
of an existing furnace and new in-line fluxer is not permitted.
    The revisions to the final rule do provide for the establishment of 
a SAPU composed entirely of simultaneously constructed new emission 
units. This will allow the combination of a new furnace and new in-line 
fluxer as a SAPU, but not allow combining a new furnace or in-line 
fluxer with an existing SAPU.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the applicability 
of the rule to sweat furnaces:
     One commenter, a manufacturer of sweat furnaces, expressed 
concern about economic impacts on small aluminum reclamation operators. 
This commenter estimated that there are at least several hundred sweat 
furnaces manufactured by them currently being used nationally with 
capacities considerably less than the model sweat furnace used in EPA's 
analysis of impacts (5,000 tons/year). All of their furnaces are 
equipped with integral afterburners. This commenter also submitted an 
afterburner performance test report showing 97.8 percent removal of PM 
by the afterburner and claimed, but did not have measurements, that D/F 
removal should be similar. The commenter stated that the preamble did 
not show D/F results upstream of the afterburners or what destruction 
efficiency was achieved.
     Another commenter attached a brochure from a manufacturer 
claiming to have distributed over 2,000 small sweat furnaces. This 
commenter states that the proposal underestimated the number of these 
sources. The commenter believes that testing and control costs will 
eliminate small businesses from the market and suggested that 
regulations for area sources be withdrawn until small business, health, 
and environmental impacts have been reassessed. Another manufacturer of 
sweat furnaces suggested a technology-based standard for area source 
sweat furnaces with no testing required.
    Response: The EPA has no test data to support a comparison between 
PM and D/F removal efficiencies. The D/F emission limit in the proposed 
and final rules has been proven to be achievable with MACT floor 
technology.
    Based on the information contained in these comments, the EPA 
requested additional information and data from sweat furnace 
manufacturers to further assess impacts of regulating D/F emissions 
from the furnaces. The large number of units reported to be 
manufactured suggested large numbers of these affected sources are 
currently in operation. The EPA's further investigation found that 
although one manufacturer who commented only sells sweat furnaces with 
integral afterburners for emission control; that is not the case for 
all domestic manufacturers.
    Due to the large number of these sources and the types of scrap 
materials processed, their D/F emission potential is significant both 
individually and in the aggregate. Recognizing this, the EPA considered 
additional regulatory strategies for sweat furnaces and performed an 
economic analysis to examine the impacts of those strategies. The 
conclusion from this analysis is that the cost of measuring D/F 
emissions from sweat furnaces through a performance test is significant 
in comparison to the cost of the furnace and afterburner. Based on this 
analysis the EPA has revised the rule to add an alternative means of 
compliance. Owner/operators electing to install and operate an 
afterburner meeting the design criteria of operating temperature of at 
least 1600  deg.F and a 2 second residence time will not have to 
conduct performance tests. The final rule retains the numerical 
standard so that owner/operators with control equipment that does not 
meet the design criteria have the option to test to show that the D/F 
emissions are below the limit. These revisions to the proposed rule, 
combined with many anticipated State permitting authority decisions to 
exercise their discretion to defer the requirement for title V permits, 
will significantly reduce the burden for both large and small 
businesses operating sweat furnaces. The economic impact analysis 
conducted for this regulation reports minimal economic impacts to 
owners and operators of sweat furnaces.

B. Definitions

    Comment: Numerous comments were received on the definition of 
``clean charge.''
     One commenter stated that the definition should include as 
clean charge, outside runaround that is contractually ensured to be 
clean.
     Other commenters stated that they support inclusion of 
``non-coated runaround'' scrap in the definition, which may have small 
amounts of lubricant, and that some runaround is returned from 
customers. These commenters stated that the rule should allow external, 
preconsumer, and non-coated runaround scrap in group 2 furnaces.
     Several commenters requested that EPA define non-coated 
runaround scrap or redefine clean charge to allow scrap covered with 
lubricants or substances low in materials that could generate D/F. Many 
die casters use scrap generated on-site (miscast material, defective 
parts, and cutoffs of excess aluminum) that may have inorganic agents 
(clay or talc) or die release agents (heavy waxes or high molecular 
weight oils) that do not generate D/F when burned.
     Commenters representing extruders also wanted to revise 
the definition to include purchased scrap low in materials that 
contribute to D/F generation.
     Other commenters noted the proposed definition of clean 
charge allows only pure aluminum (pure aluminum is an incorrect term) 
that cannot be cast in a die casting machine. They stated that the 
definition of clean charge also restricts the use of chips that have 
not been processed in a chip dryer and this is a disincentive for 
exploration of new technology (presses, centrifuges, and washers) 
alternatives to chip drying. Some facilities that do dry chips do not 
heat to 343  deg.C because it may oxidize the metal. The temperature to 
which chips must be heated to qualify as clean charge is arbitrary and 
was not considered with any input from foundries and die casters.
    Response: In regard to the first four comments on ``clean charge,'' 
EPA has reviewed and reconsidered the definition of clean charge. The

[[Page 15697]]

definition of clean charge at proposal erroneously included non-coated 
runaround scrap which commenters wanted clarified to include runaround 
from outside the facility (i.e., external, relatively ``clean,'' 
preconsumer, non-coated runaround). The commenters acknowledged that 
the runaround may have ``small'' amounts of lubricant and coatings. 
Lubricants, oils, and coatings are D/F precursors. As explained in a 
previous response, the EPA worked with industry representatives during 
the regulatory development phase to establish definitions and 
specifications for purchased scrap that would yield consistently lower 
HAP emissions when charged to furnaces. Data collected indicated that 
the percentage of oil and coatings in scrap (hydrocarbon and chloride 
content) varies over a large range. No concurrence was achieved on the 
levels of scrap oil and coatings content, or a universal method of 
measuring the scrap content of oils/coatings, that would reliably limit 
the processing of D/F precursors from affected sources. Group 2 and 
those group 1 furnaces that are ``clean charge'' furnaces have no D/F 
emission limit. It is not consistent with the concept of clean charge 
furnaces to allow oil- and lubricant-bearing scrap purchased or 
otherwise obtained from outside the facility to be charged as clean 
charge. For this reason, the Agency has clarified that the definition 
of clean charge includes internally generated runaround. Internal 
runaround is defined in the final rule as scrap material generated on-
site by aluminum extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/
stamping, cutting, and trimming operations that do not contain paint or 
solid coatings. Aluminum chips generated by turning, boring, milling, 
and similar machining operations that have not been dried at 343  deg.C 
(650  deg.F) or higher, or by an equivalent non-thermal drying process, 
are not considered internal runaround. Clean charge also does not 
include ``runaround'' scrap that is purchased or otherwise obtained 
from outside the facility.
    Secondary aluminum production facilities may use painted and/or 
purchased runaround in group 2 furnaces by drying or delacquering it to 
meet the definition of clean charge, so as to eliminate the possibility 
of D/F formation in the furnace. Owner/operators may also charge 
painted and/or purchased runaround scrap to uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces in a SAPU, provided they achieve an initial compliance 
demonstration and operate according to an OM&M plan approved by the 
permitting authority. For group 1 furnaces operated without add-on 
controls, the plan would likely include a site-specific scrap 
inspection or certification program of some type to indicate the 
contamination level and to define the percentage of scrap in the total 
furnace charge.
    As noted in a response to a previous comment, facilities that are 
primarily aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders that process 
only on-site materials or clean charge, and that do not operate a 
thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or 
sweat furnace are not secondary aluminum production facilities and are 
not subject to this rule.
     With regard to the fifth comment, relating to the use of 
the term ``pure aluminum'' in the definition of ``clean charge'' in the 
proposed rule, the definition has been revised for the final rule to 
eliminate the word ``pure'' as a modifier of aluminum and instead 
describe it as oil- and lubricant-free uncoated/unpainted aluminum.
    With respect to the issue of chip drying and the potential for 
oxidation of the aluminum, the final rule does not contain a minimum 
temperature requirement for thermal chip drying to make the chips 
``clean charge.'' With regard to other chip processing, the Agency is 
not precluding new technology such as presses, centrifuges, and washers 
that may be capable of producing chips with no oily residue, thus 
qualifying those processed chips as clean charge.

C. Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

    Comment: One commenter urged EPA to review the application of 
fluoride and chlorine fluxes in the secondary aluminum industry and to 
verify the appropriateness of HCl as a surrogate.
    Response: Emission limits for HCl were proposed because test data 
indicate that HCl is emitted when chlorine and reactive chloride fluxes 
are used, and the technology representing the MACT floor for HCl 
removal, which was determined to be lime injected fabric filters, also 
achieves MACT floor level removal of chlorine and HF. Although some 
fluoride fluxes are used by the industry, differences in flux 
properties, cost relative to chlorine/chloride fluxes, and occupational 
health considerations related to in-plant particulate levels limit the 
amounts used, thus limiting the potential for HF emissions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that emission limits do not reflect 
limits achievable using currently available technology, and that 
neither the limits nor the selected MACT accurately reflect MACT. The 
commenter stated that the MACT floor emission levels violate section 
112 of the CAA in that they are not based on the best-controlled 
sources for new sources and are not at least as stringent as the best 
performing 12 percent for existing sources. According to the commenter, 
EPA should consider, but did not, emission limits more stringent than 
the floor. In a related comment, another commenter disagrees with the 
dioxin emission standards and states that they are unsupported by 
emissions data. According to the commenter, the method of developing 
the limit is inconsistent with the CAA and fails to recognize the law 
of averages and, in the case of SAPUs, is illegal because it permits 
individual group 1 furnaces to emit dioxin at levels in excess of the 
MACT floor.
    Response: The commenters argued that EPA did not properly consider 
the available emissions data in establishing the MACT floor emissions 
limits. In the case, Sierra Club v. EPA (March 2, 1999), the DC Circuit 
held that because MACT standards must be achievable in practice, EPA 
must assure that the standards are achievable ``under most adverse 
circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur'' (assuming 
proper design and operation of control technology). The court further 
held that EPA can reasonably interpret the MACT floor methodology 
language so long as the Agency's methodology in a particular rule 
allows it to ``make a reasonable estimate of the performance of the top 
12 percent of units,'' that evaluating how a given MACT technology 
performs is a permissible means of estimating this performance, and 
that new source standards need not be based on performance of a single 
source. The court's decisions give EPA latitude in determining the MACT 
floor and the MACT floor emission limits. The EPA determined the MACT 
floor based on information available for each affected source and 
emission unit. At proposal, the EPA selected emission limits at the 
floor level of control, and the commenters provided no additional 
emissions data for any pollutant for EPA to consider. The emission 
standards are based on the emissions levels achieved through the 
application of MACT floor technologies and account for variation in the 
process and in the air pollution control device effectiveness.
    Comment: Several commenters did not want an exceedance of an 
operating parameter to be a violation of an operating requirement. 
According to the commenters:

[[Page 15698]]

     The rule is not clear as to what constitutes a violation 
of the operating requirements.
     Operating parameters are only indicators of process and 
control performance, not a direct measure of excess emissions.
     An exceedance should not to be a violation until six 
exceedances occur in a 6-month period.
     No more than one violation should be counted per 24 hour 
period for any one parameter.
     The rule is not clear on whether a failure to take 
corrective action in response to an exceedance is a violation of the 
standard.
     A failure to initiate corrective action within 1 hour 
should constitute a violation.
     The rule should specify that if corrective action is begun 
within 1 hour and completed in accordance with the startup, shutdown, 
malfunction (SSM) plan, no violation has occurred.
    Response: The EPA has considered the issue of a deviation being a 
violation and addresses the commenters' points as follows:
     With regard to the commenters' first point, the language 
in the final rule has been written to make clear that a deviation of an 
operating parameter is a violation of the operating standard. Each 
major source facility owner/operator is required to define the 
compliance parameters to be monitored in their OM&M plan. Then, during 
the initial performance tests, they are required to monitor and 
establish the value or range of the parameters. These values must be 
reported in the results of the test and notification of compliance 
status to the permitting authority and must be approved by the 
permitting authority. During subsequent operations, if the monitored 
parameters exceed the values or fall outside the range determined 
during the initial performance test, it is a violation of the operating 
requirements of the standard, unless it is the result of a malfunction 
to which the facility responds to in accordance with the SSM plan.
     Regarding the second point, the owner/operator may use 
continuous emission monitors (CEMs) as a direct measure of the 
emissions rather than using operating parameters if such CEMs can be 
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the permitting agency to reliably 
measure emissions.
     Regarding the third point, the EPA has no basis for 
allowing six deviations before considering the facility to be in 
violation. The owner/operator has ample opportunity to establish a 
range for the operating parameters and must thereafter operate within 
that range.
     Regarding the fourth point, any deviation of an operating 
parameter limit is a violation of the operating standard, regardless of 
when it occurs, unless it is the result of a malfunction to which the 
owner or operator responds in accordance with the SSM plan.
     Regarding the fifth and sixth points, the rule requires 
corrective action as a result of an operating parameter deviation or 
bag leak detector alarm. Corrective action must be conducted in 
accordance with the operations, maintenance and monitoring plan. 
Failure to take corrective action and to complete corrective action as 
expeditiously as practicable is a violation of the operating standard.
     Regarding the seventh point, a deviation that is the 
result of a malfunction, to which the facility responds in accordance 
to its SSM plan, is excluded as a violation.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the requirement that 
capture and collection systems meet the criteria established by the 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for 
hooding and ventilation systems. The commenters claimed EPA has not 
shown that MACT floor facilities' hooding and ventilation systems met 
ACGIH criteria so that the requirement is arbitrary; EPA should show 
that the facilities met the ACGIH criteria. Several commenters stated 
that because EPA has no data to support the requirement for ACGIH 
criteria for capture and collection equipment for existing sources, 
they recommended the requirement apply only to new sources. Other 
commenters stated that although currently protecting work space air 
quality, most existing systems would not meet ACGIH criteria, meaning 
significant expenditures to upgrade those systems. The EPA likely did 
not account for these costs in their economic analysis; they agree with 
the commenters who stated that the requirement should be limited to new 
or modified sources.
    Response: For affected sources and emission units that require an 
air pollution control device, a capture and control system meeting 
ACGIH criteria is necessary for occupational safety and to meet the 
emission standards. The emission standards are based on systems that 
effectively capture and contain emissions at the source (minimizing 
fugitives) and convey them to the control device for removal. In 
addition, a capture and control system meeting ACGIH criteria with good 
hooding design will result in a lower volume of exhaust air to be 
treated, and in many cases, a smaller, lower-cost control device. The 
EPA considers an ACGIH capture and collection system to be part of MACT 
floor technology for affected sources with add-on controls.
    Comment: One commenter supported not counting false alarms of the 
bag leak detection system in the alarm time. Another commenter stated 
that the monitoring and reporting requirements are reasonable in order 
to confirm compliance, with the exception of bag leak detectors. The 
commenter stated that a facility should not be penalized for rapid 
response to an alarm and recommends that the actual time be counted and 
delete the 1-hour minimum alarm time.
    Response: The rule has been clarified so that false alarms are not 
counted and a 1-hour minimum has been retained in the final rule to 
encourage proactive fabric filter maintenance.
    Comment: Several commenters did not want the labeling requirement. 
They argued that, (1) The inspectors can get this information from the 
OM&M plan in the office before entering the plant; (2) the labels will 
be hard to maintain in a plant environment; (3) it creates opportunity 
for violation with no commensurate benefit and increases/duplicates 
regulatory paperwork; and (4) the labeling requirement generates safety 
concerns.
    Response: The EPA believes that labeling requirements are necessary 
for enforcement and operating purposes and should be retained due to 
the complexity of the industry and the numerous possible facility 
configurations (and emission units that could be combined within a 
SAPU). Labeling will help prevent operators from charging the wrong 
materials or improperly operating the units and will help inspectors in 
identifying units and determining if the units are being properly 
operated. However, EPA understands industry's concerns over the 
implementation of the labeling requirements and has revised the 
proposed rule to require labeling only at those affected sources and 
emission units that can be operated in more than one mode and/or which 
are physically very similar, including group 1 furnaces with and 
without add-on controls, group 2 furnaces, scrap dryers/delacquering 
kilns/decoating kilns, and in-line fluxers. In addition, the final rule 
requires that labels contain only the identification of the unit and 
the applicable operational standards. These revisions respond to 
industry's concerns regarding increased regulatory paperwork with no 
commensurate benefits while maintaining enforceability of the standards 
since both operators and inspectors will

[[Page 15699]]

clearly know the operating standards/requirements of each emission 
unit.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the requirement to 
maintain the same flux injection schedule as used in performance tests. 
One commenter stated that they should be given flexibility to develop 
schedule procedures during performance tests subject to approval by the 
permitting authority. According to one commenter, the requirement to 
maintain the same flux injection schedule as used in performance tests, 
which would be done under worst case conditions, would result in an 
increase in HCL emissions and cause other negative environmental 
impacts. Another commenter stated that this requirement will cause 
increased HCL emissions for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces and will 
restrict work practices to minimize chlorine use. The commenter 
suggested a separate provision to maintain the same flux injection 
schedule for baghouses with semi-continuous lime feed systems.
    One commenter wanted flux monitoring on a monthly basis and the 
schedule requirement eliminated. The rule could be interpreted to 
preclude a system with computerized monitoring of furnace operations/
controls with correlated emissions and online continuous emissions 
calculations.
    Response: Owners or operators are required to conduct performance 
tests under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur. 
This is represented by the maximum reactive flux rate. The final rule 
provides that sources may flux (on a lb per ton of feed/charge basis), 
up to the limit established during a successful performance test, and 
does not require maintaining the same schedule. The rule also does not 
require owners or operators to use more flux than necessary to produce 
a saleable product. These requirements will not lead to increased HC1 
emissions.
    The standards for emission units performing reactive fluxing, all 
of which are included in the SAPU affected source, were developed using 
emissions data gathered during a complete cycle. Because of the 
difference in cycle times and schedules, the EPA recognized the need to 
develop emission limits for SAPUs that would account for overlapping 
cycles of the emission units included in the emissions calculation and 
a 3-day, 24-hour rolling average was selected as the maximum averaging 
time required. Reactive flux monitoring on a monthly basis is not 
acceptable in that it is inconsistent with the emission standards based 
on 3-day, 24-hour rolling average and the established monitoring 
parameter values or ranges derived during the performance test. 
Monitoring over a period consistent with the basis of the emission 
standards provides the necessary evidence of continuous compliance.
    The issue of flux injection rate and schedule is related to lime 
injection practice for the fabric filter control systems. The final 
rule provides operating requirements for the floor technology, which is 
continuous lime injection systems with lime-injected fabric filters. 
Owners/operators who want to use intermittent lime feed systems (as 
opposed to continuous injection) must show compliance with the emission 
limits and must apply to the permitting authority for approval of an 
alternative lime addition monitoring procedure. The owners/operators 
must provide information as necessary to show that the applicable 
emission limits will be achieved on a continuous basis.
    The rule does not preclude the use of computerized systems that 
correlate controls and operating practices with emissions and calculate 
emissions on a continuous basis once this approach is approved by the 
permitting authority and incorporated into the site-specific OM&M plan.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the +25  deg.F 
associated with the inlet temperature limit for fabric filters 
established during the initial performance test. According to two 
commenters, the operating temperature of these fabric filters will vary 
more than 25  deg.F due to changes in ambient temperatures. This 
creates an unnecessary risk of violation and provides no environmental 
benefit. Another commenter stated that instead of the temperature 
requirement, electrochemical HCl sensors for automatic lime feed 
adjustment and other automatic systems should be considered to allow 
greater operating flexibility. One commenter stated that in-line 
fluxers are not regulated for dioxin emissions and therefore do not 
need a temperature limit.
    Response: The proposed rule has been changed to eliminate this 
requirement for fabric filters only controlling in-line fluxers since 
these units operate at temperatures that are close to ambient 
temperature. For other affected sources and emission units, or fluxers 
ducted to a device co-controlling other sources, the +25  deg.F limit 
is retained. Operators would be expected to add dilution air or water 
sprays as required to maintain the fabric filter inlet temperature 
within the range. Also, performance tests could be conducted at worst 
case conditions. For example, performance tests could be conducted so 
that the inlet temperature is much higher than the normal operating 
inlet temperature (450  deg.F vs 380  deg.F, for example, thus 
providing a larger operating range). Dioxin formation is strongly 
influenced by the temperature at the fabric filter inlet, and 
temperature control is the means of preventing D/F formation (and 
enhancing HCl removal) in the fabric filter. Temperature is also a 
parameter which is monitored to ensure continuous compliance between 
periodic performance tests. This is because it is an indicator of 
control device performance for D/F and HCl emissions.
    Comment: According to one commenter, owners and operators could 
demonstrate compliance with the HCl emission limit by monitoring total 
chlorine input and showing it to be less than the emission limit.
    Response: The EPA agrees that, for in-line fluxers and group 1 
furnaces processing only clean charge, operators may demonstrate 
compliance (in lieu of performance tests) by demonstrating that 
reactive flux injection is limited to a rate which would not exceed the 
standard if emitted in its entirety.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: Several comments were received that requested more 
flexibility in the monitoring requirements aimed at reducing the burden 
to the industry:
     One commenter stated that the operating and monitoring 
requirements of Secs. 63.1506 and 63.1510 are too prescriptive and not 
consistent with preamble statements regarding flexibility.
     Several commenters stated that EPA should allow 
alternative site-specific monitoring and operating plans to improve 
feasibility and cost effectiveness.
     Another commenter stated that separate provisions should 
be included in each of Secs. 63.1506 and 63.1510 allowing facilities to 
develop alternative procedures approvable by the applicable permitting 
agency.
     Two commenters claimed the provisions will result in 
burdensome, labor-intensive requirements without commensurate benefit 
to the environment.
     Another commenter with a rolling mill facility claimed 
their plant is operating at demonstrated low emission levels and seeks 
monitoring plan flexibility to allow their facility to continue in its 
present mode. Referring to this plant, another commenter stated that 
the plant has developed a correlation between opacity and PM which has 
been used for over a year, in accordance with a regulatory order. This 
monitoring has been approved by EPA

[[Page 15700]]

and the local agency and is federally enforceable.
    Response: The final rule has been written to incorporate more 
flexibility in the monitoring requirements:
     With regard to the commenters' first, second, and third 
points, the final rule includes explicit provisions for obtaining 
approval to use alternative monitoring procedures and lists the types 
of information needed in the application. It includes data or 
information to justify the request such as technical or economic 
infeasibility, a description of the proposed alternative monitoring 
requirements including operating parameters and how the limit for SAPUs 
(if SAPUs are included in the application) will be calculated, and 
information as to how the alternative monitoring requirements would 
provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the 
standards.
    In addition, in response to the numerous comments received 
regarding the proposed monitoring and operating provisions, the final 
rule has been written to provide more flexibility to individual 
facilities in developing their OM&M plans and for approval of site-
specific monitoring and operating alternatives, within EPA guidelines, 
by the permitting authority. Additional comment responses below discuss 
some specific changes made in the final rule.
     Regarding the fourth point, the monitoring requirements 
are necessary to demonstrate continuous compliance and, as such, are 
environmentally beneficial. Most, if not all, of the monitoring data 
collection or logging can be computerized and, therefore, will not be 
labor intensive.
     Regarding the fifth point, specifically, the final rule 
allows the owner/operator of a plant to apply to the Administrator for 
alternative monitoring, if necessary, or document their current 
procedures in the facility OM&M plan. The OM&M plan is submitted to the 
permitting authority for review and approval. The final rule gives more 
flexibility, for example, through guidance for scrap inspections (used 
in operating limits and monitoring) that is less prescriptive and more 
options for lime injection monitoring.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the monitoring frequencies 
and data quality objectives are too restrictive and specific for 
application across a diverse industry and bear no relevance to the 
emission standards or ensuring proper operation of emission controls. 
Another commenter agreed with the selection of the monitoring 
parameters in the proposed rule, but stated that the monitoring 
intervals are too frequent.
    Response: Monitoring frequency requirements are related to the need 
for evidence of continuous compliance, and frequent readings are 
essential to provide the demonstration. However, the final rule changes 
the frequency of recording monitored parameter values from that 
proposed. For example, the frequency of recording fluxing rates has 
been reduced by requiring readings only during periods when flux 
additions are occurring. Additional options included for monitoring 
free-flowing lime change those monitoring and frequency requirements 
and increase the monitoring options. Furthermore, the provisions for 
site-specific OM&M plans approved by permitting authorities allow 
opportunity for adjustment of monitoring, within EPA guidelines, to fit 
site-specific conditions. Comments dealing with data-quality objectives 
for specific monitored parameters are addressed in more detail below.
    Comment: Several commenters argued that the requirements for 
accuracy of 1 percent when applied to feed/charge weight and flux 
injection rates are overly stringent and burdensome and create an 
unnecessary increment for a violation.
    Response: The EPA has retained the 1 percent accuracy requirement 
in the final rule. However, the EPA recognizes there may be situations 
in which 1 percent accuracy for feed/charge weight and chlorine flux 
injection rate is not workable. An example of this may be operating at 
a very low flux injection rate. The final rule has been written to 
allow the permitting authority to approve alternative accuracy 
requirements for monitoring equipment, on a site-specific basis, in 
situations where the 1 percent accuracy requirement is not workable and 
where the owner/operator provides data/information to substantiate that 
emission standards will be achieved on a continuous basis.
    Comment: In comments on accuracy of performance test measurements 
and feed/charge weight measurements:
     One commenter stated that the EPA reference methods are 
not better than 10 percent repeatable, so the requirement for 1 percent 
accuracy in charge weight is arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome.
     Another commenter requested less stringency in the 
accuracy requirement for the sources whose emissions are well under the 
emission limit, noting that the expected accuracy of Methods 26A and 5 
is 10 percent. This commenter suggested that the charge weight 
monitoring be restricted to only those sources having to comply with a 
lb/ton emission limit.
     An additional commenter stated that an aggregate accuracy 
of 5 percent is more representative of reproducible floor practice.
     Another commenter wanted the weight monitoring not to be 
required for each emission unit, but allowed to be aggregated across 
emission units.
    Response: The EPA considered the measurement accuracy issue raised 
by the commenters and addresses their points as follows:
     With regard to the commenters' first, second, and third 
points concerning the test method accuracy, the EPA notes that the 
variability in the test methods, process, and control equipment is 
incorporated into the testing results upon which the emission limits 
are based. The limits have been established to accommodate that 
variability. Given that the emission limits are on a lb-of-emission/
ton-of-feed (or charge) basis, it is also in the owner/operators best 
interest to make an accurate weight determination because inaccurate 
measurements could cause them to be out of compliance. As noted in the 
previous response, the final rule provides additional flexibility with 
regard to feed/charge measurement in situations where the 1 percent 
accuracy is not workable.
     Regarding the fourth point, weight monitoring is required 
because the emission limits are based on lb/ton of feed/charge or 
product. Under the site-specific OM&M plans, individual emission units 
of the same type may have different allowable emission rates based on 
the presence of add-on control devices, fluxing practice, and feed/
charge practices. The only way to determine compliance is to monitor 
weights for individual emission units.
    Comment: Commenters wanted the compliance date to be 3 years after 
promulgation rather than ``on or after the date of the initial 
performance test.'' They argued that:
     Carrying out performance tests prior to the end of 3 years 
is essential to completing the monumental job; but they do not like 
having to comply ``on and after the date of the initial performance 
test'' which could be the emission test program for the SAPU.
     The submittal deadlines for the OM&M plan, the SAPU 
emission plan, and the site-specific test plan are inconsistent with 
each other; they wanted EPA to remove all the interim compliance 
requirements to give the necessary flexibility to evaluate and agree 
with the permitting agency on compliance requirements before the 3-year 
deadline.
    Response: A facility must be in compliance on and after the date of 
the

[[Page 15701]]

initial performance test. The date of that initial performance test, 
for existing sources, may be up to 3 years after the promulgation date 
of the standard. For existing SAPUs, the initial performance test is 
considered to be the date of approval of the OM&M plan by the 
permitting authority.
    In response to the comments regarding the inconsistent plan 
requirements and dates for submittal, the EPA has revised and clarified 
those requirements. The final rule requires the owner/operator of a 
SAPU to perform tests that will define the operating modes of the 
controlled and uncontrolled emission units within the SAPU, and to 
define which parameters to monitor to demonstrate continuous 
compliance. These same tests can be used to measure the emission rates 
from the affected sources and emission units for performance test 
purposes. A site-specific test plan for this program must be submitted 
to the permitting authority for review and approval before the tests 
are conducted. The plan must identify the parameters to be monitored 
during the tests, the test methods to be used, the units to be tested, 
and planned operating modes for each unit during the tests. After the 
test plan has been approved by the permitting authority, the owner/
operator is required to notify the Administrator of the test dates.
    The results from this test program, including the emission rates 
measured, values of parameters monitored, monitoring parameters 
selected by the owner/operator for compliance demonstration, and values 
of the parameters to be used as operating limits must be submitted to 
the permitting authority for review and approval. As a result of the 
review, the permitting authority may request changes to selected 
monitoring parameters or values of the parameters used for compliance 
demonstration if it is determined the parameters or values do not 
provide an adequate means of demonstrating continuous compliance. When 
all of these elements are approved by the permitting authority, the 
owner/operator prepares an OM&M plan using the approved monitoring 
scheme and submits the OM&M plan to the permitting authority for 
approval. The compliance date is the approval date of the OM&M plan. 
The approved OM&M plan will be included by reference in the operating 
permit.
    The latest date for an existing facility to achieve compliance is 3 
years from the date the standard is promulgated. The OM&M plan must be 
submitted to the permitting authority for approval no later than 6 
months before the planned compliance date. Given these conditions and 
lead times for preparing plans and conducting tests, it is clear that 
owner/operators must act expeditiously to develop test plans and 
execute the test programs.
    Facilities that choose to comply by demonstrating that each 
emission unit in the SAPU meets the emission limit for that unit, and 
by monitoring the parameters as designated in the rule for each 
emission unit and control device, are also required to develop a test 
plan and notify the permitting authority of the test date(s).
    Comment: One commenter stated that inspection of lime feed systems 
once per 8-hour shift and more frequently when found to be plugged may 
be difficult, arguing that visual inspection at silo and bin tops is 
dangerous. The commenter suggested alternate language that reduces the 
required checks from every 4 hours for 3 days, if plugged, to checks 
for only 2 consecutive 4-hour periods following restoration to free 
flow. Another commenter also disagreed with the requirement to inspect 
every 4 hours for 3 days, even if the problem is corrected earlier.
    Response: Based on the comments received the final rule has been 
written to provide other options to demonstrate free-flowing lime. In 
addition to the option to perform visual checks to verify free-flowing 
lime, the owner/operator may use devices such as load cells to 
demonstrate this via weight changes in lime feed bins, use pressure 
sensors in pneumatic conveying systems to distinguish low or ``no 
flow'' conditions, continuously monitor lime feed rate, use an HCl 
monitoring device at the fabric filter outlet, or another method 
subject to approval by the permitting authority.
    Comment: One commenter requested that lime feeder inspection 
requirements and corrective action requirements demonstrate compliance 
and that discovery and correction of a blockage or feeder setting drift 
not be an automatic violation. The commenter suggested that the rule be 
rewritten to require corrective action when necessary and not to make 
blockage or feeder setting drift a violation.
    Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, the 
final rule provides additional options for monitoring the lime system 
to maintain free-flowing lime. One of those options, the HCl monitor, 
provides a direct indication of continued effective operation of the 
control system which is the desired goal of any monitoring option 
selected. Other options that detect lime feeder blockages are not 
direct and immediate performance indicators, so the time until remedied 
is a critical variable. For this reason, EPA requires maintenance of 
free flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times. Blockages 
that occur as a result of equipment breakage or failure would 
potentially fall under the malfunction provision, and if determined to 
be a malfunction, would be covered by the SSM plan and would not be a 
violation, if corrected in accordance with the SSM plan. However, 
continued and frequent blockages indicate a system design and operating 
problem rather than a malfunction.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed regulatory 
requirements for scrap inspection programs. They stated that the 
requirements are too onerous, expensive, complex and overly 
prescriptive, and further, some provisions are not technically feasible 
or cannot be reasonably met. Three of the commenters suggested that the 
broadly stated scrap inspection requirements provided in the preamble 
to the proposed rule could be acceptable, and that approval of site-
specific plans by the permitting authority would be a more acceptable 
requirement. Two commenters also stated that the scrap should not have 
to be inspected if the necessary control systems are in place. 
According to these commenters, inspection is only needed for control by 
work practices or pollution prevention. They stated that the EPA needs 
to be clearer as to which sources are covered; the preamble says all 
furnaces and the rule says uncontrolled group 1 furnaces.
    Response: The scrap inspection program requirements apply only to 
those facilities that elect to use such a program as a monitoring 
technique to ensure the oil and coatings content of scrap charged to a 
group 1 furnace stays below levels established during the performance 
tests. Such a program could apply to facilities that have only 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, or facilities that have both add-on 
controlled and uncontrolled group 1 furnaces.
    As a result of the numerous comments received regarding the scrap 
inspection program elements, the EPA has modified the proposed rule. 
The detailed requirements contained in the proposed rule have been 
deleted and the general scrap inspection guidelines provided in the 
proposal preamble have been adopted. This change will provide more 
flexibility to owner/operators to tailor the program to specific 
conditions for their facility. The scrap inspection program, if 
selected by the facility, will become part of the site-specific OM&M 
plan. The specific inspection program elements, which must be 
consistent

[[Page 15702]]

with guidance in the rule, will be approvable by the permitting 
authority as part of the site-specific OM&M plan and will be 
enforceable under the facility's permit.
    Comment: Several commenters wanted EPA to allow testing one 
representative unit from a group of similar sources, that is one unit 
to represent similar furnaces or in-line fluxers, instead of having to 
test every emission unit. One of the commenters stated that this 
practice should be allowed for either controlled or uncontrolled units. 
Several commenters claim this approach is widely used under existing 
State permits and has been used by EPA in other NESHAPs. Commenters 
claimed that it would significantly reduce costs, provide flexibility, 
and provide more cost-effective test programs.
    Response: Based on the comments received, the EPA is modifying the 
testing requirements to allow representative or similar uncontrolled 
emission units that use like charge and flux materials to be tested, 
instead of requiring each unit to be tested. Testing of representative 
or similar units may be used provided approval is obtained from the 
applicable permitting authority. The representative unit selected for 
testing must be subject to the same work practices and be of the same 
design as those emission units it is representing for test purposes. 
The representative unit must be tested under worst case conditions. It 
is up to the owner/operator to define the worst case scenario(s) for 
review and approval by the permitting authority. At least one of each 
different style unit must be tested. Each add-on control device 
controlling emissions from an affected source or emission unit must be 
tested.

E. Impacts

    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the results of EPA's 
regulatory impact analysis and believed that EPA underestimated the 
cost of the rule. The commenters identified the following as 
deficiencies in the impact analysis:
     The EPA underestimated the number of area sources that 
would be impacted as a result of the area source D/F standard. In 
particular, owners or operators of sweat furnaces, die casting 
facilities, foundries, and extruders were identified as potentially 
affected area sources that were either excluded or not adequately 
accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, the commenters claimed that 
the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and title V 
permit requirements would impose a significant burden on area sources.
     The EPA understated the number of small businesses that 
would be affected by the rule and, as a result, EPA's analysis of 
impacts on small entities was not adequate. According to several of the 
commenters, the small business impacts analysis underestimated small 
business impacts because it did not accurately account for sweat 
furnaces, die casting facilities, foundries, and extrusion facilities, 
many of which are small businesses and would be subject to the rule. 
The commenters also claimed that the proposed monitoring, 
recordkeeping, reporting, and title V permit requirements would impose 
significant burdens on these small businesses. They argued that the 
rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and that EPA must, therefore, perform a regulatory flexibility 
analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
     Commenters took issue with the methods and assumptions 
used by EPA to estimate the costs and economic impacts of the rule, 
including failure to adequately account for the large number of 
affected area sources, title V permitting costs for area sources, and 
underestimating performance test costs due to the assumption of shared 
stacks. As a result, the commenters state that EPA's costs and economic 
impact estimates are too low. They argue that the annualized cost of 
the rule exceeds $100 million and is, therefore, a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Response: Based on the numerous comments received regarding the 
regulatory impact analysis, the EPA has reviewed, revised, updated, and 
refined the analysis to address commenters' points:
     With regard to commenters' first point, for the proposed 
rule, the EPA used the information available on area sources of D/F 
emissions and requested additional information on the number of area 
sources, levels of emissions from these sources, the level of control 
currently employed, and the number of area sources that are also small 
businesses. In response to the comments on the proposed rule and using 
the information provided by commenters on sweat furnaces, die casting 
facilities and foundries, EPA has reassessed the cost of the rule on 
area sources (see Docket No. A-92-61). In addition, EPA has clarified 
and, in some cases, revised the proposed rule to address commenter 
concerns that the proposed rule will be overly burdensome for area 
sources. These changes include clarifications or revisions in the 
applicability of the rule, the performance testing requirements, the 
scrap inspection program, and giving the State permitting authorities 
the discretion to defer the requirements for a title V permit for area 
sources. On the basis of the information submitted to EPA during the 
public comment period and changes made to the proposed rule that narrow 
the applicability to facilities that are area sources, primarily 
aluminum extruders, die casters, and foundries, the EPA believes the 
number of those facilities subject to the rule to be small.
     Regarding the commenters' second point, after reviewing 
the comments on the small business impacts of the proposed rule and 
using the information on sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, and 
foundries provided by commenters, EPA has refined its small business 
impacts analysis (see Docket No. A-92-61). The analysis shows that the 
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small businesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is 
required. The small business impact analysis shows that the impact to 
small businesses operating sweat furnaces, and to small firms in the 
aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries is minimal.
     Regarding the commenters' third point, EPA considered the 
comments objecting to the costing methods and assumptions it used to 
estimate the impacts of the proposed rule. The EPA has reexamined its 
cost estimating procedures and believes that overall it has overstated 
the cost of the proposed rule. However, in view of the changes in the 
proposed rule and to incorporate revisions in the estimated number of 
affected area sources, EPA has updated its estimate of the cost of the 
rule (see Docket No. A-92-61). The revised cost of the rule is below 
the $100 million per year threshold, therefore, the rule is not a 
significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866.

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    In response to comments received on the proposed rule and after 
further analysis, the following changes have been made:
    Applicability. The applicability section has been clarified to 
distinguish the affected sources at major sources from those at area 
sources. Chip dryers and scrap shredders have been changed to ``thermal 
chip dryers'' and ``aluminum scrap shredders'' to more precisely define 
the type of equipment covered by the rule. A new secondary aluminum 
processing unit (SAPU) has been added to the list of affected sources; 
new group 1 furnaces and new

[[Page 15703]]

in-line fluxers have been removed from the list of affected sources but 
are covered as emission units within new SAPUs. This change enables 
simultaneously constructed new emission units to meet emission 
standards on an analogous basis to existing SAPUs and does not affect 
the required level of control or continuous compliance. Subject to 
certain limitations, manufacturers of aluminum die castings, aluminum 
foundries, and aluminum extruders have been exempted from the rule. The 
final rule contains explicit language exempting research and 
development equipment.
    The final rule also gives States the discretion to defer the 
requirement for secondary aluminum production area sources to obtain a 
title V permit. This discretion may reduce the burden of the rule on 
both area sources and States, without decreasing control requirements 
or increasing emissions.
    The EPA's authority for establishing the deferrals is section 
502(a) of the CAA, which allows EPA to exempt non-major sources from 
the permitting requirement if EPA finds that compliance with title V is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the sources. 
The General Provisions implementing section 112 of the CAA provide that 
unless EPA explicitly exempts or defers area sources subject to a 
NESHAP from the title V permitting requirement, they are subject to 
permitting (40 CFR section 63.1(c)(2)(iii)). As a result, under 40 CFR 
sections 70.3(b)(2), 71.3(b)(2), and 63.1(c)(2), we are to determine 
whether area sources will be required to obtain title V permits when we 
adopt the underlying NESHAP. The EPA has previously allowed permitting 
authorities to defer permit applications for area sources in a series 
of rulemakings (60 FR 29484, June 5, 1995; 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996; 
and 64 FR 37683, July 13, 1999).
    When EPA initially established the ability of permitting 
authorities to defer area sources from title V, the Agency stated that 
it would decide whether to adopt permanent exemptions by the time 
deferrals expired, and that it would continue to evaluate permitting 
authorities' implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP requirements 
for area sources not covered by title V permits, the likely benefit of 
permitting such sources, and the costs and other burdens on such 
sources associated with obtaining title V permits. Many permitting 
authorities are struggling to issue in a timely fashion initial title V 
permits to major sources and other sources that have been subject to 
the permitting requirements since the beginning of the program, and we 
are concerned about the impact on permitting authorities of subjecting 
area sources to the permit application deadlines. Therefore, to be 
consistent with the previously allowed deferrals of permit applications 
for area sources by permitting authorities, the most reasonable 
approach is to defer the requirement for title V permitting for area 
sources in the secondary aluminum production source category until 
December 9, 2004.
    As a result, today's action defers the requirement for title V 
permitting for area sources in the secondary aluminum production source 
category until December 9, 2004. The deferral is not an automatic 
benefit provided to the sources. Rather, permitting authorities may 
exercise their discretion to either defer the area sources, or to 
require them to apply for and obtain part 70 permits. Some permitting 
authorities may decide that area sources in the subject source category 
warrant permitting mechanisms (such as the use of general permits or 
``permits by rule'') that minimize the burden on both the permitting 
authoring and the source.
    For area sources that are not covered by an effective approved part 
70 program and are subject to the EPA-administered part 71 permitting 
program, today's action also defers those area sources subject to the 
secondary aluminum production NESHAP from permitting under part 71 
until December 9, 2004.
    Definitions. The definitions of clean charge, fluxing, reactive 
fluxing, aluminum scrap shredder, secondary aluminum processing unit, 
secondary aluminum production facility and thermal chip dryer have been 
revised and clarified to reflect the meanings intended at proposal. 
Definitions of internal runaround and cover flux have been added to the 
final rule.
    Emission standards. In response to comments from the regulated 
community, a standard for new SAPUs has been included in the final 
rule. Also, for sweat furnace operations, the final rule provides an 
alternative to the emission standard that does not require emission 
testing. The alternative is expressed in terms of design and operating 
parameters of afterburners that ensure the emission limit will be 
achieved.
    Operating requirements. The compliance date for SAPUs has been 
clarified. Lime addition requirements have been specified only for 
continuous lime injection systems. Lime addition requirements for 
intermittent lime addition have been eliminated because the MACT floor 
control technology, upon which the emission standards are based, 
includes continuous lime injection. Provisions for obtaining approval 
for intermittent lime addition and establishing operating requirements 
have been added to the rule.
    Labeling requirements have been redefined to include only the 
emission unit or affected source identification and the applicable 
operating requirements and pollution prevention parameters. In 
addition, the applicability of the labeling requirement has been 
narrowed to specific affected sources and emission units.
    The final rule allows the option to demonstrate compliance for 
specific affected sources on the basis of aluminum production as 
opposed to feed/charge. Owners or operators of SAPUs that choose to 
demonstrate compliance on the basis of aluminum production as opposed 
to feed/charge must account for aluminum production on an emission unit 
by emission unit basis. This option will provide additional flexibility 
for existing measurement equipment and will not increase HAP emissions. 
The inlet temperature limit has been eliminated for fabric filters that 
control only in-line fluxers because these fabric filters typically 
operate at near-ambient temperatures.
    Monitoring requirements. The final rule includes options for 
permitting authority approval of measuring devices of alternative 
accuracy in cases where the use of devices of specified accuracy is not 
workable, such as measurement of very low chlorine flow rates. 
Additional options for ascertaining the free flow of lime, including 
the use of load cells, flow sensors and HCl concentration sensors, have 
been added to the final rule. Specific temperature monitoring relative 
accuracy and calibration drift requirements have been eliminated 
because they are not necessary. The requirements for scrap inspection 
plans have been made less prescriptive to allow for a wider range of 
situations as experienced in the secondary aluminum production 
industry. Procedures for obtaining approval of alternative site-
specific monitoring practices have been included to increase 
flexibility.
    Performance testing. The final rule eliminates the requirement for 
repeat performance testing at area sources for cost and economic 
reasons, but maintains the operating, maintenance, and monitoring 
(OM&M) plan requirement to ensure continuous compliance through 
monitoring of appropriate parameters. Sweat furnaces equipped with 
afterburners meeting required design specifications are not

[[Page 15704]]

subject to performance testing requirements in the final rule. The rule 
has also been changed to reduce the cost of performance testing by 
allowing owners or operators to conduct worst case performance tests on 
a single affected source or emission unit that is not equipped with an 
add-on control device to represent the performance of other sources of 
the same design and operating characteristics.

V. Summary of Impacts

    In response to comments that EPA's assessment of impacts was not 
adequate, and as a result of revisions made to the rule to provide more 
flexibility to affected sources and to minimize the burden on area 
sources, EPA reanalyzed the impacts of the rule.

A. Air Quality Impacts

    At the current level of control, emissions of HAPs and other 
pollutants are estimated to be approximately 28,700 Mg/yr (31,600 tpy). 
Of these emissions, 16,400 Mg/yr (18,100 tpy) are HAPs. The EPA 
estimates that implementation of the NESHAP will reduce all pollutants 
by 14,200 Mg/yr (15,600 tpy) and HAP emissions would be reduced by 
about 11,300 Mg/yr (12,400 tpy). Baseline emissions and emission 
reductions are summarized by pollutant in Table 1 below.

                     Table 1.--Nationwide Annual Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Baseline      Emissions     Baseline      Emissions
                        Pollutant                           emissions     reduction     emissions     reduction
                                                             (Mg/yr)       (Mg/yr)        (tpy)         (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC \1\.................................................        3,782             0         4,169             0
D/F.....................................................   0.54 kg/yr    0.43 kg/yr    1.19 lb/yr    0.94 lb/yr
HCl.....................................................       15,365        11,224        16,902        12,372
Cl2.....................................................          996        NQ \2\         1,098            NQ
POM.....................................................           37             9            41            10
HAP Metals..............................................           58            36            64            40
PM......................................................        8,508         2,889         9,379         3,185
Total:
    HAPs................................................       16,425        11,269        18,106        12,422
    PM..................................................        8,508         2,889         9,379         3,185
    HAPS and other pollutants...........................       28,657        14,158        31,589       15,607
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ THC is a surrogate for organic HAPs.
\2\ NQ Not quantified due to lack of emissions data.

    There are no THC emission reductions expected because all sources 
with a THC emission limit are already equipped with the technology 
representative of the MACT-level of control.
    The estimated emissions reductions represent the minimum that will 
be achieved by the final rule since they are based on a reduction in 
baseline emissions to a level equal to the promulgated emission limit. 
In reality, if emission control equipment is installed to achieve 
compliance with the rule, emissions will likely be reduced to a level 
below the emission limit and the actual emissions reductions will be 
larger than the estimates. In addition, emissions reductions are also 
expected for other pollutants for which there are no specific emission 
limits. Although these potential emissions reductions were not 
quantified, emission controls installed to reduce HCl emissions are 
likely to also reduce Cl2 emissions, the lime added or 
injected to fabric filters would reduce fluoride as well as chloride 
emissions, and fabric filters installed to meet PM emission limits also 
would reduce HAP metal and polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions. 
For example, emission test data indicate that a fabric filter will 
reduce HAP metal emissions by approximately the same percentage as PM 
emissions. If the same reduction (61.4 percent from the baseline, 
taking into account that some sources already have these controls) is 
applied to HAP metal emissions, emission reductions of about 39.5 tpy 
from the estimated baseline level of 64.4 tpy would be achieved.

B. Economic Impacts

    EPA revised the economic impact analysis (EIA) to consider revised 
estimates of costs due to changes in the requirements of the rule 
between proposal and promulgation as well as additional information 
received concerning potential impacts of the regulation to owners of 
sweat furnaces, aluminum die casting facilities, and aluminum 
foundries. Due to the number of facilities and variety of processes 
used in the affected industries, model plants were developed to 
categorize facilities based on possible combinations of processes that 
are performed. These model plant categories were used to estimate 
applicable emission control costs, including the costs of monitoring, 
reporting, and record keeping (MRR). Sixteen model plants were created 
and annual compliance costs were calculated for each.
    Estimates of total capital and total annualized costs for each 
model plant and nationwide are shown in Table 2. Total nationwide 
annualized costs for this regulation are estimated at $76.7 million. 
The model plant (1-8) control cost estimates include control device 
costs, auxiliary equipment, and direct and indirect installation costs, 
but do not include monitoring costs. The nationwide annual costs 
include costs for monitoring, reporting, and record keeping estimated 
at $9.2 million annually. (All values are shown in 1994 dollars.)

[[Page 15705]]



                         Table 2.--Estimated Capital and Annualized Costs by Model Plant
                                           [Thousands of 1994 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Per facility               Nationwide
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                        Model plants                            Capital       Annual      Capital       Annual
                                                                 costs        costs        costs        costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Plant 1...............................................         $805         $380      $24,960      $11,766
Model Plant 2...............................................          950          362        9,500        3,621
Model Plant 3...............................................        1,833          702       12,832        4,911
Model Plant 4...............................................        2,944        1,203       26,492       10,829
Model Plant 5...............................................        1,441          851       14,409        8,510
Model Plant 6...............................................          976          671        6,833        4,696
Model Plant 7...............................................          198          134        1,188          807
Model Plant 8...............................................            0            0            0            0
MRR for Model Plants 1-8....................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,885
Sweat Furnace 1.............................................            0            0            0          133
Sweat Furnace 2.............................................            0            0            0          299
Sweat Furnace 3.............................................            9           24        9,167       23,489
Die Casting 1...............................................            0            4            0           46
Die Casting 2...............................................            0            4            0          364
Die Casting 3...............................................            0            4            0          241
Foundry 1...................................................            0            4            0        2,489
Foundry 2...................................................            0            4            0          622
                                                                                       -------------------------
    Nationwide Total........................................  ...........  ...........      105,381       76,708
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms producing products in SIC codes 3341 Secondary Smelting and 
Refining of Nonferrous Metals, 3353 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil, 
3334 Primary Aluminum Production, 3354 Aluminum Extruded Product 
Manufacturing, 3363 Aluminum Die-Casting, 3365 Aluminum Foundries, 4953 
Refuse Systems, 5093 Scrap and Waste Materials, and 5015 Motor Vehicle 
Parts--Used may be affected by this regulation.
    A market impact analysis was completed for secondary aluminum 
producing firms. Table 3 presents primary and secondary market impacts 
estimated for the secondary aluminum market. Primary market impacts 
include estimated changes in price, domestic production, industry 
revenues, and potential facility closures. Secondary market impacts 
relate to potential employment losses, decreases in exports, and 
increases in imports.

  Table 3.--Secondary Aluminum Production Primary and Secondary Market
                                 Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Estimated
                                                                impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Market Impacts:
  Price Increase (Percent)...................................       0.64
  Production Decrease (Percent)..............................     [0.40]
  Industry Revenues--Increase in Value of Domestic Shipments        0.24
   (Percent).................................................
  Potential Facility Closures................................       0-1*
Secondary Market Impacts:
 
                         Labor Market
 
Potential Employee Reductions:
  Number of workers..........................................         94
  Percent decrease...........................................     [0.40]
International Trade:
  Import increase (Percent)..................................       1.51
  Export decrease (Percent)..................................    [0.22]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreases are shown in brackets [ ].
*Firm or facility closures are unlikely. However, if one makes a number
  of worst case assumptions, one facility or firm closure is possible.


    In general, the economic impacts of this regulation are expected to 
be minimal to the secondary aluminum industry with price increases and 
production decreases of less than one percent. A market price increase 
of 0.64 percent and domestic production decrease of 0.40 percent are 
predicted. Revenues or the value of domestic shipments for the industry 
are expected to increase by 0.24 percent. Individual facilities or 
firms within the industry may experience revenue increases or 
decreases, but on average the industry revenues are anticipated to 
increase slightly with this regulation. Facility or firm closures are 
unlikely to occur as a result of this regulation. However, if a number 
of worst case assumptions are made, one could conclude that a single 
facility may close as a result of the regulation.
    Approximately 94 workers may face employment displacement as a 
result of the regulation. This job loss estimate results from the 
decrease in production expected to result from the regulation and does 
not consider any employment increases that may occur relative to 
emission control. Exports of secondary aluminum products to other 
countries are expected to decline by 0.22 percent while imports of 
secondary aluminum are expected to increase 1.51 percent.
    Since the impact of the regulation is anticipated to be minimal to 
firms owning sweat furnaces, aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, 
and secondary aluminum dross reclamation facilities (categorized as 
model plants 7 and 8), a streamlined economic impact analysis was 
completed for these markets. This analysis computes the estimated cost 
of the regulation as a percentage of annual revenues. The cost to sales 
ratio refers to the change in annualized control costs divided by the 
sales revenues of a particular good or goods being produced in the 
process for which additional pollution control is required. It can be 
estimated for either individual firms or as an average for some set of 
firms such as affected small firms. While it has different significance 
for different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential 
impact. If costs for the individual (or group) of firms are completely 
passed on to the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, it is an 
estimate of the price change (in percentage form after

[[Page 15706]]

multiplying the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the 
producer, it is an estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage 
form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of costs to 
sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the 
market, and profit to sales ratios are among the obvious factors that 
may influence the significance of any particular cost to sales ratio 
for an individual facility. This analysis was completed on a model 
plant basis using estimated annual revenues and for a sample of firms 
using actual company revenue data. A cost to sales ratio of 3 percent 
or above is an indicator of the potential for significant economic 
impact for firms in the industries affected by this rule. The results 
of these analyses are shown in Table 4.
    As shown in Table 4, the cost to sales ratios using both model 
plant data and actual facility data are substantially below one percent 
for aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and firms operating sweat 
furnaces. This indicates that firms in these industries are not likely 
to incur significant economic impacts as a result of this regulation.

    Table 4.--Cost to Sales Ratios for Aluminum Die Casting, Aluminum
 Foundries, Firms Owning Sweat Furnaces, and Firms Owning Aluminum Dross
                         Reclamation Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Cost to
                                                                 sales
                         Description                             ratios
                                                                  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms Operating Sweat Furnaces Model Plant Data:
    Sweat Furnace 1..........................................       0.16
    Sweat Furnace 2..........................................       0.06
    Sweat Furnace 3..........................................       0.08
    Average Actual Firm Data.................................       0.01
Aluminum Die Casting Model Plant Data:
    Model Plant 1............................................       0.01
    Model Plant 2............................................       0.01
    Model Plant 3............................................       0.04
    Average Actual Firm Data.................................       0.04
Aluminum Foundries Model Plant Data:
    Model Plant 1............................................       0.16
    Model Plant 2............................................       0.04
    Average Actual Firm Data.................................       0.03
Secondary Aluminum Dross Reclamation Facilities for Model
 Plants 7 and 8 Model Plant Data:
    Model Plant 7............................................       1.08
    Model Plant 8............................................       0.07
Average Actual Firm Data:
    Model Plant 7............................................       0.73
    Model Plant 8............................................       0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost to sales ratios for secondary aluminum dross reclamation 
facilities (model plants 7 and 8) approximate or are less than one 
percent on a model plant and actual firm data basis. These firms are 
also not anticipated to incur significant economic impacts as a result 
of this regulation. For further information, please see Economic Impact 
For the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, Final Report, October 1999.

C. Non-Air Health and Environmental Impacts

    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the NESHAP is 
based on air pollution control systems which are of the dry type (e.g., 
afterburners and fabric filters), and there are no water pollution 
impacts resulting from their use. Solid waste generated by fabric 
filters in the form of particulate matter (including HAP metals and 
lime from fabric filters) is typically disposed of by landfilling. With 
the addition of fabric filters and lime conditioned fabric filters, the 
amount of solid waste is expected to increase by about 97,904 Mg/yr 
(107,921 tpy) nationwide. The increase in solid waste is estimated as 
the sum of the annual reduction in PM emissions and the annual increase 
in the use of lime in lime-injected fabric filters.
    Implementation of the NESHAP will aid in reducing aerial deposition 
of D/F and HAP metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury), will substantially 
reduce ambient concentrations of HCl and Cl2, and will 
reduce emissions.

D. Energy Impacts

    Operating fabric filters and afterburners require the use of 
electrical energy to operate fans that move the gas stream. The 
additional electrical energy requirements are estimated at 78 million 
kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr), or 282 terajoules per year (TJ/yr), 
over current requirements. Afterburners may also use natural gas as 
fuel. Approximately 325,500 kilocubic feet per year (kft3/
yr) or 322 billion British thermal units (Btu)/yr (340 TJ/yr) of 
additional natural gas will be required.
    The increased energy requirements for facilities will result in an 
increase in utility emissions as more energy is generated. Nationwide 
emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) from electric power plants are estimated to increase 
by 8.1 Mg/yr (8.9 tpy), 323 Mg/yr (356 tpy), and 161 Mg/yr (178 tpy), 
respectively.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Congressional Review Act

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

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    In response to comments that the rule as proposed would result in 
adverse impacts to sources in the secondary aluminum production 
industry as well as result in costs in excess of $100 million, EPA 
reexamined the cost of the rule. In view of the changes in the rule 
that have been made since proposal to clarify applicability as well as 
the requirements of the rule and to provide greater flexibility in the 
rule, EPA finds that the cost of the final rule is below $100 million. 
Because the projected annual costs (including monitoring) for this 
NESHAP are less than $100 million, a regulatory impact analysis has not 
been prepared. However, because of concerns expressed by affected 
facilities regarding the potential for adverse economic impacts, EPA 
submitted this

[[Page 15707]]

final regulation to OMB for review. Any written comments are included 
in the docket listed under ADDRESSES.

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) 
is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and it does not address an environmental health or safety 
risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of 
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism 
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, 
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position 
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the 
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been 
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism 
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA 
must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official 
stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a 
meaningful and timely manner.
    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
This determination has been made since none of the affected facilities 
under this final rule are owned or operated by State or local 
governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 
do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State and local 
officials in developing the proposed rule.

F. 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 to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that 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 aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year, nor does the rule significantly or uniquely 
impact small governments because it contains no requirements that apply 
to such

[[Page 15708]]

governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of 
the UMRA do not apply to this rule.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities. The results of the analysis for the proposed rule and the 
method used by EPA to perform the analysis of impacts on small entities 
are discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (64 FR 6946, 
February 11, 1999).
    In response to comments on the proposed rule that EPA understated 
the number of small businesses that would be affected by the rule, EPA 
refined its small business impacts analysis to include information 
concerning sweat furnaces, aluminum die casting facilities, and 
aluminum foundries. The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final 
rule. Based on the revised small business impacts analysis prepared 
concerning this final rule, EPA has also determined that the 
requirements in this rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The regulation will potentially impact firms producing products in 
SIC codes 3341 (secondary smelting and refining of nonferrous metals), 
3353 (aluminum sheet, plate, and foil), 3334 (primary aluminum 
production), 3354 (aluminum extruded products), 3363 (aluminum die-
casting), 3365 (aluminum foundries), 4953 (refuse systems--materials 
recovery facilities), 5093 (scrap and waste materials), and 5015 (motor 
vehicle parts-used). The Small Business Administration criteria for 
each affected industry are shown in Table 5.

    Table 5.--Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Affected Industries and Small
                            Business Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Standard industrial classification code     Small business  criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3341  Secondary Smelting and Refining of    Less than 500 employees.
 Nonferrous Metals.
3353  Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil.....  Less than 750 employees.
3334  Primary Aluminum Production.........  Less than 1,000 employees.
3354  Aluminum Extruded Products..........  Less than 750 employees.
3363  Aluminum Die-Casting................  Less than 500 employees.
3365  Aluminum Foundries..................  Less than 500 employees.
4953  Refuse Systems......................  Less than $6 million in
                                             annual sales revenues.
5093  Scrap and Waste Materials...........  Less than 100 employees.
5015  Motor Vehicle Parts--Used...........  Less than 100 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received responses to an information collection request 
from 135 secondary aluminum facilities producing products in SIC 3334, 
3341, 3353 and 3355. To define the small business entities, the 135 
facilities were matched with their parent companies. It was determined 
that 32 of these companies employ less than 750 employees and meet the 
Small Business Administration's definition of a small business entity. 
(Note the criterion of 750 employees was used for secondary aluminum 
producers, because it results in a larger number of small businesses. 
None of the affected firms in the data base producing principally 
primary aluminum products in SIC 3334 are small businesses.)
    There are 320 aluminum die casting companies and approximately 1530 
aluminum foundries currently operating domestically. The vast majority 
of these firms are small businesses employing less than 500 employees. 
No small businesses within aluminum die casting companies or aluminum 
foundries have been specifically identified that are impacted by the 
final rule under applicability as defined. Only large businesses have 
come forward with information regarding applicability of the 
standard(s) to their operations. Based on that information, we have 
performed a small business analysis based on a probable over estimate 
of the number of small businesses within these industry sectors that 
may be affected by the final rule. (Docket A-92-61).
    It is estimated that around 1650 sweat furnaces are operated by 
businesses in the United States that will be subject to this rule. 
Firms owning sweat furnaces are primarily small businesses.
    The analysis of small business impacts for these industries focused 
on a comparison of compliance costs as a percentage of sales (cost/
sales ratio). When available, the analysis used actual firm sales data. 
However, actual firm data were unavailable for a number of small 
businesses. To estimate the impact for such firms, an analysis 
comparing model plant control cost estimates to model plant revenue 
data was conducted. As Table 6 shows, cost to sales ratios based on 
model plant revenue and cost data yield ratios of less than 1 percent 
for all model plants other than model plant 7. The cost to sales ratio 
for model plant 7 is 1.08 percent. For the affected industries, cost to 
sales ratios of 3 percent or greater are considered an indicator of the 
potential for significant economic impact. Based upon this criterion, 
the model plant analysis indicates that small business firms are not 
likely to experience significant economic impacts as a result of this 
regulation.

 Table 6.--Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Cost to Sales Ratios Assuming Model
                       Plant Cost and Revenue Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Model
                                                                 plant
                                                                cost to
                         Model plant                             sales
                                                                 ratio
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................       0.70
2............................................................       0.35
3............................................................       0.82
4............................................................       0.71
5............................................................       0.13
6............................................................       0.07
7............................................................       1.08
8............................................................       0.07
Sweat Furnace 1..............................................       0.16
Sweat Furnace 2..............................................       0.06
Sweat Furnace 3..............................................       0.08
Die Casting 1................................................       0.01
Die Casting 2................................................       0.01
Die Casting 3................................................       0.04
Foundry 1....................................................       0.16
Foundry 2....................................................       0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A search for actual company revenue data for small businesses was 
completed. Data were located for 26 of the 32 small secondary aluminum 
firms (model plants 1-6) and aluminum dross fabricators (model plants 7 
and 8) identified by the survey. Data were also collected for 53 small 
die casting firms, 22 small aluminum foundries, and for 65 small 
business that may potentially operate sweat furnaces. A summary of the 
cost to sales ratios for the small secondary aluminum producers using 
actual company sales data is shown in Table 7 below.

[[Page 15709]]



   Table 7.--Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Company Specific Cost to Sales
                  Ratios for Affected Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of small
                                                           companies in
                    Cost/sales ratio                       each cost to
                                                           sales range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Aluminum Industry:
  0.00%-0.99%..........................................               19
  1.00%-1.99%..........................................                5
  2.00%-2.99%..........................................                2
Mean cost to sales ratio=0.74%                            Total firms=26
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of small
                                                            companies
                Mean cost to sales ratio                    evaluated
                                                             (firms)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum Die Casting Industry: 0.04%                                  53
Aluminum Foundry Industry: 0.04%.......................               22
Firms Owning Sweat Furnaces: 0.01%.....................               65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As depicted in Table 7, the majority of small businesses modeled 
are anticipated to experience cost to sales ratios below 1 percent. 
Seven small companies show cost to sales ratios above 1 percent, but 
less than 3 percent. Since no company exhibits cost to sales above 3 
percent and the majority of small businesses are expected to incur cost 
to sales ratios less than 1 percent, significant impacts to small 
entities are not expected. The results of the analyses conducted using 
both model plant data and actual small business firm data indicate that 
impacts from this regulation are not likely to be significant to small 
business firms. As previously stated, the analysis is based on a 
probable over estimate of the number of small businesses within these 
industry sectors that may be affected by the final rule. The EPA 
concludes that this regulation will not result in a significant 
economic impact for a substantial number of small entities. For more 
detailed information, please see Economic Impact Analysis for the 
Secondary Aluminum NESHAP Final Report, October 1999.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule are 
being submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 
1894.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The promulgated information requirements include mandatory 
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information requirements 
are needed to confirm the compliance status of major sources, to 
identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards and any new 
or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, to confirm that 
emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained, 
and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based on the 
recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which facilities, 
records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized under section 114 of 
the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to 
Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (See 41 FR 36902, 
September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, 
September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
    The EPA is required under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act to 
regulate emissions of HAPs listed in section 112(b). The requested 
information is needed as part of the overall compliance and enforcement 
program. The ICR requires that secondary aluminum production facilities 
retain records of parameter and emissions monitoring data at facilities 
for a period of 5 years, which is consistent with the General 
Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and the permit requirements under 40 CFR 
part 70. All major sources subject to this rule will be required to 
obtain operating permits either through the State-approved permitting 
program or, if one does not exist, in accordance with the provisions of 
40 CFR part 71. Under this final rule, the approved state permitting 
program has the option to defer the requirement to obtain a title V 
permit for area sources affected by this rule.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the rule) is estimated to total 148,000 labor hours 
per year at a total annual cost of $9.2 million. This estimate includes 
notifications; a performance test (with repeat tests for major 
sources); one-time preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan with semiannual reports of any event where the procedures in the 
plan were not followed and an operation, maintenance, and monitoring 
plan; semiannual excess emissions reports; initial and semiannual 
furnace certifications; and recordkeeping. This estimate also includes 
one time preparation of emissions averaging plans and scrap sampling 
plans for some respondents. Total capital costs associated with 
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR is estimated 
at $1.3 million; this estimate includes the capital and startup costs 
associated with installation of monitoring equipment.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose 
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless 
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards are not used by EPA, the CAA requires the Agency to 
provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not 
using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to the 
requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods included in 
the final rule.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to identify 
voluntary

[[Page 15710]]

consensus standards. However, no candidate consensus standards were 
identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or surrogates subject to 
emission standards in the rule. The rule requires standard EPA methods 
well known to the industry and States. Approved alternative methods 
also may be used. The EPA, in coordination with the industry and 
States, have agreed on the use of these test methods in the rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Secondary aluminum production.

    Dated: December 15, 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--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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


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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart RRR to read as follows:
Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Secondary Aluminum Production

General

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

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

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

Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

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

Notifications, Reports, And Records

63.1515   Notifications.
63.1516   Reports.
63.1517   Records.

Other

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

Table 1 to Subpart RRR--Emission Standards for New and Existing 
Affected Sources

Table 2 to Subpart RRR--Summary of Operating Requirements for New and 
Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units

Table 3 to Subpart RRR--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and 
Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units Appendix A to Subpart 
RRR--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR

General


Sec. 63.1500  Applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator 
of each secondary aluminum production facility.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to the following 
affected sources, located at a secondary aluminum production facility 
that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in 
Sec. 63.2:
    (1) Each new and existing aluminum scrap shredder;
    (2) Each new and existing thermal chip dryer;
    (3) Each new and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 
kiln;
    (4) Each new and existing group 2 furnace;
    (5) Each new and existing sweat furnace;
    (6) Each new and existing dross-only furnace;
    (7) Each new and existing rotary dross cooler; and
    (8) Each new and existing secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (c) The requirements of this subpart pertaining to dioxin and furan 
(D/F) emissions and associated operating, monitoring, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements apply to the following affected sources, 
located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area 
source of HAPs as defined in Sec. 63.2:
    (1) Each new and existing thermal chip dryer;
    (2) Each new and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 
kiln;
    (3) Each new and existing sweat furnace;
    (4) Each new and existing secondary aluminum processing unit, 
containing one or more group 1 furnace emission units processing other 
than clean charge.
    (d) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to manufacturers 
of aluminum die castings, aluminum foundries, or aluminum extruders 
that melt no materials other than clean charge and materials generated 
within the facility; and that also do not operate a thermal chip dryer, 
sweat furnace or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
    (e) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to facilities and 
equipment used for research and development that are not used to 
produce a saleable product.
    (f) The owner or operator of a secondary aluminum production 
facility subject to the provisions of this subpart, is subject to the 
title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, as 
applicable. The permitting authority may defer the affected facility 
from the title V permitting requirements until December 9, 2004, if the 
secondary aluminum production facility is not a major source and is not 
located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, 
and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V permit. If an 
affected facility receives a deferral from title V permitting 
requirements under this section, the source must submit a title V 
permit application by December 9, 2005. The affected facility must 
continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to 
area sources, even if a deferral from title V permitting requirements 
has been granted to the facility by the permitting authority.


Sec. 63.1501  Dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
comply with the requirements of this subpart by March 24, 2003.
    (b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with 
the requirements of this subpart by March 23, 2000 or upon startup, 
whichever is later.


Sec. 63.1502  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the 
corresponding sections noted. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of 
certain publications listed in the rule will be approved by the 
Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of the date of 
publication of the final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 
CFR part 51. This material is incorporated as it exists on the date of 
approval: (1) Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR approved for Sec. 63.1506(c), and 
(2)

[[Page 15711]]

``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to 
Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and 
CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA/625/3-89/016).
    (b) The material incorporated by reference is available for 
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC; and at the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, 
DC. The material is also available for purchase from the following 
addresses:
    (1) Customer Service Department, American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, 
Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634, telephone number (513) 742-2020; and
    (2) The National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, VA, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.


Sec. 63.1503  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as 
amended (CAA), in Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed on a 
process vent that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted 
to the air.
    Afterburner means an air pollution control device that uses 
controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to 
noncombustible gases; also known as an incinerator or a thermal 
oxidizer.
    Aluminum scrap shredder means a unit that crushes, grinds, or 
breaks aluminum scrap into a more uniform size prior to processing or 
charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. 
A bale breaker is not an aluminum scrap shredder.
    Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of 
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric 
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak 
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that 
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or 
other effect to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of aluminum 
scrap, typically below 1\1/4\ inches in any dimension, primarily 
generated by turning, milling, boring, and machining of aluminum parts.
    Clean charge means furnace charge materials including molten 
aluminum; T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; uncoated/
unpainted thermally dried aluminum chips; aluminum scrap dried at 343 
deg.C (650  deg.F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/decoated at 
482  deg.C (900  deg.F) or higher; other oil- and lubricant-free 
unpainted/uncoated gates and risers; oil-and lubricant-free unpainted/
uncoated aluminum scrap, shapes, or products (e.g., pistons) that have 
not undergone any process (e.g., machining, coating, painting, etc.) 
that would cause contamination of the aluminum (with oils, lubricants, 
coatings, or paints); and internal runaround.
    Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a 
group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of the molten aluminum, 
for the purpose of preventing oxidation.
    D/F means dioxins and furans.
    Dioxins and furans means tetra-, penta-, hexa-, and octachlorinated 
dibenzo dioxins and furans.
    Dross means the slags and skimmings from aluminum melting and 
refining operations consisting of fluxing agent(s), impurities, and/or 
oxidized and non-oxidized aluminum, from scrap aluminum charged into 
the furnace.
    Dross-only furnace means a furnace, typically of rotary barrel 
design, dedicated to the reclamation of aluminum from dross formed 
during melting, holding, fluxing, or alloying operations carried out in 
other process units. Dross and salt flux are the sole feedstocks to 
this type of furnace.
    Emission unit means a group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer at a 
secondary aluminum production facility.
    Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to 
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter 
media; also known as a baghouse.
    Feed/charge means, for a furnace or other process unit that 
operates in batch mode, the total weight of material (including molten 
aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, etc.) and alloying agents that enter the 
furnace during an operating cycle. For a furnace or other process unit 
that operates continuously, feed/charge means the weight of material 
(including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, etc.) and alloying 
agents that enter the process unit within a specified time period 
(e.g., a time period equal to the performance test period). The feed/
charge for a dross only furnace includes the total weight of dross and 
solid flux.
    Fluxing means refining of molten aluminum to improve product 
quality, achieve product specifications, or reduce material loss, 
including the addition of solvents to remove impurities (solvent flux); 
and the injection of gases such as chlorine, or chlorine mixtures, to 
remove magnesium (demagging) or hydrogen bubbles (degassing). Fluxing 
may be performed in the furnace or outside the furnace by an in-line 
fluxer.
    Furnace hearth means the combustion zone of a furnace in which the 
molten metal is contained.
    Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or 
processes aluminum that contains paint, lubricants, coatings, or other 
foreign materials with or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean 
charge with reactive fluxing.
    Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or 
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs 
fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating 
gases or agents.
    HCl means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of hydrogen 
chloride that serve as a surrogate measure of the total emissions of 
the HAPs hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and chlorine.
    In-line fluxer means a device exterior to a furnace, located in a 
transfer line from a furnace, used to refine (flux) molten aluminum; 
also known as a flux box, degassing box, or demagging box.
    Internal runaround means scrap material generated on-site by 
aluminum extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/stamping, 
cutting, and trimming operations that do not contain paint or solid 
coatings. Aluminum chips generated by turning, boring, milling, and 
similar machining operations that have not been dried at 343  deg.C 
(650  deg.F) or higher, or by an equivalent non-thermal drying process, 
are not considered internal runaround.
    Lime means calcium oxide or other alkaline reagent.
    Lime-injection means the continuous addition of lime upstream of a 
fabric filter.
    Melting/holding furnace, or melter/holder, means a group 1 furnace 
that processes only clean charge, performs melting, holding, and 
fluxing functions, and does not transfer molten aluminum to or from 
another furnace.
    Operating cycle means for a batch process, the period beginning 
when the feed material is first charged to the operation and ending 
when all feed material charged to the operation has been processed. For 
a batch melting or holding furnace process, operating cycle means the 
period including the charging and melting of scrap aluminum and the 
fluxing, refining, alloying, and tapping of molten aluminum (the period 
from tap-to-tap).

[[Page 15712]]

    PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of 
particulate matter that serve as a measure of total particulate 
emissions and as a surrogate for metal HAPs contained in the 
particulates, including but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, 
and selenium.
    Pollution prevention means source reduction as defined under the 
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (e.g., equipment or technology 
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or 
redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements 
in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control), and 
other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants 
through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, 
water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by 
conservation.
    Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux 
(other than cover flux) that results in a HAP emission. Argon and 
nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAPs.
    Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an affected 
source or emission unit such that the fixed capital cost of the new 
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be 
required to construct a comparable new affected source, and it is 
technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source 
to meet relevant standard(s) established in this subpart. Replacement 
of the refractory in a furnace is routine maintenance and is not a 
reconstruction. The repair and replacement of in-line fluxer components 
(e.g., rotors/shafts, burner tubes, refractory, warped steel) is 
considered to be routine maintenance and is not considered a 
reconstruction. In-line fluxers are typically removed to a maintenance/
repair area and are replaced with repaired units. The replacement of an 
existing in-line fluxer with a repaired unit is not considered a 
reconstruction.
    Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time 
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. 
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion 
zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream 
in actual cubic feet per second.
    Rotary dross cooler means a water-cooled rotary barrel device that 
accelerates cooling of dross.
    Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit used 
primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint, 
lacquer, ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including 
used beverage containers) prior to melting.
    Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU): an existing SAPU means 
all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a 
secondary aluminum production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace 
or existing in-line fluxer is considered an emission unit within a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of 
group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers which are simultaneously 
constructed after February 11, 1999. Each of the group 1 furnaces or 
in-line fluxers within a new SAPU is considered an emission unit within 
that secondary aluminum processing unit.
    Secondary aluminum production facility means any establishment 
using clean charge, post-consumer aluminum scrap, aluminum scrap, 
aluminum ingots, aluminum foundry returns, dross from aluminum 
production, or molten aluminum as the raw material and performing one 
or more of the following processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/
delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., 
melting, holding, refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or 
dross cooling. A secondary aluminum production facility may be 
independent or part of a primary aluminum production facility. A 
facility is a secondary aluminum production facility if it includes any 
of the affected sources listed in Sec. 63.1500(b) or (c). Aluminum die 
casting facilities, aluminum foundries and aluminum extrusion 
facilities that process no materials other than materials generated 
within the facility, or clean charge purchased or otherwise obtained 
from outside the facility, and that do not operate sweat furnaces, 
thermal chip dryers, or scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns 
are not secondary aluminum production facilities.
    Sidewell means an open well adjacent to the hearth of a furnace 
with connecting arches between the hearth and the open well through 
which molten aluminum is circulated between the hearth, where heat is 
applied by burners, and the open well, which is used for charging scrap 
and solid flux or salt to the furnace, injecting fluxing agents, and 
skimming dross.
    Sweat furnace means a furnace used exclusively to reclaim aluminum 
from scrap that contains substantial quantities of iron by using heat 
to separate the low-melting point aluminum from the scrap while the 
higher melting-point iron remains in solid form.
    TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity 
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in ``Interim Procedures 
for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of 
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 
1989 Update'' (EPA-625/3-89-016), available from the National Technical 
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 
22161, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.
    THC means, for the purposes of this subpart, total hydrocarbon 
emissions that also serve as a surrogate for the emissions of organic 
HAP compounds.
    Thermal chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate 
water, oil, or oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum 
chips.
    Three-day, 24-hour rolling average means daily calculations of the 
average 24-hour emission rate (lbs/ton of feed/charge), over the 3 most 
recent consecutive 24-hour periods, for a secondary aluminum processing 
unit.
    Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate means the sum of the 
total weight of chlorine in the gaseous or liquid reactive flux and the 
total weight of chlorine in the solid reactive chloride flux, divided 
by the total weight of feed/charge, as determined by the procedure in 
Sec. 63.1512(o).


Sec. 63.1504  [Reserved]

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements


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

    (a) Summary. The owner or operator of a new or existing affected 
source must comply with each applicable limit in this section. Table 1 
to this subpart summarizes the emission standards for each type of 
source.
    (b) Aluminum scrap shredder. On and after the date the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier, the owner or operator of an aluminum scrap shredder at 
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source must 
not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
    (1) Emissions in excess of 0.023 grams (g) of PM per dry standard 
cubic meter (dscm) (0.010 grain (gr) of PM per dry standard cubic foot 
(dscf)); and
    (2) Visible emissions (VE) in excess of 10 percent opacity from any 
PM add-on air pollution control device if a continuous opacity monitor 
(COM) or visible emissions monitoring is chosen as the monitoring 
option.

[[Page 15713]]

    (c) Thermal chip dryer. On and after the date the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier, the owner or operator of a thermal chip dryer must not 
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in 
excess of:
    (1) 0.40 kilogram (kg) of THC, as propane, per megagram (Mg) (0.80 
lb of THC, as propane, per ton) of feed/charge from a thermal chip 
dryer at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 
source; and
    (2) 2.50 micrograms (g) of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5  x  
10-5 gr per ton) of feed/charge from a thermal chip dryer at 
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area 
source.
    (d) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. On and after the 
date the initial performance test is conducted or required to be 
conducted, whichever date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.03 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.06 lb of THC, as propane, 
per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 
source;
    (ii) 0.04 kg of PM per Mg (0.08 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a 
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source;
    (iii) 0.25 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5  x  10-6 gr 
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering 
kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is 
a major or area source; and
    (iv) 0.40 kg of HCl per Mg (0.80 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a 
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a 
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any 
PM add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the 
monitoring option.
    (e) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln: alternative 
limits. The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln may choose to comply with the emission limits in this 
paragraph as an alternative to the limits in paragraph (d) of this 
section if the scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln is equipped 
with an afterburner having a design residence time of at least 1 second 
and the afterburner is operated at a temperature of at least 750  deg.C 
(1400  deg.F) at all times. On and after the date the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier:
    (1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere emissions in excess of:
    (i) 0.10 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.20 lb of THC, as propane, 
per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 
source;
    (ii) 0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a 
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source;
    (iii) 5.0 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (7.0  x  10-5 gr 
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering 
kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is 
a major or area source; and
    (iv) 0.75 kg of HCl per Mg (1.50 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a 
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a 
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any 
PM add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the 
monitoring option.
    (f) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator of a sweat furnace shall 
comply with the emission standard of paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance 
test to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard of paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section, provided that, on and after the compliance date 
of this rule, the owner or operator operates and maintains an 
afterburner with a design residence time of two seconds or greater and 
an operating temperature of 1600  deg.F or greater.
    (2) On and after the date the initial performance test is conducted 
or required to be conducted, or if no compliance test is required, on 
and after the compliance date of this rule, whichever date is earlier, 
the owner or operator of a sweat furnace at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major or area source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.80 
nanogram (ng) of D/F TEQ per dscm (3.5 x 10-10 gr per dscf) 
at 11 percent oxygen (O2).
    (g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the date the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier, the owner or operator of a dross-only furnace at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source must not 
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
    (1) Emissions in excess of 0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb of PM per 
ton) of feed/charge.
    (2) Visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM 
add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the 
monitoring option.
    (h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the date the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier, the owner or operator of a rotary dross cooler at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source must not 
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere:
    (1) Emissions in excess of 0.09 g of PM per dscm (0.04 gr per 
dscf).
    (2) Visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM 
add-on air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the 
monitoring option.
    (i) Group 1 furnace. The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace 
must use the limits in this paragraph to determine the emission 
standards for a SAPU.
    (1) 0.20 kg of PM per Mg (0.40 lb of PM per ton) of feed/charge 
from a group 1 furnace, that is not a melting/holding furnace 
processing only clean charge, at a secondary aluminum production 
facility that is a major source;
    (2) 0.40 kg of PM per Mg (0.80 lb of PM per ton) of feed/charge 
from a group 1 melting/holding furnace processing only clean charge at 
a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source;
    (3) 15 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (2.1  x  10-4 gr of 
D/F TEQ per ton) of feed/charge from a group 1 furnace at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major or area source. This limit 
does not apply if the furnace processes only clean charge; and
    (4) 0.20 kg of HCl per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl per ton) of feed/charge 
or, if the furnace is equipped with an add-on air pollution control 
device, 10 percent of the uncontrolled HCl emissions, by weight, for a 
group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a 
major source.

[[Page 15714]]

    (5) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere visible emissions in excess 
of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control device 
if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
    (6) The owner or operator may determine the emission standards for 
a SAPU by applying the group 1 furnace limits on the basis of the 
aluminum production weight in each group 1 furnace, rather than on the 
basis of feed/charge.
    (7) The owner or operator of a sidewell group 1 furnace that 
conducts reactive fluxing (except for cover flux) in the hearth, or 
that conducts reactive fluxing in the sidewell at times when the level 
of molten metal falls below the top of the passage between the sidewell 
and the hearth, must comply with the emission limits of paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (j)(4) of this section on the basis of the combined 
emissions from the sidewell and the hearth.
    (j) In-line fluxer. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(3) of this 
section for an in-line fluxer using no reactive flux material, the 
owner or operator of an in-line fluxer must use the limits in this 
paragraph to determine the emission standards for a SAPU.
    (1) 0.02 kg of HCl per Mg (0.04 lb of HCl per ton) of feed/charge;
    (2) 0.005 kg of PM per Mg (0.01 lb of PM per ton) of feed/charge.
    (3) The emission limits in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 
section do not apply to an in-line fluxer that uses no reactive flux 
materials.
    (4) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge 
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere visible emissions in excess 
of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control device 
used to control emissions from the in-line fluxer, if a COM is chosen 
as the monitoring option.
    (5) The owner or operator may determine the emission standards for 
a SAPU by applying the in-line fluxer limits on the basis of the 
aluminum production weight in each in-line fluxer, rather than on the 
basis of feed/charge.
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the date of 
approval of the operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan, the 
owner or operator must comply with the emission limits calculated using 
the equations for PM and HCl in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this 
section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary 
aluminum production facility that is a major source. The owner or 
operator must comply with the emission limit calculated using the 
equation for D/F in paragraph (k)(3) of this section for each secondary 
aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility 
that is a major or area source.
    (1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of PM in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.000


Where,

LtiPM = The PM emission limit for individual emission unit i 
in paragraph (i)(1) and (2) of this section for a group 1 furnace or in 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section for an in-line fluxer;
Tti = The feed/charge rate for individual emission unit I; 
and
LcPM = The PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

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

    (2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of HCl in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.001


Where,
LtiHCl = The HCl emission limit for individual emission unit 
i in paragraph (i)(4) of this section for a group 1 furnace or in 
paragraph (j)(1) of this section for an in-line fluxer; and
LcHCl = The HCl emission limit for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

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

    (3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of D/F in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.002


Where,
LtiD/F = The D/F emission limit for individual emission unit 
i in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 furnace; and
LcD/F = The D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit.

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

    (4) The owner or operator of a SAPU at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source may demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits of paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this 
section by demonstrating that each emission unit within the SAPU is in 
compliance with the applicable emission limits of paragraphs (i) and 
(j) of this section.
    (5) The owner or operator of a SAPU at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is an area source may demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits of paragraph (k)(3) of this section by 
demonstrating that each emission unit within the SAPU is in compliance 
with the emission limit of paragraph (i)(3) of this section.


Sec. 63.1506  Operating requirements.

    (a) Summary. (1) On and after the date on which the initial 
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever 
date is earlier, the owner or operator must operate all new and 
existing affected sources and control equipment according to the 
requirements in this section.
    (2) The completion of the initial performance tests for SAPUs shall 
be considered to be the date of approval of the OM&M plan by the 
permitting authority.
    (3) The owner or operator of an existing sweat furnace that meets 
the specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1) must operate the sweat furnace 
and control equipment according to the requirements of this section on 
and after the compliance date of this standard.
    (4) The owner or operator of a new sweat furnace that meets the 
specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1) must operate the sweat furnace and 
control equipment according to the requirements of this section by 
March 23, 2000 or upon startup, whichever is later.
    (5) Operating requirements are summarized in Table 2 to this 
subpart.
    (b) Labeling. The owner or operator must provide and maintain 
easily

[[Page 15715]]

visible labels posted at each group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace, in-line 
fluxer and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln that identifies 
the applicable emission limits and means of compliance, including:
    (1) The type of affected source or emission unit (e.g., scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace, group 2 
furnace, in-line fluxer).
    (2) The applicable operational standard(s) and control method(s) 
(work practice or control device). This includes, but is not limited 
to, the type of charge to be used for a furnace (e.g., clean scrap 
only, all scrap, etc.), flux materials and addition practices, and the 
applicable operating parameter ranges and requirements as incorporated 
in the OM&M plan.
    (3) The afterburner operating temperature and design residence time 
for a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
    (c) Capture/collection systems. For each affected source or 
emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the 
owner or operator must:
    (1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of 
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates 
as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.1502 of 
this subpart);
    (2) Vent captured emissions through a closed system, except that 
dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of 
controlling temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter; and
    (3) Operate each capture/collection system according to the 
procedures and requirements in the OM&M plan.
    (d) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of each affected 
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton) 
of feed/charge must:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, install 
and operate a device that measures and records or otherwise determine 
the weight of feed/charge (or throughput) for each operating cycle or 
time period used in the performance test; and
    (2) Operate each weight measurement system or other weight 
determination procedure in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (3) The owner or operator may chose to measure and record aluminum 
production weight from an affected source or emission unit rather than 
feed/charge weight to an affected source or emission unit, provided 
that:
    (i) The aluminum production weight, rather than feed/charge weight 
is measured and recorded for all emission units within a SAPU; and
    (ii) All calculations to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limits for SAPUs are based on aluminum production weight rather than 
feed/charge weight.
    (e) Aluminum scrap shredder. The owner or operator of a scrap 
shredder with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must operate a 
bag leak detection system, or a continuous opacity monitor, or conduct 
visible emissions observations.
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in 
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak 
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the 
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating 
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter 
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as 
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate 
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average 
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (3) If visible emission observations are used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must 
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any observation of visible 
emissions during a daily visible emissions test and complete the 
corrective action procedures in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (f) Thermal chip dryer. The owner or operator of a thermal chip 
dryer with emissions controlled by an afterburner must:
    (1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each 
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (3) Operate each thermal chip dryer using only unpainted aluminum 
chips as the feedstock.
    (g) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. The owner or 
operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with 
emissions controlled by an afterburner and a lime-injected fabric 
filter must:
    (1) For each afterburner,
    (i) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each 
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (ii) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (2) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the fabric 
filter monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm and complete any necessary corrective action 
procedures in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak 
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the 
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating 
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter 
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as 
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate 
corrective action.
    (3) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action 
within 1-hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more 
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance 
with the OM&M plan.
    (4) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each 
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during 
the performance test, plus 14  deg.C (plus 25  deg.F).
    (5) For a continuous injection device, maintain free-flowing lime 
in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime 
feeder setting at the same level established during the performance 
test.
    (h) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator of a sweat furnace with 
emissions controlled by an afterburner must:

[[Page 15716]]

    (1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each 
afterburner at or above:
    (i) The average temperature established during the performance 
test; or
    (ii) 1600  deg.F if a performance test was not conducted, and the 
afterburner meets the specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1).
    (2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (i) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator of a dross-only 
furnace with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in 
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak 
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the 
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating 
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter 
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as 
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate 
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action 
within 1-hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more 
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance 
with the OM&M plan.
    (3) Operate each furnace using dross as the sole feedstock.
    (j) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator of a rotary dross 
cooler with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in 
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak 
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the 
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating 
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter 
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as 
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate 
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action 
within 1 hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more 
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance 
with the OM&M plan.
    (k) In-line fluxer. The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer with 
emissions controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1-hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm and complete the corrective action procedures in 
accordance with the OM&M plan.
    (ii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak 
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the 
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating 
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter 
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as 
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate 
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, initiate corrective action 
within 1 hour of any 6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more 
opacity and complete the corrective action procedures in accordance 
with the OM&M plan.
    (3) For a continuous injection system, maintain free-flowing lime 
in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime 
feeder setting at the same level established during the performance 
test.
    (4) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or 
below the average rate established during the performance test.
    (l) In-line fluxer using no reactive flux material. The owner or 
operator of a new or existing in-line fluxer using no reactive flux 
materials must operate each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux 
materials.
    (m) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. The 
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace with emissions controlled by a 
lime-injected fabric filter must:
    (1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm.
    (ii) Complete the corrective action procedures in accordance with 
the OM&M plan.
    (iii) Operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak 
detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the 
operating time during a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating 
this operating time fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter 
demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is 
counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted 
as a minimum of 1 hour. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 
hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as 
the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate 
corrective action.
    (2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must:
    (i) Initiate corrective action within 1 hour of any 6-minute 
average reading of 5 percent or more opacity; and
    (ii) Complete the corrective action procedures in accordance with 
the OM&M plan.
    (3) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each 
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during 
the performance test, plus 14  deg.C (plus 25  deg.F).
    (4) For a continuous lime injection system, maintain free-flowing 
lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the 
lime feeder setting at the same level established during the 
performance test.
    (5) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or 
below the average rate established during the performance test.
    (6) Operate each sidewell furnace such that:
    (i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage 
between the

[[Page 15717]]

side-well and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless the hearth 
also is equipped with an add-on control device.
    (ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell unless the hearth 
also is equipped with an add-on control device.
    (n) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. 
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (including a group 1 furnace 
that is part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) without add-on 
air pollution control devices must:
    (1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or 
below the average rate established during the performance test.
    (2) Operate each furnace in accordance with the work practice/
pollution prevention measures documented in the OM&M plan and within 
the parameter values or ranges established in the OM&M plan.
    (3) Operate each group 1 melting/holding furnace subject to the 
emission standards in Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) using only clean charge as the 
feedstock.
    (o) Group 2 furnace. The owner or operator of a new or existing 
group 2 furnace must:
    (1) Operate each furnace using only clean charge as the feedstock.
    (2) Operate each furnace using no reactive flux.
    (p) Corrective action. When a process parameter or add-on air 
pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the value or 
range established during the performance test and incorporated in the 
OM&M plan, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action. 
Corrective action must restore operation of the affected source or 
emission unit (including the process or control device) to its normal 
or usual mode of operation as expeditiously as practicable in 
accordance with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions. Corrective actions taken must include follow-up actions 
necessary to return the process or control device parameter level(s) to 
the value or range of values established during the performance test 
and steps to prevent the likely recurrence of the cause of a deviation.


Sec. 63.1507-Sec. 63.1509  [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Summary. On and after the date the initial performance test is 
completed or required to be completed, whichever date is earlier, the 
owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or emission unit 
must monitor all control equipment and processes according to the 
requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements for each type of 
affected source and emission unit are summarized in Table 3 to this 
subpart.
    (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner 
or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing 
affected source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator must submit the plan 
to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval as part 
of the application for a part 70 or part 71 permit. Any subsequent 
changes to the plan must be submitted to the applicable permitting 
authority for review and approval. Pending approval by the applicable 
permitting authority of an initial or amended plan, the owner or 
operator must comply with the provisions of the submitted plan. Each 
plan must contain the following information:
    (1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to 
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or 
ranges, as applicable, for each process and control device.
    (2) A monitoring schedule for each affected source and emission 
unit.
    (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each 
process unit and add-on control device used to meet the applicable 
emission limits or standards in Sec. 63.1505.
    (4) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 
monitoring devices or systems used to determine compliance, including:
    (i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring 
device, at least once every 6 months, according to the manufacturer's 
instructions; and
    (ii) Procedures for the quality control and quality assurance of 
continuous emission or opacity monitoring systems as required by the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device 
parameters, including procedures for annual inspections of 
afterburners, and if applicable, the procedure to be used for 
determining charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a measurement device 
is not used.
    (6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating 
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the value 
or range established in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, including:
    (i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of an deviation or 
excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and
    (ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time 
corrective action was initiated, and the time/date corrective action 
was completed.
    (7) A maintenance schedule for each process and control device that 
is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations 
for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (8) Documentation of the work practice and pollution prevention 
measures used to achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits 
and a site-specific monitoring plan as required in paragraph (o) of 
this section for each group 1 furnace not equipped with an add-on air 
pollution control device.
    (c) Labeling. The owner or operator must inspect the labels for 
each group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace, in-line fluxer and scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at least once per calendar month to 
confirm that posted labels as required by the operational standard in 
Sec. 63.1506(b) are intact and legible.
    (d) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Install, operate, and maintain a capture/collection system for 
each affected source and emission unit equipped with an add-on air 
pollution control device; and
    (2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at least 
once each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in 
accordance with the operating requirements in Sec. 63.1506(c) and 
record the results of each inspection.
    (e) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of an affected source 
or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton) or 
g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed/charge must install, calibrate, operate, 
and maintain a device to measure and record the total weight of feed/
charge to, or the aluminum production from, the affected source or 
emission unit over the same operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test. Feed/charge or aluminum production within SAPUs must 
be measured and recorded on an emission unit-by-emission unit basis. As 
an alternative to a measurement device, the owner or operator may use a 
procedure acceptable to the applicable permitting authority to 
determine the total weight of feed/charge or aluminum production to the 
affected source or emission unit.
    (1) The accuracy of the weight measurement device or procedure must

[[Page 15718]]

be 1 percent of the weight being measured. The owner or 
operator may apply to the permitting agency for approval to use a 
device of alternative accuracy if the required accuracy cannot be 
achieved as a result of equipment layout or charging practices. A 
device of alternative accuracy will not be approved unless the owner or 
operator provides assurance through data and information that the 
affected source will meet the relevant emission standard.
    (2) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the weight 
measurement device in accordance with the schedule specified by the 
manufacturer, or if no calibration schedule is specified, at least once 
every 6 months.
    (f) Fabric filters and lime-injected fabric filters. The owner or 
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a fabric filter 
or lime-injected fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this 
subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a 
bag leak detection system as required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section or a continuous opacity monitoring system as required in 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The owner or operator of an aluminum 
scrap shredder must install and operate a bag leak detection system as 
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, install and operate a 
continuous opacity monitoring system as required in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section, or conduct visible emission observations as required in 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing affected source or existing emission unit using a bag leak 
detection system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install and operate a bag leak 
detection system for each exhaust stack of a fabric filter.
    (ii) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (September 1997). This 
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions, Monitoring and 
Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19), Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document also is available on the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement Technical 
Information (EMTIC), Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other bag leak 
detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and 
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic 
foot) or less.
    (iv) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative or absolute PM loadings.
    (v) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to 
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (vi) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM 
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located 
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
    (vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 
detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or 
cell. For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak 
detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (ix) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range 
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set 
points and the alarm delay time.
    (x) Following initial adjustment of the system, the owner or 
operator must not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, 
alarm set points, or alarm delay time except as detailed in the OM&M 
plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more than 100 
percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless 
such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection which 
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition.
    (2) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing affected source or an existing emission unit using a 
continuous opacity monitoring system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system to measure and record 
the opacity of emissions exiting each exhaust stack.
    (ii) Each continuous opacity monitoring system must meet the design 
and installation requirements of Performance Specification 1 in 
appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
    (3) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or 
existing aluminum scrap shredder who conducts visible emission 
observations. The owner or operator must:
    (i) Perform a visible emissions test for each aluminum scrap 
shredder using a certified observer at least once a day according to 
the requirements of Method 9 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Each 
Method 9 test must consist of five 6-minute observations in a 30-minute 
period; and
    (ii) Record the results of each test.
    (g) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator 
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the operating 
temperature of the afterburner consistent with the requirements for 
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
    (2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these 
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit 
of the combustion zone of each afterburner.
    (ii) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute 
block averages and determine and record the average temperature for 
each 3-hour block period.
    (iii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times 
the average temperature established according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.1512(m).
    (iv) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards 
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system 
or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (3) The owner or operator must conduct an inspection of each 
afterburner at least once a year and record the results. At a minimum, 
an inspection must include:
    (i) Inspection of all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing 
devices for proper operation and clean pilot sensor;
    (ii) Inspection for proper adjustment of combustion air;
    (iii) Inspection of internal structures (e.g., baffles) to ensure 
structural integrity;
    (iv) Inspection of dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
    (v) Inspection for proper sealing;
    (vi) Inspection of motors for proper operation;
    (vii) Inspection of combustion chamber refractory lining and clean 
and replace lining as necessary;
    (viii) Inspection of afterburner shell for corrosion and/or hot 
spots;
    (ix) Documentation, for the burn cycle that follows the inspection, 
that the

[[Page 15719]]

afterburner is operating properly and any necessary adjustments have 
been made; and
    (x) Verification that the equipment is maintained in good operating 
condition.
    (xi) Following an equipment inspection, all necessary repairs must 
be completed in accordance with the requirements of the OM&M plan.
    (h) Fabric filter inlet temperature. These requirements apply to 
the owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 
or a group 1 furnace using a lime-injected fabric filter to comply with 
the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the temperature of 
the fabric filter inlet gases consistent with the requirements for 
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
    (2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these 
performance and equipment specifications:
    (i) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute 
block averages and calculate and record the average temperature for 
each 3-hour block period.
    (ii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times 
the average temperature established according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.1512(n).
    (iii) The reference method must be a National Institute of 
Standards and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-
potentiometer system or alternate reference, subject to approval by the 
Administrator.
    (i) Lime injection. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a lime-injected 
fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator of a continuous lime injection system 
must verify that lime is always free-flowing by either:
    (i) Inspecting each feed hopper or silo at least once each 8-hour 
period and recording the results of each inspection. If lime is found 
not to be free-flowing during any of the 8-hour periods, the owner or 
operator must increase the frequency of inspections to at least once 
every 4-hour period for the next 3 days. The owner or operator may 
return to inspections at least once every 8 hour period if corrective 
action results in no further blockages of lime during the 3-day period; 
or
    (ii) Subject to the approval of the permitting agency, installing, 
operating and maintaining a load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, 
carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other system to confirm 
that lime is free-flowing. If lime is found not to be free-flowing, the 
owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective 
action, or
    (iii) Subject to the approval of the permitting agency, installing, 
operating and maintaining a device to monitor the concentration of HCl 
at the outlet of the fabric filter. If an increase in the concentration 
of HCl indicates that the lime is not free-flowing, the owner or 
operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective action.
    (2) The owner or operator of a continuous lime injection system 
must record the lime feeder setting once each day of operation.
    (3) An owner or operator who intermittently adds lime to a lime 
coated fabric filter must obtain approval from the permitting authority 
for a lime addition monitoring procedure. The permitting authority will 
not approve a monitoring procedure unless data and information are 
submitted establishing that the procedure is adequate to ensure that 
relevant emission standards will be met on a continuous basis.
    (j) Total reactive flux injection rate. These requirements apply to 
the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (with or without add-on air 
pollution control devices) or in-line fluxer. The owner or operator 
must:
    (1) Install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a device to 
continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux injected to each affected source or emission unit.
    (i) The monitoring system must record the weight for each 15-minute 
block period, during which reactive fluxing occurs, over the same 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (ii) The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be 
1 percent of the weight of the reactive component of the 
flux being measured. The owner or operator may apply to the permitting 
authority for permission to use a weight measurement device of 
alternative accuracy in cases where the reactive flux flow rates are so 
low as to make the use of a weight measurement device of 1 
percent impracticable. A device of alternative accuracy will not be 
approved unless the owner or operator provides assurance through data 
and information that the affected source will meet the relevant 
emission standards.
    (iii) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the 
weight measurement device in accordance with the schedule specified by 
the manufacturer, or if no calibration schedule is specified, at least 
once every 6 months.
    (2) Calculate and record the gaseous or liquid reactive flux 
injection rate (kg/Mg or lb/ton) for each operating cycle or time 
period used in the performance test using the procedure in 
Sec. 63.1512(o).
    (3) Record, for each 15-minute block period during each operating 
cycle or time period used in the performance test during which reactive 
fluxing occurs, the time, weight, and type of flux for each addition 
of:
    (i) Gaseous or liquid reactive flux other than chlorine; and
    (ii) Solid reactive flux.
    (4) Calculate and record the total reactive flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using 
the procedure in Sec. 63.1512(o).
    (5) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer 
performing reactive fluxing may apply to the Administrator for approval 
of an alternative method for monitoring and recording the total 
reactive flux addition rate based on monitoring the weight or quantity 
of reactive flux per ton of feed/charge for each operating cycle or 
time period used in the performance test. An alternative monitoring 
method will not be approved unless the owner or operator provides 
assurance through data and information that the affected source will 
meet the relevant emission standards on a continuous basis.
    (k) Thermal chip dryer. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of a thermal chip dryer with emissions controlled by an 
afterburner. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Record the type of materials charged to the unit for each 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the applicable 
operational standard for charge materials in Sec. 63.1506(f)(3) for 
each 6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the 
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(i).
    (l) Dross-only furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of a dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must:
    (1) Record the materials charged to each unit for each operating 
cycle or time period used in the performance test.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the applicable 
operational standard for charge materials in Sec. 63.1506(i)(3) for 
each 6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the 
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(ii).
    (m) In-line fluxers using no reactive flux. The owner or operator 
of an in-line fluxer that uses no reactive flux

[[Page 15720]]

materials must submit a certification of compliance with the 
operational standard for no reactive flux materials in Sec. 63.1506(l) 
for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the 
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(vi).
    (n) Sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control 
devices. These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a 
sidewell group 1 furnace using add-on air pollution control devices. 
The owner or operator must:
    (1) Record in an operating log for each charge of a sidewell 
furnace that the level of molten metal was above the top of the passage 
between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless 
the furnace hearth was also equipped with an add-on control device.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the operational 
standards in Sec. 63.1506(m)(7) for each 6-month reporting period. Each 
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iii).
    (o) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. 
These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace 
that is not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device.
    (1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the 
applicable permitting authority, a written site-specific monitoring 
plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must be part of the OM&M plan 
that addresses monitoring and compliance requirements for PM, HCl, and 
D/F emissions.
    (i) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
submit the site-specific monitoring plan to the applicable permitting 
authority for review at least 6 months prior to the compliance date.
    (ii) The permitting authority will review and approve or disapprove 
a proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based on whether the 
plan contains sufficient provisions to ensure continuing compliance 
with applicable emission limits and demonstrates, based on documented 
test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F 
and the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data 
must establish the highest level of PM, HCl, and D/F that will be 
emitted from the furnace. Subject to permitting agency approval of the 
OM&M plan, this may be determined by conducting performance tests and 
monitoring operating parameters while charging the furnace with feed/
charge materials containing the highest anticipated levels of oils and 
coatings and fluxing at the highest anticipated rate.
    (2) Each site-specific monitoring plan must document each work 
practice, equipment/design practice, pollution prevention practice, or 
other measure used to meet the applicable emission standards.
    (3) Each site-specific monitoring plan must include provisions for 
unit labeling as required in paragraph (c) of this section, feed/charge 
weight measurement (or production weight measurement) as required in 
paragraph (e) of this section and flux weight measurement as required 
in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (4) Each site-specific monitoring plan for a melting/holding 
furnace subject to the clean charge emission standard in 
Sec. 63.1505(i)(3) must include these requirements:
    (i) The owner or operator must record the type of feed/ charge 
(e.g., ingot, thermally dried chips, dried scrap, etc.) for each 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test; and
    (ii) The owner or operator must submit a certification of 
compliance with the applicable operational standard for clean charge 
materials in Sec. 63.1506(n)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each 
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iv).
    (5) If a continuous emission monitoring system is included in a 
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the 
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide 
quality-assured measurements in accordance with all applicable 
requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (6) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is included in a 
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the 
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide 
quality-assured measurements in accordance with all applicable 
requirements of this subpart.
    (7) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a scrap inspection 
program for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace feed/
charge materials, the plan must include provisions for the 
demonstration and implementation of the program in accordance with all 
applicable requirements in paragraph (p) of this section.
    (8) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a calculation 
method for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace feed/
charge materials, the plan must include provisions for the 
demonstration and implementation of the program in accordance with all 
applicable requirements in paragraph (q) of this section.
    (p) Scrap inspection program for group 1 furnace without add-on air 
pollution control devices. A scrap inspection program must include:
    (1) A proven method for collecting representative samples and 
measuring the oil and coatings content of scrap samples;
    (2) A scrap inspector training program;
    (3) An established correlation between visual inspection and 
physical measurement of oil and coatings content of scrap samples;
    (4) Periodic physical measurements of oil and coatings content of 
randomly-selected scrap samples and comparison with visual inspection 
results;
    (5) A system for assuring that only acceptable scrap is charged to 
an affected group 1 furnace; and
    (6) Recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with plan 
requirements.
    (q) Monitoring of scrap contamination level by calculation method 
for group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices. The 
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace dedicated to processing a 
distinct type of furnace feed/charge composed of scrap with a uniform 
composition (such as rejected product from a manufacturing process for 
which the coating-to-scrap ratio can be documented) may include a 
program in the site-specific monitoring plan for determining, 
monitoring, and certifying the scrap contaminant level using a 
calculation method rather than a scrap inspection program. A scrap 
contaminant monitoring program using a calculation method must include:
    (1) Procedures for the characterization and documentation of the 
contaminant level of the scrap prior to the performance test.
    (2) Limitations on the furnace feed/charge to scrap of the same 
composition as that used in the performance test. If the performance 
test was conducted with a mixture of scrap and clean charge, 
limitations on the proportion of scrap in the furnace feed/charge to no 
greater than the proportion used during the performance test.
    (3) Operating, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to ensure that no scrap with a contaminant level higher 
than that used in the performance test is charged to the furnace.
    (r) Group 2 furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or 
operator of a new or existing group 2 furnace. The owner or operator 
must:
    (1) Record a description of the materials charged to each furnace,

[[Page 15721]]

including any nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating 
fluxing materials or agents.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the applicable 
operational standard for charge materials in Sec. 63.1506(o) for each 
6-month reporting period. Each certification must contain the 
information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(v).
    (s) Site-specific requirements for secondary aluminum processing 
units. (1) An owner or operator of a secondary aluminum processing unit 
at a facility must include, within the OM&M plan prepared in accordance 
with Sec. 63.1510(b), the following information:
    (i) The identification of each emission unit in the secondary 
aluminum processing unit;
    (ii) The specific control technology or pollution prevention 
measure to be used for each emission unit in the secondary aluminum 
processing unit and the date of its installation or application;
    (iii) The emission limit calculated for each secondary aluminum 
processing unit and performance test results with supporting 
calculations demonstrating initial compliance with each applicable 
emission limit;
    (iv) Information and data demonstrating compliance for each 
emission unit with all applicable design, equipment, work practice or 
operational standards of this subpart; and
    (v) The monitoring requirements applicable to each emission unit in 
a secondary aluminum processing unit and the monitoring procedures for 
daily calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average using the 
procedure in Sec. 63.1510(t).
    (2) The SAPU compliance procedures within the OM&M plan may not 
contain any of the following provisions:
    (i) Any averaging among emissions of differing pollutants;
    (ii) The inclusion of any affected sources other than emission 
units in a secondary aluminum processing unit;
    (iii) The inclusion of any emission unit while it is shutdown; or
    (iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction in emission calculations.
    (3) To revise the SAPU compliance provisions within the OM&M plan 
prior to the end of the permit term, the owner or operator must submit 
a request to the applicable permitting authority containing the 
information required by paragraph (s)(1) of this section and obtain 
approval of the applicable permitting authority prior to implementing 
any revisions.
    (t) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Except as provided in 
paragraph (u) of this section, the owner or operator must calculate and 
record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F 
for each secondary aluminum processing unit on a daily basis. To 
calculate the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average, the owner or operator 
must:
    (1) Calculate and record the total weight of material charged to 
each emission unit in the secondary aluminum processing unit for each 
24-hour day of operation using the feed/charge weight information 
required in paragraph (e) of this section. If the owner or operator 
chooses to comply on the basis of weight of aluminum produced by the 
emission unit, rather than weight of material charged to the emission 
unit, all performance test emissions results and all calculations must 
be conducted on the aluminum production weight basis.
    (2) Multiply the total feed/charge weight to the emission unit, or 
the weight of aluminum produced by the emission unit, for each emission 
unit for the 24-hour period by the emission rate (in lb/ton of feed/
charge) for that emission unit (as determined during the performance 
test) to provide emissions for each emission unit for the 24-hour 
period, in pounds.
    (3) Divide the total emissions for each SAPU for the 24-hour period 
by the total material charged to the SAPU, or the weight of aluminum 
produced by the SAPU over the 24-hour period to provide the daily 
emission rate for the SAPU.
    (4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using Equation 4:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.003
    

Where,

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

    (5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for 
each pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for each 
pollutant over the 3 most recent consecutive days and dividing by 3.
    (u) Secondary aluminum processing unit compliance by individual 
emission unit demonstration. As an alternative to the procedures of 
paragraph (t) of this section, an owner or operator may demonstrate, 
through performance tests, that each individual emission unit within 
the secondary aluminum production unit is in compliance with the 
applicable emission limits for the emission unit.
    (v) Alternative monitoring method for lime addition. The owner or 
operator of a lime-coated fabric filter that employs intermittent or 
noncontinuous lime addition may apply to the Administrator for approval 
of an alternative method for monitoring the lime addition schedule and 
rate based on monitoring the weight of lime added per ton of feed/
charge for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance 
test. An alternative monitoring method will not be approved unless the 
owner or operator provides assurance through data and information that 
the affected source will meet the relevant emission standards on a 
continuous basis.
    (w) Alternative monitoring methods. An owner or operator may submit 
an application to the Administrator for approval of alternate 
monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
standards of this subpart, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 
(w)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than 
those specified in this section.
    (2) The owner or operator must continue to use the original 
monitoring requirement until necessary data are submitted and approval 
is received to use another monitoring procedure.
    (3) The owner or operator shall submit the application for approval 
of alternate monitoring methods no later than the notification of the 
performance test. The application must contain the information 
specified in paragraphs (w)(3) (i) through (iii) of this section:
    (i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the 
technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the 
required approach;
    (ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring 
requirements, including the operating parameters to be monitored, the 
monitoring approach and technique, and how the limit is to be 
calculated; and
    (iii) Data and information documenting that the alternative 
monitoring requirement(s) would provide equivalent or better assurance 
of compliance with the relevant emission standard(s).

[[Page 15722]]

    (4) The Administrator will not approve an alternate monitoring 
application unless it would provide equivalent or better assurance of 
compliance with the relevant emission standard(s). Before disapproving 
any alternate monitoring application, the Administrator will provide:
    (i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended 
disapproval is based; and
    (ii) Notice of opportunity for the owner or operator to present 
additional supporting information before final action is taken on the 
application. This notice will specify how much additional time is 
allowed for the owner or operator to provide additional supporting 
information.
    (5) The owner or operator is responsible for submitting any 
supporting information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator 
to consider the application prior to the performance test. Neither 
submittal of an application nor the Administrator's failure to approve 
or disapprove the application relieves the owner or operator of the 
responsibility to comply with any provisions of this subpart.
    (6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case 
basis, that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative 
approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1511  Performance test/compliance demonstration general 
requirements.

    (a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting a performance test 
required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare and submit 
a site-specific test plan meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.7(c).
    (b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial 
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and 
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as 
described in Sec. 63.1515(b). The owner or operator must conduct each 
performance test according to the requirements of the general 
provisions in subpart A of this part and this subpart. Owners or 
operators of affected sources located at facilities which are area 
sources are subject only to those performance testing requirements 
pertaining to D/F. Owners or operators of sweat furnaces meeting the 
specifications of Sec. 63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a 
performance test.
    (1) The owner or operator must conduct each test while the affected 
source or emission unit is operating at the highest production level 
with charge materials representative of the range of materials 
processed by the unit and, if applicable, at the highest reactive 
fluxing rate.
    (2) Each performance test for a continuous process must consist of 
3 separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted for 
the time period specified in the applicable method or, in the absence 
of a specific time period in the test method, for a minimum of 3 hours.
    (3) Each performance test for a batch process must consist of three 
separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted over 
the entire process operating cycle.
    (4) Where multiple affected sources or emission units are exhausted 
through a common stack, pollutant sampling for each run must be 
conducted over a period of time during which all affected sources or 
emission units complete at least 1 entire process operating cycle or 
for 24 hours, whichever is shorter.
    (5) Initial compliance with an applicable emission limit or 
standard is demonstrated if the average of three runs conducted during 
the performance test is less than or equal to the applicable emission 
limit or standard.
    (c) Test methods. The owner or operator must use the following 
methods in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to determine compliance with 
the applicable emission limits or standards:
    (1) Method 1 for sample and velocity traverses.
    (2) Method 2 for velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 3 for gas analysis.
    (4) Method 4 for moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) Method 5 for the concentration of PM.
    (6) Method 9 for visible emission observations.
    (7) Method 23 for the concentration of D/F.
    (8) Method 25A for the concentration of THC, as propane.
    (9) Method 26A for the concentration of HCl. Where a lime-injected 
fabric filter is used as the control device to comply with the 90 
percent reduction standard, the owner or operator must measure the 
fabric filter inlet concentration of HCl at a point before lime is 
introduced to the system.
    (d) Alternative methods. The owner or operator may use an 
alternative test method, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (e) Repeat tests. The owner or operator of new or existing affected 
sources and emission units located at secondary aluminum production 
facilities that are major sources must conduct a performance test every 
5 years following the initial performance test.
    (f) Testing of representative emission units. With the approval of 
the permitting authority, a single representative or similar group 1 
furnace or in-line fluxer which is not controlled by an add-on control 
device may be tested to determine the emission rate of all like 
affected sources at a facility provided that:
    (1) The tested emission unit must use identical feed/charge and 
flux materials in the same proportions as the emission units that it 
represents;
    (2) The tested emission unit is subject to the same work practices 
and the emission units that it represents;
    (3) The tested emission unit is of the same design as the emission 
units that it represents;
    (4) The tested emission unit is tested under the highest load or 
capacity reasonably expected to occur for any of the emission units 
that it represents;
    (5) At least one of each different style of emission unit at the 
facility is tested; and
    (6) All add-on control devices are tested.
    (g) Establishment of monitoring and operating parameter values. The 
owner or operator of new or existing affected sources and emission 
units must establish a minimum or maximum operating parameter value, or 
an operating parameter range for each parameter to be monitored as 
required by Sec. 63.1510 that ensures compliance with the applicable 
emission limit or standard. To establish the minimum or maximum value 
or range, the owner or operator must use the appropriate procedures in 
this section and submit the information required by Sec. 63.1515(b)(4) 
in the notification of compliance status report. The owner or operator 
may use existing data in addition to the results of performance tests 
to establish operating parameter values for compliance monitoring 
provided each of the following conditions are met to the satisfaction 
of the applicable permitting authority:
    (1) The complete emission test report(s) used as the basis of the 
parameter(s) is submitted.
    (2) The same test methods and procedures as required by this 
subpart were used in the test.
    (3) The owner or operator certifies that no design or work practice 
changes have been made to the source, process, or emission control 
equipment since the time of the report.

[[Page 15723]]

    (4) All process and control equipment operating parameters required 
to be monitored were monitored as required in this subpart and 
documented in the test report.


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

    (a) Aluminum scrap shredder. The owner or operator must conduct 
performance tests to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control 
system. If visible emission observations is the selected monitoring 
option, the owner or operator must record visible emission observations 
from each exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the 
PM emission test according to the requirements of Method 9 in appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 60.
    (b) Thermal chip dryer. The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure THC and D/F emissions at the outlet of the 
control device while the unit processes only unpainted aluminum chips.
    (c) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. The owner or 
operator must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of THC, D/
F, HCl, and PM at the outlet of the control device.
    (1) If the scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln is subject 
to the alternative emission limits in Sec. 63.1505(e), the average 
afterburner operating temperature in each 3-hour block period must be 
maintained at or above 760  deg.C (1400  deg.F) for the test.
    (2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln subject to the alternative limits in Sec. 63.1505(e) 
must submit a written certification in the notification of compliance 
status report containing the information required by 
Sec. 63.1515(b)(7).
    (d) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. (1) 
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that processes scrap other 
than clean charge materials with emissions controlled by a lime-
injected fabric filter must conduct performance tests to measure 
emissions of PM and D/F at the outlet of the control device and 
emissions of HCl at the outlet (for the emission limit) or the inlet 
and the outlet (for the percent reduction standard).
    (2) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that processes only 
clean charge materials with emissions controlled by a lime-injected 
fabric filter must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of PM 
at the outlet of the control device and emissions of HCl at the outlet 
(for the emission limit) or the inlet and the outlet (for the percent 
reduction standard).
    (3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of 
reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for the 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that 
all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these 
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an 
emission test for HCl.
    (4) The owner or operator of a sidewell group 1 furnace that 
conducts reactive fluxing (except for cover flux) in the hearth, or 
that conducts reactive fluxing in the sidewell at times when the level 
of molten metal falls below the top of the passage between the sidewell 
and the hearth, must conduct the performance tests required by 
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, to measure emissions from 
both the sidewell and the hearth.
    (e) Group 1 furnace (including melting holding furnaces) without 
add-on air pollution control devices. In the site-specific monitoring 
plan required by Sec. 63.1510(o), the owner or operator of a group 1 
furnace (including a melting/holding furnaces) without add-on air 
pollution control devices must include data and information 
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
    (1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge 
material, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure 
emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F at the furnace exhaust outlet.
    (2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner 
or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure 
emissions of PM and HCl at the furnace exhaust outlet. A D/F test is 
not required. Each test must be conducted while the group 1 furnace 
(including a melting/holding furnace) processes only clean charge.
    (3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of 
reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for the 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that 
all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these 
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an 
emission test for HCl.
    (f) Sweat furnace. Except as provided in Sec. 63.1505(f)(1), the 
owner or operator must measure emissions of D/F from each sweat furnace 
at the outlet of the control device.
    (g) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure emissions of PM from each dross-only 
furnace at the outlet of each control device while the unit processes 
only dross.
    (h) In-line fluxer. (1) The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure emissions of HCl and PM. If the in-line 
fluxer is equipped with an add-on control device, the emissions must be 
measured at the outlet of the control device. If the in-line fluxer 
uses no reactive flux materials, emission tests for PM and HCl are not 
required.
    (2) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of 
reactive flux addition to the in-line fluxer and assume, for the 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that 
all reactive flux added to the in-line fluxer is emitted. Under these 
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an 
emission test for HCl.
    (i) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator must conduct a 
performance test to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control 
device.
    (j) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 
conduct performance tests as described in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) 
of this section. The results of the performance tests are used to 
establish emission rates in lb/ton of feed/charge for PM and HCl and 
g TEQ/Mg of feed/charge for D/F emissions from each emission 
unit. These emission rates are used for compliance monitoring in the 
calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission rates using 
the equation in Sec. 63.1510(t). A performance test is required for:
    (1) Each group 1 furnace processing only clean charge to measure 
emissions of PM and either:
    (i) Emissions of HCl (for the emission limit); or
    (ii) The mass flow rate of HCl at the inlet to and outlet from the 
control device (for the percent reduction standard).
    (2) Each group 1 furnace that processes scrap other than clean 
charge to measure emissions of PM and D/F and either:
    (i) Emissions of HCl (for the emission limit); or
    (ii) The mass flow rate of HCl at the inlet to and outlet from the 
control device (for the percent reduction standard).
    (3) Each in-line fluxer to measure emissions of PM and HCl.
    (k) Feed/charge weight measurement. During the emission test(s) 
conducted to determine compliance with emission limits in a kg/Mg (lb/
ton) format, the owner or operator of an affected source or emission 
unit, subject to an emission limit in a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed/charge

[[Page 15724]]

format, must measure (or otherwise determine) and record the total 
weight of feed/charge to the affected source or emission unit for each 
of the three test runs and calculate and record the total weight. An 
owner or operator that chooses to demonstrate compliance on the basis 
of the aluminum production weight must measure the weight of aluminum 
produced by the emission unit or affected source instead of the feed/
charge weight.
    (l) Continuous opacity monitoring system. The owner or operator of 
an affected source or emission unit using a continuous opacity 
monitoring system must conduct a performance evaluation to demonstrate 
compliance with Performance Specification 1 in appendix B to 40 CFR 
part 60. Following the performance evaluation, the owner or operator 
must measure and record the opacity of emissions from each exhaust 
stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM emission test.
    (m) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator 
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (1) Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator 
must conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring 
device according to the requirements of Sec. 63.8.
    (2) The owner or operator must use these procedures to establish an 
operating parameter value or range for the afterburner operating 
temperature.
    (i) Continuously measure and record the operating temperature of 
each afterburner every 15 minutes during the THC and D/F performance 
tests;
    (ii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures 
for the three test runs; and
    (iii) Determine and record the 3-hour block average temperature 
measurements for the 3 test runs.
    (n) Inlet gas temperature. The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or a group 1 furnace using a lime-
injected fabric filter must use these procedures to establish an 
operating parameter value or range for the inlet gas temperature.
    (1) Continuously measure and record the temperature at the inlet to 
the lime-injected fabric filter every 15 minutes during the HCl and D/F 
performance tests;
    (2) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures 
for the 3 test runs; and
    (3) Determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded 
temperature measurements for the 3 test runs.
    (o) Flux injection rate. The owner or operator must use these 
procedures to establish an operating parameter value or range for the 
total reactive chlorine flux injection rate.
    (1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl and D/F 
tests, determine and record the 15-minute block average weights, and 
calculate and record the total weight of the gaseous or liquid reactive 
flux for the 3 test runs;
    (2) Record the identity, composition, and total weight of each 
addition of solid reactive flux for the 3 test runs;
    (3) Determine the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate by 
adding the recorded measurement of the total weight of chlorine in the 
gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected and the total weight of 
chlorine in the solid reactive flux using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.013


Where,

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

    (4) Divide the weight of total chlorine usage (Wt) for 
the 3 test runs by the recorded measurement of the total weight of feed 
for the 3 test runs; and
    (5) If a solid reactive flux other than magnesium chloride is used, 
the owner or operator must derive the appropriate proportion factor 
subject to approval by the applicable permitting authority.
    (p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected source or 
emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter system must use these 
procedures during the HCl and D/F tests to establish an operating 
parameter value for the feeder setting for each operating cycle or time 
period used in the performance test.
    (1) For continuous lime injection systems, ensure that lime in the 
feed hopper or silo is free-flowing at all times; and
    (2) Record the feeder setting for the 3 test runs. If the feed rate 
setting varies during the runs, determine and record the average feed 
rate from the 3 runs.
    (q) Bag leak detection system. The owner or operator of an affected 
source or emission unit using a bag leak detection system must submit 
the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(6) as part of the 
notification of compliance status report to document conformance with 
the specifications and requirements in Sec. 63.1510(f).
    (r) Labeling. The owner or operator of each scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace and 
in-line fluxer must submit the information described in 
Sec. 63.1515(b)(3) as part of the notification of compliance status 
report to document conformance with the operational standard in 
Sec. 63.1506(b).
    (s) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator of a new or 
existing affected source or emission unit with an add-on control device 
must submit the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(2) as part of 
the notification of compliance status report to document conformance 
with the operational standard in Sec. 63.1506(c).


Sec. 63.1513  Equations for determining compliance.

    (a) THC emission limit. Use Equation 6 to determine compliance with 
an emission limit for THC:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.004

Where,

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

    (b) PM, HCl and D/F emission limits. Use Equation 7 to determine 
compliance with an emission limit for PM, HCl, and D/F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.005

Where,

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

    (c) HCl percent reduction standard. Use Equation 8 to determine 
compliance with an HCl percent reduction standard:

[[Page 15725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.006

Where,

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

    (d) Conversion of D/F measurements to TEQ units. To convert D/F 
measurements to TEQ units, the owner or operator must use the 
procedures and equations in ``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks 
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins 
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA-625/3-89-
016), incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.1502 of this subpart, 
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.
    (e) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Use the procedures in 
paragraphs (e)(1), (2), and (3) or the procedure in paragraph (e)(4) of 
this section to determine compliance with emission limits for a 
secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM emissions for a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-
weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(EcPM) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcPM) calculated using 
Equation 1 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.007

Where,

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

    (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit (EcHCl) is less than or equal to the 
emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(LcHCl) calculated using Equation 2 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.008

Where,

EcHCl = The mass-weighted HCl emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit; and
EtiHCl = Measured HCl emissions for individual emission unit 
i.
    (3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted D/F 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcD/F) calculated using 
Equation 3 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.009

Where,

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

    (4) As an alternative to using the equations in paragraphs (e)(1), 
(2), and (3) of this section, the owner or operator may demonstrate 
compliance for a secondary aluminum processing unit by demonstrating 
that each existing group 1 furnace is in compliance with the emission 
limits for a new group 1 furnace in Sec. 63.1505(i) and that each 
existing in-line fluxer is in compliance with the emission limits for a 
new in-line fluxer in Sec. 63.1505(j).


Sec. 63.1514  [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, And Records


Sec. 63.1515  Notifications.

    (a) Initial notifications. The owner or operator must submit 
initial notifications to the applicable permitting authority as 
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1), the owner or operator must 
provide notification for an area source that subsequently increases its 
emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the 
standard.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3), the owner or operator of a new 
or reconstructed affected source, or a source that has been 
reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an initial 
startup after the effective date of this subpart and for which an 
application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not 
required under Sec. 63.5(d), must provide notification that the source 
is subject to the standard.
    (3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4), the owner or operator of a new 
or reconstructed major affected source that has an initial startup 
after the effective date of this subpart and for which an application 
for approval of construction or reconstruction is required by 
Sec. 63.5(d) must provide the following notifications:
    (i) Intention to construct a new major affected source, reconstruct 
a major source, or reconstruct a major source such that the source 
becomes a major affected source;
    (ii) Date when construction or reconstruction was commenced 
(submitted simultaneously with the application for approval of 
construction or reconstruction if construction or reconstruction was 
commenced before the effective date of this subpart, or no later than 
30 days after the date construction or reconstruction commenced if 
construction or reconstruction commenced after the effective date of 
this subpart);
    (iii) Anticipated date of startup; and
    (iv) Actual date of startup.
    (4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5), after the effective date of 
this subpart, an owner or operator who intends to construct a new 
affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this 
subpart, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected 
source subject to this subpart, must provide notification of the 
intended construction or reconstruction. The notification must include 
all the information required for an application for approval of 
construction or reconstruction as required by Sec. 63.5(d). For major 
sources, the application for approval of construction or reconstruction 
may be used to fulfill these requirements.
    (i) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable before 
the construction or reconstruction is planned to commence (but no 
sooner than the effective date) if the construction or reconstruction 
commences after the effective date of this subpart; or
    (ii) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable 
before startup but no later than 90 days after the effective date of 
this subpart if the construction or reconstruction had commenced and

[[Page 15726]]

initial startup had not occurred before the effective date.
    (5) As required by Sec. 63.9(d), the owner or operator must provide 
notification of any special compliance obligations for a new source.
    (6) As required by Sec. 63.9(e) and (f), the owner or operator must 
provide notification of the anticipated date for conducting performance 
tests and visible emission observations. The owner or operator must 
notify the Administrator of the intent to conduct a performance test at 
least 60 days before the performance test is scheduled; notification of 
opacity or visible emission observations for a performance test must be 
provided at least 30 days before the observations are scheduled to take 
place.
    (7) As required by Sec. 63.9(g), the owner or operator must provide 
additional notifications for sources with continuous emission 
monitoring systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems.
    (b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or 
operator must submit a notification of compliance status report within 
60 days after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1501. The 
notification must be signed by the responsible official who must 
certify its accuracy. A complete notification of compliance status 
report must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (10) of this section. The required information may be submitted 
in an operating permit application, in an amendment to an operating 
permit application, in a separate submittal, or in any combination. In 
a State with an approved operating permit program where delegation of 
authority under section 112(l) of the CAA has not been requested or 
approved, the owner or operator must provide duplicate notification to 
the applicable Regional Administrator. If an owner or operator submits 
the information specified in this section at different times or in 
different submittals, later submittals may refer to earlier submittals 
instead of duplicating and resubmitting the information previously 
submitted. A complete notification of compliance status report must 
include:
    (1) All information required in Sec. 63.9(h). The owner or operator 
must provide a complete performance test report for each affected 
source and emission unit for which a performance test is required. A 
complete performance test report includes all data, associated 
measurements, and calculations (including visible emission and opacity 
tests).
    (2) The approved site-specific test plan and performance evaluation 
test results for each continuous monitoring system (including a 
continuous emission or opacity monitoring system).
    (3) Unit labeling as described in Sec. 63.1506(b), including 
process type or furnace classification and operating requirements.
    (4) The compliant operating parameter value or range established 
for each affected source or emission unit with supporting documentation 
and a description of the procedure used to establish the value (e.g., 
lime injection rate, total reactive chlorine flux injection rate, 
afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet temperature), 
including the operating cycle or time period used in the performance 
test.
    (5) Design information and analysis, with supporting documentation, 
demonstrating conformance with the requirements for capture/collection 
systems in Sec. 63.1506(c).
    (6) If applicable, analysis and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag 
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.1510(f).
    (7) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design 
residence time of no less than 1 second for each afterburner used to 
control emissions from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 
subject to alternative emission standards in Sec. 63.1505(e).
    (8) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design 
residence time of no less than 2 seconds and design operating 
temperature of no less than 1600  deg.F for each afterburner used to 
control emissions from a sweat furnace that is not subject to a 
performance test.
    (9) Approved OM&M plan (including site-specific monitoring plan for 
each group 1 furnace with no add-on air pollution control device).
    (10) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, with revisions.


Sec. 63.1516  Reports.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports. The owner or 
operator must develop and implement a written plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for 
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of corrective action for 
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to 
comply with the standard. The owner or operator shall also keep records 
of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) and record and report if an 
action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not 
consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). In addition to the information required in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan must include:
    (1) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction 
and the time the malfunction began and ended; and
    (2) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction of 
a process or control device, including procedures for recording the 
actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.
    (b) Excess emissions/summary report. As required by 
Sec. 63.10(e)(3), the owner or operator must submit semiannual reports 
within 60 days after the end of each 6-month period. Each report must 
contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10(c). When no deviations 
of parameters have occurred, the owner or operator must submit a report 
stating that no excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
    (1) A report must be submitted if any of these conditions occur 
during a 6-month reporting period:
    (i) The corrective action specified in the OM&M plan for a bag leak 
detection system alarm was not initiated within 1 hour.
    (ii) The corrective action specified in the OM&M plan for a 
continuous opacity monitoring deviation was not initiated within 1 
hour.
    (iii) The corrective action specified in the OM&M plan for visible 
emissions from an aluminum scrap shredder was not initiated within 1 
hour.
    (iv) An excursion of a compliant process or operating parameter 
value or range (e.g., lime injection rate or screw feeder setting, 
total reactive chlorine flux injection rate, afterburner operating 
temperature, fabric filter inlet temperature, definition of acceptable 
scrap, or other approved operating parameter).
    (v) An action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction was 
not consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (vi) An affected source (including an emission unit in a secondary 
aluminum processing unit) was not operated according to the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (vii) A deviation from the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission 
limit for a secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (2) Each report must include each of these certifications, as 
applicable:
    (i) For each thermal chip dryer: ``Only unpainted aluminum chips 
were used as feedstock in any thermal chip dryer during this reporting 
period.''
    (ii) For each dross-only furnace: ``Only dross was used as the 
charge

[[Page 15727]]

material in any dross-only furnace during this reporting period.''
    (iii) For each sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution 
control devices: ``Each furnace was operated such that the level of 
molten metal remained above the top of the passage between the sidewell 
and hearth during reactive fluxing, and reactive flux, except for cover 
flux, was added only to the sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped 
with an add-on air pollution control device for PM, HCl, and D/F 
emissions during this reporting period.''
    (iv) For each group 1 melting/holding furnace without add-on air 
pollution control devices and using pollution prevention measures that 
processes only clean charge material: ``Each group 1 furnace without 
add-on air pollution control devices subject to emission limits in 
Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) processed only clean charge during this reporting 
period.''
    (v) For each group 2 furnace: ``Only clean charge materials were 
processed in any group 2 furnace during this reporting period, and no 
fluxing was performed or all fluxing performed was conducted using only 
nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating fluxing gases or 
agents, except for cover fluxes, during this reporting period.''
    (vi) For each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux: ``Only 
nonreactive, non-HAP-containing, non-HAP-generating flux gases, agents, 
or materials were used at any time during this reporting period.''
    (3) The owner or operator must submit the results of any 
performance test conducted during the reporting period, including one 
complete report documenting test methods and procedures, process 
operation, and monitoring parameter ranges or values for each test 
method used for a particular type of emission point tested.
    (c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual 
certifications of compliance required by 40 CFR part 70 or 71, the 
owner or operator must certify continuing compliance based upon, but 
not limited to, the following conditions:
    (1) Any period of excess emissions, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section, that occurred during the year were reported as 
required by this subpart; and
    (2) All monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements were 
met during the year.


Sec. 63.1517  Records

    (a) As required by Sec. 63.10(b), the owner or operator shall 
maintain files of all information (including all reports and 
notifications) required by the general provisions and this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5 
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of 
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of 
records may be retained off site.
    (2) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, computer 
disks, magnetic tape, or microfiche; and
    (3) The owner or operator may report required information on paper 
or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
    (b) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b), 
the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source (including 
an emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing unit) must maintain 
records of:
    (1) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions 
controlled by a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter:
    (i) If a bag leak detection system is used, the number of total 
operating hours for the affected source or emission unit during each 6-
month reporting period, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm, 
the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief 
description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action(s) 
taken.
    (ii) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used, records of 
opacity measurement data, including records where the average opacity 
of any 6-minute period exceeds 5 percent, with a brief explanation of 
the cause of the emissions, the time the emissions occurred, the time 
corrective action was initiated and completed, and the corrective 
action taken.
    (iii) If an aluminum scrap shredder is subject to visible emission 
observation requirements, records of all Method 9 observations, 
including records of any visible emissions during a 30-minute daily 
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the emissions, the time 
the emissions occurred, the time corrective action was initiated and 
completed, and the corrective action taken.
    (2) For each affected source with emissions controlled by an 
afterburner:
    (i) Records of 15-minute block average afterburner operating 
temperature, including any period when the average temperature in any 
3-hour block period falls below the compliant operating parameter value 
with a brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the 
corrective action taken; and
    (ii) Records of annual afterburner inspections.
    (3) For each scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln and group 
1 furnace, subject to D/F and HCl emission standards with emissions 
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter, records of 15-minute block 
average inlet temperatures for each lime-injected fabric filter, 
including any period when the 3-hour block average temperature exceeds 
the compliant operating parameter value +14  deg.C (+25  deg.F), with a 
brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective 
action taken.
    (4) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions 
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter:
    (i) Records of inspections at least once every 8-hour period 
verifying that lime is present in the feeder hopper or silo and 
flowing, including any inspection where blockage is found, with a brief 
explanation of the cause of the blockage and the corrective action 
taken, and records of inspections at least once every 4-hour period for 
the subsequent 3 days. If flow monitors, pressure drop sensors or load 
cells are used to verify that lime is present in the hopper and 
flowing, records of all monitor or sensor output including any event 
where blockage was found, with a brief explanation of the cause of the 
blockage and the corrective action taken;
    (ii) If lime feeder setting is monitored, records of daily 
inspections of feeder setting, including records of any deviation of 
the feeder setting from the setting used in the performance test, with 
a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective 
action taken.
    (iii) If lime addition rate for a noncontinuous lime injection 
system is monitored pursuant to the approved alternative monitoring 
requirements in Sec. 63.1510(v), records of the time and mass of each 
lime addition during each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test and calculations of the average lime addition rate 
(lb/ton of feed/charge).
    (5) For each group 1 furnace (with or without add-on air pollution 
control devices) or in-line fluxer, records of 15-minute block average 
weights of gaseous or liquid reactive flux injection, total reactive 
flux injection rate and calculations (including records of the 
identity, composition, and weight of each addition of gaseous, liquid 
or solid reactive flux), including records of any period the rate 
exceeds the compliant operating parameter value and corrective action 
taken.
    (6) For each continuous monitoring system, records required by 
Sec. 63.10(c).
    (7) For each affected source and emission unit subject to an 
emission

[[Page 15728]]

standard in kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed/charge, records of feed/charge (or 
throughput) weights for each operating cycle or time period used in the 
performance test.
    (8) Approved site-specific monitoring plan for a group 1 furnace 
without add-on air pollution control devices with records documenting 
conformance with the plan.
    (9) Records of all charge materials for each thermal chip dryer, 
dross-only furnace, and group 1 melting/holding furnaces without air 
pollution control devices processing only clean charge.
    (10) Operating logs for each group 1 sidewell furnace with add-on 
air pollution control devices documenting conformance with operating 
standards for maintaining the level of molten metal above the top of 
the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux 
injection and for adding reactive flux only to the sidewell or a 
furnace hearth equipped with a control device for PM, HCl, and D/F 
emissions.
    (11) Operating logs for each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux 
materials documenting each flux gas, agent, or material used during 
each operating cycle.
    (12) Records of all charge materials and fluxing materials or 
agents for a group 2 furnace.
    (13) Records of monthly inspections for proper unit labeling for 
each affected source and emission unit subject to labeling 
requirements.
    (14) Records of annual inspections of emission capture/collection 
and closed vent systems.
    (15) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 
procedure.
    (16) Current copy of all required plans, including any revisions, 
with records documenting conformance with the applicable plan, 
including:
    (i) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
    (ii) For major sources, OM&M plan; and
    (iii) Site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emission 
plan (if applicable).
    (17) For each secondary aluminum processing unit, records of total 
charge weight, or if the owner or operator chooses to comply on the 
basis of aluminum production, total aluminum produced for each 24-hour 
period and calculations of 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions.

Other


Sec. 63.1518  Applicability of general provisions.

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


Sec. 63.1519  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 112(d) of the CAA, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are 
not transferred to a State.
    (b) Applicability determinations pursuant to Sec. 63.1.


Sec. 63.1520  [Reserved]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 15729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.010


[[Page 15730]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.011


[[Page 15731]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23MR00.012

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 15732]]



  Table 2 to Subpart RRR.--Summary of Operating Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
                                                      Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monitor type/operation/
   Affected source/emission unit               process                        Operating requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission    Emission capture and         Design and install in accordance with
 units with an add-on air pollution   collection system.           Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of
 control device.                                                   Recommended Practice; operate in accordance
                                                                   with OM&M plan.b
All affected sources and emission    Charge/feed weight or        Operate a device that records the weight of
 units subject to production-based    Production weight.           each charge; Operate in accordance with OM&M
 (lb/ton of feed) emission limits a.                               plan.b
Group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace,    Labeling...................  Identification, operating parameter ranges and
 in-line fluxer and scrap dryer/                                   operating requirements posted at affected
 delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.                                 sources and emission units; control device
                                                                   temperature and residence time requirements
                                                                   posted at scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
                                                                   decoating kiln.
Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric  Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with OM&M
                                                                   plan b; operate such that alarm does not
                                                                   sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                     COM or.....................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   minute average opacity reading of 5% or more
                                                                   and complete in accordance with OM&M plan.b
                                     VE.........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of any
                                                                   observed VE and complete in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.b
Thermal chip dryer with afterburner  Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
                                      temperature.                 period at or above average operating
                                                                   temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.b
                                     Feed material..............  Operate using only unpainted aluminum chips.
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/       Afterburner operating        Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
 decoating kiln with afterburner      temperature.                 period at or above average operating
 and lime-injected fabric filter.                                  temperature during the performance test.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.b
                                     Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
                                                                   alarm and complete in accordance with the
                                                                   OM&M plan; b operate such that alarm does not
                                                                   sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   minute average opacity reading of 5% or more
                                                                   and complete in accordance with the OM&M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Maintain average fabric filter inlet
                                      temperature.                 temperature for each 3-hr period at or below
                                                                   average temperature during the performance
                                                                   test +14  deg.C (+25  deg.F).
                                     Lime injection rate........  Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
                                                                   or silo at all times for continuous injection
                                                                   systems; maintain feeder setting at level
                                                                   established during the performance test for
                                                                   continuous injection systems.
Sweat furnace with afterburner.....  Afterburner operating        If a performance test was conducted, maintain
                                      temperature.                 average temperature for each 3-hr period at
                                                                   or above average operating temperature during
                                                                   the performance test; if a performance test
                                                                   was not conducted, and afterburner meets
                                                                   specifications of Sec.  63.1505(f)(1),
                                                                   maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
                                                                   period at or above 1600  deg.F.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.b
Dross-only furnace with fabric       Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with the
                                                                   OM&M plan; b operate such that alarm does not
                                                                   sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   minute average opacity reading of 5% or more
                                                                   and complete in accordance with the OM&M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Feed/charge material.......  Operate using only dross as the feed material.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric      Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 filter.                                                           alarm and complete in accordance with the
                                                                   OM&M plan; b operate such that alarm does not
                                                                   sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   minute average opacity reading of 5% or more
                                                                   and complete in accordance with the OM&M
                                                                   plan.b
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Bag leak detector or.......  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
 fabric filter (including those                                    alarm and complete in accordance with the
 that are part of a secondary                                      OM&M plan; b operate such that alarm does not
 aluminum processing unit).                                        sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
                                                                   month period.
                                     COM........................  Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
                                                                   minute average opacity reading of 5% or more
                                                                   and complete in accordance with the OM&M
                                                                   plan.b
                                     Lime injection rate........  Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
                                                                   or silo at all times for continuous injection
                                                                   systems; maintain feeder setting at level
                                                                   established during performance test for
                                                                   continuous injection systems.

[[Page 15733]]

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


 Table 3 to Subpart RRR.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
                                                      Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Monitor type/Operation/
   Affected source/Emission unit               Process                        Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission    Emission capture and         Annual inspection of all emission capture,
 units with an add-on air pollution   collection system.           collection, and transport systems to ensure
 control device.                                                   that systems continue to operate in
                                                                   accordance with ACGIH standards.
All affected sources and emission    Feed/charge weight.........  Record weight of each feed/charge, weight
 units subject to production-based                                 measurement device or other procedure
 (lb/ton of feed/charge) emission                                  accuracy of 1% b; calibrate
 limits a.                                                         according to manufacturers specifications, or
                                                                   at least once every 6 months.
Group 1 furnace, group 2 furnace,    Labeling...................  Check monthly to confirm that labels are
 in-line fluxer, and scrap dryer/                                  intact and legible.
 delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric  Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   c; record voltage output from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     COM or.....................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute
                                                                   block averages.
                                     VE.........................  Conduct and record results of 30-minute daily
                                                                   test in accordance with Method 9.
Thermal chip dryer with afterburner  Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(g)(1); record
                                                                   average temperature for each 15-minute block;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.

[[Page 15734]]

 
                                     Feed/charge material.......  Record identity of each feed/charge; certify
                                                                   feed/charge materials every 6 months.
Scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/      Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet
 decoating kiln with afterburner      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(g)(1); record
 and lime injected fabric filter.                                  temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.
                                     Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                   ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   c; record voltage output from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute
                                                                   block averages.
                                     Lime injection rate........  For continuous injection systems, inspect each
                                                                   feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs to verify
                                                                   that lime is free-flowing; record results of
                                                                   each inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect
                                                                   every 4 hrs for 3 days; return to 8-hr
                                                                   inspections if corrective action results in
                                                                   no further blockage during 3-day periode;
                                                                   record feeder setting daily.
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(h)(2); record
                                                                   temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
Sweat furnace with afterburner.....  Afterburner operating        Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(g)(1); record
                                                                   temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                     Afterburner operation......  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                   parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                   the OM&M plan.
Dross-only furnace with fabric       Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   c; record output voltage from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute
                                                                   block averages.
                                     Feed/charge material.......  Record identity of each feed/charge; certify
                                                                   charge materials every 6 months.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric      Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                           ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   c; record output voltage from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute
                                                                   block averages.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected    Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter.                                                    ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
                                                                   Guidance''c; record output voltage from bag
                                                                   leak detector.
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute
                                                                   block averages
                                     Reactive flux injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of 1% b; calibrate according to
                                                                   manufacturer's specifications or at least
                                                                   once every 6 months; record time, weight and
                                                                   type of reactive flux added or injected for
                                                                   each 15-minute block period while reactive
                                                                   fluxing occurs; calculate and record total
                                                                   reactive flux injection rate for each
                                                                   operating cycle or time period used in
                                                                   performance test; or
                                                                  Alternative flux injection rate determination
                                                                   procedure per Sec.  63.1510(j)(5).
                                     Lime injection rate........  For continuous injection systems, record
                                                                   feeder setting daily and inspect each feed
                                                                   hopper or silo every 8 hrs to verify that
                                                                   lime is free-flowing; record results of each
                                                                   inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect every
                                                                   4 hrs for 3 days; return to 8-hour
                                                                   inspections if corrective action results in
                                                                   no further blockage during 3-day period.d
In-line fluxer using no reactive     Flux materials.............  Record flux materials; certify every 6 months
 flux.                                                             for no reactive flux.
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected   Bag leak detector or.......  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter.                                                    ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance''
                                                                   c; record output voltage from bag leak
                                                                   detector.
                                     COM........................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                   collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                   40 part CFR 63; determine and record 6-minute
                                                                   block averages.
                                     Lime injection rate........  For continuous injection systems, record
                                                                   feeder setting daily and inspect each feed
                                                                   hopper or silo every 8 hours to verify that
                                                                   lime is free-flowing; record results of each
                                                                   inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect every
                                                                   4 hours for 3 days; return to 8-hour
                                                                   inspections if corrective action results in
                                                                   no further blockage during 3-day period.d

[[Page 15735]]

 
                                     Reactive flux injection
                                      rate Weight measurement
                                      device accuracy of +1%b;
                                      calibrate every 3 months;
                                      record weight and type of
                                      reactive flux added or
                                      injected for each 15-
                                      minute block period while
                                      reactive fluxing occurs;
                                      calculate and record total
                                      reactive flux injection
                                      rate for each operating
                                      cycle or time period used
                                      in performance test; or.
                                     Alternative flux injection
                                      rate determination
                                      procedure per Sec.
                                      63.1510(j)(5)..
                                     Fabric filter inlet          Continuous measurement device to meet
                                      temperature.                 specifications in Sec.  63.1510(h)(2); record
                                                                   temperatures in 15-minute block averages;
                                                                   determine and record 3-hour block averages.
                                     Maintain molten aluminum     Maintain aluminum level operating log; certify
                                      level in sidewell furnace.   every 6 months.
Group 1 furnace without add-on       Fluxing in sidewell furnace  Maintain flux addition operating log; certify
 controls.                            hearth.                      every 6 months.
                                     Reactive flux injection      Weight measurement device accuracy of +1% b;
                                      rate.                        calibrate according to manufacturers
                                                                   specifications or at least once every six
                                                                   months; record weight and type of reactive
                                                                   flux added or injected for each 15-minute
                                                                   block period while reactive fluxing occurs;
                                                                   calculate and record total reactive flux
                                                                   injection rate for each operating cycle or
                                                                   time period used in performance test.
                                     OM&M plan (approved by       Demonstration of site-specific monitoring
                                      permitting agency).          procedures to provide data and show
                                                                   correlation of emissions across the range of
                                                                   charge and flux materials and furnace
                                                                   operating parameters.
                                     Feed material (melting/
                                      holding furnace).
Record type of permissible feed/
 charge material; certify charge
 materials every 6 months..
Clean (group 2) furnace............  Charge and flux materials..  Record charge and flux materials; certify
                                                                   every 6 months for clean charge and no
                                                                   reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers and
  group 1 furnaces or melting/holding furnaces.
b Permitting agency may approve measurement devices of alternative accuracy, for example in cases where flux
  rates are very low and costs of meters of specified accuracy are prohibitive; or where feed/charge weighing
  devices of specified accuracy are not practicable due to equipment layout or charging practices.
c Non-triboelectric bag leak detectors must be installed and operated in accordance with manufacturers'
  specifications.
d Permitting agency may approve other alternatives including load cells for lime hopper weight, sensors for
  carrier gas pressure, or HCl monitoring devices at fabric filter outlet.


                   Appendix A to Subpart RRR.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Citation                        Requirement            Applies to RRR             Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1(a)(1)-(4)....................  General Applicability.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(a)(5)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a)(6)-(8)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(a)(9)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(a) (10)-(14).................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(b)...........................  Initial Applicability   Yes....................  EPA retains approval
                                           Determination.                                   authority.
Sec.  63.1(c)(1)........................  Applicability After     Yes.                     .....................
                                           Standard Established.
Sec.  63.1(c)(2)........................  ......................  Yes....................  States have option to
                                                                                            exclude area sources
                                                                                            from title V permit
                                                                                            program.
Sec.  63.1(c)(3)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(c)(4)-(5)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.1(d)...........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.1(e)...........................  Applicability of        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Permit Program.
Sec.  63.2..............................  Definitions...........  Yes....................  Additional
                                                                                            definitions in Sec.
                                                                                            63.1503.
Sec.  63.3..............................  Units and               Yes....................  .....................
                                           Abbreviations.
Sec.  63.4(a)(1)-(3)....................  Prohibited Activities.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.4(a)(4)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.4(a)(5)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................

[[Page 15736]]

 
Sec.  63.4(b)-(c).......................  Circumvention/          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Severability.
Sec.  63.5(a)...........................  Construction and        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reconstruction--Appli
                                           cability.
Sec.  63.5(b)(1)........................  Existing, New,          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reconstructed
                                           Sources--Requirements.
Sec.  63.5(b)(2)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(b)(3)-(6)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.5(c)...........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.5(d)...........................  Application for         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Approval of
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(e)...........................  Approval of             Yes.                     .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.5(f)...........................  Approval of             Yes.                     .....................
                                           Construction/
                                           Reconstruction Based
                                           on State Review.
Sec.  63.6(a)...........................  Compliance with         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Standards and
                                           Maintenance--Applicab
                                           ility.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(5)....................  New and Reconstructed   Yes.                     .....................
                                           Sources--Dates.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(b)(7)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)........................  Existing Sources Dates  Yes....................  Sec.  63.1501
                                                                                            specifies dates.
Sec.  63.6(c)(2)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4)....................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(c)(5)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(d)...........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2)....................  Operation &             Yes....................  Sec.  63.1510
                                           Maintenance                                      requires plan.
                                           Requirements.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3)........................  Startup, Shutdown, and  Yes.                     .....................
                                           Malfunction Plan.
Sec.  63.6(f)...........................  Compliance with         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Emission Standards.
Sec.  63.6(g)...........................  Alternative Standard..  No.....................  .....................
Sec.  63.6(h)...........................  Compliance with         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Opacity/VE Standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)(1)-(14)...................  Extension of            Yes.                     .....................
                                           Compliance.
Sec.  63.6(i)(15).......................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(i)(16).......................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.6(j)...........................  Exemption from          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Compliance.
Sec.  63.7(a)-(h).......................  Performance Test        Yes....................  Sec.  63.1511
                                           Requirements--Applica                            requires repeat
                                           bility and Dates.                                tests every 5 years
                                                                                            for major sources.
Sec.  63.7(b)...........................  Notification..........  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(c)...........................  Quality Assurance/Test  Yes.                     .....................
                                           Plan.
Sec.  63.7(d)...........................  Testing Facilities....  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(e)...........................  Conduct of Tests......  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(f)...........................  Alternative Test        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Method.
Sec.  63.7(g)...........................  Data Analysis.........  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.7(h)...........................  Waiver of Tests.......  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)........................  Monitoring              Yes.                     .....................
                                           Requirements--Applica
                                           bility.
Sec.  63.8(a)(2)........................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(a)(3)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved]
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)........................  ......................  Yes....................  .....................
Sec.  63.8(b)...........................  Conduct of Monitoring.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(c)(1)-(3)....................  CMS Operation and       Yes.                     .....................
                                           Maintenance.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)-(8)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(d)...........................  Quality Control.......  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(e)...........................  CMS Performance         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Evaluation.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5)....................  Alternative Monitoring  No.....................  Sec.  63.1510(w)
                                           Method.                                          includes provisions
                                                                                            for monitoring
                                                                                            alternatives.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)........................  Alternative to RATA     Yes.                     .....................
                                           Test.
Sec.  63.8(g)(1)........................  Data Reduction........  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.8(g)(2)........................  ......................  No.....................  Sec.  63.1512
                                                                                            requires five 6-
                                                                                            minute averages for
                                                                                            an aluminum scrap
                                                                                            shredder.
Sec.  63.8(g)(3)-(5)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.9(a)...........................  Notification            Yes.                     .....................
                                           Requirements--Applica
                                           bility.
Sec.  63.9(b)...........................  Initial Notifications.  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.9(c)...........................  Request for Compliance  Yes.                     .....................
                                           Extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)...........................  New Source              Yes.                     .....................
                                           Notification for
                                           Special Compliance
                                           Requirements.
63.9(e).................................  Notification of         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Performance Test.
Sec.  63.9(f)...........................  Notification of VE/     Yes.                     .....................
                                           Opacity Test.
Sec.  63.9(g)...........................  Additional CMS          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Notifications.
Sec.  63.9(h)(1)-(3)....................  Notification of         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Compliance Status.
Sec.  63.9(h)(4)........................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.9(h)(5)-(6)....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.9(i)...........................  Adjustment of           Yes.                     .....................
                                           Deadlines.
Sec.  63.9(j)...........................  Change in Previous      Yes.                     .....................
                                           Information.
Sec.  63.10(a)..........................   Recordkeeping/         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reporting--Applicabil
                                           ity.
Sec.  63.10(b)..........................  General Requirements..  Yes....................  Sec.  63.1517
                                                                                            includes additional
                                                                                            requirements.

[[Page 15737]]

 
Sec.  63.10(c)(1).......................  Additional CMS          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Recordkeeping.
Sec.  63.10(c)(2)-(4)...................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.10(c)(5).......................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(6).......................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(7)-(8)...................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c)(9).......................  ......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.10(c) (10)-(13)................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(c) (14).....................  ......................  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(d)(1).......................  General Reporting       Yes.                     .....................
                                           Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(2).......................  Performance Test        Yes.                     .....................
                                           Results.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3).......................  Opacity or VE           Yes.                     .....................
                                           Observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4) -(5)..................  Progress Reports/       Yes.                     .....................
                                           Startup, Shutdown,
                                           and Malfunction
                                           Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)-(2)...................  Additional CMS Reports  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(e)(3).......................  Excess Emissions/CMS    Yes.                     .....................
                                           Performance Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4).......................  COMS Data Reports.....  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.10(f)..........................  Recordkeeping/          Yes.                     .....................
                                           Reporting Waiver.
Sec.  63.11(a)-(b)......................  Control Device          No.....................  Flares not
                                           Requirements.                                    applicable.
Sec.  63.12(a)-(c)......................  State Authority and     Yes.                     EPA retains authority
                                           Delegations.                                     for applicability
                                                                                            determinations.
Sec.  63.13.............................  Addresses.............  Yes.                     .....................
Sec.  63.14.............................  Incorporation by        Yes.                     Chapters 3 and 5 of
                                           Reference.                                       ACGIH Industrial
                                                                                            Ventilation Manual
                                                                                            for capture/
                                                                                            collection systems.
Sec.  63.15.............................  Availability of         Yes.                     .....................
                                           Information/
                                           Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-4143 Filed 3-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-p