[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78274-78316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31234]



[[Page 78273]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and 
Steel Foundries; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2002 / 
Proposed Rule  

[[Page 78274]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0034; FRL-7416-4]
RIN 2060-AE43


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron 
and Steel Foundries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries. The EPA has 
identified iron and steel foundries as a major source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions. These proposed standards will implement 
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major 
sources to meet HAP emissions standards reflecting application of the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    The HAP emitted by facilities in the iron and steel foundries 
source category include metal and organic compounds. For iron and steel 
foundries that produce low alloy metal castings, metal HAP emitted are 
primarily lead and manganese with smaller amounts of cadmium, chromium, 
and nickel. For iron and steel foundries that produce high alloy metal 
or stainless steel castings, metal HAP emissions of chromium and nickel 
can be significant. Organic HAP emissions include acetophenone, 
benzene, cumene, dibenzofurans, dioxins, formaldehyde, methanol, 
naphthalene, phenol, pyrene, toluene, triethylamine, and xylene. 
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse 
health effects, including cancer and chronic or acute disorders of the 
respiratory, reproductive, and central nervous systems. The proposed 
NESHAP would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from iron and steel 
foundries by over 900 tons per year (tpy).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 21, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by January 13, 2003, a public hearing will be held on 
January 22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC at 10 a.m. 
Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral 
testimony should notify Cassie Posey, Metals Group (MD-C439-02), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0069, at 
least 2 days in advance of the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, (MD-
C439-02), Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 
number (919) 541-2364, electronic mail (e-mail) address, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      NAICS      Examples of regulated
             Category                 code*            entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................    331511  Iron foundries.
                                    ........  Iron and steel plants.
                                    ........  Automotive and large
                                               equipment manufacturers.
                                      331512  Steel Investment Foundries
                                      331513  Steel foundries (except
                                               investment).
Federal government................  ........  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.....  ........  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.7682 of the 
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034. The official public docket is 
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the 
Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket at the EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), EPA West, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 
for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, 
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the 
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket 
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search'' and key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is 
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is 
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is

[[Page 78275]]

restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing 
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in 
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, 
will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt 
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked 
``late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed 
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and 
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your 
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any 
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk 
or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of 
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on 
the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not 
edit your comment and any identifying or contact information provided 
in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select 
``search'' and key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034. The system is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: Iron 
and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. 
EPA West, (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034.
    By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments (in duplicate, 
if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0034. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket 
Center's normal hours of operation.
    By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Iron 
and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034.
    CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through 
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto 
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, 109 TW 
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Docket ID 
No. OAR-2002-0034. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as 
CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule is also available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be placed 
on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
    A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?
    B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    C. What Processes Are Used at Iron and Steel Foundries?
    D. What HAP are Emitted and how are they Controlled?
    E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From 
Iron and Steel Foundries?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. What Are the Affected Sources?
    B. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limitations?
    C. What Are the Proposed Work Practice Standards?
    D. What Are the Proposed Operation and Maintenance Requirements?
    E. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Demonstrating Initial 
and Continuous Compliance?
    F. What Are the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?
    G. What Are the Proposed Compliance Deadlines?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?
    B. What Other Emissions Sources Did We Consider?
    C. How Did We Select the Pollutants?
    D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed 
Standards for Emissions Sources in the Metal Casting Department?
    E. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed 
Standards for Emissions Sources in the Mold and Core Making 
Department?
    F. How Did We Select the Proposed Initial Compliance 
Requirements?
    G. How Did We Select the Proposed Continuous Compliance 
Requirements?
    H. How Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, 
and Reporting Requirements?

[[Page 78276]]

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    B. What Aare the Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental, and Energy 
Impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish technology-
based regulations for all categories and subcategories of major sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b). Major sources 
are those that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of 
any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. The EPA may later 
develop additional standards under section 112(f) to address residual 
risk that may remain even after application of the technology-based 
controls.
    Area sources are stationary sources of HAP that are not major 
sources. The regulation of area sources is discretionary. If there is a 
finding of a threat of adverse effects on human health or the 
environment, then the source category can be added to the list of area 
sources to be regulated.
    Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list all categories of 
major and area sources of HAP for which we would develop national 
emissions standards. We published the initial list of source categories 
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). ``Iron Foundries'' and ``Steel 
Foundries'' were two of the source categories on the initial list. The 
1992 listing of these source category is based on our determination 
that iron foundries and steel foundries may reasonably be anticipated 
to emit one or more HAP listed in section 112(b) in quantities 
sufficient to be major sources. We combined these two categories into 
one category, ``Iron and Steel Foundries.'' We believe this is 
reasonable because of the similarities in processes, emissions, and 
controls. Also, several foundries pour both iron and steel. This 
proposed rule will apply to each new and existing iron and steel 
foundry.
    Approximately 650 iron and steel foundries exist in the U.S. Of 
these, about 100 iron and steel foundries are anticipated to be major 
sources of HAP. Most of these major sources are foundries that are 
operated by manufacturers of automobiles and large industrial equipment 
and by suppliers of these manufacturers.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category of subcategory (or the best performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.

C. What Processes Are Used at Iron and Steel Foundries?

    Iron and steel foundries manufacture castings by pouring molten 
iron or steel melted in a furnace into a mold of a desired shape. The 
primary processing units of interest at iron and steel foundries 
because of their potential to generate HAP emissions are: metal melting 
furnaces; scrap preheaters; pouring areas; pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines; mold and core making lines; and mold and core coating 
lines.
Metal Melting Furnaces
    There are three types of furnaces used to melt scrap metal at iron 
and steel foundries: cupolas, electric arc furnaces, and electric 
induction furnaces. Cupolas are used exclusively to produce molten 
iron; electric arc furnaces and electric induction furnaces are used to 
produce either molten iron or molten steel.
    Cupolas. A cupola is vertical cylindrical shaft furnace that uses 
coke and forms of iron and steel, such as scrap and foundry returns, as 
the primary charge components. The iron and steel are melted through 
combustion of the coke by a forced upward flow of heated air. Cupolas 
are equipped with afterburners downstream from the charge to incinerate 
carbon monoxide (CO), which is a major byproduct of coke combustion. 
Some of the coke used to fuel the cupola also becomes part of the 
molten metal, thereby raising the carbon content of the molten metal. 
Consequently, cupolas are used to produce iron castings; steel castings 
must have carbon content of less than 1 percent, which cannot be 
achieved in a cupola.
    There are, generally, two distinct cupola design configurations. 
The differences between the two designs relate to the method of 
charging. In one configuration, termed above charge gas takeoff, 
charging is done through a door in the shaft above the level of the 
charge. Alternatively, in the below charge gas takeoff configuration, 
the flow of gas is taken from an opening in the side of the shaft below 
the level of the charge. The latter configuration is more typical of 
modern cupolas. In either case, the offgas may be directed through a 
heat exchanger to transfer heat to the inlet air for energy 
conservation.
    Molten metal, along with slag, is tapped from an opening in the 
bottom of the furnace shaft much like a blast furnace. Tapping is 
essentially a continuous process, whereas charging is done in batches.
    Electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters. An electric 
induction furnace is a vessel in which forms of iron and steel, such as 
scrap and foundry returns, are melted through resistance heating by an 
electric current that is induced in the metal by passing an alternating 
current through a coil surrounding the metal charge or

[[Page 78277]]

surrounding a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the vessel. An 
electric induction furnace operates in batch mode, an operating cycle 
consisting of charging, melting the charge, adding an additional charge 
(backcharging) in some cases and melting that charge, and tapping the 
molten metal.
    Scrap feed for an electric induction furnace is commonly preheated, 
usually by direct exposure to a gas flame, prior to charging to the 
furnace. Preheating is done primarily to eliminate volatile substances 
such as water and residual oil and grease that may vaporize suddenly 
and cause an explosion if added to a molten charge or heel in the 
furnace. When preheating is done, the scrap is commonly heated to 
800Sec.  F or higher because the cost of initial heating with gas is 
less costly than heating with electricity. A scrap preheater, where 
used, is considered to be an integral part of the electric induction 
furnace melting operation.
    Electric arc furnaces. An electric arc furnace is a vessel in which 
forms of iron and steel, such as scrap and foundry returns, are melted 
through resistance heating by an electric current that flows through 
the arcs formed between electrodes and the surface of the metal and 
also through the metal between the arc paths. Typically, the electric 
arc furnace is equipped with a removable cover and charged from the 
top. Molten metal is tapped from the electric arc furnace by removing 
the cover and tilting the furnace. An electric arc furnace operates in 
batch mode as does an electric induction furnace, an operating cycle 
consisting of charging, melting, backcharging in some cases and melting 
that charge, and tapping.
Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout Lines
    A pouring, cooling, and shakeout line includes three major 
operations: pouring molten metal into molds, allowing the metal to cool 
and solidify, and removing the castings from the molds. The most common 
type of pouring, cooling, and shakeout line is the conveyor or pallet 
line, in which the pouring ladle is stationary and molds are moved to 
the ladle by conveyor or rail. After pouring is complete, the molds 
move along the conveyor or rail through a cooling area, which is often 
an enclosed tunnel. A less common type of pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout line is floor or pit pouring, which is used by small to medium 
sized foundries that do not have sufficient capital to finance 
mechanization and also by foundries that produce castings too large to 
be transported by conveyor. In this type of line, molds are placed on 
an open floor or in a pit, and the pouring ladle is transported to the 
molds, generally by overhead pulley. After pouring, the casting is 
cooled in place.
    After castings have solidified, they are removed from the sand 
molds in a process called shakeout. At most foundries, shakeout is a 
mechanized process where molds are placed on vibrating grids or 
conveyors to shake the sand loose from the casting. In some foundries, 
the castings and molds are separated manually.
Mold and Core Making Lines
    Most iron and steel foundries pour metal into molds that are made 
primarily of sand. Molds may also be made of tempered metal (iron or 
steel) that are filled by gravity (permanent molds) or by centrifugal 
force (centrifugal casting). Some systems use polystyrene or other low 
density plastic (foam) patterns and pack sand around the patterns. This 
type of casting operation is referred to as expendable pattern casting, 
or the lost foam process since the plastic pattern is volatilized (and/
or pyrolyzed) by the molten metal as the castings are poured.
    The outer shape of a casting is determined by the shape of the 
molds. Molds are typically made in two halves that are subsequently 
joined together. The inner shapes of the casting that cannot be 
directly configured into the mold halves are created by inserting 
separately made components called cores, which are almost universally 
made of sand. Sand cores are often required in sand molds as well as in 
many permanent mold and centrifugal casting operations.
    Most sand molds are made from green sand, which is a mixture of 
approximately 85 to 95 percent sand, 4 to 10 percent bentonite clay, 2 
to 5 percent water, and 2 to 10 percent carbonaceous materials such as 
powdered coal (commonly called sea coal), petroleum products, cereals, 
and starches. The composition of green sand is chosen so that the sand 
will form a stable shape when compacted under pressure, maintain that 
shape when heated by the molten metal poured, and separate easily from 
the solidified metal casting. The clay and water bind the sand 
together. The carbonaceous materials partially volatilize when molten 
metal is poured into the mold, creating a reducing atmosphere that 
prevents the surface of the casting from oxidizing while it solidifies.
    Some sand molds and most sand cores are bound into shape by 
plastic-or resin-like chemical substances. Chemical binder systems are 
used when the shape of the mold or core cannot be made from green sand 
or when strength and dimensional stability requirements are too 
stringent for green sand to provide. Chemically bonded molds and cores 
are made by first blending the sand and chemicals (mixing), then 
forming the sand into the desired shape and hardening (curing) the 
chemical binder to fix the shape. Chemical binder systems are of three 
types depending on the curing process required:
    [sbull] Chemicals that cure upon heating (thermosetting),
    [sbull] Combinations of chemicals that cure by reacting with each 
other at ambient temperature (self-setting or nobake), and
    [sbull] Chemicals that react by catalysis upon exposure to a gas at 
ambient temperature (gas-cured or cold box).
    Several systems of each type are available, with the choice of 
system depending on such features as strength of the mold or core, 
speed of curing, and shelf life.
Mold and Core Coating Lines
    Molds and cores are often coated with a finely ground refractory 
material to provide a smoother surface finish on the casting. We refer 
to these processes as ``coating'' operations. The refractory material 
is applied as a slurry. After coating, the liquid component of the 
slurry is either allowed to evaporate or, if it is a flammable 
substance such as alcohol, eliminated by ignition (the light-off 
process).

D. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled?

Metal Melting Furnace Emissions
    Almost all emissions from a cupola are contained in the flow of air 
exiting the stack of the furnace, which contains particulate matter 
(PM) and organic compounds in addition to CO. The HAP in PM emissions 
from cupolas are primarily lead and manganese, with other HAP such as 
cadmium, chromium, and nickel present in lesser amounts. These HAP 
originate as impurities or trace elements in the scrap metal fed to the 
furnace. Organic HAP arise as by-products from combustion of coke and 
also from incomplete combustion of residual oil and grease on the 
scrap. Cupola exhaust gases contain acetophenone, polychlorinated 
dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and pyrene. Most 
cupolas control PM emissions by dedicated baghouses or wet scrubbers. 
Also, most cupolas employ afterburners, which effectively destroy 
organic HAP. Another potential source of emissions is the charging door 
of a cupola in which the gas takeoff is above the charge. However, the 
cupola is generally

[[Page 78278]]

operated with enough vacuum in the shaft to prevent gases from exiting 
the door during normal operations.
    Emissions of PM from electric induction furnaces contain HAP metals 
such as manganese and lead, but may also contain significant amounts of 
chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel alloy castings are 
produced. Emissions from scrap preheaters contain PM and organic 
species that have not been characterized. Emissions from electric 
induction furnaces and scrap preheaters are controlled by baghouses, 
cyclones, and wet scrubbers, with emissions from both types of units 
often controlled by the same device. Organic emissions from scrap 
preheaters are typically controlled by direct flame heating of the 
scrap and, at one source, by afterburning the preheater emissions.
    Emissions of PM from electric arc furnaces contain HAP metals such 
as lead and manganese, but may also contain significant amounts of 
chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel alloy castings are 
produced. Emissions may also include trace levels of organic substances 
that have not been characterized. Emissions of PM are typically 
controlled by baghouses. Organic emissions are controlled by natural 
incineration within the furnace.
Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout Line Emissions
    The majority of HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
lines are organic HAP created by incomplete combustion of organic 
material in the mold and core sand. When molten metal comes into 
contact with organic materials in the sand such as binder chemicals and 
sea coal, these materials are partially volatilized and incinerated. 
Due to the limited availability of oxygen in the poured molds, 
combustion is incomplete, and the mold offgas can contain a wide 
variety of organic substances. The primary HAP emitted are benzene, 
formaldehyde, and toluene. The offgases from most molds ignite 
spontaneously. For floor and pit pouring, the offgas does not always 
spontaneously flare but is ignited by applying a flame to the mold's 
vent locations. Aside from lighting-off mold vents, three foundries use 
add-on controls to further reduce organic emissions from pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines. In addition to organic emissions, pouring 
lines are a source of metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP contained in the 
molten metal is emitted as metal fumes when the metal is poured into 
the molds. Baghouses and scrubbers are used to control metal HAP 
emissions at several pouring lines.
Mold and Core Making and Mold and Core Coating Line Emissions
    Mold making using green sand produces virtually no emissions. The 
use of chemical binder systems, by contrast, can produce significant 
HAP emissions. In the process of mixing, forming, and curing, volatile 
constituents of these chemicals evaporate to some extent. Many binder 
system components contain HAP as polymerization reactants, solvents, or 
catalysts. Although some information on the composition of binder 
system components is proprietary, much is known about their HAP 
content. The HAP used in these chemicals and emitted in the mold and 
core making process include cumene, formaldehyde, methanol, 
naphthalene, phenol, and xylene. Also, triethylamine is commonly used 
as a catalyst gas in the cold box process. Most foundries capture and 
control triethylamine emissions with wet scrubbers that use acid 
solution as the collection medium. No other organic emissions from mold 
and core making lines are controlled. Emissions of HAP can also arise 
in the process of coating the molds and cores. The liquid component of 
the slurry may contain a HAP such as methanol. Coating emissions are 
controlled only where the light-off process is used to eliminate 
flammable constituents.

E. What are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Iron and 
Steel Foundries?

    The metal HAP emitted from melting furnaces includes cadmium, 
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. Aromatic organic HAP produced by 
mold and core making lines; melting furnaces; and pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines contain acetophenone, benzene, cumene, dibenzofurans, 
dioxins, naphthalene, phenol, pyrene, toluene, and xylene. The non-
aromatic organic HAP emitted are formaldehyde, methanol, and 
triethylamine. The known health effects of these substances are 
described in the ``EPA Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants-Draft,'' EPA-452/D-95-00, PB95-503579 (December 1994), which 
is available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/hapindex.html.
    Although numerous HAP may be emitted from iron and steel foundries, 
only a few account for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions 
from these foundries. These HAP are: formaldehyde, methanol, 
napthalene, triethylamine, manganese, and lead.
    Of the HAP listed above, benzene is a known human carcinogen of 
moderate carcinogenic hazard. Cadmium, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), 
formaldehyde, lead, and nickel are classified as probable carcinogens. 
Chromium can exist in two valence states. Chromium VI is a known human 
carcinogen of high carcinogenic hazard by inhalation. (Note: Chromium 
III and Chromium VI by oral pathways are classified as Group D ``not 
classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.'') Acute effects of some 
of the HAP listed above include irritation to the eyes, nose, and 
throat, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, dizziness, central nervous system 
depression, and unconsciousness. Chronic effects include respiratory 
effects (such as coughing, asthma, chronic bronchitis, chest wheezing, 
respiratory distress, altered pulmonary function, and pulmonary 
lesions), gastrointestinal irritation, liver injury, and muscular 
effects. Reproductive effects include menstrual disorders, reduced 
incidence of pregnancy, decreased fertility, impotence, sterility, 
reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation, slowed postnatal 
neurobehavioral development, and spontaneous abortions.
    The proposed rule would reduce emissions of many of these HAP and 
would also reduce PM emissions, which are regulated under national 
ambient air quality standards. Emissions of PM have been associated 
with aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and 
increased risk of premature death.
    We have no data to assess to what extent iron and steel foundries 
emissions are causing health effects. We recognize that the degree of 
adverse effects to health experienced by exposed individuals can range 
from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the health effects 
may be experienced depends on:
    [sbull] Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);
    [sbull] The ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as 
influenced by emissions rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
    [sbull] The frequency and duration of exposures; and
    [sbull] Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, 
age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary 
significantly with the population.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources?

    The affected sources are each new or existing metal casting 
department, and each new or existing mold and core making department, 
at an iron and steel

[[Page 78279]]

foundry that is a major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source 
is one for which construction or reconstruction begins after December 
23, 2002. An existing affected source is one for which construction or 
reconstruction began on or before December 23, 2002. The emissions 
sources in a metal casting department covered by the proposed rule 
include metal melting furnaces, scrap preheaters, pouring stations at 
an existing metal casting department, pouring areas and pouring 
stations at a new metal casting department, and pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines. The emissions sources in a mold and core making 
department covered by the proposed rule include each mold and core 
making and mold and core coating line.

B. What Are the Proposed Emissions Limitations?

    The proposed rule includes emissions limits for metal and organic 
HAP as well as operating limits for capture systems and control 
devices. Particulate matter, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
serve as surrogate measures of HAP emissions. Today's proposed rule 
includes the following emissions standards:
    [sbull] Each melting furnace and scrap preheater at an existing 
metal casting department must control emissions of PM to 0.005 grains 
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), and each melting furnace and 
scrap preheater at a new metal casting department must control 
emissions of PM to 0.001 gr/dscf.
    [sbull] Each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department 
must control CO emissions to 200 parts per million by volume (ppmv).
    [sbull] Each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting 
department must achieve a 98 percent reduction, by weight, in VOC 
emissions or an outlet concentration of no more than 20 ppmv of VOC (as 
propane).
    [sbull] Each pouring station at an existing metal casting 
department must control emissions of PM to 0.010 gr/dscf, and each 
pouring station or pouring area at a new metal casting department must 
control emissions of PM to 0.002 gr/dscf.
    [sbull] Each new metal casting department must achieve a 98 percent 
reduction, by weight, in VOC emissions or an outlet concentration of no 
more than 20 ppmv of VOC (as propane). This limit would be a flow-
weighted average.
    [sbull] Each triethylamine cold box mold and core making line at a 
new or existing mold and core making department must control 
triethylamine emissions to 1 ppmv.
    The owner or operator of an affected source would be required to 
install a capture and collection system for each emissions source 
subject to an emissions limit. The capture and collection system would 
be required to maintain a 200 foot per minute (fpm) face velocity when 
all access doors (if present) are in the open position. In addition, 
for each capture and collection system installed on an affected source, 
the owner and operator would be required to establish operating limits 
for capture systems parameter (or parameters) appropriate for assessing 
capture system performance. At minimum, the limits must indicate the 
level of the ventilation draft and damper position settings. The 
proposed rule would require the owner or operator to operate each 
capture system at or above the lowest value or settings established in 
the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan. Proposed operating limits for 
control devices are:
    [sbull] If a baghouse is applied to PM emissions from a metal 
melting furnace, scrap preheater, or shakeout station, the alarm on the 
bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 5 percent of the 
total operating time in a semiannual reporting period.
    [sbull] If a wet scrubber is applied to PM emissions from a pouring 
station, the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate 
must remain at or above the minimum levels established during the 
initial performance test.
    [sbull] If a wet acid scrubber is applied to triethylamine 
emissions from a cold box mold and core making line, the 3-hour average 
scrubbing liquid flowrate must remain at or above the minimum level 
established during the initial performance test, and the 3-hour average 
pH of the scrubber blowdown must remain at or below the maximum level 
so established. If a combustion device is applied to triethylamine 
emissions from a cold box mold and core making line, the 3-hour average 
combustion zone temperature must remain at or above the minimum level 
established during the initial performance test.
    The proposed operating limits would not apply to a combustion 
device applied to organic HAP emissions from a cupola, scrap preheater, 
or pouring, cooling, and shakeout line because continuous emissions 
monitoring systems (CEMS) would be required to directly measure CO and 
VOC emissions.

C. What Are the Proposed Work Practice Standards?

    To reduce HAP emissions from metal casting departments, facilities 
would be required to develop and operate according to written 
specifications and procedures for the selection and inspection of the 
scrap iron or steel that limit the amount of organics and HAP metals in 
the scrap used as furnace charge. For a pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
line in an existing metal casting department and a pouring area in a 
new or existing metal casting department, foundries would be required 
to manually ignite gases from mold vents that do not automatically 
ignite.
    Four work practice standards are proposed for coating and binder 
chemicalformulations used at new or existing mold and core making 
departments:
    [sbull] All mold and core making lines would be required to use 
non-HAP coating formulations.
    [sbull] All furan warm box mold and core making lines would be 
required to use methanol-free binder chemical formulations.
    [sbull] All phenolic urethane cold box or phenolic urethane nobake 
mold and core making lines would be required to use naphthalene-
depleted solvents. Depletion of naphthalene can not be accomplished by 
substituting other HAP for the naphthalene.
    [sbull] All other types of mold and core making lines (not furan 
warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, or phenolic urethane nobake) 
would be required to use reduced-HAP binder formulations unless it is 
technically and/or economically infeasible. Foundries would conduct an 
initial study to evaluate and identify alternatives. A foundry that 
does not adopt reduced-HAP binder formulations must repeat the study 
and submit a report every 5 years to demonstrate that all applicable 
alternatives remain technically or economically infeasible.

D. What Are the Proposed Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    The proposed rule would ensure good O&M of control equipment by 
requiring all foundries to prepare and follow a written O&M plan for 
capture systems and control devices. The O&M plan must include capture 
system operating limits, requirements for capture system inspections 
and repairs, procedures and schedules for preventative maintenance of 
control devices, and corrective action steps to be taken in the event 
of a bag leak detection system alarm. The proposed rule also includes

[[Page 78280]]

requirements for a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan similar to 
those required for other MACT rules. See Sec.  63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) for more information on 
these requirements.

E. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Demonstrating Initial and 
Continuous Compliance?

Emissions Limitations
    The proposed rule includes requirements for foundries to conduct 
performance tests for all emissions sources subject to an emissions 
limit to show they meet the applicable limit. The proposal would 
require foundries to measure the concentration of PM using EPA Methods 
1 through 4, and either Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as applicable, in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The proposed rule would require foundries 
to use Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine the 
concentration of triethylamine. The proposed rule would also require 
foundries using CO or VOC CEMS to demonstrate compliance by conducting 
CEMS performance evaluations and measuring emissions for 3 consecutive 
operating hours. The proposed rule also includes procedures for 
establishing operating limits for capture systems and control devices, 
and revising the limits, if necessary or desired, after the initial 
performance test.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed rule would 
require a CO CEMS for cupolas, a VOC CEMS for scrap preheaters, and a 
VOC CEMS for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal 
casting department. The proposed rule would require performance tests 
every 5 years to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions 
limits. The proposed rule would require emissions sources not equipped 
with a CEMS to conduct repeat performance tests every 5 years. 
Monitoring of capture system and control device operating parameters 
would demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits 
between emissions tests. These proposed monitoring requirements include 
bag leak detection systems for baghouses and continuous parameter 
monitoring systems (CPMS) for capture systems (unless damper positions 
are fixed), wet scrubbers, combustion devices, and wet acid scrubbers. 
Technical specifications, along with requirements for installation, 
operation, and maintenance of these monitoring systems, are included in 
the proposed rule. Records would be required to document any bag leak 
detection system alarms and to show conformance with inspection and 
maintenance requirements for baghouses, CPMS, and CEMS.
Work Practice Standards
    No performance test would be required to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the work practice standards. Foundries would certify in 
their notification of compliance status that they have installed any 
required capture systems, submitted the required written plans, and 
that they will meet each of the applicable work practice requirements 
in the plan or rule as proposed.
    Records for visual inspections of all incoming shipments are 
required to show continuous compliance with the work practice standards 
for scrap selection and inspection plans. Daily visual inspections are 
required to show continuous compliance with the work practice standard 
for mold vent ignition. A record must be kept of each inspection. To 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards for 
coatings and binder chemicals, foundries would keep records of the 
chemical composition of the formulations. A new compliance 
certification would be required each time they change the formulation.

F. What Are the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    These requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE (the proposed rule) shows 
each of the requirements in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec.  63.2 
through 63.15) and whether they apply.
    The major notifications include one-time notifications of 
applicability (due within 120 days of promulgation), performance tests 
(due at least 60 days before each test), performance evaluations, and 
compliance status. The notification of compliance status is required 
within 60 days of the compliance demonstration if a performance test is 
required or within 30 days if no performance test is required.
    Foundries would be required to maintain records that are needed to 
document compliance, such as performance test results; copies of the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; O&M plan; scrap selection and 
inspection plan, and associated corrective action records; monitoring 
data; and inspection records. In most cases, records must be kept for 5 
years, with records for the most recent 2 years kept onsite. However, 
the O&M plan; scrap selection and inspection plan; and startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan would be kept onsite and available for 
inspection for the life of the affected source (or until the affected 
source is no longer subject to the proposed rule requirements.)
    All foundries would make semiannual compliance reports of any 
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit), 
work practice standard, or O&M requirement. If no deviation occurred 
and no monitoring systems were out of control, only a summary report 
would be required. More detailed information is required in the report 
if a deviation did occur. An immediate report would be required if 
actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not 
consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

G. What Are the Proposed Compliance Deadlines?

    Foundries with existing affected sources would be required to 
comply within 3 years of publication of the final rule. New or 
reconstructed sources that start up on or before the promulgation date 
for the final rule would have to comply by the promulgation date. New 
or reconstructed sources that start up after the promulgation date must 
comply upon initial startup.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment, activities, or 
both within a single contiguous area and under common control that is 
included in the source category or subcategory to which the emissions 
limitations, work practice standards, and other regulatory requirements 
apply. The affected source may be the entire collection of equipment 
and processes in the source category or it may be a subset of equipment 
and processes. For each rule, we must decide which individual pieces of 
equipment and processes warrant separate standards in the context of 
the CAA section 112 requirements and the industry operating practices.
    We considered three different approaches for designating the 
affected source: the entire iron and steel foundry, groups of emissions 
points, and individual emissions points. We did not designate the 
entire foundry as the affected source because this broad approach would 
require us to establish a facilitywide MACT floor based on the total 
HAP emissions indicative of best-performing foundries. Applying a 
single

[[Page 78281]]

MACT floor to groups of process and fugitive emissions points would be 
impracticable given the diversity of processes used at individual 
foundries, especially considering the variety of mold and core making 
processes used.
    One significant group of emissions points in an iron and steel 
foundry is the metal casting department, which includes emissions from 
metal melting furnaces (cupolas, electric induction furnaces, scrap 
preheaters, and electric arc furnaces) and pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines (where molten metal is poured into molds, molds are 
cooled, and castings are separated from molds). Although some variation 
exists in these operations at different foundries, these variations do 
not significantly alter the nature or amount of the HAP emissions from 
the individual emissions sources, the types of HAP emitted, or the 
control technology typically used to reduce HAP emissions. We, 
therefore, concluded that identifying the group of major processes in 
the metal casting department at an iron and steel foundry as an 
affected source is appropriate.
    The other significant group of emissions points at iron and steel 
foundries is associated with mold and core making operations. The 
primary source of HAP emissions from these processes is HAP 
constituents in binder and coating chemicals. All major source 
foundries make extensive use of chemical systems to bind the mold and 
core sand, and certain types of binder systems have much higher 
volatile HAP content than other systems, so that the amounts of HAP and 
the specific HAP constituents emitted from mold and core making 
operations vary substantially between foundries processing the same 
amount of sand and having similar metal production rates. The use and 
formulations of mold and core coatings also varies significantly 
between foundries. Because of the extreme variation in potential to 
produce HAP emissions, it is necessary to consider mold and core making 
and coating operations separately from other foundry processes in 
determining emissions standards. This subset of equipment and processes 
is termed the mold and core making department.
    In selecting the affected sources for regulation, we identified the 
HAP-emitting operations, the HAP emitted, and the quantity of HAP 
emissions from the individual or groups of emissions points. The 
proposed rule includes emissions limits or standards for the control of 
emissions from melting furnaces and pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
lines at metal casting departments, and mold and core making lines at 
mold and core making departments. Selection of these units as the 
emissions sources represents the most effective means for EPA to 
regulate emissions from this source category and addresses all of the 
principal emissions points from units in this source category.

B. What Other Emissions Sources Did We Consider?

    As described in the background information document, there are 
numerous other ancillary emissions sources that may contain trace 
quantities of HAP. The emissions sources that would be regulated under 
this proposed rule generally contribute over 99 percent of a foundry's 
HAP emissions. Coatings applied to the cast parts may also 
significantly contribute to a foundry's total HAP emissions. The HAP 
emissions from these emissions sources will be regulated under the 
proposed NESHAP for Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 
(67 FR 52779).
    Sand handling systems are used to recover sand from the shakeout 
system, avoid buildup at facility work stations, and to reuse sand for 
making new molds. This sand may include trace organic chemicals such as 
pyrolysis products formed during pouring and cooling that condensed on 
the cooler sand at the outer circumference of the mold. Due to the 
large diameter of the PM emissions generated during sand handling and 
the fact that these sources are located inside facility buildings, we 
do not expect that these emissions are released from the foundry 
building or property line as ambient emissions. Therefore, we have not 
proposed standards regulating sand handling systems.
    Mechanical finishing operations, such as cut-off, grinding, and 
shot blasting, also produce PM emissions. These PM emissions may 
contain significant concentrations of metal HAP. However, as with sand 
handling systems, we do not expect that the large diameter particles 
generated during these operations are released as ambient emissions. 
Therefore, we have not proposed standards regulating mechanical 
finishing operations.
    Metal treatment is generally used to achieve the final chemistry 
needed in the cast part. It is also used to produce ductile iron by 
adding magnesium to the molten iron (commonly referred to as 
inoculation). Metal treatment generally occurs in holding furnaces or 
transfer ladles, but may occur in an electric induction furnace or 
electric arc furnace. The emissions from metal treatment operations 
consist primarily of magnesium, but may include trace amounts of metal 
HAP. It is unclear to what extent these emissions may be released from 
the building, but emissions estimates from the available data suggest 
that these emissions do not contribute appreciably to the emissions 
from the foundry. As such, we believe regulating metal treatment would 
not achieve any measurable reduction in metal HAP emissions. Therefore, 
we have not proposed standards regulating metal treatment at this time.
    Holding furnaces are often used to store the molten metal until it 
is needed by the foundry's pouring stations. These furnaces are almost 
completely enclosed and, consequently, they are not a source of ambient 
HAP emissions from foundries. Again, no measurable reduction in metal 
HAP emissions can be achieved by regulating holding furnaces. 
Therefore, we have not proposed emissions standards regulating holding 
furnaces.
    In addition to the operations listed above, we have not proposed 
emissions standards regulating metal HAP emissions from cooling lines 
and shakeout stations. Although these are significant sources of 
organic HAP emissions, they do not contribute to ambient emissions of 
metal HAP from iron and steel foundries. Cooling lines do not generate 
PM emissions and the molten metal is not exposed to the atmosphere 
where metal fumes might be released. Shakeout stations are a 
significant source of PM emissions, however, these emissions are almost 
entirely comprised of sand. As with sand handling systems, the PM 
(sand) emissions may include trace organic chemicals such as pyrolysis 
products formed during pouring and cooling that condensed on the cooler 
sand at the outer circumference of the mold. It may also include small 
chunks of metal. However, due to the large diameter of the PM emissions 
generated during shakeout, we do not expect that these emissions are 
released as ambient emissions from the foundry. Therefore, we are not 
proposing standards for metal HAP from cooling lines and shakeout 
stations.
    We are specifically considering whether to adopt a fugitive 
emissions standard in the form of a shop opacity limitation or a roof 
vent emissions limitation. Such a requirement would provide additional 
assurance that any fugitive emissions sources within the physical 
strictures at iron and steel foundries would not contribute 
significantly to ambient emissions from such facilities. Such a 
standard might include an opacity limit of 5 percent or a no visible 
emissions limit for all foundry building releases (roof vents,

[[Page 78282]]

doors, or other openings) that are not otherwise covered by a specific 
emissions limit. If we were to establish such a requirement, we would 
establish the level for the limit by evaluating existing state and 
permit limits and any available emissions information consistent with 
the procedures described later in this document that was used to 
establish MACT for other emissions sources at iron and steel foundries.
    However, we have not proposed an opacity or visible emissions limit 
because our emissions estimates indicated that the emissions sources 
for which we have not proposed standards are unlikely to contribute to 
ambient HAP emissions from the iron and steel foundries. Thus, while we 
do not have conclusive data regarding the potential for fugitive 
emissions to contribute to ambient HAP emissions from foundries, it 
appears that the inclusion of an opacity or visible emissions limit for 
the foundry building might not function to control HAP emissions from 
the foundry.
    We specifically request comment on the regulatory options that we 
are considering for control of potential fugitive emissions from these 
miscellaneous sources. We request additional data on the potential for 
the miscellaneous sources discussed above to contribute to ambient HAP 
emissions from iron and steel foundries, including comments and 
supporting data that either demonstrates the need to regulate one or 
several of these currently unregulated emissions sources or that 
supports our position that these emissions sources do not release HAP 
to the atmosphere in quantities sufficient to require additional 
regulation. We also request comment on the appropriateness of the 
possible levels for the fugitive emissions limits discussed above, and 
the methodology for calculating such limits for this source category.

C. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

    There are three types of melting furnaces used at major source iron 
and steel foundries: Cupolas, electric induction furnaces, and electric 
arc furnaces. All three furnace types emit PM that is known to contain 
HAP metals, predominately manganese and lead. We, therefore, decided to 
establish standards for metal HAP emissions. Source tests on cupolas 
have shown the presence of small amounts of organic HAP including 
acetophenone, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins, and pyrene. We concluded that establishing standards for these 
HAP is appropriate. We selected PM as a surrogate for metal HAP 
emissions from melting furnaces and CO as a surrogate for organic HAP 
emissions from cupolas.
    Pouring molten metal into sand molds produces emissions from the 
incomplete combustion of the organic chemicals used in chemically 
bonded molds and cores and also from sea coal and other organic 
constituents of green sand. These products of incomplete combustion are 
known to contain benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene. In addition, small 
amounts of HAP metals are emitted during pouring. We selected PM as a 
surrogate for metal HAP emissions from pouring and VOC as a surrogate 
for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
    In the process of mixing sand and binder chemicals, forming the 
sand into molds and cores, and curing the resulting shapes, volatile 
constituents of the binder chemicals evaporate to some extent. The HAP 
emitted in the mold and core making process include cumene, 
formaldehyde, methanol, naphthalene, phenol, triethylamine, and xylene. 
Emissions vary widely between different types and formulations of 
chemical systems; however, for each system the HAP species emitted can 
be identified. We, therefore, decided to establish standards to control 
the emissions of these HAP.
    The source of HAP emissions from the mold and core coating 
operation is the liquid component of the slurry, which may contain a 
HAP such as methanol. Alternative liquid formulations that contain no 
HAP are available. We conclude that substitution of coating material 
formulations is possible, and that it is feasible to establish 
emissions standards in this proposal based on pollution prevention that 
address liquid HAP used in coating operations.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for Emissions Sources in the Metal Casting Department?

Scrap Selection

    There is the potential for HAP emissions to occur during all phases 
of metal casting (including melting, pouring, cooling, and shakeout) 
due to impurities (such as lead, paint, oil and grease) that may be 
present in the scrap metal. By reducing, to the extent possible, the 
amounts of these impurities in the scrap metal, foundries can achieve 
HAP emissions reductions throughout the metal casting department.
    In 1998, we conducted a detailed and comprehensive survey of known 
foundries in the U.S. From this survey, EPA compiled the data from the 
595 iron and steel foundries that provided survey responses. Among 
other things, this survey requested information on work practices, such 
as scrap selection and/or cleaning, at foundries that reduced air 
emissions. Of the 595 iron and steel foundries that provided survey 
responses, 360 (or 60 percent) of iron and steel foundries indicated 
that they used some type of scrap selection, cleaning, or inspection 
program to ensure the quality of scrap metal used by the foundry.
    The percentage of foundries that specify scrap selection as a work 
practice to reduce emissions are relatively consistent for foundries 
operating different furnace types: 45 percent of cupola foundries, 61 
percent of electric arc furnace foundries, and 65 percent of electric 
induction furnace foundries. These percentages indicate that scrap 
selection or cleaning measures are utilized by a sufficient number of 
foundries to represent the MACT floor control regardless of the melting 
furnace. Furthermore, several foundries operate two different types of 
melting furnaces and these foundries typically specify the same scrap 
selection for each furnace. Electric induction furnaces have scrap 
preparation procedures targeted at reducing the amount of water 
(moisture) in the scrap being changed. These procedures are included 
for safety concerns specific to electric induction furnace operation 
and do not necessarily reduce the amount of HAP in the scrap or the HAP 
emissions from the metal casting department. These procedures account 
for the slightly higher percentage of electric induction furnaces that 
report general scrap selection measures.
    The EPA evaluated survey responses to determine the number of 
foundries that have specific scrap specifications that limit either HAP 
contaminants (e.g., lead) or contaminants that are precursors to HAP 
emissions (e.g., oil or paint). Many of the responses were general in 
nature, such as ``use clean scrap,'' ``follow scrap specification,'' or 
``inspect scrap.'' However, 71 foundries (12 percent) specified in 
their survey responses that their scrap selection procedures included 
limits or restrictions on the amount of organic material in the scrap 
metal. These organic material restrictions were most commonly expressed 
as limits or bans on oil, grease, and/or paint in the scrap. 
Occasionally, restrictions included reference to coolants or rubber 
components (belts, hoses) in the scrap. In addition, 55 foundries (7.5 
percent) specified in their survey responses that

[[Page 78283]]

their scrap selection procedures included limits or restrictions on the 
amount of tramp metals in the scrap. These scrap selection metal 
restrictions were most commonly limits (or bans) on lead, but often 
included restrictions on the use of galvanized metals (a source of 
cadmium) and certain alloys (a source of chromium, nickel, or high 
manganese).
    Through information collected through site visits and additional 
queries of large foundries that are anticipated to be major sources of 
HAP emissions, we have determined that scrap selection and inspection 
is an integral part of foundry operations needed to ensure the quality 
(chemistry) of the cast parts. Although some of the foundries visited 
or queried did not have a written scrap selection plan and did not 
indicate scrap selection as a work practice used to reduce air 
emissions, these foundries generally purchased specific grades of scrap 
and typically included specifications on the scrap (such as ``no oil'' 
and/or ``no lead'') on their purchase requisitions. Furthermore, these 
foundries routinely inspected incoming scrap shipments and rejected 
scrap shipments that did not meet their quality requirements.
    It is difficult to establish specific emissions reductions achieved 
by these scrap selection and inspection programs. First, nearly all 
foundries implement some sort of formal or informal scrap selection and 
inspection program (to maintain product quality) so it is difficult to 
assess what the baseline emissions might be without the scrap selection 
and inspection program. Second, these scrap selection and inspection 
programs are used in conjunction with other air emissions control 
technologies used to reduce emissions from the melting furnace and 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout line exhaust vent streams. The emissions 
reductions specifically attributable to the scrap selection and 
inspection program are impossible to separate out. Nonetheless, it is 
clear that any reduction in HAP content or HAP precursors entering the 
metal casting department will tend to reduce the emissions of HAP 
metals and organics from the metal casting department's emissions 
sources.
    While a scrap selection and inspection program is expected to 
reduce HAP emissions, they cannot be expected to eliminate all HAP 
elements or precursors in the scrap. First, scrap loads are generally 
large (at least at major source iron and steel foundries) and difficult 
to inspect. A load of scrap may contain thousands of different pieces, 
and some scrap may be shredded and bundled. Visual inspections are only 
able to identify obvious off-specification materials that are on the 
top of a load. Second, some of the HAP elements are desirable 
components in the scrap iron and steel which contribute to the overall 
chemistry of the product and provide valuable properties in the cast 
metal (e.g., manganese and chromium.) Third, even undesirable HAP 
metals cannot be eliminated from the cast iron and steel as they are 
trace components in the scrap iron and steel which cannot be separated. 
For example, all cast iron contains trace amounts of lead (typically 
0.5 to 4 percent). As such, a load of scrap meeting a ``no lead'' scrap 
specification does not mean that the scrap is lead-free--only that the 
scrap is free of lead components (e.g., batteries or wheel weights).
    As a scrap selection and inspection program can be reasonably 
expected to reduce HAP emissions from the metal casting department and 
since over 6 percent (the median of the top 12 percent) of the 
foundries employ a scrap selection and inspection program that limits 
the amount of organic impurities (HAP precursors) and HAP metals in 
their scrap, we have determined that the MACT floor for existing 
sources is the work practice of scrap selection and inspection to limit 
the amount of organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap used by 
the metal casting department of the foundry.
    Considering the practical limitations discussed above, we believe 
that scrap specifications with specific numeric limits on HAP 
concentrations cannot be established. A visual inspection program 
cannot distinguish the trace lead content of the scrap iron and steel 
parts contained in a load of scrap. The ultimate chemistry of a load of 
scrap cannot be accurately assessed until after the metal is melted 
(which is too late to reduce HAP emissions). Additionally, we cannot 
establish that one scrap selection and inspection program that limits 
or restricts both organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap 
provides higher emissions reductions than an alternative scrap 
selection and inspection program that limits or restricts both organic 
impurities and HAP metals. Therefore, the MACT floor for new sources is 
the same as the MACT floor for existing sources, which is the work 
practice of a scrap selection and inspection program that specifically 
addresses methods for reducing the amount of organic impurities and HAP 
metals in the scrap used by the metal casting department of the 
foundry.
    We could identify no other practical pollution prevention method to 
reduce HAP emissions from the metal casting department based on 
alternative scrap specifications. Therefore, no emissions reduction 
options beyond the MACT floor were considered for the scrap selection 
and inspection program.
    In summary, we are proposing a pollution prevention work practice 
standard as a component of MACT for both new and existing foundries to 
limit both organic and metal HAP emissions throughout the metal casting 
department. This standard would require facilities to develop and 
operate according to written specifications and procedures for the 
selection and inspection of the scrap iron that would limit the amount 
of organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap used by the metal 
casting department of the foundry.
    The scrap selection and inspection requirements being proposed are 
intended to ensure that facilities make a reasonable effort to limit 
the amount of organic impurities and HAP metals in the scrap they 
process and are based on our understanding of what the best performing 
facilities are currently doing. A few examples of the types of 
specifications that we believe are appropriate include bans on lead 
components (i.e., lead batteries, lead pipe, and lead fittings), and 
that oils and other liquids be drained. We do not believe that limits 
on chromium or manganese content are appropriate because these elements 
are required in the cast iron and steel parts. We specifically request 
comment on the feasibility of implementing the proposed scrap selection 
and inspection requirements and whether or not the proposed 
requirements accurately reflect the practices at the best performing 
facilities.
Cupolas
    A cupola is a vertical cylindrical shaft furnace used to melt iron 
and steel scrap through combustion of the coke in a forced upward flow 
of heated air. Virtually all emissions from a cupola are contained in 
the flow of air exiting the stack of the furnace, which contains 
organic compounds, CO and PM. The organic compounds, which arise from 
incomplete combustion of coke and impurities such as oil and grease in 
the furnace charge, include traces of organic HAP such as acetophenone 
and pyrene. The PM contains HAP metals such as lead and manganese that 
are impurities in the scrap. The organic compounds and CO are destroyed 
by combustion, which may occur spontaneously but is typically initiated 
by an afterburner located downstream from the charge. The PM are 
typically controlled by

[[Page 78284]]

either a fabric filter (baghouse) or a wet scrubber.
    Cupolas are used to produce molten iron. Because the coke used to 
fuel the cupola increases the carbon content of the molten metal, 
cupolas cannot be used to produce molten steel (which requires less 
than 1 percent carbon content). Unlike other melting furnaces, cupolas 
produce a continuous supply of molten metal, and they typically have 
much higher melting capacities than other furnace types.
    A substantial body of information is available on the types, 
configurations, and operating conditions of the pollution control 
devices applied across the iron and steel foundry source category. This 
information was collected through our comprehensive survey of known 
iron and steel foundries conducted in 1998. From this survey, detailed 
data are available for 595 iron and steel foundries which provided 
survey responses. This survey indicates that 143 cupolas are operated 
in the U.S.
    MACT for organic HAP emissions. The primary method for reducing 
organic HAP emissions from cupolas is an afterburner, which is used on 
104 of the 143 existing cupolas. Afterburners are installed primarily 
to combust CO, a byproduct of the furnace operation, but also act to 
incinerate any organic compounds present. A typical cupola exhaust will 
contain CO at levels of 10 percent or higher.
    The afterburner itself is a relatively simple device consisting of 
a cylindrical refractory-lined chamber equipped with burners for 
ignition and sufficiently sized to provide appropriate residence time 
to achieve complete combustion. Cupola afterburners are typically 
operated at an ignition temperature of 1,300 [deg]F or higher to 
combust the CO in the cupola exhaust stream. This temperature is the 
minimum temperature need to oxidize CO to carbon dioxide. Given that 
thermal destruction of most organic compounds occurs at 1,200 [deg]F or 
below,\1\ we believe that organic HAP are effectively controlled by an 
afterburner that effectively oxidizes CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Ed. by A.J. Buonicore and 
W.T. Davis. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992. Page 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To confirm the effectiveness of an afterburner applied to an iron 
and steel foundry cupola, we conducted source tests on two cupolas, one 
equipped with an afterburner followed by a baghouse, and another 
equipped with an afterburner followed by a venturi scrubber. Three 
sampling runs were made in one test and four in the other. Test methods 
used were EPA Method 23, Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) From Stationary 
Sources, and SW-846 Methods 0010 (sampling) and 8270 (analysis), which 
are applicable to the determination of semivolatile principal organic 
hazardous compounds from incineration systems.
    Results of the Method 23 tests showed that measured amounts of 
PCDD/PCDF were very low and highly variable. In six of the seven runs, 
concentrations of at least some of the fractions or species analyzed 
were below the quantitative limits. Within this limitation, total PCDD/
PCDF adjusted for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) were 
1.8 to 5.5 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7 
percent oxygen in one test, 0.17 to 0.85 ng/dscm in the other. The 
constituent that was consistently measured in the highest quantifiable 
levels adjusted by the TEF was the pentachlorinated dibenzofuran 
fraction, which varied from 1.0 to 3.0 ng/dscm in one test, and 0.07 to 
0.40 ng/dscm in the other.
    Results of SW-846 Methods 0010/8270 also showed very low and highly 
variable concentrations. Of the 70 compounds analyzed, only 20 were 
detected in the first test, 25 in the second. Only acetophenone in the 
first test and acetophenone and pyrene in the second test were detected 
at levels above the quantitative limits in all runs. The maximum 
concentration of acetophenone varied from less than 1 to less than 2 
parts per billion by volume (ppbv). The maximum concentration of pyrene 
measured was 0.070 ppbv. The maximum mass emissions rates for both 
tests were 0.0011 and 0.00013 pounds per hour for acetophenone and 
pyrene, respectively. These emissions test data suggest that organic 
HAP emissions from well-controlled cupolas are at or below the 
detection limits of current EPA methods. It is clear from the data that 
afterburners are effective in reducing organic HAP emissions.
    In selecting the MACT floor for organic HAP control from cupolas, 
we considered the feasibility of an emissions limit for one or more HAP 
organic compounds. The two tests that we conducted, as discussed above, 
are the only organic HAP emissions data available from cupolas. We 
believe the test data are too limited to determine the variability and 
achievability of an emissions limit for individual organic HAP 
compounds.
    We believe CO is an appropriate surrogate for organic HAP emissions 
from cupolas. As discussed previously, the combustion conditions 
required to oxidize CO generally exceed the conditions necessary to 
combust organic HAP compounds. As such, effective control of CO will 
ensure effective control of organic HAP emissions. However, evaluation 
of organic HAP emissions from similar exhaust streams in other source 
categories indicate that reduction of the CO concentration below a few 
hundred ppmv does not necessarily correlate to additional organic HAP 
emissions reductions. This is because organic HAP destruction occurs 
more readily than CO oxidation and because emissions of certain organic 
HAP such as formaldehyde tend to increase when a combustion device is 
used to reduce CO concentration. This phenomena is believed to be 
caused by additional natural gas consumption needed to achieve these 
very low CO concentrations in the exhaust stream. For these reasons, we 
believe that CO is a good surrogate for organic HAP at concentrations 
above several hundred ppmv. However, available data suggest that 
organic HAP emissions do not continue to decrease when CO 
concentrations fall below a few hundred ppmv.
    We have CO emissions data from 17 cupolas. We also examined State 
requirements for cupolas as they relate to organic HAP emissions 
limitations. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin are all 
States that contain a large number of iron and steel foundries. Each of 
these States have standards that relate to cupola emissions which 
require the use of an afterburner. The Illinois standard requires that 
gases are burned in a direct flame afterburner so that the resulting 
concentration of CO in such gases is less than or equal to 200 ppmv 
corrected to 50 percent excess air for cupolas with melting rates of 
greater than five tons per hour. The Ohio and Wisconsin standards both 
require afterburning at 1,300 [deg]F for 0.3 seconds or greater. The 
Michigan standard requires cupolas with melting rates of 20 or more 
tons per hour be equipped with an afterburner control system, or 
equivalent, which reduces the CO emissions from the ferrous cupola by 
90 percent. The Indiana standard simply requires cupolas with melting 
rates of 10 or more tons per hour be burned in a direct-flame 
afterburner or boiler. These standards clearly indicate that 
afterburning is the preferred control measure for organic HAP from 
cupolas.
    These State standards are intended to control CO emissions from 
cupolas either by limiting outlet CO concentration, requiring a minimum 
CO destruction efficiency, or establishing incinerator operating 
conditions targeted to achieve CO destruction. Of

[[Page 78285]]

these State standards, we believe the 200 ppmv limit is the most 
stringent (i.e., requires the greatest CO destruction efficiency) and, 
therefore, the most effective in organic HAP emissions reductions. And 
as stated above, further reductions in CO concentration are not 
expected to result in further organic HAP emissions reductions.
    We determined the MACT floor for new and existing cupola furnaces 
by ranking the furnaces for which we have emissions information based 
on the estimated emissions limitation achieved for that furnace. We 
have emissions information from the comprehensive survey of known iron 
and steel foundries for 143 cupolas. Two types of emissions information 
was used to determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering 
design parameters including afterburner control efficiency and outlet 
CO concentration design values.
    Where we had CO emissions source test data for a furnace, we used 
the emissions data to estimate the emissions limitation achieved for 
that furnace. We have credible emissions source test data for 13 cupola 
afterburners controlling 17 cupolas. Each test is comprised of at least 
three EPA Method 10 sampling runs of approximately 1 hour in duration.
    While we believe each emissions source test gives a good indication 
of the level of control achieved by the control device during the time 
of the emissions test, we do not believe a single emissions source test 
can be used as an estimate of the long term emissions limitation 
achieved for that source due to normal variations in process and 
control device performance and other factors, such as the inherent 
imprecision of sampling and analysis, which cannot be controlled. We 
believe that the MACT floor performance level must be achievable under 
the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected to 
recur. As such, the MACT floor performance limit must include a 
consideration for the variability inherent in the process operations 
and the control device performance. Therefore, we used a statistical 
method to estimate the emissions limitation achieved by a furnace when 
emissions source test data were available. For each furnace where 
emissions source test data were available, the emissions limitation 
achieved for that furnace was estimated at the 95th percentile outlet 
CO concentration using a one-sided z-statistic test (i.e., the 
emissions limitation which the furnace is estimated to be able to 
achieve 95 percent of the time). We evaluated several options to 
estimate the standard deviation that is needed to perform the z-
statistic test. We decided not to estimate the standard deviation for 
each furnace based on the available emissions data for just that 
furnace since most furnaces only have three data points to use in 
estimating the standard deviation, one data point for each run in a 
three run emissions source test. Instead, we calculated a relative 
standard deviation (RSD) for each test and then averaged the RSD to 
provide our best estimate of the variability of the test data. We 
estimated an average RSD of 0.5 based on a pooling of all of the 
available emissions source test data. We believe this method adequately 
accounts for the normal variability in emissions source test data and 
provides a reasonable estimate of the long term emissions limitation 
achieved by a furnace.
    When emissions source test data were not available for a furnace, 
we estimated the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on 
other emissions information including afterburner control efficiency 
and outlet CO concentration design values. These data were used to 
estimate the emission reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 
126 cupolas where we did not have stack test emissions data.
    Additional information on the ranking of the furnaces used to 
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the 
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation 
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed 
rule.
    We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the 
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median 
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be 
the 6th percentile unit. As we have emissions information on 143 cupola 
sources, the 6th percentile would be the 9th best performing unit (143 
x 0.06 = 8.6). Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation 
achieved by the existing cupola afterburners, we determined that the 
MACT floor for organic HAP control at existing sources is a CO 
emissions concentration of 200 ppmv. Based on available emissions test 
data, we believe that existing sources can achieve an emissions 
limitation of 200 ppmv using a well-designed and operated afterburner 
to control emissions.
    For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on 
our ranking, the best-controlled similar source has achieved a CO 
emissions limitation of 20 ppmv. However, evaluation of organic HAP 
emissions from similar exhaust streams in other source categories 
indicate that reduction of the CO concentration below a few hundred 
ppmv does not necessarily correlate to additional organic HAP emissions 
reductions. This is because organic HAP destruction occurs more readily 
than CO oxidation, and because emissions of certain organic HAP such as 
formaldehyde tend to increase due to the significant increase in 
natural gas consumption, which results in formaldehyde emissions, 
needed to achieve these very low CO concentrations in the exhaust 
stream. We believe a CO concentration of 200 ppmv is a good indicator 
of proper destruction of organic HAP. However, we do not believe that 
further reduction in CO concentrations will result in additional 
organic HAP emissions reduction beyond that achieved by an afterburner 
operated to meet a 200 ppmv CO concentration limit. Therefore, we 
established the MACT floor for organic HAP emissions from new sources 
as a CO emissions limit of 200 ppmv.
    Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than 
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor) options. We could not identify any 
technically feasible options that can reduce organic HAP emissions 
below the level of the new source MACT floor of 200 ppmv. Therefore, 
the proposed MACT standards are based on the MACT floor performance 
limits for new and existing sources. For existing and new sources, the 
MACT standard for organic HAP emissions is a CO emissions limit of 200 
ppmv.
    MACT for HAP metal emissions. Metal HAP emissions from cupolas are 
controlled by baghouses, venturi scrubbers, and electrostatic 
precipitators (ESP). Based on industry survey data available for 143 
cupolas in the iron and steel foundries source category, there are 58 
cupolas (40 percent) controlled by baghouses, 76 (53 percent) 
controlled by venturi scrubbers, 1 (1 percent) controlled by an ESP, 
and 9 (6 percent) that are uncontrolled for metal HAP.
    We have very limited metal HAP emissions data. Specifically, the 
only data on metal HAP emissions from cupolas include two source tests 
we conducted on two cupolas: one controlled by a baghouse, and the 
other controlled by a venturi scrubber. The two source tests 
demonstrate that a baghouse achieves lower HAP metal emissions than a 
venturi scrubber. Concentrations of lead and manganese, the two HAP 
metals found to be present

[[Page 78286]]

in the highest concentrations, were substantially lower in the baghouse 
exhaust gas than in the wet scrubber exhaust gas. The average lead 
concentration measured was 42 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm) 
from the baghouse, and 240 [mu]g/dscm from the scrubber. The average 
manganese concentration was 21 [mu]g/dscm from the baghouse, and 1,570 
[mu]g/dscm from the scrubber. While these data are useful in 
demonstrating that baghouses do achieve greater control of metal HAP 
emissions than venturi scrubbers, they are inadequate for the purpose 
of establishing a specific emissions standard (or standards) for metal 
HAP.
    We also have emissions data for PM from source tests conducted on 
36 cupolas: 12 controlled by baghouses, 23 controlled by venturi 
scrubbers, and 1 controlled by an ESP. For metal HAP compounds, we 
believe PM to be a reasonable surrogate. The metal compounds of concern 
are in fact a component of the PM contained in the cupola exhaust. As a 
result, effective control of cupola PM emissions will also result in 
effective control of HAP metals. Because emissions data for PM are 
available, and because PM can reasonably serve as a surrogate for metal 
HAP from cupolas, we elected to establish PM limits to control metal 
HAP emissions from cupolas.
    We also looked at existing State PM emissions limitations and 
discovered that they are much more lenient than actual emissions.\2\ 
Therefore, we believe that PM emissions limitations that are specified 
in air regulations and facility operating permits applicable to iron 
and steel foundries cannot function as a reasonable proxy for actual 
emissions and, as such, are not appropriate for establishing the MACT 
floor for metal HAP or for PM as a surrogate of metal HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin are States 
containing a large number of iron and steel foundries. These states 
have PM concentration limits for cupolas of 0.08 gr/dscf or higher. 
By contrast, exhaust gas emissions from 27 of the 34 cupolas for 
which we have data show measured PM concentrations of 0.07 gr/dscf 
or lower. Also, the average PM concentrations from all 12 of the 
cupolas with baghouses were 0.005 gr/dscf or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determined the MACT floor for new and existing cupola furnaces 
by ranking the furnaces for which we have emissions information based 
on the estimated emissions limitation achieved for that furnace. We 
have emissions information from the comprehensive survey of known iron 
and steel foundries for 143 cupolas. Two types of emissions information 
was used to determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering 
design parameters including control type and outlet PM concentration 
design values.
    Where we had emissions source test data for a furnace, we used the 
emissions data to estimate the emissions limitation achieved for that 
furnace. We have credible emissions source test data for 36 cupolas 
including 12 controlled by baghouses, 23 controlled by venturi 
scrubbers, and 1 controlled by an ESP. Each test is comprised of at 
least three EPA Method 5 sampling runs of approximately 1 hour in 
duration. We were careful to include only the data representing the 
Method 5 PM (i.e., ``front half'' PM catch), as some foundries reported 
both front and back half PM catches.
    While we believe each emissions source test gives a good indication 
of the level of control achieved by the control device during the time 
of the emissions test, we do not believe a single emissions source test 
can be used as an estimate of the long term emissions limitation 
achieved for that source due to normal variations in process and 
control device performance and other factors, such as the inherent 
imprecision of sampling and analysis, which cannot be controlled. We 
believe that the MACT floor performance level must be achievable 
``under the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected 
to recur.'' As such, the MACT floor performance limit must include a 
consideration for the variability inherent in the process operations 
and the control device performance.
    Therefore, we used a statistical method to estimate the emissions 
limitation achieved by a furnace when emissions source test data were 
available. For each furnace where emissions source test data were 
available, the emissions limitation achieved for that furnace was 
estimated at the 95th percentile outlet PM concentration using a one-
sided z-statistic test (i.e., the emissions limitation which the 
furnace is estimated to be able to achieve 95 percent of the time.) We 
evaluated several options to estimate the standard deviation that is 
needed to perform the z-statistic test. We decided not to estimate the 
standard deviation for each furnace based on the available emissions 
data for just that furnace since most furnaces only have three data 
points to use in estimating the standard deviation, one data point for 
each run in a three run emissions source test. We also decided not to 
estimate the standard deviation for a furnace based on just the data 
available for that furnace type because we have very limited 
information on electric arc furnaces, and because the standard 
deviation estimates the three types of furnaces were very similar. An 
analysis of variance was performed on the data and there was no 
statistically significant difference in the standard deviation 
estimates for the three furnace types. Ultimately, we estimated an 
average RSD of 0.4 based on a pooling of all of the available emissions 
source test data for all furnaces types controlled by baghouses. Note 
that data on venturi scrubbers and ESP were not used in estimating the 
RSD because the available emissions source test data clearly 
demonstrated that the furnaces controlled with these devices were not 
among the best performing 12 percent of sources. We believe this method 
adequately accounts for the normal variability in emissions source test 
data and provides a reasonable estimate of the long term emissions 
limitation achieved by a furnace. Additional information on the 
statistical analysis used to estimate the emissions limitation achieved 
by a furnace, including the data used and the complete ranking of 
furnaces, is available in the docket for the proposed rule.
    When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated 
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other 
emissions information including control type and outlet PM 
concentration design values. These data were used to estimate the 
emission reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 107 cupolas 
where we did not have stack test emissions data.
    Additional information on the ranking of the furnaces used to 
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the 
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation 
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed 
rule.
    We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the 
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median 
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be 
the 6th percentile unit. It is reasonable to use the median to 
represent the emissions reductions achieved by the top performing units 
because the median represents the emissions reductions achieved by an 
actual facility and, therefore, is representative of the what can be 
achieved with the emissions controls used at that facility. As we have 
emissions information on 143 cupola sources, the 6th percentile would 
be the 9th best performing units (143 x 0.06 =

[[Page 78287]]

8.6). Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation achieved by the 
existing cupola furnaces, we determined that the MACT floor for metal 
HAP control at existing sources is a PM emissions concentration of 
0.005 gr/dscf. Based on available emissions test data, we believe that 
existing sources can achieve an emissions limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf 
using a well-designed and operated baghouse to control emissions.
    For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on 
our ranking, the best-controlled similar source achieves an emissions 
limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf. Two cupolas were identified that have 
achieved average outlet PM concentrations of 0.001 gr/dscf. Both of 
these cupola systems employ a novel pulse-jet baghouse with 
horizontally supported bags (referred to as a horizontal baghouse) that 
exhibited significantly better performance, based on available 
emissions source test data, than any of the traditionally-designed 
(vertically hanging bag) baghouses. In addition, one of the two 
facilities was designed with a vendor guaranteed performance level of 
0.001 gr/dscf, and five emissions source tests have been conducted on 
this baghouse demonstrating that it is able to achieve a PM 
concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf. Therefore, the MACT floor for metal HAP 
control at new sources is determined to be an average PM concentration 
of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
    Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than 
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor) options. We could not identify any 
technically feasible options that can reduce metal HAP emissions below 
the level of the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. For existing 
sources, we evaluated the option of requiring existing sources to meet 
the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. Based on the available 
emissions source test data, it is likely that existing sources would 
have to install and operate a horizontal baghouse in order to achieve 
an emissions limit of 0.001 gr/dscf. Since only two furnaces are 
currently equipped with horizontal baghouses, the rest of the existing 
sources would have to remove any existing controls (including 
traditional baghouses) and replace them with horizontal baghouses. We 
estimated the incremental annualized cost of requiring all existing 
sources to meet a 0.001 gr/dscf standard over the MACT floor level of 
0.005 gr/dscf at $6.3 million dollars per year. We estimated the 
additional HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved at 13 tpy. 
Therefore, the additional cost per ton of additional HAP removed is 
$480,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced for the beyond-the-floor 
alternative. We rejected the beyond-the-floor control option because of 
its high incremental costs per ton of HAP removed.
    The proposed MACT standards are based on the MACT floor performance 
limits for new and existing sources. For existing sources, the MACT 
standard for cupolas is an average PM concentration of 0.005 gr/dscf or 
less. For new sources, the proposed MACT standard for cupolas is an 
average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
Electric Induction Furnaces and Scrap Preheaters
    An electric induction furnace is a vessel in which forms of iron 
and steel, such as scrap and foundry returns, are melted though 
resistance heating by an electric current. The current is induced in 
the metal charge by passing an alternating current through a coil that 
surrounds either the charge (the coreless electric induction furnace) 
or a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the vessel (the channel 
electric induction furnace). An electric induction furnace operates in 
batch mode, an operating cycle consisting of charging, melting, 
backcharging (adding a second load of charge after the first load has 
melted, which is optional), and tapping.
    One major characteristic of melting operations using an electric 
induction furnace is that scrap feed for an electric induction furnace 
is commonly preheated prior to charging to the furnace. When used, 
preheating is almost universally effected by direct exposure of the 
scrap metal to a gas flame. Scrap preheaters are used primarily to 
eliminate volatile substances, including water, that may vaporize 
suddenly and cause an explosion if added to a molten charge or heel in 
the furnace. Scrap preheaters are also used because the cost of initial 
scrap heating with a gas flame (up to approximately 800 [deg]F) is less 
costly than heating with electricity. Scrap preheaters are used solely 
for electric induction furnaces. Where used, scrap preheaters are 
considered to be an integral part of the electric induction furnace 
metal melting operation, and they generally share a common PM control 
device with the electric induction furnace. Therefore, we have included 
scrap preheaters in the evaluation of electric induction furnace 
control requirements.
    Another significant characteristic of electric induction furnaces 
is that they typically have low melting rates and are generally used at 
smaller iron and steel foundries. From the comprehensive survey of iron 
and steel foundries, there are 1,394 electric induction furnaces at the 
595 iron and steel foundries that provided survey responses. Although 
there are almost ten times more electric induction furnaces than 
cupolas, the total amount of metal melted nationwide using electric 
induction furnaces is only about 65 percent of the metal melted in 
cupolas. The median size electric induction furnace has a melting 
capacity of 1 ton/hr, and 95 percent of all electric induction furnaces 
at iron and steel foundries have melting capacities under 10 tons/hr. 
Predominately, electric induction furnaces are used at small foundries 
or for small-production specialty-metal castings (e.g., high alloy iron 
castings) at larger foundries. Emissions from electric induction 
furnaces are generally low and primarily consist of PM and metal fumes.
    MACT for organic HAP emissions. Electric induction furnaces are not 
considered to be a significant source of organic HAP emissions, 
primarily due to safety concerns with adding volatile substances to the 
furnace. To avoid explosion hazards, tramp materials such as oil and 
grease that are commonly present in scrap are removed either by the use 
of a scrap preheater, by cleaning and drying the scrap on-site, or are 
eliminated by purchasing only pre-cleaned or ingot scrap. As such, 
organic HAP emissions from electric induction furnaces are negligible 
and establishing a limit would not result in measurable emissions 
reductions. Therefore, we are not proposing an emissions limit 
regulating organic HAP emissions from electric induction furnaces.
    Scrap preheaters are a potential source of organic HAP due to the 
volatilization and incomplete combustion of oil and grease that may be 
present in the scrap. Direct flame heating is used for most of the 177 
scrap preheaters operated at iron and steel foundries. This method is 
anticipated to effect a reduction in organic HAP by combusting most of 
the organic materials that may be present in the scrap. A second method 
of control is afterburning of exhaust gases, which is used for 12 scrap 
preheaters at two foundries. Six of the scrap preheaters for which 
afterburning is used are at one foundry that preheats scrap in vessels 
that are so large that the flame may not penetrate the entire charge, 
thus allowing some organic tramp materials to be volatilized and escape 
without being combusted.
    We do not have actual organic HAP emissions data; neither do we 
have data on emissions that can function as a

[[Page 78288]]

surrogate for organic HAP. Therefore, we cannot use scrap preheater 
emissions data to directly calculate an emissions limit for organic HAP 
from scrap preheaters. We do have significant data on the methods 
currently used at scrap preheaters that reduce organic HAP emissions 
and well-established information on the performance and effectiveness 
of these methods, and we can use these data to estimate the level of 
control that these operations currently achieve.
    Afterburning is used at 12 (6.8 percent) of the 177 scrap 
preheaters, and these scrap preheaters are located at three iron and 
steel foundries (6 scrap preheaters at each of 2 foundries). As these 
afterburners are used in conjunction with direct flame preheaters, it 
is reasonable to conclude that these systems achieve the greatest 
organic HAP emissions reductions compared to scrap preheaters operated 
without any additional control systems. Because more than 6 percent 
(i.e., greater than the median of the top 12 percent) of the scrap 
preheaters are equipped with afterburners, the MACT floor is 
represented by the performance achieved by scrap preheater 
afterburners.
    Without additional data to characterize the organic HAP removal 
performance of scrap preheater afterburners, we relied on our extensive 
experience with, and knowledge of, the capabilities of thermal 
incinerators at destroying organic emissions. Because afterburners are 
thermal incinerators, it is reasonable to conclude that the performance 
of scrap preheater afterburners is comparable to the performance of 
thermal incinerators generally. We have over 20 years of experience in 
evaluating the performance of thermal incinerators on a variety of 
organic emissions sources. Based on our experience, we have identified 
a well-established presumption that a well-designed and operated 
thermal incinerator or afterburner is capable of achieving a 98 percent 
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC. There is no 
reason to believe that there is anything about the thermal incinerators 
used in conjunction with scrap preheaters that would result in any 
poorer or more efficient HAP reduction performance.
    We believe that VOC is a reasonable surrogate for organic HAP 
emissions from scrap preheaters because organic HAP emissions are a 
significant component of the VOC emissions. Furthermore, effective 
control of VOC emissions will result in effective control of organic 
HAP emissions. Unlike the emissions from cupolas, which are high in CO 
content due to the incomplete combustion of coke, CO is not a good 
surrogate for organic HAP emissions from scrap preheaters. Scrap 
preheater emissions are already low in CO content because the 
preheaters use natural gas as fuel and operate with excess oxygen. 
Therefore, we selected VOC as the surrogate for organic HAP emissions 
from scrap preheaters.
    We have determined that afterburners represent the MACT floor 
control for scrap preheaters. We believe that the performance of these 
scrap preheater afterburners is comparable to the performance of 
thermal incinerators on other organic emissions sources, and that VOC 
is a reasonable surrogate for organic HAP emissions from scrap 
preheaters. Accordingly, we have established the existing source MACT 
floor for organic HAP emissions from scrap preheaters as a 98 percent 
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC.
    We do not know of any control option that would result in lower 
organic HAP emissions than can be achieved by afterburning. As such, 
the MACT floor for new sources is the same as the MACT floor for 
existing sources. Therefore, the proposed MACT standard for both 
existing and new scrap preheaters is a VOC reduction of 98 percent or 
greater, or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv if a 98 percent 
reduction would result in an outlet concentration below 20 ppmv. 
Because we do not have emissions data from scrap preheaters that 
directly or indirectly measure organic HAP, we specifically request 
comment on the proposed performance limits for organic HAP emissions 
from scrap preheaters.
    We believe this emissions limit is appropriate and achievable by 
scrap preheaters equipped with afterburners. Because the direct flame 
used by some scrap preheaters can itself function as a thermal 
incinerator, we believe that most scrap preheaters units that employ 
direct flame preheating will be able to meet this limit without the 
application of afterburners.
    MACT for metal HAP emissions. Both electric induction furnaces and 
scrap preheaters are sources of metal HAP. As discussed earlier, 
reduction of metal HAP emissions is accomplished by PM control since 
the metal HAP of concern are primarily contained in the particulate 
emissions. Baghouses, along with a few cartridge filters, are the 
devices most commonly used for PM controls on the 1,394 electric 
induction furnaces operated at iron and steel foundries. Baghouses and 
cartridge filters (or fabric filters) are used for controlling melting 
operations for 388 electric induction furnaces (28 percent), wet 
scrubbers are used for 21 electric induction furnaces (1.5 percent), 
and cyclones are used for 2 electric induction furnaces (0.1 percent). 
Electric induction furnaces also have the potential to emit PM during 
charging and tapping operations. These operations are generally 
controlled by the same control device used to control melting operation 
emissions. As such, fabric filters also dominate the charging and 
tapping emissions controls. Charging is controlled by fabric filters 
for 358 electric induction furnaces (26 percent) and tapping is 
controlled by fabric filters for 309 electric induction furnaces (22 
percent). Over 70 percent of electric induction furnaces (961) do not 
use PM controls for any phase of operation.
    Of the 177 scrap preheaters used at iron and steel foundries, 64 
have baghouse controls for the discharging phase of operation; 23 of 
the 64 use the same controls for heating, and 25 of the 64 use the same 
controls for loading. Other controls used for PM are cyclones (used for 
11 scrap preheaters) and wet scrubbers (two scrap preheaters). 
Approximately half of the scrap preheaters do not use controls for any 
phase of operation. Of the 64 scrap preheaters that are controlled by 
baghouses, 59 are employed in conjunction with electric induction 
furnaces that are also equipped with baghouses. Of those 59 scrap 
preheaters, 43 are controlled by the same baghouses as their associated 
electric induction furnace. We are proposing a single MACT limit for 
both electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters because PM 
emissions from scrap preheaters are typically controlled with the same 
control device used to control the PM emissions from their associated 
electric induction furnace.
    Data for actual emissions of HAP metals are available from only one 
electric induction furnace. These data are insufficient to characterize 
HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries. However, as we explained 
earlier, we believe PM to be a reasonable surrogate for HAP metal 
compounds for electric induction furnaces and scrap preheater/electric 
induction furnace systems. The metal HAP compounds of concern are in 
fact a component of the PM contained in the scrap preheater and 
electric induction furnace exhaust. As a result, effective control of 
PM emissions will also result in effective control of HAP metals. 
Outlet PM concentration data are available for 19 fabric filters (17 
baghouses and 2 cartridge filters) used to control emissions from 57 
electric

[[Page 78289]]

induction furnaces and 16 scrap preheaters, 1 venturi scrubber on 2 
electric induction furnaces, 1 cyclone on 2 electric induction 
furnaces, and 7 uncontrolled electric induction furnaces. Based on the 
relative availability of PM versus HAP metal emissions data and based 
on the nature of the metal HAP emissions (being particulate in nature), 
we elected to use PM as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions in 
establishing the MACT floor.
    We also looked at Federally-enforceable emissions limitations as a 
possible surrogate for actual electric induction furnace and scrap 
preheater HAP emissions data. However, the State limitations are much 
more lenient than actual emissions and cannot serve as a proxy for the 
level of performance that such units actually achieve.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Alabama have PM 
emissions limits that apply to melting furnace and general foundry 
operations. In these States, PM emissions limits are 0.05 gr/dscf or 
higher. In contrast, measured PM concentration in electric induction 
furnace baghouse offgases are generally less than 0.005 gr/dscf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determined the MACT floor for new and existing electric 
induction furnaces and scrap preheaters by ranking the furnaces for 
which we have emissions information based on the estimated emissions 
limitation achieved for that furnace. We have emissions information 
from the comprehensive survey of known iron and steel foundries for 
1,394 electric induction furnaces and scrap preheater/electric 
induction furnace systems. Two types of emissions information was used 
to determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering design 
parameters including control type and outlet PM concentration design 
values.
    As with cupola furnaces, where we had emissions source test data 
for a furnace, we used the emissions data to estimate the emissions 
limitation achieved for that furnace. We have credible emissions source 
test data for 57 electric induction furnaces controlled by 19 fabric 
filters (17 baghouses and 2 cartridge filters), 2 electric induction 
furnaces controlled by venturi scrubbers, 2 electric induction furnaces 
controlled by cyclones, and 7 uncontrolled electric induction furnaces. 
Each test is comprised of at least three EPA Method 5 runs (except two 
tests at one foundry that employed EPA Method 17) with sampling runs of 
approximately 1 hour in duration. As discussed earlier, the MACT floor 
performance limit must include a consideration for the variability 
inherent in the process operations and the control device performance. 
Therefore, we used a statistical method to estimate the emissions 
limitation achieved by a furnace when emissions source test data were 
available. For each furnace where emissions source test data were 
available, the emissions limitation achieved for that furnace was 
estimated at the upper 95th percentile outlet PM concentration using a 
one-sided z-statistic test (i.e., the emissions limitation which the 
furnace is estimated to be able to achieve 95 percent of the time.) We 
believe this method adequately accounts for the normal variability in 
emissions source test data and provides a reasonable estimate of the 
emissions limitation achieved by a furnace. Additional information on 
the statistical analysis used to estimate the emissions limitation 
achieved by a furnace, including the data used and the complete ranking 
of furnaces, is available in the docket for the proposed rule.
    When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated 
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other 
emissions information from the detailed survey including control type, 
outlet PM concentration design values, and design PM removal 
efficiencies. These data were used to estimate the emission reduction 
limitation achieved for the remaining 1,337 electric induction furnaces 
and scrap preheaters where we did not have stack test emissions data.
    Additional information on the ranking of the sources used to 
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the 
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation 
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed 
rule.
    We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the 
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median 
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be 
the 6th percentile unit. Again, it is reasonable to use the median to 
represent the emissions reductions achieved by the top performing units 
because the median represents the emissions reductions achieved by an 
actual facility and, therefore, is representative of the what can be 
achieved with the emissions controls used at that facility. As there is 
emissions information on 1,394 electric induction furnaces and scrap 
preheater/electric induction furnace sources, the 6th percentile would 
be represented by the 84th best performing units (1,394 x 0.06 = 83.6). 
Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation achieved by the 
existing electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters/electric 
induction furnaces, we determined that the MACT floor for metal HAP 
control at existing sources is a PM emissions concentration of 0.005 
gr/dscf. We believe that existing sources can achieve an emissions 
limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf using a well-designed and operated baghouse 
to control emissions.
    For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on 
our ranking, the best-controlled similar source achieves an emissions 
limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf. This source actually employs a three stage 
control system: a baghouse (positive pressure, shaker, polyester, air-
to-cloth ratio of 3 ft/min), followed by a set of cartridge filters, 
followed by high efficiency particulate arrester (HEPA) filters. There 
are also several traditional baghouse units that are achieving this 
performance level, and these units span the range of potential electric 
induction furnaces and scrap preheater control configurations. 
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, we believe baghouse technologies 
exist that can effectively meet this performance level, and we believe 
this baghouse technology can be applied to electric induction furnace 
and scrap preheater emissions sources. Based on the available 
information, the MACT floor performance level for new electric 
induction furnaces and scrap preheaters emissions sources is determined 
to be an average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
    Next we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than 
the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor) options. We could not identify any 
technically feasible options that can reduce metal HAP emissions below 
the level of the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. For existing 
sources, we evaluated the option of requiring existing sources to meet 
a more stringent limit, including the new source MACT floor of 0.001 
gr/dscf. However, we believe that a more stringent limit is not 
justified for existing electric induction furnace and scrap preheater 
emissions sources because many units that could currently meet the 
existing source MACT floor would need to purchase new baghouse control 
systems and remove and dispose of their existing baghouses. The 
incremental cost per ton of HAP removed for a 0.001 gr/dscf emissions 
limit for existing electric induction furnace and scrap preheater 
sources is roughly $400,000 to $500,000 per ton of HAP metal reduced.

[[Page 78290]]

    Therefore, the proposed MACT standards for electric induction 
furnaces and scrap preheaters are based on the MACT floor performance 
limits for new and existing sources. For existing sources, the MACT 
standard for electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters is an 
average PM concentration of 0.005 gr/dscf. For new sources, the MACT 
standard for electric induction furnaces and scrap preheaters is an 
average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf.
Electric Arc Furnaces
    An electric arc furnace is a vessel in which forms of iron and 
steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted through resistance 
heating by an electric current. The current flows through the arcs 
formed between electrodes (that are slowly lowered into the furnace) 
and the surface of the metal and also through the metal between the arc 
paths. Like an electric induction furnace, an electric arc furnace 
operates in batch mode; an operating cycle consists of charging the 
furnace, melting the charge, backcharging (which is optional), and 
tapping the molten metal.
    Electric arc furnaces are primarily used in the steel foundry 
industry with limited applications at iron foundries. Based on the 
information collected through our comprehensive survey of iron 
foundries, 81 iron and steel foundries (out of 595 respondents) 
reported using electric arc furnaces for their melting operations. 
These 83 iron and steel foundries operate a total of 163 melting 
electric arc furnaces.
    MACT for organic HAP emissions. We have no organic HAP specific 
emissions data for electric arc furnaces. However, electric arc 
furnaces are not anticipated to be a significant organic HAP emissions 
source. Total hydrocarbon concentrations measured in the exhaust stream 
show very low organic concentrations (less than 1 ppmv). Small amounts 
of organic HAP emissions may arise from electric arc furnaces due to 
the vaporization or partial combustion of contaminant oils and greases 
that may be present in the scrap. Implementation of a scrap selection 
and inspection program that limits the amount of organic impurities in 
the scrap used, which has previously been determined to be a part of 
the MACT floor for the metal casting department of the foundry, should 
minimize the potential for organic emissions from the electric arc 
furnace. Furthermore, it is likely that most trace organic materials 
present in the scrap after scrap selection and inspection will be 
pyrolyzed in the electric arc furnace due to the heat associated with 
the melting operation. Thus, we believe that organic HAP emissions from 
electric arc furnaces are negligible, and that the performance of these 
units with respect to organic HAP can not be measurably improved.
    Moreover, no iron and steel foundry operates an emissions control 
system that would further reduce the organic HAP emissions, if any 
exist, from the electric arc furnace exhaust stream. Because no units 
currently reduce organic HAP emissions from electric arc furnaces in 
the iron and steel foundry industry, the MACT floor for organic HAP 
from electric arc furnaces (for both new and existing sources) would be 
no reduction in emissions. Because the organic concentrations are 
already so low, no technically feasible control technologies can be 
identified that could reduce the organic emissions from electric arc 
furnaces. Therefore, aside from the scrap selection and inspection 
requirements, no organic HAP emissions standards are proposed for 
electric arc furnaces.
    MACT for metal HAP emissions. The PM emissions from electric arc 
furnaces contain metal HAP such as lead and manganese that are trace 
components in the scrap metal. The metal HAP emissions are reduced 
primarily by PM control. Baghouses, the only means used for controlling 
PM emissions for electric arc furnaces, are employed for 81 charging/ 
backcharging, 160 melting, and 62 tapping operations (of the 163 
electric arc furnaces operated at iron and steel foundries).
    The MACT floor cannot be determined from actual emissions of HAP 
because no HAP emissions data are available. However, as stated 
earlier, we believe PM to be a reasonable surrogate for HAP metal 
compounds. Effective control of PM emissions will also result in 
effective control of HAP metals.
    We also looked at State limits or permit conditions as a possible 
surrogate for actual electric arc furnace emissions data. However, the 
State limits and permit conditions are much more lenient than actual 
emissions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Alabama have PM 
emissions limits that apply to melting furnace and general foundry 
operations. Exhaust gas concentration limits are 0.05 gr/dscf or 
higher. In contrast, measured PM concentration in electric arc 
furnace baghouse offgases are generally less than 0.005 gr/dscf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determined the MACT floor for new and existing electric arc 
furnaces by ranking the furnaces for which we have emissions 
information based on the estimated emissions limitation achieved for 
that furnace. We have emissions information from the comprehensive 
survey of known iron and steel foundries for 163 electric arc furnaces. 
Two types of emissions information was used to determine the MACT 
floor--source test data, and engineering design parameters including 
control type and outlet PM concentration design values.
    As with the other furnace types, where we had emissions source test 
data for a furnace, we used the emissions data to estimate the 
emissions limitation achieved for that furnace. Outlet PM concentration 
data are available for ten baghouses that are used to control the 
emissions from 23 electric arc furnaces operated by iron and steel 
foundries. As discussed earlier, the MACT floor performance limit must 
include a consideration for the variability inherent in the process 
operations and the control device performance. Therefore, we used a 
statistical method to estimate the emissions limitation achieved by a 
furnace when emissions source test data were available. For each 
furnace where emissions source test data were available, the emissions 
limitation achieved for that furnace was estimated at the upper 95th 
percentile outlet PM concentration using a one-sided z-statistic test 
(i.e., the emissions limitation which the furnace is estimated to be 
able to achieve 95 percent of the time.) As stated earlier, we believe 
this method adequately accounts for the normal variability in emissions 
source test data and provides a reasonable estimate of the emissions 
limitation achieved by a furnace.
    When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated 
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other 
emissions information obtained from the detailed survey including 
control type, outlet PM concentration design values, and design PM 
removal efficiencies. These data were used to estimate the emission 
reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 140 electric arc 
furnaces where we did not have stack test emissions data.
    Additional information on the ranking of the sources used to 
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the 
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation 
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed 
rule.
    We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing sources (i.e., the 
average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources) to be the performance achieved by the median 
source of the top 12 percent best performing sources, which would be 
the 6th percentile unit. Again, it is reasonable to use the median to 
represent the emissions reductions

[[Page 78291]]

achieved by the top performing units because the median represents the 
emissions reductions achieved by an actual facility and, therefore, is 
representative of the what can be achieved with the emissions controls 
used at that facility. As there is emissions information on 163 EAF 
sources, the 6th percentile would be represented by the 10th best 
performing unit (163 x 0.06 = 10). Based on our ranking of the 
emissions limitation achieved by the existing electric arc furnaces, we 
determined that the MACT floor for metal HAP control at existing 
electric arc furnace sources is a PM emissions concentration of 0.005 
gr/dscf. We believe that existing sources can achieve a PM emissions 
limitation of 0.005 gr/dscf using a well-designed and operated baghouse 
to control emissions.
    For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on 
our ranking, the best-controlled electric arc furnace achieves an 
emissions limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf. Unlike the top performing cupola 
or electric induction furnace control system, there does not appear to 
be a technological reason why this baghouse has superior performance. 
This baghouse is a negative-pressure shaker-type baghouse serving one 
furnace. One other baghouse (a positive-pressure shaker-type baghouse 
serving two furnaces) also appears to meet this performance limit. 
Positive-pressure baghouses are notoriously difficult to test and there 
are potential concerns about dilution air, which is often used to 
maintain optimal baghouse operating temperatures. However, the source 
test on this baghouse appears to have been rigorously performed using 
EPA Method 5D. The baghouse has seven compartments and seven exhaust 
stacks. Each exhaust stack was traversed, with 12 traverse points per 
stack, for each of the three runs. Thus, 96 traverse points were 
sampled for each run. With this many traverse points, a relatively 
large gas sample volume was collected, affording quantifiable PM 
catches even at the low concentrations observed. A second source test 
was performed on this unit and it again achieved an average outlet 
concentration 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
    In addition, we believe that other available technology (i.e., a 
horizontal baghouse as discussed in the cupola section) also can 
consistently meet an emissions limitation of 0.001 gr/dscf, and that 
this technology can also be applied for the control of electric arc 
furnace emissions. Based on the available information, the MACT floor 
performance level for new electric arc furnaces is determined to be an 
average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less.
    It is possible that there may be process differences that account 
for the low emissions achieved by some electric arc furnaces that may 
be grounds for further sub-categorization. We request comments and 
solicit supporting data on whether there are process related 
differences that would justify further sub-categorization of electric 
arc furnaces. All comments and data received will be considered in 
forming the final rule requirements.
    Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than 
the MACT floor (beyond the floor) options. We could not identify any 
technically feasible options that can reduce metal HAP emissions below 
the level of the new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/dscf. For existing 
sources, we evaluated the option of requiring existing sources to meet 
a more stringent limit, including new source MACT floor of 0.001 gr/
dscf. However, we believe that a more stringent limit is not justified 
for existing electric arc furnace emissions sources because many units 
that could currently meet the existing source MACT floor would need to 
purchase new baghouse control systems and remove and dispose of their 
existing baghouses. The incremental cost per ton of HAP removed for a 
0.001 gr/dscf emissions limit for existing electric arc furnace sources 
is roughly $400,000 to $500,000 per ton of HAP metal reduced.
    In summary, the metal HAP MACT standard for electric arc furnaces 
at existing sources is an average PM concentration of 0.005 gr/dscf or 
less. For new sources, the MACT standard for electric arc furnaces is 
an average PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf or less. These proposed 
MACT standards are based on the MACT floor performance limits for new 
and existing sources.

Pouring Areas and Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout Lines

    As described earlier in this preamble, after the iron and steel is 
melted, the molten metal is poured into molds that contain open 
cavities in the shape of the part being cast. The majority of molds are 
made of sand that contain prescribed amounts of clay and moisture 
(green sand) or chemical additives that help the sand retain the 
desired shape of the cast part. Molds may also be made of tempered 
metal (iron or steel) that are filled by gravity (permanent molds) or 
by centrifugal force (centrifugal casting). Some systems use 
polystyrene or other low density plastic (foam) patterns and pack sand 
around the patterns. This type of casting operation is referred to as 
expendable pattern casting or the lost foam process since the plastic 
pattern is volatilized (and/or pyrolyzed) by the molten metal as the 
castings are poured; expendable pattern casting is generally used for 
complex, close-tolerance castings.
    There are two basic configurations for pouring, cooling and 
shakeout. The most common configuration is automated or pallet lines 
that transfer the mold to and from a fixed location (the ``pouring 
station'') where the molten metal is poured into molds. The molds are 
then transported to a conveyor or separate cooling area where the molds 
are allowed to cool until the cast part has sufficiently hardened so 
that it can be removed from the mold. The cast parts are removed from 
the molds at the shakeout station, which is typically a vibrating grate 
or conveyor that breaks apart the sand molds. This configuration is 
referred to as pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
    The second configuration employs stationary molds (such as pit or 
floor molding), and the molten metal is transported to and from the 
molds using portable pouring ladles. The metal is poured and the molds 
are then allowed to cool in-place (i.e., in the ``pouring area''). The 
molds may then be transported to a separate shakeout area or more 
commonly shakeout may be performed in the pouring area. Shakeout for 
these stationary molds is generally accomplished manually (with sledge 
hammers) or using back hoes or similar devices to break apart the molds 
and retrieve the cast part.
    Based on the differences in the operation of these systems, we 
elected to subcategorize pouring, cooling, and shakeout operations into 
two subcategories--pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines; and pouring 
areas. Pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines use pouring stations and 
the molds are transported to and from the pouring station. Cooling and 
shakeout then occurs in a separate area within the facility. These 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines are often automated systems and 
are typically used for cast parts the size of automotive engine blocks 
or smaller. Pouring areas have molds that remain stationary during 
pouring and cooling (and typically shakeout). Pouring areas are 
commonly used to make large cast parts (e.g., construction equipment) 
where it is difficult to move the molds after pouring due to the size 
of the molds employed. Based on the industry survey data, iron and 
steel foundries operate 1,317 pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines 
(e.g., automated or pallet lines that

[[Page 78292]]

have fixed pouring stations) and 435 pouring areas (e.g., floor or pit 
molds).
    MACT for organic HAP emissions. Organic HAP are emitted from 
pouring areas and pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines when chemicals 
in sand molds and cores are vaporized or pyrolyzed by the heat of the 
molten metal. The most common control for organic HAP is ignition of 
mold offgas. Ignition typically occurs spontaneously in automated 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, while manual ignition of mold 
vents is standard practice for floor and pit molding (i.e., pouring 
areas). After several minutes (roughly 5 to 10 minutes depending on the 
size of the mold and castings), the rate of gaseous release from the 
molds eventually subsides to the point that a flame cannot be supported 
by the mold vents. At this point, the flame goes out but the molds can 
continue to smolder and emit organic HAP as they continue to cool. 
Ignition of mold vents is believed to effectively reduce organic 
emissions immediately after pouring when the release of organic vapor 
from the molds is the highest.
    In addition to mold vent ignition, three foundries operate control 
systems that further reduce organic HAP emissions from the pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines. One iron and steel foundry is equipped 
with a thermal oxidizer operated on one of its two pouring and cooling 
lines (the thermal oxidizer is not used to control emissions from this 
pouring and cooling line's shakeout station). Operators of the foundry 
installed the thermal oxidizer to meet State permit limits on the VOC 
emissions from this line. Two iron and steel foundries operate carbon 
adsorption systems for their pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. At 
one foundry, the carbon adsorption system is reported to control 
pouring, cooling and shakeout operations for the one pouring, cooling, 
and shakeout line at the foundry. At the second foundry, the carbon 
adsorption system is used to control one of two cooling lines and both 
shakeout stations for the two pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines 
operated at the foundry. Both of the carbon adsorption systems were 
designed and installed to reduce odor by 90 percent. No additional 
organic HAP emissions controls (beyond mold vent ignition) are used for 
any pouring areas.
    In addition to these control measures, some studies are currently 
investigating pollution prevention measures for reducing pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout organic HAP emissions by reducing certain 
additives in green sand or chemical binder formulations. The 
limitations to binder formulations proposed as part of the standard for 
mold and core making lines may also reduce organic HAP emissions from 
the pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines; however, no numerical limit 
can be assigned to these pollution prevention techniques. These systems 
may be used to comply with the proposed standard for new sources, but 
these pollution prevention techniques are only in the investigation 
stages and cannot be characterized as proven or commercially available 
techniques. Consequently, we do not consider such regulatory 
alternatives available for purposes of establishing emissions limits 
for these sources.
    Only limited data on organic HAP or VOC emissions from pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines are available, and the data that are 
available are not adequate for establishing an emissions limit based on 
actual emissions. Therefore, we have determined the MACT floor for 
organic HAP from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines and pouring areas 
based on our assessment of the effectiveness of the controls used on 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines and pouring areas at existing 
foundries.
    Pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. Most pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines (well over 12 percent) control organic HAP by either 
spontaneous ignition or manual ignition of offgas from mold vents 
immediately after pouring. While pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines 
equipped with a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorption system achieve 
greater control of organic HAP emissions than lines using ignition of 
mold vent offgas alone, very few existing units use these control 
methods, and they do not constitute part of the MACT floor for existing 
sources. Thus, ignition of mold vent offgas represents the organic HAP 
MACT floor control for existing pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
    We do not believe it is feasible to establish an emissions standard 
representative of the emissions limitation achieved by ignition of mold 
vent offgas. We do not have adequate emissions data to characterize the 
emissions reductions achieved by mold vent ignition. Nor can we 
identify any information upon which we could reasonably rely on to 
estimate the performance of mold vent ignition in order to establish an 
emissions limit. Moreover, since these emissions are not captured or 
conveyed to a stack, it is not reasonable to establish a numeric 
emissions limitation. Therefore, we are proposing a work practice 
requirement to ensure ignition of the offgas from the mold vents 
immediately after pouring as the MACT floor for pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines.
    For new source MACT on pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, we 
examined the pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines that are equipped 
with a thermal oxidizer or a carbon adsorption system. No data are 
available to compare the emissions limitation achieved by these 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout line versus pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines that only use ignition of mold vent offgas. However, 
since these control systems are used in conjunction with mold vent 
ignition, and since we know that ignition alone leaves substantial HAP 
emissions uncontrolled (i.e., after the flame goes out), and we know 
that these additional technologies typically are efficient at reducing 
organic HAP, we believe that these systems provide more effective 
organic HAP emissions reductions than the use of mold vent ignition 
alone. No HAP or VOC emissions data exist for the carbon adsorption 
systems, so we are unable to determine which of the two types of 
control devices (thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorption system) provide 
the greatest reduction in organic HAP emissions.
    The pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines that employ these 
additional control systems appear to be pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
lines that have unusually high VOC emissions potential. These foundries 
employ chemically bonded molds or use significant amounts of chemically 
bonded cores per ton of metal poured. As such, these foundries are 
expected to have much higher VOC and organic HAP emissions from their 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines than most foundries.
    Data for VOC and HAP emissions were available for ten pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines at two foundries. These foundries operate 
green sand pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines with chemically-bonded 
cores (core sand to metal ratio of approximately 0.1 to 1). These 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines exhibited VOC concentrations of 
0.4 to 18 ppmv (as propane). Data for the foundry operating a thermal 
oxidizer indicate VOC concentrations in excess of 100 ppmv.
    Data for VOC and HAP emissions are also available for several 
bench-scale testing operations. Since the actual concentrations 
measured for these bench-scale units should be similar to full-scale 
production units, these data indicate the organic HAP emissions 
comprise roughly 65 percent of the VOC emissions arising from pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines. Thus, we believe that VOC is an 
appropriate surrogate for

[[Page 78293]]

organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
    At the low organic concentrations found in most pouring, cooling, 
and shakeout lines, the destruction efficiency of a thermal oxidizer 
and the removal efficiency of a carbon adsorption system is greatly 
reduced. Based on the available VOC emissions data and engineering 
considerations of these control systems, we believe that both of these 
control systems are essentially equivalent control systems for reducing 
organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. The 
performance of these systems represents the MACT floor control for new 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
    Without additional data to characterize the organic HAP removal 
performance of these systems applied to pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
lines, we relied on our well-established understanding of the 
capabilities of thermal incinerators at destroying organic emissions. 
It is reasonable to conclude that the performance of these control 
systems for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is comparable to the 
performance of well-designed and operated thermal incinerators and 
carbon adsorption systems generally. We have over 20 years of 
experience in evaluating the performance of these control systems on a 
wide variety of organic emissions sources. Based on our experience with 
these technologies and the related engineering constraints, we have 
reasonably concluded that well-designed and operated thermal 
incinerators or carbon adsorption systems are capable of achieving a 98 
percent reduction down to an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC. We 
have no reason to expect that there is anything about these 
technologies used in conjunction with pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
lines that would result in poorer or more effective HAP reduction 
performance.
    As with scrap preheaters, we believe that VOC is a reasonable 
surrogate for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout 
lines because the organic HAP is a significant component of the VOC 
emissions. Furthermore, effective control of VOC emissions will result 
in effective control of organic HAP emissions. Therefore, we selected 
VOC as the surrogate for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, 
and shakeout lines. Accordingly, we have established the new source 
MACT floor for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines as a 98 percent reduction, or an outlet concentration of 
20 ppmv if a 98 percent reduction would result in an outlet 
concentration below 20 ppmv.
    Next, we evaluated options more stringent than the MACT floor. 
First we looked for alternatives that are more stringent than the MACT 
floor for new pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. However, we do not 
know of any control option that would result in lower organic HAP 
emissions than can be achieved by thermal incinerators or carbon 
adsorption systems. Therefore, the proposed MACT standard for new 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is a VOC reduction of 98 percent 
or greater or an outlet VOC concentration of 20 ppmv or less. Because 
we have very little data about the actual organic HAP performance of 
these control systems on pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at iron 
and steel foundries, we specifically request comment on these 
performance limits for organic HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines at new metal casting departments. We believe the new 
source emissions limit is appropriate and achievable by pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines equipped with thermal incinerators or 
carbon adsorption systems. It may also be possible for some pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines that use low emitting binder systems or 
green sand additives to meet this limit using only mold vent ignition.
    We also evaluated the option of requiring existing pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines to meet the new source MACT floor of 98 
percent reduction or 20 ppmv. The cost per ton of organic HAP removed 
for this control option will vary for each individual pouring, cooling, 
and shakeout line. A preliminary analysis was conducted to estimate the 
control cost for all chemically bonded mold pouring, cooling, and 
shakeout lines, as these mold lines are the most likely to have VOC 
emissions of greater than 20 ppmv. Based on this preliminary analysis, 
the cost of this control option is likely to exceed $25,000 per ton 
organic HAP emissions reduced. As such, we elected not to require the 
more stringent limit because application of these control systems to 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines that have exhaust VOC 
concentrations greater than 20 ppmv does not appear to be cost 
effective. Although we did not elect to require more stringent control 
systems for existing pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at this time, 
we intend to further refine the cost estimates for these organic HAP 
emissions control systems for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. If 
the refined analysis indicates that this control option is more cost 
effective than currently projected, we may require existing pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines to achieve a 98 percent VOC emissions 
reduction or 20 ppmv VOC concentration (as propane). We specifically 
invite comment on whether or not a more stringent control requirement 
for existing pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines is appropriate. We 
also invite the submission of additional information that may be useful 
in estimating the cost and effectiveness of these control systems as 
applied to pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines.
    Therefore, we are proposing the work practice of ensuring ignition 
of the offgas from the mold vents immediately after pouring as MACT for 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at existing metal casting 
departments. We are also establishing emissions limitations for organic 
HAP emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines as a 98 percent 
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv of VOC as new source 
MACT for metal casting departments.
    Pouring Areas. Most pouring areas (well over 12 percent) control 
organic HAP by either spontaneous ignition or manual ignition of offgas 
from mold vents immediately after pouring. In addition, none of the 
existing pouring areas are equipped with add-on controls. Thus, 
ignition of mold vent offgas represents the organic HAP MACT floor 
control for existing and new pouring lines.
    As discussed above for pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, we do 
not believe it is feasible to establish an emissions standard 
representative of the emissions limitation achieved by ignition of mold 
vent offgas (see discussion above). Therefore, we are proposing a work 
practice requirement to ensure ignition of the offgas from the mold 
vents immediately after pouring as the MACT floor for pouring, cooling, 
and shakeout lines.
    We evaluated potential control systems that may be applicable to 
reduce organic HAP emissions from pouring areas beyond the level of the 
MACT floor. As discussed above, thermal incinerators and carbon 
adsorption systems are generally effective organic HAP emissions 
control devices, but their effectiveness in reducing emissions becomes 
very limited at low organic HAP concentrations. Due to the requirements 
to access the molds in the pouring area (e.g., for pouring, mold vent 
ignition and manual shakeout), any capture system employed for molding 
areas must be located some appreciable distance from the molds. Also, 
as the pouring areas are generally large (large

[[Page 78294]]

molds or multiple molds in a pouring area), the high ventilation 
requirements for effective capture of pouring area emissions would 
necessarily result in very low organic HAP concentrations in the 
pouring area exhaust stream (likely less than 1 or 2 ppmv). At these 
low concentrations, the effectiveness of the additional organic HAP 
emissions controls is very low, and the secondary impacts (energy and 
other environmental impacts) associated with the capture and control 
system is significant. As such, we have determined that no effective 
control system is available to reduce organic HAP emissions from 
pouring areas beyond the MACT floor control technology (mold vent 
ignition).
    Therefore, we are proposing the work practice of ensuring ignition 
of the offgas from the mold vents immediately after pouring as MACT for 
both new and existing pouring areas, based on the MACT floor analysis.
    MACT for metal HAP emissions. Metal HAP is emitted from pouring 
stations and pouring areas as metal fumes escape the molten metal as it 
is poured into the molds. Once the molten metal is contained within the 
mold, the potential for metal HAP emissions is greatly reduced due to 
the very small surface area from which metal HAP can be released. The 
potential for releases is further reduced as the molten metal cools and 
hardens. As such, cooling and shakeout do not result in appreciable 
metal HAP emissions releases from the foundry.
    We do not believe we can establish an emissions limit for specific 
HAP metals because emissions data are very limited for pouring stations 
and pouring areas. Metal HAP emissions data are available for a pouring 
station at one foundry, but these data are for uncontrolled emissions 
and cannot be used to assess the performance of the MACT floor control 
system. Furthermore, when pouring emissions are controlled, they are 
typically combined with other emissions sources at the foundry (e.g., 
melting, cooling, or shakeout operations), which further complicates 
the development of specific HAP emissions limits.
    We believe that PM is an appropriate surrogate for HAP metal 
emissions from pouring emissions. The metal compounds of concern are in 
fact a component of the PM contained in the exhaust. As a result, 
effective control of PM emissions will also result in effective control 
of HAP metals. Because emissions data for PM are available, and because 
PM can reasonably serve as a surrogate for metal HAP, we elected to 
establish PM limits to control metal HAP emissions from pouring 
stations and pouring areas.
    We looked at State limits and permit conditions applied to pouring. 
The most prevalent type of limit was expressed in lb/hr of PM, and 
these limits are site specific and vary from plant to plant. A few 
States, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, have some concentration limits 
expressed in pounds per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (lb/1,000 lb). The 
limits range from 0.038 to 0.2 lb/1,000 lb, which is roughly equivalent 
to 0.02 to 0.10 gr/dscf. However, available test data show that the 
actual performance achieved by pouring control systems is an outlet PM 
concentration of 0.010 gr/dscf or less. Consequently, State limits or 
permit conditions cannot function as a reasonable proxy for actual 
emissions from pouring stations and pouring areas.
    Pouring stations. Baghouses are used to control 178 (or 13 percent) 
of the existing pouring stations and wet scrubbers are used to control 
35 (or three percent) of the pouring stations. The majority of pouring 
stations (1,104 pouring stations or 84 percent) do not control PM (or 
metal HAP) emissions.
    As with melting furnaces, we determined the MACT floor for new and 
existing by ranking the pouring stations based on the available 
emissions information. Emissions information was available for 1,317 
pouring stations. Again, two types of emissions information was used to 
determine the MACT floor--source test data, and engineering design 
parameters including control type and outlet PM concentration design 
values.
    Where we had emissions source test data for a furnace, we used the 
emissions data to estimate the emissions limitation achieved for that 
furnace. Outlet EPA Method 5 performance data for PM were available for 
11 controlled pouring station vent streams at nine foundries. As 
discussed earlier, the MACT floor performance limit must include a 
consideration for the variability inherent in the process operations 
and the control device performance. Therefore, we used the statistical 
method discussed earlier to estimate the emissions limitation achieved 
by a furnace when emissions source test data were available.
    When emissions source test data were not available, we estimated 
the emissions limitation achieved by that furnace based on other 
emissions information obtained from the detailed survey including 
control type, outlet PM concentration design values, and design PM 
removal efficiencies. These data were used to estimate the emission 
reduction limitation achieved for the remaining 140 electric arc 
furnaces where we did not have stack test emissions data.
    Additional information on the ranking of the sources used to 
determine the MACT floor, including the data used, details of the 
statistical analysis performed, and the estimated emissions limitation 
achieved for each furnace, is available in the docket for the proposed 
rule.
    We again use the 6th percentile unit as the most representative 
estimate of the average emissions limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources because the 6th percentile 
points to specific control device and performance limit. The 6th 
percentile of 1,317 sources is the performance of the 79th best 
performing unit. Based on our ranking of the emissions limitation 
achieved by these pouring stations, we determined that the MACT floor 
for metal HAP control at existing sources is a PM emissions 
concentration of 0.010 gr/dscf. Based on available emissions test data, 
we believe that existing sources can achieve an emissions limitation of 
0.010 gr/dscf using a well-designed and operated baghouse or wet 
scrubber to control emissions.
    For new sources, the MACT floor is the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Based on 
our ranking, the best-controlled pouring station achieves an emissions 
limitation of 0.002 gr/dscf. There appeared to be no technological 
reason why the best-performing pouring stations achieved significantly 
lower PM concentrations than the other control systems in the MACT 
pool. However, as discussed earlier for melting furnaces, it does 
appear that technologies exist that can achieve these low outlet PM 
concentrations. Furthermore, it appears that there are several pouring 
stations at iron and steel foundries that currently meet a 0.002 gr/
dscf emissions limit. Therefore, the MACT floor for metal HAP control 
for pouring stations at new affected sources is an average PM 
concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
    Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than 
the MACT floor. One option we evaluated was to require existing pouring 
areas to meet a 0.002 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. However, this option 
was rejected because the cost per ton of HAP reduced is expected to 
exceed $250,000 per ton. We do not know of any other control options 
that would result in lower emissions than the MACT floor options.
    Therefore, the proposed MACT standards for metal HAP are based on 
the MACT floor performance limits for new and existing sources. For 
pouring stations at existing sources, the MACT

[[Page 78295]]

standard is an average PM concentration of 0.010 gr/dscf or less. For 
pouring stations at new sources, the proposed MACT standard is an 
average PM concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
    Pouring areas. We have information on 435 pouring areas from the 
industry survey. Baghouses are used to control 20 (or 4.6 percent) of 
these pouring areas and wet scrubbers are used to control two (or 0.5 
percent) of the pouring areas. A total of 413 (or 95 percent) of the 
435 pouring areas do not control pouring emissions.
    Only 5 percent of pouring areas employ a capture and control system 
for pouring emissions. We have interpreted the MACT floor for existing 
sources to be the performance achieved by the median source of the top 
12 percent best performing sources, which would be the 6th percentile 
unit. We use the 6th percentile unit because it points to a specific 
control technology and performance limit and more accurately reflects 
the central tendency in terms of the level of performance achieved by 
an actual unit. An arithmetic average of the emissions reduction 
achieved by the top 12 percent of sources for which we have emissions 
data would not reflect the performance of any actual unit or any actual 
control technology, and it would reflect a level of emissions 
performance that the majority of units in the top 12 percent are not 
currently able to achieve. Consequently, we believe it is more 
reasonable to use the performance of the median unit to establish the 
MACT floor. Accordingly, add-on controls are not part of the MACT floor 
for pouring areas. Because controlling HAP in the input materials is 
the only other measure that existing facilities use to reduce HAP 
emissions from these units, the MACT floor for existing units is 
limited to the metal HAP reduction achieved by the scrap selection and 
inspection program that was identified as part of the MACT floor for 
the entire metal casting department.
    We based the MACT floor for new pouring areas on the emissions 
reductions achieved by the best controlled pouring area. A few 
facilities do capture and control metal HAP emissions from the pouring 
area. However, we do not have any stack test emissions data for pouring 
areas. As such, we ranked the available information on pouring area 
controls based on reported outlet concentration design performance 
values and the percent removal design value for each control system. 
Based on our ranking, the best-controlled pouring area achieves an 
emissions limitation of 0.002 gr/dscf. We believe that this emissions 
limit is achievable and reasonable. Existing technologies can 
consistently achieve this level of control. Therefore, the MACT floor 
for metal HAP control for pouring areas at new affected sources is an 
average PM concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.
    Next, we evaluated regulatory options that were more stringent than 
the MACT floor. One option we evaluated was to require existing pouring 
areas to meet a 0.010 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. However, this option 
was rejected because the cost per ton of HAP reduced is expected to 
exceed $250,000 per ton. We also evaluated requiring existing pouring 
stations to meet a 0.002 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. This option was 
also rejected because the cost per ton of additional HAP removed is 
estimated to exceed $500,000 per ton.
    Therefore, the proposed MACT standards for metal HAP are based on 
the MACT floor performance limits for new and existing sources. For 
pouring areas at existing sources, no additional requirements are 
proposed beyond the scrap selection and inspection requirements 
identified as a component of MACT for the entire metal casting 
department. For pouring areas at new sources, the proposed MACT 
standard is an average PM concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf or less.

E. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards 
for the Emissions Sources in the Mold and Core Making Department?

    Emissions of HAP from mold and core making departments arise from 
three sources: the catalyst gas exhaust vent (gas cured systems only), 
curing and storage, and coating.
Catalyst Gas Exhaust Vent
    Some mold and core making binder systems use a catalyst gas to cure 
the chemical binder. The catalyst gas does not react in the process but 
passes unchanged through the form and is released to the atmosphere 
unless it is collected and controlled. Of the binder systems that use 
catalyst gasses, only the phenolic urethane cold box binder system uses 
a gas that contains a HAP. The phenolic urethane cold box binder system 
uses triethylamine, a HAP, as the catalyst gas. None of the other 
catalyst gases used in the iron and steel foundry system are believed 
to contain HAP. The triethylamine phenolic urethane cold box binder 
system is one of the dominant binder systems in use at iron and steel 
foundries, especially at high volume automated production lines, due to 
the fast curing time of this system.
    In establishing MACT for the catalyst gas exhaust vent, we first 
evaluated the controls used on the existing phenolic urethane cold box 
mold and core making lines. Of the 469 phenolic urethane cold box mold 
and core making lines operated by iron and steel foundries, emissions 
from 335 (71 percent) are controlled by wet scrubbing with acid 
solution, seven are controlled by incineration methods such as 
afterburning or regenerative thermal oxidation, four are controlled by 
condensers, and the remaining lines are uncontrolled.
    Acid wet scrubbers are very effective at controlling triethylamine 
emissions. The triethylamine reacts rapidly and irreversibly in the 
acid solutions used as the scrubber solution. As expected, the 
available source test data indicate that acid wet scrubbers are highly 
effective in controlling triethylamine emissions. We have reliable 
performance test data for seven acid wet scrubbers at six foundries. 
Inlet and outlet measurements were conducted across five of the 
scrubbers, while only outlet measurements were conducted for the sixth 
acid wet scrubber. Each test consisted of three individual runs. One 
test was conducted using EPA Method 19, the standard reference method 
we use for the measurement of organic compound emissions from 
stationary sources; one test was conducted using both EPA Method 19 
(inlet) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) Method 221 (Outlet); two tests were conducted using NIOSH 
Method 2010; and no test method was identified for the remaining two 
tests.
    In all but one of the tests, the outlet emissions were lower than 
the quantitative limit of the sampling and analytical method used. The 
controlled triethylamine concentrations for the single source test with 
quantitative triethylamine concentrations in the acid wet scrubber 
exhaust ranged from 0.29 to 0.34 ppmv. This scrubber experienced the 
highest inlet triethylamine concentrations (ranging from 209 to 255 
ppmv) and achieved an average emissions reduction of 99.8 percent. In 
the other tests, outlet concentrations were below detection limits, 
which ranged from less than 0.03 to less than 1.5 ppmv. While the true 
removal efficiencies cannot be determined because the outlet 
concentrations were below detection limits, estimating the outlet 
emissions at one half the detection limit provides removal efficiency 
estimates ranging from 98 to 99.9 percent.
    We have no emissions data on the seven phenolic urethane cold box 
lines controlled by incineration or condensation. However, based on

[[Page 78296]]

extensive studies on source types where incinerators have been applied, 
we have seen that properly designed and operated incinerators are 
capable of achieving a 98 percent removal efficiency down to an outlet 
concentration of 20 ppmv. Likewise, our studies have shown that 
condensers are typically only capable of achieving a removal efficiency 
of up to 95 percent. Based on this information and the data we have for 
triethylamine scrubbers, we believe that wet scrubbing is superior to 
both incinerators and condensers for the purpose of removing 
triethylamine emissions from the catalyst gas exhaust vent. As acid wet 
scrubbers are employed at well over 12 percent of the triethylamine 
phenolic urethane cold box mold and core making lines, the MACT floor 
for triethylamine control is characterized by the level of control 
achieved by wet scrubbing with acid solution.
    Next we established the emissions limit based on the available 
emissions data for acid wet scrubbers applied to triethylamine phenolic 
urethane cold box mold and core making lines. As discussed above, all 
of the emissions data on the exhaust of the acid wet scrubbers were 
very low and were for the most part below the detection limit. The EPA 
Method 18 is the EPA-approved method applicable for determining 
triethylamine concentrations in the acid wet scrubber exhaust stream. 
The detection limit for EPA Method 18 is generally considered to be 1 
ppmv. Based on the available emissions data and considering the 
quantitative limit associated with the applicable EPA test method for 
this emissions source, we select a 1 ppmv triethylamine outlet 
concentration as the existing source MACT floor level of control.
    As no other emissions control device is known that can achieve a 
higher triethylamine emissions reduction than acid wet scrubbers and 
considering the quantitative limits associated with the applicable EPA 
test method for this emissions source, the new source MACT is the same 
as the existing source MACT, which is a 1 ppmv triethylamine outlet 
concentration. We believe this emissions limit is achievable by a 
properly designed and operated acid wet scrubber. For some 
triethylamine phenolic urethane cold box mold and core making lines, it 
may also be possible to achieve this emissions limit using a thermal 
combustion device.
Mold and Core Curing and Storage
    Organic HAP emissions arise from evaporation of HAP constituents 
contained in binder chemical formulations during mold and core curing 
and storage. These emissions are fugitive in nature and are not subject 
to capture and control at any iron and steel foundries. Furthermore, no 
suitable control technology could be identified to reduce the HAP 
emissions from this source due to the low concentrations of HAP in the 
fugitive emissions. However, in response to VOC regulations, binder 
manufacturers are developing and evaluating new binder systems or re-
formulations of existing binder systems to reduce VOC emissions. These 
new binder systems may also reduce HAP content of the binder system, 
which effects a reduction in the HAP emissions from mold and core 
curing and storage. Therefore, pollution prevention practices regarding 
reduced HAP binder formulations were evaluated.
    In general, foundries cannot readily switch from one binder system 
to another because the binder systems are primarily selected based on 
the required properties and dimensions of the cast part being 
manufactured. Binder selection must consider the size of the casting 
(which affects the size and strength requirements of the mold and 
cores), the complexity of the cast shape and the tolerance requirements 
on the dimensions of the casting, the metal surface finish requirements 
of the casting, and the production rate of the foundry. In some cases, 
different equipment may be required or additional space needed for 
storage (due to slower cure times). Consequently, it is not feasible 
for EPA to dictate the type of binder system used at new or existing 
foundries solely on the basis of the HAP emissions potential of the 
currently available binder systems. Such a requirement would not only 
adversely impact the quality of the castings produced, it would also 
limit the on-going advances in the development of new, low HAP-
containing binder systems.
    Within a given binder system, there are different chemical 
formulations of that binder system, some of which may have reduced HAP 
content. These different formulations are also selected by the foundry 
based on the quality requirements of the casting, strength requirements 
of the mold, and curing times (i.e., production rates). Differences in 
formulations may also be required based on regional or seasonal 
variations in temperature and humidity for optimum binder performance. 
Again, it is difficult to prescribe the use of specific low-HAP binder 
formulations without negatively impacting cast part quality. However, a 
foundry may more readily use a re-formulated binder system of the same 
type than to change the type of binder system altogether.
    The available binder systems were evaluated based on consultation 
with binder chemical manufacturers to identify low-HAP formulations. 
Low-HAP formulations were identified for three binder systems that 
appear to provide the same performance characteristics as their 
traditional counterpart while achieving HAP emissions reductions. That 
is, we believe these low-HAP emitting binder systems can be used to 
replace their traditional counterparts with no adverse impacts on the 
production process or the quality of the product. These three systems 
are: Furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane 
nobake.
    MACT for furan warm box binder system formulations. Methanol is the 
only significant HAP emitted from mold and core making lines using 
traditional formulations of furan warm box. According to industry 
suppliers, the furan warm box system can be formulated without 
methanol. A water-based, HAP-free system is used in at least 23 (42 
percent) of the 55 furan warm box lines used in iron and steel 
foundries. We believe that methanol-free systems can readily substitute 
for other coating systems. Therefore, we are proposing a work practice 
standard as the MACT floor for both existing and new mold and core 
making lines using the furan warm box system. The proposed work 
practice standard requires the use of a furan warm box formulation that 
does not include methanol as a specific ingredient. The proposed 
standard for furan warm box mold and core making lines is the work 
practice of using a chemical formulation which does not contain 
methanol as a specific ingredient.
    MACT for phenolic urethane cold box and phenolic urethane nobake 
binder system formulation. The phenolic urethane cold box and phenolic 
urethane nobake systems use solvents that may contain up to 10 percent 
naphthalene along with lesser amounts of cumene and xylene, all of 
which are HAP. These solvents are petroleum distillate products. The 
only emissions reduction practice used for these systems is the use of 
a formulation with an alternative distillate fraction, termed 
naphthalene-depleted solvent, that contains a maximum of 3 percent 
naphthalene and correspondingly lesser amounts of cumene and xylene. 
Iron and steel foundries employ 439 phenolic urethane cold box lines 
and 266 phenolic urethane nobake lines. At least three foundries are 
known to use

[[Page 78297]]

binder chemicals with a naphthalene-depleted solvent.
    Considering the above information, we are establishing a work 
practice standard as the new source MACT floor for phenolic urethane 
cold box/ phenolic urethane nobake mold and core making lines. This 
proposed standard requires the use of a formulation with naphthalene-
depleted solvent. Because fewer than 6 percent of the sources currently 
use naphthalene depleted solvents, the MACT floor for existing sources 
is the use of the traditional naphthalene solvent, which reflects no 
reduction in emissions of organic HAP.
    In selecting the MACT standard for existing sources, we also 
examined the costs associated with requiring naphthalene-depleted 
solvent formulations of phenolic urethane cold box/ phenolic urethane 
nobake binder systems at existing sources as a beyond-the-floor control 
option. According to information from industry sources, these solvents 
are available at a premium of 3 to 5 cents per pound over the price of 
the regular solvent. Using the 5 cents per pound figure, the price 
increase relates to a cost of 71 cents per pound of naphthalene reduced 
in the solvent (from 10 to 3 percent). By our estimate, 9 percent of 
the naphthalene evaporates during mold or core making; thus, the cost 
to reduce naphthalene emissions would be $7.94 per pound, or $15,900 
per ton.
    Our cost estimate is made assuming that enough naphthalene-depleted 
solvent is available to supply all major source foundries. The phenolic 
urethane cold box and phenolic urethane nobake binder systems are the 
primary binder systems used by foundries, especially high production 
foundries likely to be major sources of HAP emissions. Therefore, the 
availability of an adequate supply of naphthalene-depleted solvent is a 
significant concern. The availability question cannot be answered 
without additional input from the foundry industry and its suppliers 
and, therefore, we invite comment on this issue.
    Based on the tentative assumption that an adequate supply of 
naphthalene-depleted solvent is available, we propose to establish a 
work practice standard requiring the use of naphthalene-depleted 
solvent in all phenolic urethane cold box and phenolic urethane nobake 
binder formulations for both new and existing mold and core making 
lines.
    MACT for other chemical binder systems. The HAP content of systems 
other than the furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic 
urethane nobake systems cannot be systematically reduced or eliminated 
because the quality of the cast part or some required feature of the 
mold or core, such as strength, speed of curing, and shelf life cannot 
otherwise be maintained. Therefore, the new and existing MACT floors 
for mold and core making lines using chemical binder systems other than 
the furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane 
nobake systems are no change in formulation, reflecting no reduction in 
HAP emissions. However, there may be instances where reduced-HAP binder 
formulations may be suitable for a given foundry's mold and core making 
line based on the type of castings produced. Additionally, new binder 
formulations are constantly being developed, and many of these have 
reduced HAP content. Therefore, we believe that a work practice 
standard that requires an initial evaluation of available binder 
systems, and alternative binder formulations to identify applicable 
binder systems or formulations that reduce HAP emissions are warranted. 
As proposed, a foundry operator must either adopt a reduced-HAP binder 
system or provide technical and/or economic rationale as to why the 
currently available alternative systems are inappropriate for their 
foundry. The binder system evaluation report is required to be updated 
each permit renewal period. As this requirement is considered to be 
beyond the floor, costs may be considered when evaluating alternative 
binder systems or formulations.
    MACT for mold and core coating. The HAP emissions arise during the 
evaporation of liquid components after application of the coating 
material. The two emissions reduction measures employed are the light-
off procedure and the use of a coating formulation with no HAP in the 
liquid component (the solid component may contain chromite, for 
example, but we do not expect this component to be emitted). Although 
we have no specific data on emissions from the light-off procedure, 
reductions cannot be greater than those achieved by eliminating HAP 
from the formulation. Coatings based on water or non-HAP alcohols are 
used in 1,145 (86 percent) of the 1,335 mold and core making lines. By 
comparison, 29 lines use methanol and there are 161 lines that use an 
unidentified alcohol or an unidentified substance that may or may not 
be a HAP. Although we have no definitive information regarding possible 
substitutions for these unidentified substances, the predominance of 
lines that use formulations without HAP strongly suggests that 
substitutions can be made. Therefore, we are establishing a work 
practice standard as the MACT floor for HAP emissions from mold and 
core making lines at existing mold and core coating departments. This 
standard would require use of coating formulations that do not contain 
HAP as a specific ingredient in the liquid component. Since no more 
stringent measure of emissions reductions exist, we choose the work 
practice of using coating formulations that contain no HAP in the 
liquid component as a specific ingredient as the standard for both new 
and existing mold and core making lines. We request comment on the 
availability and feasibility of coating formulations that contain no 
HAP in the liquid component for all mold and core coating applications.

F. How Did We Select the Proposed Initial Compliance Requirements?

    We selected initial compliance requirements that will:
    [sbull] Establish compliance with emissions limits,
    [sbull] Determine operating limits on capture systems and control 
devices that will be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with 
emissions limits, and
    [sbull] Confirm that equipment, materials, and procedures are in 
place that will provide compliance with work practice standards.
    The proposed rule would require a performance test for each 
emissions source subject to a PM or triethylamine emissions limit to 
demonstrate initial compliance. Foundries would be required to measure 
PM using EPA Method 5 (or variations) and triethylamine using Method 18 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A). We would also require that operating 
limits for parameters relevant to control device performance be 
determined during the initial compliance test to ensure that the 
control devices operate properly on a continuing basis. All operating 
limits must be established during a performance test that demonstrates 
compliance with the applicable emissions limit. During Method 5 
performance tests for PM, operating limits must be established for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate for wet scrubbers. During 
Method 18 performance tests for triethylamine, operating limits must be 
established for scrubbing liquid flowrate and blowdown pH for wet 
scrubbers or combustion temperature for thermal oxidizers. Operating 
limits for capture systems would be established in the O&M plan.

[[Page 78298]]

    Foundries using CEMS would be required to conduct performance 
evaluations, followed by a performance test comprised of 3 continuous 
hours of measurements. Operating limits would not apply to control 
devices equipped with CEMS because emissions would be directly 
measured.
    Initial compliance with the various work practice standards is 
achieved through submission of written plans, establishment of the 
practices, and certification of such in the notification of compliance.

G. How Did We Select the Proposed Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    We selected continuous compliance requirements that will:
    [sbull] Periodically confirm compliance with emissions limits 
through performance testing,
    [sbull] Verify that control devices are operating in a manner that 
provides compliance with the emissions limits, and
    [sbull] Maintain the use of equipment, materials, and procedures 
that are required to provide compliance with work practice standards.
    We chose a periodic performance testing schedule which is 
consistent with current permit requirements. We consulted with several 
States on how they were implementing title V permitting requirements 
for performance tests. In general, performance tests are repeated every 
2.5 to 5 years, depending on the size of the source. Consequently, we 
decided that performance tests should be repeated every 5 years.
    We also developed procedures to ensure that control equipment is 
operating properly on a continuous basis. When baghouses are used, the 
alarm for the a bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 
5 percent of the time in any semiannual reporting period. Wet scrubbers 
controlling PM emissions must be monitored for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flowrate, which must not fall below the limits 
established during the performance test. Wet acid scrubbers used for 
triethylamine emissions control must be monitored for scrubber liquid 
flowrate and blowdown pH; the flowrate must not fall below the limit 
established during the performance test, and the pH must not rise above 
the limit established during the performance test. For afterburners 
used for triethylamine emissions control, the combustion zone 
temperature must not fall below the level determined during the 
performance test. Foundries would be allowed to select site-specific 
operating parameters to monitor for capture systems. The proposed rule 
also includes inspection and maintenance requirements for CPMS.
    We also developed procedures to ensure that the work practice 
standards are met. The scrap specification and inspection program would 
be verified through written scrap specifications and maintaining 
appropriate records of the scrap inspections. Mold vent offgas ignition 
must be routinely verified. All work practice standards regarding 
limits on the coating and binder formulations for mold and core making 
would be verified by maintaining appropriate records.

H. How Did We Select the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and 
Reporting Requirements?

    We selected the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). These requirements are necessary and 
sufficient to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    Most iron and steel foundries have had emissions controls in place 
for many years similar to those we are proposing to require. The 
primary impact of the PM standards will be to require cupolas that are 
currently using venturi scrubbers to control emissions more 
effectively, most likely by replacing the scrubbers with baghouses. We 
project that these controls would reduce metal HAP emissions by about 
120 tpy.
    Establishment of a standard of 1 ppmv triethylamine emissions 
limitation would result in triethylamine emissions reductions of 146 
tpy from the two foundries that do not presently control emissions; the 
VOC limit would result in additional organic HAP emissions reductions 
of 4 tpy from two foundries that do not presently control these 
emissions from cupolas. The EPA believes that a requirement for non-HAP 
coating formulations, methanol-free binder system formulations for 
furan warm box binder systems, naphthalene-depleted solvents, and 
reduced-HAP binder system formulations would reduce organic HAP 
emissions by as much as 790 tpy.
    Overall, we expect the proposed standards to reduce HAP emissions 
by over 900 tpy--a 40 percent reduction from the current level of 
nationwide HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries. Concurrent with 
the reduction in HAP emissions, the proposed NESHAP is also expected to 
reduce PM and VOC emissions by 3,600 tpy.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The nationwide total annualized cost of the proposed rule, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting would be $21.7 
million. This cost includes the annualized cost of capital and the 
annual operating and maintenance costs for supplies, control equipment, 
monitoring devices, and recordkeeping media. The nationwide total 
capital cost of the proposed rule would be $141 million.
    The capital costs associated with the proposed rule are primarily 
due to the costs of installing modular pulse-jet baghouse systems to 
control emissions of metal HAP and PM from cupolas currently controlled 
using venturi scrubbers which is estimated to cost approximately $110 
million. This capital cost estimate includes the cost of removing the 
venturi scrubbers and installing modular pulse-jet baghouse systems. 
Based on information provided by the iron and steel foundry industry, 
we used a retrofit cost factor of 2.0 (i.e., the cost of installing a 
baghouse at an existing facility was estimated to be 2.0 times the cost 
of installing an identical baghouse at a new facility). This retrofit 
cost factor is considerably higher than the typical retrofit costs 
suggested by the literature (typical retrofit cost factors range from 
1.2 to 1.5). We request comments and supporting data on the 
appropriateness of such a high retrofit cost factor.
    As the cost of operating a baghouse is less than the cost of 
operating a PM wet scrubber due to lower energy consumption (lower 
pressure drop) of the baghouse system and the avoidance of wastewater 
treatment/disposal costs, the annual operating and maintenance cost of 
the proposed rule is actually estimated to be less than the cost of 
operating the current control equipment for cupolas. Therefore, there 
would be a net savings in the annual operating and maintenance costs 
for baghouses over venturi scrubbers of roughly $7 million. The 
nationwide total annual cost (including capital recovery) for complying 
with the PM emission limit for cupolas is estimated at $2.9 million per 
year.
    The cost impacts would also include:
    [sbull] The cost of installing and operating baghouses on currently 
uncontrolled electric induction furnaces;
    [sbull] The cost of installing and operating baghouses on currently 
uncontrolled pouring stations;

[[Page 78299]]

    [sbull] The cost of installing and operating triethylamine 
scrubbers for currently uncontrolled triethylamine cold box mold and 
core making lines;
    [sbull] The additional cost of using replacement naphthalene-
depleted solvent in sand binder chemicals;
    [sbull] The cost of installing and operating monitoring equipment 
(predominantly baghouse leak detectors for PM sources) on melting 
furnace exhaust streams, pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines, 
triethylamine scrubbers, and VOC afterburners; and
    [sbull] The cost of electronic and paper recordkeeping media.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We conducted a detailed assessment of the economic impacts 
associated with the proposed rule. The compliance costs associated with 
the proposed rule are estimated to increase the price of iron and steel 
castings by less than 0.1 percent with domestic production declining by 
almost 8,000 tons in aggregate. The analysis also indicates no impact 
on the market for foundry coke, which is used by cupolas in the 
production of iron castings.
    Through the market impacts described above, the proposed rule would 
have distributional impacts across producers and consumers of iron and 
steel castings. Consumers are expected to incur $13.5 million of the 
overall regulatory burden of $21.7 million because of higher prices and 
forgone consumption. Domestic producers of iron and steel castings are 
expected to experience profit losses of $9.2 million due to compliance 
costs and lower output levels, while foreign producers would experience 
profit gains of $1 million associated with the higher prices. For more 
information, consult the economic impact analysis supporting the 
proposed rule that is available in the docket.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

    The proposed rule would provide positive secondary environmental 
and energy impacts. Primarily due to the lower energy requirements for 
operating a baghouse versus a wet scrubber, the proposed rule is 
projected to reduce annual energy consumption by 130,000 megawatt hours 
per year. This would lead to reduced nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides 
emissions from power plants of roughly 230 tons per year and 490 tons 
per year, respectively. The replacement of wet scrubbers with baghouses 
is also responsible for the proposed rule's estimated 14.6 billion 
gallons per year reduction in water consumption and disposal rates. 
Although baghouses have slightly higher dust collection efficiencies, 
the dust is collected in a dry form while PM collected using a wet 
scrubber contains significant water even after dewatering processes. 
Therefore, the total volume and weight of solids disposed under the 
proposed rule is estimated to be approximately the same as, if not less 
than, the current solid waste disposal rates.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions 
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from interested 
parties. You must submit full supporting data and a detailed analysis 
with your comments to allow us to make the best use of them. Be sure to 
direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034 (see ADDRESSES).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2096.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or 
by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy also may be downloaded off the 
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are 
not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require applicable one-time notifications 
required by the General Provisions for each affected source. As 
required by the NESHAP General Provisions, all plants would be required 
to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 
Plants also would be required to prepare an O&M plan for capture 
systems and control devices; a scrap selection and inspection plan; and 
a report on available reduced-HAP binder formulations. Records would be 
required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the O&M requirements 
for capture systems and control devices and requirements for monitoring 
systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are required. These reports 
would describe any deviation from the standards; any period a 
continuous monitoring system was ``out-of-control''; or any startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to respond were 
consistent with startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. If no 
deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report would be 
required. Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in 
response to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not 
consistent with the plan, an immediate report must be submitted within 
2 days of the event with a letter report 7 days later.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection

[[Page 78300]]

of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective 
date of the final rule) is estimated to total 26,389 labor hours per 
year at a total annual cost of $2,884,840 including labor, capital, and 
operation and maintenance.
    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; 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 number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA (2136), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. 
Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 
30 and 60 days after December 23, 2002, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 22, 
2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to 
the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards for NAICS codes 
331511 (Iron Foundries), 331512 (Steel Investment Foundries), and 
331513 (Steel Foundries, except Investment) of 500 or fewer employees; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    In accordance with the RFA, we conducted an assessment of the 
proposed rule on small businesses within the iron and steel castings 
manufacturing industry. Based on SBA size definitions for the affected 
industries and reported sales and employment data, we identified 20 of 
the 63 companies incurring compliance costs as small businesses. These 
small businesses are expected to incur $4.7 million in compliance 
costs, or 22 percent of the total industry compliance costs of $21.7 
million. Under the proposed rule, the mean annual compliance cost as a 
share of sales for small businesses is 0.64 percent, and the median is 
0.35 percent, with a range of 0.03 to 2.36 percent. We estimate that 
four of the 20 small businesses may experience an impact greater than 1 
percent of sales, but no small businesses will experience an impact 
greater than 3 percent of sales. While a few small firms may experience 
initial impacts greater than 1 percent of sales, no significant impacts 
on their viability to continue operations and remain profitable are 
expected. See Docket A-2000-34 for more information on the economic 
analysis.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we have nonetheless 
worked to minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, 
consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We have discussed 
potential impacts and opportunities for emissions reductions with 
company representatives, and company representatives have also attended 
meetings held with industry trade associations to discuss the proposed 
rule. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost 
of the proposed rule for any year has been

[[Page 78301]]

estimated to be $6.8 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not 
subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has 
determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because 
it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject 
to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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.'' The proposed 
rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. None of the affected facilities are 
owned or operated by State governments and the proposed rule would not 
preempt any State laws that are more stringent. In addition, the 
proposed rule is required by statute and, if implemented, will not 
impose any substantial direct compliance costs. Thus, the requirements 
of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that have 
tribal implications.'' The proposed rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal 
governments own or operate iron and steel foundries. The proposed rule 
is required by statute and will not impose any substantial direct 
compliance costs. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the 
proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

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

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary 
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in 
the proposed rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with 
the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus 
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary 
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
and 5D. The search and review results have been documented and are 
placed in the docket for the proposed rule.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 17 
voluntary consensus standards applicable to the proposed rule. The EPA 
determined that 14 of these 17 standards were impractical alternatives 
to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. Therefore, 
EPA does not propose to adopt these standards today. The reasons for 
this determination for the 14 methods are in docket for the proposed 
rule.
    The following three of the 17 voluntary consensus standards 
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was 
conducted for the purposes of this proposed rule because they are under 
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow 
Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); 
ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging 
Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ISO/DIS 12039, 
``Stationary Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon 
Dioxide, and Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A. While we 
are not proposing to include these three voluntary consensus standards 
in today's proposal, the EPA will consider the standards when final.
    The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
in the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should 
also explain why the proposed rule should adopt these voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. 
Emissions test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied 
with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data 
and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method 
other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Section 63.7732 of the proposed rule lists the EPA test methods for 
use in emissions tests. Under Sec.  63.8 of the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), a source may apply to EPA for 
permission to use alternative

[[Page 78302]]

monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the CFR is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Subpart EEEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.7680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7681 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7682 What parts of my foundry does this subpart cover?
63.7683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emissions Limitations

63.7690 What emissions limitations must I meet?

Work Practice Standards

63.7700 What work practice standards must I meet?

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

General Compliance Requirements

63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.7730 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7731 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
63.7733 What procedures must I use to establish operating limits?
63.7734 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions 
limitations that apply to me?
63.7735 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7736 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation 
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.7740 What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7741 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?
63.7742 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.7743 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations that apply to me?
63.7744 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7745 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.7750 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7752 What records must I keep?
63.7753 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.7760 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7761 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7762 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart EEEEE

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.7680  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for iron and steel foundries. This subpart also 
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with the emissions limitations, work practice standards, and 
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.


Sec.  63.7681  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an iron and 
steel foundry that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to 
you. Your iron and steel foundry is a major source of HAP if it emits 
or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or 
more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more 
per year.


Sec.  63.7682  What parts of my foundry does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at 
your iron and steel foundry.
    (b) Affected sources covered by this subpart are each new or 
existing metal casting department and each new or existing mold and 
core making department at your iron and steel foundry.
    (c) This subpart covers emissions from each metal melting furnace, 
scrap preheater, pouring area, pouring station, and pouring, cooling, 
and shakeout line in a new or existing metal casting department and 
each mold and core making line and mold and core coating line in a new 
or existing mold and core making department.
    (d) An affected source at your iron and steel foundry is existing 
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source 
on or before December 23, 2003.
    (e) An affected source at your iron and steel foundry is new if you 
commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source after 
December 23, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the 
definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec.  63.2.


Sec.  63.7683  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) For each existing affected source, you must comply with each 
emissions limitation, work practice standard, and operation and 
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later 
than [3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register].
    (b) For each new affected source for which its initial startup date 
is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emissions limitation, work 
practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this 
subpart that applies to you by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 
IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) For each new affected source for which its initial startup date 
is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emissions limitation, work 
practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this 
subpart that applies to you upon initial startup.
    (d) If your iron and steel foundry is an area source that becomes a 
major source of HAP, you must meet the requirements of Sec.  
63.6(c)(5).

[[Page 78303]]

    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec.  63.7750. Note that several of these notifications must be 
submitted before the compliance date for your affected source.

Emissions Limitations


Sec.  63.7690  What emissions limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emissions limit in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(8) of this section that applies to you.
    (1) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a metal 
melting furnace or scrap preheater at an existing metal casting 
department to a level that does not exceed 0.005 grains per dry 
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf).
    (2) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a metal 
melting furnace or scrap preheater at a new metal casting department to 
a level that does not exceed 0.001 gr/dscf.
    (3) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a pouring 
station at an existing metal casting department to a level that does 
not exceed 0.010 gr/dscf.
    (4) You must control emissions of particulate matter from a pouring 
area or pouring station at a new metal casting department to a level 
that does not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf.
    (5) You must control emissions of carbon monoxide from a cupola at 
a new or existing metal casting department to a level that does not 
exceed 200 parts per million by volume (ppmv).
    (6) You must reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds from a 
scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting department by 98 
percent by weight or to a level that does not exceed 20 ppmv as 
propane.
    (7) You must reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds from 
all pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal casting 
department, on a flow-weighted average basis, by 98 percent by weight 
or to a level that does not exceed 20 ppmv as propane.
    (8) You must reduce emissions of triethylamine from a triethylamine 
cold box mold or core making line at a new or existing mold and core 
making department to a level that does not exceed 1 ppmv.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(6) of this section that applies to you.
    (1) For each emissions source subject to an emissions limit under 
paragraph (a) of this section, you must capture and vent emissions 
through a capture system that maintains a face velocity of at least 200 
feet per minute. You must operate each capture system at or above the 
lowest value or settings established as operating limits in your 
operation and maintenance plan.
    (2) You must operate each baghouse applied to emissions from a 
metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area or pouring station 
subject to an emissions limit for particulate matter in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (4) of this section such that the alarm on each bag leak 
detection system does not activate for more than 5 percent of the total 
operating time in any semiannual reporting period.
    (3) You must operate each wet scrubber applied to emissions from a 
metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area or pouring station 
subject to an emissions limit for particulate matter in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (4) of this section such that the 3-hour average 
pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate does not fall below the 
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
    (4) You must operate each combustion device applied to emissions 
from a triethylamine cold box mold or core making line subject to the 
emissions limit for triethylamine in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, 
such that the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature does not fall 
below the minimum level established during the initial performance 
test.
    (5) You must operate each wet acid scrubber applied to emissions 
from a cold box mold or core making line subject to the emissions limit 
for triethylamine in paragraph (a)(8) of this section such that:
    (i) The 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flowrate does not fall 
below the minimum level established during the initial performance 
test; and
    (ii) The 3-hour average pH of the scrubber blowdown does not exceed 
the maximum level established during the initial performance test.
    (c) If you use a control device other than a baghouse, wet 
scrubber, or combustion device, you must prepare and submit a 
monitoring plan containing the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (5) of this section. The monitoring plan is subject to approval 
by the Administrator.
    (1) A description of the device;
    (2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec.  63.7732 
verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of 
particulate matter, total gaseous non-methane organics, volatile 
organic compounds, or triethylamine to the atmosphere to the levels 
required by this subpart;
    (3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required by Sec.  
63.7710(b);
    (4) A list of appropriate operating parameters that will be 
monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable 
emissions limitation(s); and
    (5) Operating parameter limits based on monitoring data collected 
during the performance test.

Work Practice Standards


Sec.  63.7700  What work practice standards must I meet?

    (a) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written plan for the selection and inspection of iron and steel scrap 
to minimize, to the extent practicable, the amount of organics and HAP 
metals in the charge materials used by the metal casting department. A 
copy of the plan must be kept onsite and readily available to all plant 
personnel with purchase, selection, or inspection duties. Each plan 
must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Specifications for incoming scrap including, but not limited 
to, restrictions on the amount of free liquids, grease, oils, painted 
parts, plastic parts, lead components, and galvanized materials. You 
must provide each scrap vendor a copy of your specifications.
    (2) Procedures for visual inspection of all incoming scrap 
shipments to ensure the materials meet the specifications.
    (i) The inspection procedures must identify the location(s) where 
inspections are to be performed for each type of shipment. The selected 
location(s) must provide the best vantage point, considering worker 
safety, for visual inspection.
    (ii) The inspection procedures must include recordkeeping 
requirements that document each visual inspection and the results.
    (iii) The inspection procedures must include provisions for 
rejecting or returning entire or partial scrap shipments that do not 
meet specifications and limiting purchases from vendors whose shipments 
do not meet specifications.
    (3) Procedures to ensure that no oily turnings are included in 
foundry returns used as part of the furnace charge material.
    (i) The procedures must include daily visual inspections of the 
foundry returns to be used as furnace charge.
    (ii) The procedures must include recordkeeping requirements to 
document the daily visual inspection and the results.

[[Page 78304]]

    (b) For each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line in an existing 
metal casting department and each pouring area in a new or existing 
metal casting department, you must manually ignite the gases from each 
mold vent that do not ignite automatically.
    (c) For each mold or core making line in a new or existing mold and 
core making department, you must use a coating formulation that does 
not contain HAP as an ingredient of the liquid component of the 
formulation.
    (d) For each furan warm box mold or core making line in a new or 
existing mold and core making department, you must use a binder 
chemical formulation that contains no methanol that is specifically a 
part of the formulation.
    (e) For each phenolic urethane cold box or phenolic urethane nobake 
mold or core making line in a new or existing mold and core making 
department, you must use a binder chemical formulation in which the 
solvents are naphthalene-depleted. Depletion of naphthalene must not be 
accomplished by substitution of naphthalene with other HAP.
    (f) For each mold or core making line in a new or existing mold or 
core making department other than a furan warm box, phenolic urethane 
cold box, or phenolic urethane nobake mold or core making line, you 
must:
    (1) Conduct a study to evaluate and identify available reduced-HAP 
binder formulations for each line; and
    (2) Adopt reduced-HAP binder formulations for each line unless you 
demonstrate in your report that all available alternatives are 
technically or economically infeasible. If you do not adopt a reduced-
HAP binder formulation for a line, you must conduct a study to evaluate 
and identify available reduced-HAP binder formulations every 5 years 
(at permit renewal).
    (g) As provided in Sec.  63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraphs (a) through 
(f) of this section.

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec.  63.7710  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture and collection 
system and control device for an emissions source subject to an 
emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a). Each plan must contain the 
elements described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the 
performance of the total capture system (i.e., pressure sensors, 
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include 
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g., 
presence of holes in the ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused 
by dents or accumulated dust in the ductwork, and fan erosion). The 
operation and maintenance plan must also include requirements to repair 
the defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next 
scheduled inspection.
    (2) Operating limits for each capture system for an emissions 
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a). You must 
establish the operating limits according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Select operating limit parameters appropriate for the capture 
system design that are representative and reliable indicators of the 
performance of the capture system. At a minimum, you must use 
appropriate operating limit parameters that indicate the level of the 
ventilation draft and damper position settings for the capture system 
when operating to collect emissions, including revised settings for 
seasonal variations. Appropriate operating limit parameters for 
ventilation draft include, but are not limited to; volumetric flowrate 
through each separately ducted hood, total volumetric flowrate at the 
inlet to the control device to which the capture system is vented, fan 
motor amperage, or static pressure. Any parameter for damper position 
setting may be used that indicates the duct damper position related to 
the fully open setting.
    (ii) For each operating limit parameter selected in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) of this section, designate the value or setting for the 
parameter at which the capture system operates during the process 
operation. If your operation allows for more than one process to be 
operating simultaneously, designate the value or setting for the 
parameter at which the capture system operates during each possible 
configuration that you may operate (i.e., the operating limits with one 
furnace melting, two melting, as applicable to your plant).
    (iii) Include documentation in your plan to support your selection 
of the operating limits established for your capture system. This 
documentation must include a description of the capture system design, 
a description of the capture system operating during production, a 
description of each selected operating limit parameter, a rationale for 
why you chose the parameter, a description of the method used to 
monitor the parameter according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.7740(a), and the data used to set the value or setting for the 
parameter for each of your process configurations.
    (3) Preventative maintenance plan for each control device, 
including a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with 
the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (4) A corrective action plan for each baghouse. The plan must 
include the requirement that, in the event a bag leak detection system 
alarm is triggered, you must initiate corrective action to determine 
the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective 
action to correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the 
alarm, and complete the corrective action as soon as practicable. 
Corrective actions taken may include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Making process changes.
    (vii) Shutting down the process producing the particulate matter 
emissions.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.7720  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emissions limitations, work 
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this 
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.
    (b) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec.  63.7683 and the date upon which 
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and verified 
operational and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must

[[Page 78305]]

maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process 
and emissions control equipment.
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.7730  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) As required by Sec.  63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance 
test within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified 
in Sec.  63.7683 for your affected source to demonstrate initial 
compliance with each emissions limitation in Sec.  63.7690 that applies 
to you.
    (b) For each work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700 and each 
operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.  63.7710 that applies to 
you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance 
test, you must demonstrate initial compliance within 30 calendar days 
after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec.  63.7683.
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
December 23, 2002 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either 
the proposed emissions limit or the promulgated emissions limit no 
later than [180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or no later than 180 calendar days 
after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.  
63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
December 23, 2002 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emissions 
limit when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a second 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the promulgated 
emissions limit by [3 YEARS AND 180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or after startup 
of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix).


Sec.  63.7731  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable emissions limitations in Sec.  63.7690 
for your affected source no less frequently than every 5 years.


Sec.  63.7732  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and 
the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for 
particulate matter in Sec.  63.7690(a)(1) through (4) for a metal 
melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, you 
must follow the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to 
the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter that are 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number 
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be 
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the 
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases 
to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric 
flowrate of the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as applicable, to determine the 
concentration of particulate matter.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet 
of gas during each particulate matter sampling run. A minimum of three 
valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test.
    (3) For cupolas, sample only during times when the cupola is on 
blast.
    (4) For electric arc and electric induction furnaces, sample only 
when metal is being melted.
    (5) For scrap preheaters, sample only when scrap is being 
preheated.
    (c) To determine compliance with the emissions limit in Sec.  
63.7690(a)(5) for carbon monoxide from a cupola at a new or existing 
metal casting department, you must follow the procedures in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) 
required in Sec.  63.7740(e), measure and record the concentration of 
carbon monoxide for 3 consecutive operating hours. Measure emissions at 
the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the emissions 
source if no control device is present) prior to any releases to the 
atmosphere.
    (2) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(g)(2).
    (3) Compute and record the 3-hour average of the monitoring data.
    (d) To determine compliance with the emissions limit in Sec.  
63.7690(a)(6) for volatile organic compound emissions from a scrap 
preheater at a new or existing metal casting department, or in Sec.  
63.7690(a)(7) for volatile organic compound emissions from one or more 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal casting department, 
you must follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Measure and record the concentration of volatile organic 
compound emissions (as propane) using the CEMS in Sec.  63.7740(f) for 
3 consecutive operating hours.
    (i) If you elect to meet the percent reduction standard for a scrap 
preheater, you must measure the concentration of emissions at inlet and 
outlet of the control device (or the inlet and outlet of the emissions 
source, if no control device is present) prior to any releases to the 
atmosphere.
    (ii) If you elect to meet the concentration limit of 20 ppmv for a 
scrap preheater or pouring, cooling, and shakeout line, you must 
measure emissions at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet 
of the emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any 
releases to the atmosphere. For two or more exhaust streams from a 
pouring, cooling, and shakeout line, compute the flow-weighted average 
concentration for each combination of exhaust streams using Equation 1 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE02.001


Where;

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration, ppmv (as propane);
Ci = Concentration of volatile organic compounds from 
exhaust stream ``i,'' ppmv (as propane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flowrate of effluent gas from exhaust stream 
``i,'' in dry standard cubic feet per minute.

    (2) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(g)(2).

[[Page 78306]]

    (3) Compute and record the 3-hour average of the monitoring data.
    (e) To determine compliance with the limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(8) 
for a triethylamine cold box mold or core making line, you must follow 
the test methods and procedures in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number 
of traverse points in each stack or duct. Sampling sites must be 
located at the outlet of the control device (or at the outlet of the 
emissions source if no control device is present) prior to any releases 
to the atmosphere.
    (2) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric 
flowrate of the stack gas.
    (3) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (4) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5) Method 18 to determine the concentration of triethylamine. The 
Method 18 sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that 
either the triethylamine concentration in the field sample is at least 
5 times the limit of detection for the analytical method or the test 
results calculated using the laboratory's reported analytical detection 
limit for the specific field samples are less than \1/5\ of the 
applicable emissions limit. In no case shall the sampling time be less 
than 1 hour.


Sec.  63.7733  What procedures must I use to establish operating 
limits?

    (a) For each capture system subject to operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(1), you must establish site-specific operating limits 
according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) and (5) of this 
section.
    (2) Concurrent with applicable emissions tests, measure and record 
values for each of the operating limit parameters in your capture 
system operation and maintenance plan according to the monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  63.7740(a).
    (3) For any dampers that are manually set and remain at the same 
position at all times the capture system is operating, the damper 
position must be visually checked and recorded at the beginning and end 
of each run.
    (4) Review and record the monitoring data. Identify and explain any 
times the capture system operated outside the applicable operating 
limits.
    (5) Certify in your performance test report that during all test 
runs, the capture system maintained a minimum face velocity of 200 feet 
per minute and the values or settings in your capture system operation 
and maintenance plan were established.
    (b) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(3) for pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate, you must 
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) 
required in Sec.  63.7740(c), measure and record the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flowrate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during 
each particulate matter test run.
    (2) Compute and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and average 
scrubber water flowrate for each sampling run in which the applicable 
emissions limit is met.
    (c) For each combustion device applied to emissions from a 
triethylamine cold box mold or core making line subject to the 
operating limit in Sec.  63.7690(b)(4) for combustion zone temperature, 
you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.7740(d), measure and record 
the combustion zone temperature during each sampling run in intervals 
of no more than 15 minutes.
    (2) Compute and record the 3-hour average combustion zone 
temperature for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions 
limit is met.
    (d) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(4) for scrubbing liquid flowrate and pH of the 
scrubber blowdown, you must establish site-specific operating limits 
according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.7740(e), measure and record 
the scrubbing liquid flowrate and the scrubber blowdown pH during each 
triethylamine sampling run in intervals of no more than 15 minutes.
    (2) Compute and record the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flowrate 
and average scrubber blowdown pH for each sampling run in which the 
applicable emissions limit is met.
    (e) You may change the operating limits for a capture system, wet 
scrubber, acid wet scrubber, or combustion device if you meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your 
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating 
limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emissions limitation in Sec.  63.7690.
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.


Sec.  63.7734  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emissions limitations that apply to me?

    (a) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the emissions 
limits in Sec.  63.7690(a) if:
    (1) For each metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at an 
existing metal casting department, the average concentration of 
particulate matter in the exhaust stream, determined according to the 
performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.005 
gr/dscf;
    (2) For each metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at a new 
metal casting department, the average concentration of particulate 
matter in the exhaust stream, determined according to the performance 
test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.001 gr/dscf;
    (3) For each pouring station at an existing metal casting 
department, the average concentration of particulate matter in the 
exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures 
in Sec.  63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.010 gr/dscf;
    (4) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new metal casting 
department, the average concentration of particulate matter in the 
exhaust stream, measured according to the performance test procedures 
in Sec.  63.7732(b), did not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf;
    (5) For each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department:
    (i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(c); and
    (ii) The 3-hour average concentration of carbon monoxide, measured 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(c), did 
not exceed 200 ppmv.
    (6) For each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting 
department:
    (i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(d); and
    (ii) The 3-hour average concentration of volatile carbon compounds, 
measured according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7732(d), was reduced by 98 percent, by weight, or did not exceed 20 
ppmv as propane.
    (7) For each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line at a new metal 
casting department:

[[Page 78307]]

    (i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(d); and
    (ii) The 3-hour average concentration of volatile organic compounds 
from a pouring, cooling, and shakeout line, or the flow-weighted 3-hour 
average concentration of volatile organic compounds from one or more 
lines, measured according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 ppmv as propane.
    (8) For each triethylamine cold box mold or core making line in a 
new or existing mold and core making department, the 3-hour average 
concentration of triethylamine, determined according to the performance 
test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(e), did not exceed 1 ppmv.
    (b) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the operational 
requirements in Sec.  63.7690(b) if:
    (1) For each capture system subject to operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(1), you have demonstrated that the face velocity is greater 
than 200 feet per minute using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
or (ii) of this section, and you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits(s) and have a record of the operating 
parameter data measured during the performance test in accordance with 
Sec.  63.7733(a).
    (i) Calculate the hood face velocity by measuring the flowrate in 
the duct and the face area of the hood using the procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(1) (i)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) Use Method 1 to select an appropriate sampling port location in 
the duct leading from the hood to the control device.
    (B) Use Method 2 to measure the volumetric flowrate in the duct 
from the hood to the control device.
    (C) Determine the face area of the hood by measuring the open area 
between the emission source and the hood. If the hood has access doors, 
the face area shall include the open area for the doors when the doors 
are in the position they are in during normal operation.
    (D) Calculate the face velocity by dividing the volumetric flowrate 
by the total face area of the hood.
    (ii) Measure the face velocity directly using the procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
    (A) Measure the face velocity using a propellor anemometer or 
equivalent device.
    (B) The propellor anemometer shall be made of a material of uniform 
density and shall be properly balanced to optimize performance.
    (C) The measurement range of the anemometer shall extend to at 
least 1000 feet per minute.
    (D) A known relationship shall exist between the anemometer signal 
output and air velocity, and the anemometer must be equipped with a 
suitable readout system.
    (E) Measure the face velocity by placing the anemometer in the 
plane of the hood opening. If the hood has access doors, measure the 
face velocity with the doors in the position they are in during normal 
operation.
    (2) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate, you have 
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flowrate measured during 
the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7733(b).
    (3) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit 
specified in Sec.  63.7690(b)(3) for combustion zone temperature, you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the combustion zone temperature measured during the 
performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7733(c).
    (4) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(4) for scrubbing liquid flowrate and scrubber blowdown 
pH, you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and 
have a record of the scrubbing liquid flowrate and pH of the scrubbing 
liquid blowdown measured during the performance test in accordance with 
Sec.  63.7733(e).


Sec.  63.7735  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    (a) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the work practice 
standard in Sec.  63.7700, you have demonstrated initial compliance if 
you have certified in your notification of compliance status that:
    (1) You have prepared and submitted a written plan for the 
selection and inspection of iron and steel scrap to the applicable 
permitting authority for review according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7700(a) and will meet each of the work practice requirements in the 
plan.
    (2) You will meet each of the work practice requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section:
    (i) For each pouring area and pouring, cooling, and shakeout line 
subject to the work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(b), you meet 
each work practice requirement for ignition of gases;
    (ii) For each mold or core coating line subject to the work 
practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(c), you meet the ``no HAP'' 
requirement for each coating formulation;
    (iii) For each furan warm box mold or core making line subject to 
the work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(d), you will meet the ``no 
methanol'' requirement for each binder chemical formulation; and
    (iv) For each phenolic urethane cold box or phenolic urethane 
nobake mold or core making line subject to the work practice standard 
in Sec.  63.7700(e), you will meet the ``naphthalene-depleted solvent'' 
requirement for each binder chemical formulation.
    (3) You have records documenting your certification of compliance, 
such as a material safety data sheet (provided that it contains 
appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a 
manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet, onsite and available 
for inspection.
    (4) For each mold and core coating line (other than furan warm box, 
phenolic urethane cold box, or phenolic urethane nobake mold or core 
making lines) subject to the work practice standard in Sec.  
63.7700(f), you have demonstrated initial compliance if:
    (i) You have certified in your notification of compliance status 
that you meet the ``reduced-HAP'' work practice requirement for each 
binder chemical formulation or that adoption of the reduced-HAP 
chemical formulation is technically and/or economically infeasible;
    (ii) You have prepared and submitted a written study to the 
applicable permitting authority for review and approval that evaluates 
and identifies available reduced-HAP binder formulations for each line. 
If you do not adopt reduced-HAP binder chemical formulations for a 
line, your report must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
permitting authority that their use is technically and/or economically 
infeasible; and
    (iii) You have records documenting your certification of 
compliance, such as a material safety data sheet (provided that it 
contains appropriate information), a certified product data sheet, or a 
manufacturer's hazardous air pollutant data sheet, onsite and available 
for inspection.


Sec.  63.7736  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b) established in your operation and maintenance plan, you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if you

[[Page 78308]]

meet the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) You have certified in your notification of compliance status 
that:
    (i) You have prepared the capture system operation and maintenance 
plan according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7710(b), including 
monthly inspection procedures and detailed descriptions of the 
operating parameter(s) selected to monitor the capture system; and
    (ii) You will operate the capture and collection system at the 
value or settings established in your operation and maintenance plan.
    (2) You have certified in your performance test report that the 
system operated during the test at the operating limits established in 
your operation and maintenance plan.
    (3) You have submitted a notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7750(e), including a copy of 
the capture system operation and maintenance plan.
    (b) For each control device subject to an operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have 
certified in your notification of compliance status that:
    (1) You have prepared the control device operation and maintenance 
plan according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7710(b); and
    (2) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each control device 
according to the procedures in the plan.
    (c) You have submitted a notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7750(e), including a copy of 
your operation and maintenance plans for capture systems and control 
devices.

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.7740  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(1) established in your capture system operation and 
maintenance plan, you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7741(a) and the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor the operating 
limit parameter, you must at all times monitor the hourly average rate 
(e.g., the hourly average actual volumetric flowrate through each 
separately ducted hood or the average hourly total volumetric flowrate 
at the inlet to the control device).
    (2) Dampers that are manually set and remain in the same position 
are exempt from the requirement to install and operate a CPMS. If 
dampers are not manually set and remain in the same position, you must 
make a visual check at least once every 24 hours to verify that each 
damper for the capture system is in the same position as during the 
initial performance test.
    (b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(2) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must at all 
times monitor the relative change in particulate matter loadings using 
a bag leak detection system according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7741(b) and conduct inspections at their specified frequencies 
according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(8) of this section.
    (1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to 
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in 
the manual.
    (2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of 
removal mechanisms.
    (3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each 
day.
    (4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology.
    (5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or lying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for 
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
    (7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through 
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
    (c) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(3), you must at all times monitor the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flowrate using CPMS according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7741(c).
    (d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(4), you must at all times monitor the combustion zone 
temperature using CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7741(d).
    (e) For each wet acid scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5), you must at all times monitor the scrubbing liquid 
flowrate and scrubber blowdown pH using CPMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(e).
    (f) For each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department, 
you must at all times monitor the concentration of carbon monoxide 
using a CEMS according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7741(g).
    (g) For each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting 
department, and each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line at a new metal 
casting department, you must at all times monitor the concentration of 
volatile organic compound emissions using a CEMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(h).


Sec.  63.7741  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) For each capture system subject to an operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b), you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according 
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) If you use a flow measurement device to monitor an operating 
limit parameter for a capture system, you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as 
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow 
and that reduces swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due 
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flowrate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least 
semiannually.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) If you use a pressure measurement device to monitor the 
operating limit parameter for a capture system, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that 
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and 
external corrosion.
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.

[[Page 78309]]

    (iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (3) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit specified in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(2) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must 
install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according 
to the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this 
section.
    (1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) 
or less.
    (2) The system must provide output of relative changes in 
particulate matter loadings.
    (3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when 
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset 
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the 
appropriate plant personnel.
    (4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must 
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997). This document is available on the EPA's 
Technology Transfer Network at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.pdf 
(Adobe Acrobat version) or http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem/tribo.wpd 
(WordPerfect version). You may install, operate, and maintain other 
types of bag leak detection systems but you must install, operate, and 
maintain these systems, in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's 
written specifications and recommendations and you must also submit a 
monitoring plan appropriate for these systems.
    (5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the 
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging 
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the 
alarm delay time.
    (6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time 
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not 
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the 
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a 
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been 
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (c) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(3), you must install and maintain CPMS to measure and record 
the pressure drop across the scrubber and scrubber water flowrate 
according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) For each CPMS for pressure drop, you must:
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor in or as close as possible to a 
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure 
drop and that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, 
and internal and external corrosion.
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
    (iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) For each CPMS for scrubber liquid flowrate, you must:
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling 
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 
disturbances.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flowrate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(4), you must install and maintain a CPMS to measure 
and record the combustion zone temperature according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor 
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 [deg]C or 0.75 percent of the 
temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (3) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor 
with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 [deg]C or 2 percent of the temperature 
value, whichever is larger.
    (4) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (5) If you use a chart recorder, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 20 [deg]F.
    (6) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor 
validation check, in which a second or redundant temperature sensor 
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading 
within 16.7 [deg]C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
    (7) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature 
range, or install a new temperature sensor.
    (8) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (e) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5), you must install and maintain CPMS to measure and 
record the scrubbing liquid flowrate and the scrubber blowdown pH 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) For each CPMS for scrubbing liquid flowrate, you must:
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling 
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 
disturbances.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flowrate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions.

[[Page 78310]]

    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) For each CPMS for scrubber blowdown pH, you must:
    (i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of the pH and that minimizes or eliminates 
internal and external corrosion.
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.1 pH 
or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of 
the pH range.
    (iii) Check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration 
monthly using a manual pH gauge.
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (f) For each CPMS installed on a capture system, wet scrubber, 
combustion device, or wet acid scrubber that is subject to the 
operating limits in Sec.  63.7690(b), you must operate the CPMS 
according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through 
(3) of this section.
    (1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of three of 
the required four data points to constitute a valid hour of data.
    (2) Each CPMS must have valid hourly data for 100 percent of every 
averaging period.
    (3) Each CPMS must determine and record the hourly average of all 
recorded readings and the 3-hour average of all recorded readings.
    (g) For each cupola at a new or existing metal casting department, 
you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to measure and record 
the concentration of carbon monoxide emissions according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to 
Performance Specification 4 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8 and Performance 
Specification 4 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (h) For each scrap preheater at a new or existing metal casting 
department and each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line at a new metal 
casting department, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to 
measure and record the concentration of volatile organic compound 
emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain each CEMS according to 
Performance Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements of Sec.  63.8 and Performance 
Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (i) You must operate each CEMS according to the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) As specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data 
recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
    (2) You must reduce CEMS data as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2).
    (3) Each CEMS must determine and record the 3-hour average 
emissions using all the hourly averages collected for periods during 
which the CEMS is not out-of-control.
    (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.


Sec.  63.7742  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) any time a source of emissions is operating.
    (b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emissions 
or operating levels or to fulfill a minimum data availability 
requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during 
all other periods in assessing compliance.
    (c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide 
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.


Sec.  63.7743  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emissions limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each new or existing affected source, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter 
from a metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at an existing metal 
casting department in a concentration at or below 0.005 gr/dscf;
    (2) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter 
from a metal melting furnace or scrap preheater at a new metal casting 
department in a concentration at or below 0.001 gr/dscf;
    (3) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter 
from a pouring station at an existing metal casting department in a 
concentration at or below 0.010 gr/dscf;
    (4) Maintaining the average concentration of particulate matter 
from a pouring station at a new metal casting department in a 
concentration at or below 0.002 gr/dscf;
    (5) Maintaining the 3-hour average concentration of carbon monoxide 
emissions from a coupla at a new or existing metal casting department 
in a concentration at or below 200 ppmv and:
    (i) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(g) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (ii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(i) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (6) Maintaining a 98 percent reduction in the 3-hour average 
concentration of volatile organic compounds from a scrap preheater at a 
new or existing metal casting department or the 3-hour average in a 
concentration at or below 20 ppmv as propane and:
    (i) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(h) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (ii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(i) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (7) Maintaining a 98 percent reduction in the 3-hour average 
concentration of volatile organic compounds from one or more pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout lines at a new metal casting department or 
maintaining the 3-hour, flow-weighted average concentration of volatile 
organic compounds from one or more pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines 
at a new metal casting department in a

[[Page 78311]]

concentration at or below 20 ppmv as propane:
    (i) Inspecting and maintaining each CEMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(h) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (ii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(i) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (8) Maintaining the average concentration of triethylamine from a 
triethylamine cold box mold or core making line at a new or existing 
mold and core making department in a concentration at or below 1 ppmv.
    (9) Conducting subsequent performance tests at least every 5 years 
for each emissions source subject to an emissions limitation in Sec.  
63.7690(a).
    (b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance for each capture 
system subject to an operating limit in Sec.  63.7690(b)(1) by meeting 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Operate the capture system at or above the lowest values or 
settings established for the operating limits in your operation and 
maintenance plan; and
    (2) Monitor the capture system according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7740(a) and collect, reduce, and record the monitoring data 
for each of the operating limit parameters according to the applicable 
requirements in this subpart.
    (b) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(2) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection 
system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during any semiannual reporting period. Follow the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section to 
determine the percent of time the alarm sounded.
    (i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak 
detection system are not included in the calculation.
    (ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took 
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the 
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
    (iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm.
    (v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak 
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the 
total operating time multiplied by 100.
    (2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system 
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated 
corrective action, the corrective action taken, and the date on which 
corrective action was completed; and
    (3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7740(b)(1) through (8) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If 
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 
system beyond the limit in Sec.  63.7741(b)(1), you must include a copy 
of the required written certification by a responsible official in the 
next semiannual compliance report.
    (c) For each wet scrubber that is subject to the operating limits 
in Sec.  63.7690(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining the 3-hour average pressure drop and 3-hour average 
scrubber water flowrate at levels no lower than those established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test;
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(c) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flowrate according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (d) For each combustion device that is subject to the operating 
limit in Sec.  63.7690(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature at a 
level no lower that established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test;
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(d) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for combustion zone 
temperature according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7741(f) and 
recording all information needed to document conformance with these 
requirements.
    (e) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flowrate at a 
level no lower than the level established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test;
    (2) Maintaining the 3-hour average scrubber blowdown pH at a level 
no higher than the level established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test;
    (3) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(e) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements; and
    (4) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubbing liquid 
flowrate and scrubber blowdown pH according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements.


Sec.  63.7744  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    (a) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the work practice 
standards in Sec.  63.7700(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by maintaining records documenting conformance with the 
procedures in your scrap selection and inspection plan.
    (b) For each pouring area in a new or existing metal casting 
department and each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line in an existing 
metal casting department subject to the work practice standard in Sec.  
63.7700(b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
    (1) Visually inspecting each line at least once every shift to 
verify that the gases have ignited automatically and record the results 
of each inspection;
    (2) Manually igniting the gases from each mold vent that do not 
ignite automatically and recording that manual ignition was done.
    (c) For each new or existing mold and core making department you 
must:
    (1) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all coating 
formulations applied in each mold or core coating

[[Page 78312]]

line to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of Sec.  
63.7700(c);
    (2) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all binder 
formulations applied in each furan warm box mold or core making line to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirement of Sec.  63.7700(d);
    (3) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all binder 
formulations applied in each phenolic urethane cold box and each 
phenolic urethane nobake mold or core making line to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirement of Sec.  63.7700(e);
    (4) Maintain records of the chemical composition of all binder 
formulations applied in each mold or core making line (other than furan 
warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane nobake mold 
or core making lines) to demonstrate compliance with the requirement of 
Sec.  63.7700(f). If you do not adopt reduced-HAP binder formulations 
for a line, you must conduct a study to evaluate and identify available 
formulations as described in Sec.  63.7700(g) every 5 years; and
    (5) If you change the formulation of any coating or binder chemical 
used in the mold and core coating and mold and core making lines 
subject to the requirements of Sec.  63.7700(b) through (f), notify us 
in your next compliance report and recertify compliance with the 
applicable work practice standard.


Sec.  63.7745  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each capture system and control device for an emissions 
source subject to an emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a), you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance 
requirements of Sec.  63.7710 by:
    (1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems and initiating 
corrective action according to Sec.  63.7710(b)(1) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements;
    (2) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device 
according to the preventive maintenance plan required by Sec.  
63.7710(b)(3) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak 
detection system alarm according to the corrective action plan required 
by Sec.  63.7710(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements.
    (b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and 
maintenance plans required by Sec.  63.7710(b) onsite and available for 
inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the life of the 
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to 
the requirements of this subpart.


Sec.  63.7746  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not 
meet each emissions limitation in Sec.  63.7690 (including each 
operating limit) that applies to you. This requirement includes periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each 
instance in which you did not meet each work practice standard in Sec.  
63.7700 and each operation and maintenance requirement of Sec.  63.7710 
that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emissions 
limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance 
requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7751.
    (b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with 
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (1) Consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with 
the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations 
according to the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.7750  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications required by Sec. Sec.  
63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e); 63.8(f)(4) and (6); 63.9(b) through (e), and 
(g) through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than [120 
CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you start your new 
affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no 
later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required by Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of 
compliance status according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a 
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status, including the performance test results, before the close of 
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the 
performance test according to the requirement specified in Sec.  
63.10(d)(2).


Sec.  63.7751  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance 
report to your permitting authority according to the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source by Sec.  
63.7683 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
first after the compliance date that is specified for your affected 
source.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
first compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31,

[[Page 78313]]

whichever date comes first after the end of the semiannual reporting 
period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include 
the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section and, as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this 
section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took action consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there were no deviations from any emissions limitations 
(including operating limit), work practice standards, or operation and 
maintenance requirements, a statement that there were no deviations 
from the emissions limitations, work practice standards, or operation 
and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring 
system (including a CPMS or CEMS) was out-of-control as specified by 
Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which 
the CPMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (7) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an 
operating limit) that occurs at an affected source for which you are 
not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or CEMS) to 
comply with an emissions limitation or work practice standard required 
in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of 
this section. This requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause) as applicable and the corrective action 
taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an 
operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected 
source where you are using a continuous monitoring system (including a 
CPMS or CEMS) to comply with the emissions limitation or work practice 
standard in this subpart, you must include the information specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (b)(8)(i) through (xi) of this 
section. This requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system was 
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system was out-of-control, including the information in Sec.  
63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and unknown 
causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring 
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of 
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source 
operating time during the reporting period.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had 
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction report according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 
part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in 
the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an 
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required 
information concerning deviations from any emissions limitation or 
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of 
the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of 
a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may 
have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected 
source to your permitting authority.


Sec.  63.7752  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (3) of this section:
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements of Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records specified in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) 
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required by Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the following records for each CEMS.
    (1) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.8(d)(3).
    (3) Request for alternatives to relative accuracy tests for CEMS as 
required in Sec.  63.8(f)(6)(i).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (c) You must keep the records required by Sec. Sec.  63.7743, 
63.7744, and 63.7745 to show continuous compliance

[[Page 78314]]

with each emissions limitation, work practice standard, and operation 
and maintenance requirement that applies to you.


Sec.  63.7753  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records for the previous 3 years off 
site.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.7760  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec.  63.7761  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as 
your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 
delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 
agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office 
to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is 
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to work practice standards under Sec.  
63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.7762  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light 
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously 
monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
    Binder chemical means a component of a system of chemicals used to 
bind sand together into molds, mold sections, and cores through 
chemical reaction as opposed to pressure.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture 
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then 
convey the captured gas stream to a control device. A capture system 
may include, but is not limited to, the following components as 
applicable to a given capture system design: duct intake devices, 
hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans.
    Cold box mold or core making line means a mold or core making line 
in which the formed aggregate is hardened by catalysis with a gas.
    Combustion device means an afterburner, thermal incinerator, or 
scrap preheater.
    Cooling means the process of molten metal solidification within the 
mold and subsequent temperature reduction prior to shakeout.
    Cupola means a vertical cylindrical shaft furnace that uses coke 
and forms of iron and steel such as scrap and foundry returns as the 
primary charge components and melts the iron and steel through 
combustion of the coke by a forced upward flow of heated air.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an 
owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation 
(including operating limits), work practice standard, or operation and 
maintenance requirement;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation (including operating 
limits) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Electric arc furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron and 
steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted through resistance 
heating by an electric current flowing through the arcs formed between 
the electrodes and the surface of the metal and also flowing through 
the metal between the arc paths.
    Electric induction furnace means a vessel in which forms of iron 
and steel such as scrap and foundry returns are melted though 
resistance heating by an electric current that is induced in the metal 
by passing an alternating current through a coil surrounding the metal 
charge or surrounding a pool of molten metal at the bottom of the 
vessel.
    Emissions limitation means any emissions limit or operating limit.
    Exhaust stream means gases emitted from a process that by design 
are captured, conveyed through ductwork, and exhausted from the foundry 
building through a stack using forced ventilation.
    Furan warm box mold or core making line means a mold or core making 
line in which the binder chemical system used is that system commonly 
designated furan warm box system by the foundry industry.
    Hazardous air pollutant means any substance on the list originally 
established in 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act and subsequently amended 
as published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Iron and steel foundry means a facility that melts scrap, ingot, 
and/or other forms of iron and/or steel and pours the resulting molten 
metal into molds to produce near final shape products.
    Metal casting department means the area of a foundry and associated 
equipment in which all operations needed to melt metal and produce 
mechanically finished castings are done, including preparation of 
furnace feed, melting metal, transferring molten metal to pouring 
stations, pouring metal into molds, cooling molds, and separating 
castings from molds.
    Metal melting furnace means a cupola, electric arc furnace, or 
electric induction furnace that converts scrap, foundry returns, and/or 
other solid forms of iron and/or steel to a liquid state. This 
definition does not include a holding furnace, which is a furnace that

[[Page 78315]]

receives metal already in the molten state.
    Mold and core making department means the area of a foundry and 
associated equipment in which all operations needed to produce molds, 
mold sections, and cores are done, including those operations performed 
in mold or core making and mold or core coating lines.
    Mold or core coating line means the collection of equipment that is 
used to prepare slurry or other forms of coating materials that contain 
finely divided refractory substances, coat molds or cores with the 
slurry, and dry the coating.
    Mold or core making line means the collection of equipment that is 
used to mix an aggregate of sand and binder chemicals, form the 
aggregate into final shape, and harden the formed aggregate. This 
definition does not include a line for making green sand molds or 
cores.
    Mold vent means an opening in a mold through which gases containing 
pyrolysis products of organic mold and core constituents produced by 
contact with or proximity to molten metal normally escape the mold 
during and after metal pouring.
    Naphthalene-depleted solvent means a petroleum distillate product 
or similar product used in sand binder chemical formulations that 
contains 3 percent or less naphthalene by weight.
    Phenolic urethane cold box mold or core making line means a cold 
box mold or core making line in which the binder chemical system used 
is that system commonly termed phenolic urethane system by the foundry 
industry. This system typically uses triethylamine or 
dimethylethylamine as the catalyst gas.
    Phenolic urethane nobake mold or core making line means a mold or 
core making line in which the binder chemical system used is that 
system commonly designated phenolic urethane nobake system by the 
foundry industry.
    Pouring area means an area in which molten metal is brought to 
molds that remain stationary from the time they receive the molten 
metal through cooling.
    Pouring, cooling, and shakeout line means the combination of either 
a pouring station and its associated cooling area or a pouring area 
with the area in which shakeout is done.
    Pouring station means the fixed location to which molds are brought 
in a continuous or semicontinuous manner to receive molten metal, after 
which the molds are moved to a cooling area.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in Sec.  
63.2.
    Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which 
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a 
temperature high enough to eliminate moisture and other volatile 
impurities or tramp materials by direct flame heating or similar means 
of heating.
    Scrubber blowdown means liquor or slurry discharged from a wet 
scrubber that is either removed as a waste stream or processed to 
remove impurities or adjust its composition or pH before being returned 
to the scrubber.
    Shakeout means the process of separating a casting from a mold 
using a mechanical unit or manual procedure designed for and dedicated 
to this purpose.
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.

Tables to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63

           Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
    [As stated in Sec.   63.7760, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject                   EEEEE?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  Applicability..........  Yes....................  .......................
63.2.................................  Definitions............  Yes....................  .......................
63.3.................................  Units and abbreviations  Yes....................  .......................
63.4.................................  Prohibited activities..  Yes....................  .......................
63.5.................................  Construction/            Yes....................  .......................
                                        reconstruction.
63.6(a)-(g)..........................  Compliance with          Yes....................  .......................
                                        standards and
                                        maintenance
                                        requirements.
63.6(h)..............................  Opacity and visible      No.....................  Subpart EEEEE has no
                                        emission standards.                               opacity or visible
                                                                                          emissions standards
                                                                                          and does not require
                                                                                          COMS.
63.6(i)(i)-(j).......................  Compliance extension     Yes....................  .......................
                                        and Presidential
                                        compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)..................  Performance testing      Yes....................  .......................
                                        requirements.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        performance test dates.                           applicability and
                                                                                          performance test
                                                                                          dates.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)-        Monitoring requirement.  Yes....................  .......................
 (c)(3), (c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e),
 (f)(1)-(f)(6), (g)(1)-(g)(4).
63.8(a)(4)...........................  Additional monitoring    No.....................  Subpart EEEEE does not
                                        requirements for                                  require flares.
                                        control devices in
                                        Sec.   63.11.
63.8(c)(4)...........................  Continuous monitoring    No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        system requirements.                              requirements for
                                                                                          operation of CMS and
                                                                                          CEMS.
63.8(c)(5)...........................  COMS Minimum Procedures  No.....................  Subpart EEEEE does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
63.8(g)(5)...........................  Data reduction.........  No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements.
63.9.................................  Notification             Yes....................  .......................
                                        requirements.
63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(xii)-         Recordkeeping and        Yes....................  Additional records for
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6),       reporting requirements.                           CMS in Sec.
 (c)(9)-(15), (d)(1)-(2), (e)(1)-(2),                                                     63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
 (f).                                                                                     (15) apply only to
                                                                                          CEMS.
63.10(c)(7)-(8)......................  Records of excess        No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        emissions and                                     records requirements.
                                        parameter monitoring
                                        exceedances for CMS.

[[Page 78316]]

 
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Reporting opacity or     No.....................  Subpart EEEEE does not
                                        visible emission                                  include opacity or
                                        observations.                                     visible emissions
                                                                                          limits.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess emission reports  No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                                                                          reporting
                                                                                          requirements.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  Reporting COMS data....  No.....................  Subpart EEEEE does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
63.11................................  Control device           No.....................  Subpart EEEEE does not
                                        requirements.                                     require flares.
63.12................................  State authority and      Yes....................  .......................
                                        delegations.
63.13-63.15..........................  Addresses of State air   Yes....................  .......................
                                        pollution control
                                        agencies and EPA
                                        regional offices.
                                        Incorporation by
                                        reference.
                                        Availability of
                                        information and
                                        confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-31234 Filed 12-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P