[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21906-21940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8977]



[[Page 21905]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 21906]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0034; FRL-7554-5]
RIN 2060-AE43


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates 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 standards 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. When fully 
implemented, the final rule will reduce HAP emissions from iron and 
steel foundries by over 820 tons per year (tpy).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The official public docket is available for public viewing 
at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Cavender, Metals Group (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
                     Category                        code \1\            Examples of regulated 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry 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 
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034 and Docket ID No. A-
2000-56. The official public docket consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. All items may not be 
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect 
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials 
relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official public 
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. The official public docket is available for public viewing at 
the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 
Reading Room 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 Docket Access. You may access the final rule 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    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 view public comments, 
access the index listing the contents of the official public docket, 
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available 
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket identification number. Although not all docket 
materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of 
the publicly available docket materials through EPA Dockets. (See 
Docket No. A-2000-56 in the Air Docket).
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's final rule is also available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the 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.
    Judicial Review. This action constitutes final administrative 
action on the proposed NESHAP for iron and steel foundries (67 FR 
78274, December 23, 2002). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 
21, 2004. Only those objections to the NESHAP which were raised with 
reasonable specificity during the public comment period may be raised 
during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements that are

[[Page 21907]]

the subject of today's final rule may not be challenged separately in 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these 
requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What Is the Affected Source?
    B. What Are the Emissions Limitations?
    C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Requirements?
    D. What Are the Requirements for Demonstrating Initial and 
Continuous Compliance?
    E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
    F. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental, and Energy 
Impacts?
IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
    A. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Affected Source Designation?
    B. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Emissions Limits?
    C. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Work Practice Standards?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
VI. Statutory Authority

I. Background

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us (the EPA) to establish 
national emission standards for all categories and subcategories of 
major sources of HAP and for area sources listed for regulation under 
section 112(c). 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. Area sources are stationary sources of HAP that are not major 
sources. Additional information on the NESHAP development process can 
be found in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 78274).
    We received a total of 83 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP 
from trade associations, individual plants, consultants, vendors, State 
agencies, environmental groups, and private citizens. We provided a 60-
day comment period and held a public hearing on January 22, 2003 to 
provide the opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, or 
arguments concerning the proposed rule.
    Today's final rule reflects our full consideration of all the 
comments we received. A detailed response to all the comments is 
included in the Background Information Document (BID) for the 
Promulgated Standards (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034).

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Is the Affected Source?

    The affected source is each new or existing iron and steel foundry 
that is a major source of HAP emissions. A new affected source is an 
iron and steel foundry for which construction or reconstruction began 
after December 23, 2002. An existing affected source is an iron and 
steel foundry for which construction or reconstruction began on or 
before December 23, 2002. The final rule defines an ``iron and steel 
foundry'' as:

    A facility or portion of 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 final or near final shape 
products for introduction into commerce. Research and development 
facilities and operations that only produce non-commercial castings 
are not included in this definition.

    The final rule covers emissions from metal melting furnaces, scrap 
preheaters, pouring areas, pouring stations, automated conveyor and 
pallet cooling lines that use a sand mold system, automated shakeout 
lines that use a sand mold system, and mold and core making lines. The 
final rule also covers fugitive emissions from foundry operations.

B. What Are the Emissions Limitations?

    The final rule includes emissions limits for metal and organic HAP 
as well as operating limits for capture systems and control devices. 
Particulate matter (PM) and opacity serve as surrogate measures of 
metal HAP emissions; emissions limits for total metal HAP are included 
as alternatives to the PM limits. The final rule also includes 
emissions limits for volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) and triethylamine 
(TEA). Except for the fugitive emissions opacity limit, each of the 
emissions limits apply to emissions discharged to the atmosphere 
through a conveyance. The term ``conveyance'' means the system of 
equipment that is designed to capture pollutants, convey them through 
ductwork, and exhaust them using forced ventilation. The opacity limit 
for fugitive emissions applies to each building or structure housing 
any emissions source at the iron and steel foundry. The emissions 
limitations and work practice requirements are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Emissions limit or work practice
          Emissions source                         standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric arc metal melting furnace,   0.005 grains per
 electric induction metal melting     dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)
 furnace, or scrap preheater at an    of PM; or
 existing iron and steel foundry.     0.0004 gr/dscf
                                      of total metal HAP.
Cupola metal melting furnace at an    0.006 gr/dscf of
 existing iron and steel foundry.     PM; or
                                      0.0005 gr/dscf
                                      of total metal HAP.
Cupola metal melting furnace or       0.002 gr/dscf of
 electric arc metal melting furnace   PM; or
 at a new iron and steel foundry.     0.0002 gr/dscf
                                      of total metal HAP.
Electric induction metal melting      0.001 gr/dscf of
 furnace or scrap preheater at a      PM; or
 new iron and steel foundry.          0.00008 gr/dscf
                                      of total metal HAP.
All metal melting furnaces.........   Scrap
                                      certification; or
                                      Scrap selection
                                      and inspection program.
Pouring station at an existing iron   0.010 gr/dscf or
 and steel foundry.                   PM; or
                                      0.0008 gr/dscf
                                      of total metal HAP.
Pouring area or pouring station at    0.002 gr/dscf of
 a new iron and steel foundry.        PM; or
                                      0.0002 gr/dscf
                                      of total metal HAP.
Fugitive emissions from a building    20 percent
 or structure at a new or existing    opacity, except for one 6-minute
 iron and steel foundry.              average per hour that does not
                                      exceed 27 percent opacity.
Cupola metal melting furnace at a     20 parts per
 new or existing iron and steel       million by volume (ppmv) of VOHAP,
 foundry.                             corrected to 10 percent oxygen.

[[Page 21908]]

 
Scrap preheater at an existing iron   Direct contact
 and steel foundry.                   gas-fired preheater; or
                                      Scrap
                                      certification; or
                                      20 ppmv of
                                      VOHAP.
Scrap preheater at a new iron and     20 ppmv of
 steel foundry.                       VOHAP; or
                                      Scrap
                                      certification.
Automated conveyor and pallet         20 ppmv VOHAP
 cooling lines and automated          (flow-weighted average).
 shakeout lines that use a sand
 mold system at a new iron and
 steel foundry.
TEA cold box mold and core making     1 ppmv of TEA or
 line at a new or existing foundry.   99 percent emissions reduction, as
                                      determined when scrubbing with
                                      fresh acid solution.
Furan warm box mold and core making   No methanol in
 line at a new or existing foundry.   the catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule requires a capture system for those emissions 
sources subject to VOHAP or TEA limits. You (the owner or operator) 
must establish operating limits for identified capture system parameter 
(or parameters) that are appropriate for assessing capture system 
performance. At a minimum, the limits must indicate the level of 
ventilation draft and damper position settings. You must operate the 
capture systems at or above the lowest value or setting established in 
the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan.
    If you use a wet scrubber to control PM or total metal HAP 
emissions from a metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area, 
or pouring station, the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate must not fall below the minimum levels established during the 
initial (or subsequent) performance test. If you use a combustion 
device to control VOHAP emissions from a cupola metal melting furnace, 
the 15-minute average combustion zone temperature must not fall below 
1,300 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Periods when the cupola is off blast 
and for 15 minutes after going on blast from an off blast condition are 
not included in the 15-minute average. If you use a combustion device 
to control VOHAP emissions from a scrap preheater or TEA cold box mold 
or core making line, the 3-hour average combustion zone temperature 
must not fall below the minimum level established during the initial 
(or subsequent) performance test. If you use a wet acid scrubber to 
control TEA emissions, the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate 
must not fall below the minimum level established during the initial 
(or subsequent) performance test and the 3-hour average pH level of the 
scrubber blowdown (or the pH level during a production shift) must not 
exceed 4.5.
    Operating limits do not apply to control devices for automated 
conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines that use 
a sand mold system at a new iron and steel foundry. The final rule 
requires a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for these 
emissions sources. However, the final rule includes procedures for 
requesting alternative monitoring requirements. To obtain approval of 
alternative monitoring requirements, you must submit a monitoring plan 
containing information needed to demonstrate continuous compliance 
along with performance test results showing compliance with the 
emissions limit.
    The final rule also includes work practice standards. Facilities 
must meet certification requirements for their charge materials or 
develop and implement a scrap selection and inspection program to 
minimize the amount or organics and HAP metals in furnace charge 
materials. The certification option requires the foundry to purchase 
and use only certified-metal ingots, pig iron, skittle, or other 
materials that do not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, 
post-consumer engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead 
components, mercury switches, plastics, or organic liquids. The scrap 
selection plan option requires scrap specifications, a certification 
that the scrap supplier has implemented procedures to remove mercury 
switches and lead components from automotive scrap, and visual 
inspection procedures to ensure materials meet the specifications.
    The owner or operator of an existing iron and steel foundry must 
install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater where the flame 
directly contacts the scrap charged. As alternative compliance options, 
the owner or operator may meet a 20 ppmv limit for VOHAP emissions or 
may charge to a preheater only materials subject to the scrap 
certification requirement. The owner or operator of a new iron and 
steel foundry must meet the 20 ppmv limit for VOHAP emissions and the 
operating limit for combustion devices. As an alternative compliance 
option for new scrap preheaters, the owner or operator must meet the 
scrap certification requirements.
    Plants with a furan warm box mold or core making line at a new or 
existing iron and steel foundry must use a binder chemical formulation 
that contains no methanol, as listed in the Material Data Safety Sheet. 
This requirement applies to the catalyst portion (and not the resin 
portion) of the binder system.

C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    All foundries must prepare and follow a written operation and 
maintenance (O&M) plan for capture systems and control devices. The 
plan must include operating limits for capture systems; requirements 
for inspections and repairs; preventative maintenance procedures and 
schedules; and procedures for operation of bag leak detection systems 
(including corrective action steps to be taken in the event of a bag 
leak detection system alarm). The plan also must contain procedures for 
igniting gases from mold vents in pouring areas and pouring stations 
that use sand mold systems. These procedures may consider the 
ignitability of the mold gases, accessibility to the molds, and safety 
issues associated with igniting the gases.
    The final rule also requires a startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
plan that meets the requirements in Sec.  63.6(e) of the NESHAP General 
Provisions. The plan must include procedures for operating and 
maintaining the emissions source during periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction and a program of corrective action for malfunctioning 
process equipment, air pollution control systems, and monitoring 
systems. The final rule requires that the plan also include a 
description of the conditions that constitute a shutdown of a cupola 
and normal operating conditions following startup of a cupola. The 
owner or operator may use the standard operation procedures manual for 
the emissions source or other type of plan if it meets EPA's 
requirements. For more information on startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plans, see the amendments

[[Page 21909]]

to the NESHAP General Provisions published on May 30, 2003 (68 FR 
32586).

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

Emissions Limits
    Foundries must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting 
performance tests for all emissions sources subject to an emissions 
limit. To determine compliance with the metal HAP emissions limits, EPA 
Methods 1 through 4, and either Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I, as 
applicable (to measure PM) or Method 29 (to measure total metal HAP) 
are required. To determine compliance with the organic HAP limits, 
foundries can use EPA Method 18 to measure VOHAP, Method 25 to measure 
total gaseous nonmethane organics (TGNMO) as hexane, or Method 25A to 
measure total organic compounds (TOC) as hexane. All of these methods 
are in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    The performance test requirements for automated conveyor and pallet 
cooling lines and automated shakeout lines at new foundries allow you 
to either meet the 20 ppmv emissions limit directly using the volatile 
organic compound (VOC) CEMS to measure total hydrocarbons (as a 
surrogate for VOHAP) or to establish a site-specific VOC limit for the 
CEMS that is correlated to the VOHAP emissions limit. The final rule 
also includes procedures for computing the flow-weighted average of 
multiple exhaust streams from automated conveyor and pallet cooling 
lines or automated shakeout lines, and for determining compliance for 
combined emissions streams. Procedures for establishing operating 
limits for capture systems and control devices, and revising the 
limits, if necessary or desired, after the initial performance test are 
given in Sec.  63.7733 of the final rule. Previous performance tests 
(conducted since December 22, 2002) may be used to establish operating 
limits.
    Monitoring of capture system and control device operating 
parameters is required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operating limits. These requirements include bag leak detection systems 
for baghouses and continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) for 
capture systems (unless damper positions are fixed) and control 
devices. For wet acid scrubbers, the final rule allows plants to 
measure the pH every 8 hours during process operations using a pH probe 
and meter as an alternative to a pH CPMS. The owner or operator of 
automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines 
that use a sand mold system at a new iron and steel foundry must 
monitor organic HAP emissions using a CEMS unless they apply for 
alternative monitoring requirements. Technical specifications, along 
with requirements for installation, operation, and maintenance of CPMS 
and CEMS, are included in the final rule. Records are required to 
document compliance with the monitoring, inspection, and maintenance 
requirements for monitoring equipment. The final rule requires 
performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the PM (or total metal HAP), VOHAP, and TEA emissions limits and 
every 6 months to demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity 
limit for fugitive emissions. Subsequent performance tests are not 
required for foundries that demonstrate continuous compliance using a 
CEMS.
Work Practice Standards
    No performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance 
with the work practice standards. Foundries must certify that they have 
prepared the required plans, have installed a direct flame contact gas-
fired scrap preheater if applicable (or that they will comply by 
meeting the 20 ppmv emissions limit or by only preheating scrap that 
meets the scrap certification requirements), that they will meet each 
applicable work practice requirement, and that they have records 
documenting their certification.
    Records are required to demonstrate continuous compliance with 
compliance certifications or to document conformance with their scrap 
inspection and selection plan. Foundries also must keep records of the 
chemical composition of all catalyst binder formulations applied in a 
furan warm box mold or core making line.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    Foundries must certify in their notification of compliance status 
that they have prepared the O&M plan and that the plant will operate 
equipment according to the plan requirements. Records are required to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with other requirements in the O&M 
plan for capture systems, control devices, and bag leak detection 
system corrective actions. To demonstrate continuous compliance with 
the plan for mold vent ignition, foundries must make a compliance 
certification in each semiannual report that they have followed the 
procedures in their O&M plan.

E. What Are the 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 final rule) shows 
each of the requirements in the General Provisions (Sec. Sec.  63.1 
through 63.15) and whether they apply.
    The major notifications include one-time notifications of 
applicability (due no later than 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 no later than 60 days after the compliance demonstration if a 
performance test is required or no later than 30 days after the 
compliance demonstration if no performance test is required.
    Foundries are 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. Records of annual usage, chemical 
composition, and HAP content are also required for chemical binders and 
coating materials. 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 are to 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 rule requirements.)
    All foundries must 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 is 
required. More detailed information is required in the report if a 
deviation did occur. An immediate report is required if actions taken 
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

F. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

    Existing iron and steel foundries must comply with most 
requirements by April 23, 2007. The final rule requires existing 
foundries to comply with the work practice standards in Sec.  
63.7700(b)

[[Page 21910]]

or (c), as applicable, by April 22, 2005. New or reconstructed iron and 
steel foundries that start up on or before April 22, 2004 must comply 
by April 22, 2004. New or reconstructed iron and steel foundries that 
start up after April 22, 2004 must comply upon initial startup.

III. 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 in the final rule. Overall, we expect 
the final rule to reduce HAP emissions by more than 820 tpy. The NESHAP 
will also reduce PM and VOC emissions by about 2,550 tpy. 
Implementation of scrap selection and inspection procedures is expected 
to reduce mercury emissions by 1.4 tpy--an 80 percent reduction from 
current levels.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The total annualized cost of the final rule is estimated at $21 
million, including costs for control equipment, compliance tests 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. This cost also 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 final rule is about $188 
million. The capital costs associated with the final 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. This capital cost is estimated at $175 million 
and 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 
2.2 (i.e., the cost of installing a baghouse at an existing facility 
was estimated to be 2.2 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). 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 final rule is 
actually estimated to be less than the cost of operating the current 
control equipment for cupolas. Therefore, there will be a net savings 
in the annual operating and maintenance costs for baghouses over 
venturi scrubbers of $6 million.
    The cost impacts also include:
     The cost of installing and operating baghouses 
on currently uncontrolled electric induction metal melting furnaces;
     The cost of installing and operating baghouses 
on currently uncontrolled pouring stations;
     The cost of installing and operating wet acid 
scrubbers for currently uncontrolled TEA cold box mold and core making 
lines;
     The cost of installing and operating monitoring 
equipment (predominantly baghouse leak detection systems) for emissions 
sources; and
     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 final rule. The compliance costs are estimated to 
increase the price of iron and steel castings by 0.1 percent with 
domestic production declining by 8,400 tons in aggregate. The analysis 
also indicates no impact on the market price for foundry coke, which is 
used by cupolas in the production of iron castings. Foundry coke 
production is projected to decrease by less than 0.1 percent.
    Through the market impacts described above, the final rule is 
predicted to have distributional impacts across producers and consumers 
of iron and steel castings. Consumers would incur $13.2 million of the 
overall regulatory burden of the final rule ($21.2 million) because of 
higher prices and forgone consumption. Domestic producers of iron and 
steel castings are expected to experience profit losses of $9.0 million 
due to compliance costs and lower output levels, while foreign 
producers may experience profit gains of $1 million associated with the 
higher prices. For more information, consult the economic impact 
analysis that is available in the docket.

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

    The final rule will generally provide positive secondary 
environmental and energy impacts. Replacing cupola wet scrubber control 
systems with baghouses will increase emissions of sulfur oxides by 370 
tpy. However, due to the lower energy requirements for operating a 
baghouse versus a wet scrubber, which more than offset the energy 
requirements of the other new control equipment, the final rule is 
projected to result in a net reduction in annual energy consumption of 
121,000 megawatt hours per year. This will lead to a reduction in 
emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from power plants of 
roughly 180 tpy and 370 tpy, respectively. Therefore, the final rule 
will have no net impact on emissions of sulfur oxides. There is 
uncertainty about the estimates of secondary emission reductions due to 
energy savings because we have not conducted a detailed analysis that 
identifies the fuel sources used at power plants from which the energy 
savings will be realized. Furthermore, the SO2 emission 
reduction estimates may be overstated if the national cap on 
SO2 emissions is binding. The replacement of wet scrubbers 
with baghouses is also responsible for the final rule's estimated 18.1 
billion gallons per year reduction in water consumption and waste water 
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 final rule is estimated to be approximately the same as, if 
not less than, the current solid waste disposal rates.

IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses

A. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Affected Source Designation?

    Comment: Industry commenters felt the metal casting department 
should be separated into two separate affected sources: a melting 
department and a casting department. The commenters also suggested that 
we clarify that a foundry may contain multiple affected sources of a 
single type, such as more than one melting department, which may be 
operationally different and physically removed from each other. Some 
commenters felt that HAP emissions from melting are insignificant and 
suggested that this process either be excluded as an affected source or 
listed as a separate source category and then delisted.
    Response: We considered splitting the metal casting department into 
a melting department and a casting processing department. This further 
classification of the affected sources might have been appropriate 
because the melting furnaces (melting department) are often separate 
from the pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines (casting processing 
department). However, most commenters requesting a change in the

[[Page 21911]]

affected source or separate source categories thought that we could 
then either de-list melting departments or that the emissions from the 
melting department could be excluded from emissions limitations. Even 
if the melting department were a separate source category or affected 
source, these sources would still be co-located at major source 
facilities, and we would still be required to develop MACT standards 
for them. Furthermore, we do not consider emissions exceeding 100 tpy 
of metal HAP from melting furnaces to be de minimis as suggested by 
industry. Consequently, it is necessary and appropriate to establish 
MACT standards for these emissions sources.
    A secondary rationale for requesting a change in the affected 
source was the fear of triggering new source MACT requirements. 
However, upon clarification that defining the melting department as a 
separate source would not eliminate the requirements to control melting 
furnace emissions, these commenters supported a broad definition of the 
affected source.
    Therefore, in response to these comments, we have written the final 
rule to include a broader definition of the affected source (i.e., the 
iron and steel foundry). This broad definition eliminates a somewhat 
artificial separation of the mold and core making processes, which can 
often occur in close proximity, if not in conjunction with the casting 
(pouring) operations. This approach also avoids instances where an 
existing foundry might make minor equipment changes that might subject 
one process or a single piece of equipment subject to the new source 
emissions limits. This could occur if the affected source was defined 
as each ``metal melting department'' which could be delineated as each 
melting furnace at the foundry.

B. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Emissions Limits?

Metal Melting Furnaces
    Comment: Most industry commenters opposed the proposed PM limit for 
melting furnaces and scrap preheaters, especially at a new affected 
source (i.e., the 0.001 gr/dscf). According to the commenters, the 
limit cannot be maintained on a continuous basis, will not be 
guaranteed by vendors, will result in high costs, will be subject to 
measurements errors, and stretches the capability of Method 5 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A). Several commenters stated that the emissions 
reductions that would be achieved did not warrant the costs associated 
with the PM limits. Five commenters stated that the MACT floor 
determination did not adequately account for inherent variability and 
operation under the worst foreseeable conditions. Another commenter 
stated that it was inappropriate to apply any variablity factor in 
establishing the MACT floor emissions limits. One commenter noted that 
a limit based on the 95th percentile of performance would suggest that 
the unit is out of compliance 5 percent of the time.
    Several commenters stated that the EPA should not specify the 
control equipment in establishing the new source PM emissions limits, 
that the facility EPA used for new source MACT for cupolas was not 
representative, or that the more stringent limit was a disincentive to 
modernize plants. Two commenters noted that the vendor guarantee for 
the facility is 0.0016 gr/dscf (instead of 0.001 gr/dscf as reported by 
EPA) because the guarantee was 0.001 in grains per actual cubic feet. 
While two equipment vendors stated that they could not guarantee a long 
term performance of 0.001 gr/dscf, a representative for control device 
vendors stated that the 0.001 gr/dscf PM emissions limit for new 
sources is reasonable and appropriate and that a variety of fabric 
collector designs can achieve similar results. Most commenters 
recommended a limit of 0.005 gr/dscf or 0.0052 gr/dscf (which was 
proposed as the limit for certain new operations at integrated iron and 
steel plants). One commenter suggested a limit of 0.002 gr/dscf because 
baghouses achieving an average outlet PM concentration of 0.001 gr/dscf 
would be out of compliance with a limit of 0.001 gr/dscf about half the 
time.
    Response: The CAA directs EPA to set limits that are at least as 
stringent as the MACT floor. For existing units, the MACT floor is the 
average emissions limitation achieved in practice by the best 
performing 12 percent of the existing units (for which we have 
emissions information). The MACT floor for new sources must not be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar source. Consequently, the comments related to 
vendor guarantees and high costs are not relevant in establishing the 
MACT floor for new and existing sources.
    We disagree that the limit will result in significant measurement 
errors or that it stretches the capability of Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A). We require a minimum gas volume of 60 dry standard cubic 
feet (dscf) to ensure that sufficient PM is collected to evaluate the 
compliance of the emissions source with the PM emissions limits. In 
addition, the practical quantification limit for Method 5 is a 
filterable PM catch of 3 milligrams (mg), which is 0.0463 grains (gr). 
At the practical quantification limit of 3 mg of PM collected from 60 
dscf of gas, the practical quantification limit of Method 5 as required 
in the rule is less than 0.0008 gr/dscf. If less than 3 mg of dust is 
collected during a test in which at least 60 dscf of gas are collected, 
we have reasonable assurance that the emissions source is in compliance 
with a 0.001 gr/dscf PM emissions limit. Without a minimum gas volume 
of 60 dscf, we could not confidently establish that an emissions source 
meets the 0.001 gr/dscf emissions limit.
    As noted by the commenters, the emissions limits must be achieved 
at all times, and it is important that the MACT floor limit adequately 
account for the normal and unavoidable variability in the process and 
in the operation of the control device. The choice of selecting the 
90th, 95th, or 99th percentile performance value depends largely on the 
adequacy of the data. As there were only 10 to 15 emissions tests for a 
given type of unit or source with which to assess the performance and 
variability of baghouse control systems, selecting a higher percentile 
range is appropriate to reflect additional uncertainty. In response to 
comments concerning the potential variability in process and control 
system performance and in recognition of the fact that the available 
emissions data are from a fairly limited number of short-term tests, we 
have re-evaluated the MACT floor determination using the 99th 
percentile of performance. This approach is designed to account for the 
different sources of variability, including variations in how the 
process is operated, changes in control device parameters, and 
variability associated with sampling and analysis.
    By selecting the 99th percentile, we have sufficiently accounted 
for process operation, control device performance, and measurement 
variability. The 99th percentile is appropriate in this case because it 
accounts for the extreme end of the range of performance that could 
occur. Based on this re-evaluation of the MACT floor limits, we have 
adjusted the floor for cupolas at existing sources from 0.005 gr/dscf 
to 0.006 gr/dscf. We have adjusted the floor for cupola and electric 
arc furnaces at new sources from 0.001 gr/dscf to 0.002 gr/dscf. This 
new source limit of 0.002 gr/dscf is consistent with the vendor 
guarantee when corrected from actual to standard conditions (0.0016 gr/
dscf).
    We do not believe that setting a limit at the 95th or 99th 
percentile means that the emissions source will be out of

[[Page 21912]]

compliance 5 percent or 1 percent of the time. Through proper operation 
and maintenance of the control device and process equipment, the owner 
or operator can avoid periods of poor performance. As such, a properly 
operated and maintained control device applied to normal process 
operations should not experience performance levels that exceed the 
limit. In the rare event of an unavoidable failure such as a 
malfunction, the owner or operator can continue to demonstrate 
compliance by following the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan. If the limit is exceed as a result of variability 
that can and should be controlled (i.e., a preventable event), then the 
event is a deviation.
    We understand industry concerns over the representativeness of the 
test data for one of the foundries that was mentioned. Fortunately, 
emissions test data are available for an equivalent control system that 
does not control an additional process which might dilute the 
emissions. The performance level for this system is also a PM emissions 
limit of 0.002 gr/dscf. Consequently, the limit for new sources is not 
dependent only on the source test data from the one facility cited by 
the commenters.
    Unlike cupolas and electric arc furnaces, the furnace control 
system that represents MACT for electric induction furnaces at new 
sources is a traditional baghouse, followed by a cartridge filter, 
followed by a high energy particulate air filter. The limit for this 
system is still 0.001 gr/dscf when evaluated at the 99th percentile. 
Therefore, the data clearly support that MACT for electric induction 
furnaces at new sources is 0.001 gr/dscf.
    In the final rule, we have established emissions limits for the 
emissions sources and do not require a specific type of control device. 
Foundry owners or operators may use any control measure that will meet 
the applicable standard. In trying to understand the differences in the 
performance achieved by certain systems, we evaluated and compared 
baghouse design, cleaning mechanism, flow rate, temperature, fabric 
material, and air-to-cloth ratio for each system as operated during the 
emissions source test. Certainly a number of these factors influence 
the performance of a fabric filter control system. In evaluating the 
performance of the cupola control systems, the horizontally-designed 
baghouses exhibited the best performance of the systems tested. The 
description regarding these systems was provided primarily to document 
why the low outlet PM concentrations observed were real and not the 
result of an unknown source testing error. We do not endorse any 
specific baghouse design.
    Because the affected sources will be required to comply with the 
emissions limits at all times, the limits established must account for 
the normal and unavoidable variability inherent in the process and in 
the control device operation. The emissions rate for a given emissions 
source does vary over time, as is demonstrated by the variability seen 
between individual test runs and repeat tests. As such, the MACT floor 
should not be developed based on the stack test data without accounting 
for variability. For each facility for which we have stack test 
emissions data, we have estimated the emissions limitation that the 
facility can achieve on a continuous basis by applying statistics to 
the available emissions data to estimate the emissions rate that 
facility can achieve at least 99 percent of the time.
    In summary, we have established emissions limits for both new and 
existing emissions sources and have not specified the type of control 
system that must be used. For cupolas and electric arc furnaces, MACT 
for new sources is 0.002 gr/dscf, reflecting the 99th percentile level 
of performance of the median unit in the top 12 percent of best-
performing units. The MACT floor for cupolas at existing foundries is 
0.006 gr/dscf, reflecting the 99th percentile level of control of the 
median unit in the top 12 percent of best-performing units. These 
limits reflect our conclusion that the proposed 0.001 gr/dscf limit for 
cupolas and electric arc furnaces at new foundries and the 0.005 gr/
dscf limit for cupolas at existing foundries did not adequately account 
for the variability expected in the actual performance of the units 
that were used to establish the MACT floor for these emissions sources. 
The 0.001 gr/dscf limit for electric induction furnaces and the 0.002 
gr/dscf emissions limit for cupolas and electric arc furnaces at new 
foundries represent emissions limits that the best-performing sources 
can and do meet under the most adverse circumstances which can 
reasonably be expected to recur.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the final rule include 
emissions limits for individual metal HAP. The commenters suggested 
that PM is not a good surrogate for lead (which is a semi-volatile 
metal) or mercury (which typically has low collection efficiencies in 
baghouses) and does not consider the hazard of the emitted pollutants. 
In addition, the metal HAP in the PM from some emissions sources 
comprise only a small portion of emissions from the emissions source or 
the overall foundry and has not been characterized for other emissions 
sources.
    Response: As described in our MACT floor documentation, metal HAP 
emissions reductions tracked well with PM emissions reductions for the 
cupola control systems we tested. Reductions in lead emissions also 
tracked well with PM emissions reductions. Mercury emissions were a 
small component of the total metal HAP emissions, but both control 
systems tested by EPA were ineffective in reducing mercury emissions. 
Therefore, we do not consider these add-on control devices to be 
control technologies for the purpose of reducing mercury emissions. The 
only effective method for reducing mercury emissions at iron and steel 
foundries is scrap metal selection and inspection to prevent mercury 
contamination of the furnace charge. For all other metal HAP emissions 
from metal melting furnaces, the test data show that effective PM 
emissions control also provides effective metal HAP emissions control. 
In addition, PM is a reasonable surrogate for metal HAP emissions 
control effectiveness because MACT is a technology-based standard, and 
the technologies currently used by foundries that reduce metal HAP 
emissions are those specifically designed to control PM. Additionally, 
it is clear from our data the greater the PM reductions are for a 
specific unit, the greater are the HAP reductions. Thus, we have 
concluded that it is appropriate to use PM as a surrogate for HAP 
metals because the unit that achieves the greatest level of control of 
PM will also achieve the greatest level of control of metal HAP. As 
discussed in the following response, we have also developed an 
alternative limit for total metal HAP. Finally, to the extent that it 
is feasible to reduce metal HAP emissions by means other than operation 
of emission control devices, we are requiring such measures. 
Specifically, we are requiring a scrap selection and inspection program 
to reduce lead and mercury emissions. These requirements combined with 
the PM limits accurately reflect the MACT level of control.
    Comment: Two commenters oppose the use of PM as a surrogate because 
some foundries melt only high quality steel with very low tramp metal 
content in the induction furnaces rather than scrap iron. Consequently, 
their uncontrolled melting furnaces may have lower HAP emissions than 
those from a baghouse on a furnace melting scrap with higher levels of 
tramp metals. We also received comments that some foundry operations, 
such as dry scrubbing for sulfur dioxide control,

[[Page 21913]]

may result in disproportionately high PM emissions without 
correspondingly high metal HAP emissions.
    Response: As discussed in our previous response, PM is a good 
surrogate for HAP metals other than mercury. However, we recognize that 
the metal HAP content of the PM can vary significantly depending on the 
type of metal cast. Some foundries may have very low metal HAP 
emissions due to very low HAP content in their casting. We also 
recognize that it is infeasible for all foundries to use scrap with 
very low HAP metal content because of the limited supply of such scrap 
and because various levels of certain elements are needed in certain 
grades and types of iron and steel casting. Also, when foundries use 
scrubbing techniques for reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, they may 
have unusually high PM emissions without correspondingly high HAP 
emissions. Therefore, while PM is a good surrogate with which to judge 
the performance of a control system to reduce metal HAP emissions, we 
realize that it is only a surrogate and not a direct measure of HAP 
emissions, and that in some cases the PM limit may have unwarranted 
consequences. For the above reasons, we are establishing alternative 
total metal HAP emissions limits that are equivalent to the PM limits. 
The alternative metal HAP limits are based on, and are dependent on the 
MACT limits for PM.
    Having identified the appropriate level of control based on PM 
performance, we re-examined our data on metal HAP emissions and 
evaluated the metal HAP emissions as a percent of the PM emissions. We 
evaluated metal HAP emissions to project the range of metal HAP 
emissions as a percent of PM associated with the performance of the 
type of control system used by the unit identified as the MACT floor 
emissions unit. That is, by normalizing the HAP emissions data by the 
PM emissions and aggregating these data for the various emissions 
sources being regulated, we calculated a reasonable estimate of the 
magnitude and variability of the HAP content as a percent of PM for 
these sources. By applying this information to the specific system that 
established the MACT floor PM emissions limits for each source type, we 
developed a total metal HAP emissions limit for each source type that 
is based on the performance of the MACT floor unit. Each total metal 
HAP limit is equivalent to the corresponding MACT floor PM emissions 
limit. We used this calculation to develop alternative limits for total 
metal HAP for melting furnaces and pouring operations.
    The basis of this alternative emissions limit is the MACT floor 
determination for PM emissions. Because we lack sufficient test data 
for metal HAP, we could not otherwise derive a metal HAP emissions 
limit without first identifying the MACT floor unit on the basis of its 
PM emissions performance. Therefore, we concluded that this total metal 
HAP emissions limit is an alternative to the PM emissions limit, and 
not an additional MACT floor requirement.
    We developed a distribution of the PM emissions for each emissions 
source based on the actual performance of the unit identified as the 
6th percentile unit and the same 0.4 relative standard deviation used 
to determine the MACT floor performance limits. A separate distribution 
based on the available metal HAP emissions data was developed to 
characterize the total metal HAP content of the emitted PM. Using Monte 
Carlo techniques, 5,000 randomizations were generated for each of these 
distributions and the projected metal HAP emissions were calculated for 
each of the 5,000 randomizations. This is a common statistical approach 
for establishing a distribution for a parameter that is dependent on 
multiple, variable parameters.
    As with the MACT floor determination of PM emissions performance, 
we selected the 99th percentile metal HAP concentrations determined 
from these distributions. These metal HAP emissions limits were 
equivalent to approximately 8 percent of the 99th percentile PM 
emissions limit (i.e., the MACT floor PM emissions limit) for each of 
the emissions sources. That is, this analysis indicated that the total 
metal HAP emissions limit that is equivalent to the MACT floor PM 
emissions limit can be calculated by multiplying the PM emissions limit 
by 0.08 (i.e., assuming the PM is 8 percent metal HAP). The final metal 
HAP emissions limits were rounded to one significant digit in keeping 
with the relative accuracy of the assessment.
    As the identification of the unit that represents the MACT floor is 
solely dependent on the PM emissions performance, these metal HAP 
emissions limits do not represent a separate MACT floor that must be 
met at all emissions sources, but rather an alternative emissions limit 
that is equivalent to the MACT floor PM emissions limit. The 
alternative metal HAP emissions limits provide foundry operators with 
more flexibility in meeting the metal HAP emissions limits (for 
example, by adopting a scrap program that is more stringent than the 
MACT requirement, in conjunction with PM emissions controls to further 
reduce metal HAP emissions). This alternative also avoids, in some 
cases, the need for replacing well-performing venturi wet scrubbers 
with high efficiency baghouses to achieve a required PM emissions 
reduction when other measures might be used to achieve the desired 
metal HAP emissions reduction. The alternative also accommodates 
facilities that may have disproportionate PM emissions but low HAP 
emissions, as in the case for dry scrubbers used to control sulfur 
dioxide.
    Comment: More than twenty industry commenters opposed the proposed 
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions limit for cupolas (200 ppmv). Several of 
these commenters stated that CO data from CEMS and CO monitors show 
that the limit cannot be achieved. They explained that the cupola 
operation is a dynamic process that is affected by changes in the melt 
rate and iron chemistry, which requires the CO combustor to adjust and 
seek a new equilibrium; CO concentrations are highly variable even in 
the best afterburner systems. The material being melted, coke sources, 
and seasonal adjustments also affect CO emissions. One vendor stated 
that his company could not guarantee equipment that can meet the 200 
ppmv CO emissions limit. The commenters also suggested that the CO 
limit is based on the Illinois emissions standard, which was found to 
be improperly derived and never enforced.
    Five commenters stated that EPA failed to provide sufficient data 
that maintaining a CO concentration of 200 ppmv is an effective 
surrogate for organic HAP destruction, while two commenters supported 
the use of CO as a surrogate for HAP. One commenter asked why VOC was 
not used as the surrogate for organic HAP emissions from the cupolas.
    Response: The proposed CO emissions limit was based upon the 
emissions source test data for CO emissions from cupolas; it was not 
based upon the Illinois CO emissions limit. Two of the CO emissions 
tests used to develop the 200 ppm CO emissions limit were from 
foundries located in New Jersey, where CO CEMS are required. Therefore, 
EPA requested CO CEMS emissions data from these foundries to verify the 
performance of these systems and to better understand the variability 
associated with the process. Data were received from one of these 
foundries which supported the assertion that the 200 ppmv limit did not 
adequately accommodate the variability in the process operations and 
control device performance. Additionally, emissions test data were

[[Page 21914]]

also received from a cupola-afterburner system that measured CO and VOC 
(minus methane) emissions concurrently. For the individual runs of this 
test, the average outlet CO concentrations were 701, 1470, and 849 
ppmv, while the average VOC emissions were 3.4, 4.2 and 5.1 ppmv as 
propane. This limited data supports the industry commenters' assertion 
that organic HAP emissions (as indicated by VOC emissions) are not well 
correlated, although there is a limited range of CO and VOC emissions 
considered in this single emissions test.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, CO is an 
indicator of good (complete) combustion, but, at some lower level of 
CO, further reductions in CO concentrations do not necessarily result 
in further reductions of organic HAP. That is, we recognize that CO is 
not a perfect surrogate for organic HAP emissions from the best-
performing units, but it is a surrogate for which emissions data were 
available and one that provides a reasonable indication of adequate 
combustion characteristics. However, based on the comments and the 
additional data received, we agree that we do not have sufficient data 
to support the establishment of a specific CO concentration limit as a 
surrogate for the organic HAP emissions performance of a cupola 
afterburner system.
    We reviewed the submitted data and other data in the docket for VOC 
and organic HAP for the best-controlled cupolas (those using 
afterburners). These data are too limited to identify the level of 
performance of the best-performing units or to establish a specific 
organic HAP or VOC emissions limit. Therefore, we rely on our 
experience with the performance of thermal destruction systems such as 
these afterburners. This experience clearly indicates that these units 
should be able to meet a 98 percent destruction efficiency or an outlet 
concentration of 20 ppmv (as the chemical emitted), whichever is less 
stringent. However, due to safety issues associated with typical 
equipment configurations, sampling between the cupola chamber and the 
afterburner is impracticable and unsafe. Therefore, we provide only the 
20 ppmv exhaust concentration alternative. The limited available data 
on organic HAP emissions from cupola afterburners suggest that the 20 
ppmv emissions limit is achievable and reflects the level of 
performance of the best controlled units, and that the 98 percent 
reduction alternative is not needed for this application.
    Furthermore, we establish this emissions limit as the sum of all 
volatile organic HAP (or VOHAP) emitted, thereby eliminating the need 
to select a surrogate. However to provide flexibility in conducting the 
performance tests, we are providing compliance alternatives to allow 
for demonstration of compliance using test methods to measure TGNMO or 
TOC concentrations (in ppmv as hexane). These test method alternatives 
will measure both HAP and non-HAP compounds, and will, therefore, 
ensure that a unit is meeting an emissions level as stringent or more 
stringent than the VOHAP emissions limit. However, these test methods 
are cheaper and easier to perform, and therefore, these options may be 
desirable for some sources. Hexane was selected for the concentration 
equivalency because the primary HAP expected to be emitted are C6 
hydrocarbons or higher (e.g., benzene, toluene, and xylenes).
    Comment: While one commenter supported the proposed rule 
requirement for direct measurement of CO emissions from cupolas using a 
CEMS, many industry commenters were opposed. They argued that the final 
rule should include an operating limit for the afterburner temperature 
measured by a CPMS. According to the commenters, a CO CEMS is not 
technically feasible or reliable because of the harsh conditions of the 
gas stream, and it is costly while achieving minimal benefit.
    Response: We have deleted the requirement for a CO CEMS from the 
final rule because the CO limit has been replaced by a limit for VOHAP 
emissions. The autoignition temperature of the organic HAP present in 
the cupola exhaust stream (primarily benzene, toluene, and xylenes) is 
lower than the autoignition temperature of CO, which is 1,300 [deg]F. 
Therefore, an adequately designed afterburner operating at a minimum of 
1,300 [deg]F will effectively ensure combustion of the organic HAP. 
Once a performance test indicates that the cupola afterburner is 
sufficiently engineered (in terms of excess air flow, residence time 
and mixing) to achieve the required VOHAP emissions limit, then 
continuous monitoring of combustion zone temperature will provide 
adequate assurance of continuous compliance. Therefore, we require 
foundry operators to install and operate a CPMS for combustion zone 
temperature, and we require that the 15-minute average combustion zone 
temperature must not fall below 1,300 [deg]F. Periods when the cupola 
is off blast and for 15 minutes after going on blast from an off blast 
condition are not included in the 15-minute average.
    Comment: Several industry commenters objected to the proposed VOC 
emissions limit for scrap preheaters (20 ppmv as propane or 98 percent 
reduction). The commenters contended that the VOC limit based on 
afterburning technology does not meet the requirements for determining 
the MACT floor because only 4 or 5 of 169 preheaters nationwide (3 
percent) currently use afterburners. The commenters stated that there 
is no basis for the proposed limit, there are no data indicating the 
presence of organic HAP in preheater emissions, and improvements in 
direct flame preheaters have made the afterburners an outdated 
technology. Commenters also stated the existing units cannot achieve 20 
ppmv because of process variability and the likely presence of 
uncombusted methane from the preheater, which can contribute 
significantly to the VOC concentration, especially when measured as 
propane.
    Response: Based on the information available at the time the 
proposed rule was developed, it appeared that more than 6 percent of 
the scrap preheaters were controlled by afterburners. However, we have 
confirmed that, as the commenters suggested, one foundry that had 
reported using afterburners had subsequently upgraded their material 
handling system and installed direct flame preheater systems. With this 
change, the median of the top 12 percent of units is no longer a unit 
using an afterburner, but a unit using a direct flame preheater.
    There are two basic types of preheater designs: direct flame 
contact preheaters and hot gas flow preheaters. Direct flame contact 
preheaters primarily use gas-fired burners where the flame impinges on 
the scrap. The primary heating mechanism for direct flame contact 
preheaters is the burner flames contacting the scrap. Hot gas flow 
preheaters may use gas-fired burners or electricity to heat air and the 
hot air (and combustion gases from the burner, if applicable) is used 
to preheat the scrap. In hot gas flow preheaters, the scrap is not 
heated by direct contact with a high temperature flame. Preheaters are 
used primarily to remove water and organic contaminants that could 
cause explosions or other hazards when the scrap is melted in induction 
furnaces. Although both types of preheaters are effective for this 
purpose, the different preheater designs have different HAP emissions 
potentials.
    For preheaters generally, we require a scrap selection and 
inspection program to limit, to the extent practicable, the amount of 
organic HAP precursors (i.e., oils and other organic liquids) entering

[[Page 21915]]

a scrap preheater, and we are establishing a work practice standard to 
require either preheaters with direct flame contact or application of 
an afterburner. Because the scrap selection and inspection program 
cannot completely exclude the potential presence of tramp organic 
materials, scrap preheaters are a potential source of organic HAP 
emissions. Furthermore, we could not identify specific scrap selection 
and inspection programs for these types of scrap materials that would 
be more effective than those proposed. Therefore, the primary variable 
affecting the organic HAP emissions from scrap preheaters is the 
preheater design. Additionally, it is not feasible to capture and 
convey emissions from all preheaters at existing foundries because of 
certain design and operational constraints, such as preheaters with 
moving grates, interferences with overhead moving cranes, and lack of 
space. However, preheaters at new foundries can be designed to capture 
and convey emissions prior to construction.
    Based on an engineering assessment of the scrap preheater designs 
and control systems, units that operate with an external combustion 
system (afterburner) are expected to be the best performing for organic 
HAP emissions. The next most effective control is the use of direct 
flame contact preheaters, which have lower organic HAP emissions than 
hot gas flow (indirect heating) preheaters because organic contaminants 
in the scrap are thermally destroyed by direct contact with the 
preheater flame. We ranked scrap preheater systems according to their 
projected organic HAP destruction efficiency based on the heating 
methods that are used. From this analysis, we identified the MACT floor 
unit as one that uses natural gas, direct flame, scrap preheating (used 
at well over 12 percent of existing sources). The direct flame contact 
provides efficient destruction of organic HAP, and organic HAP control 
is improved when combined with the requirements of the scrap selection 
and inspection program. Moreover, many of the direct flame contact 
preheaters use an open burner design where the burners are directed 
onto the scrap, even when the preheater uses a moving grate system 
where it is not feasible to collect the emissions through a conveyance. 
Therefore, we believe a work practice standard is appropriate, and we 
are requiring foundry owners and operators to use direct flame contact 
preheaters. However, we are allowing foundries to use a properly 
designed and operated afterburner as a compliance option for the 
preheater MACT standard because an afterburner on either a direct flame 
or indirect flame preheater will result in better control of organic 
emissions than the use of direct flame preheating alone. This option is 
reflected by an alternative standard of 20 ppmv VOHAP. Furthermore, we 
also conclude that afterburners are not a cost-effective ``beyond-the-
floor'' technology for existing preheaters based both on the costs 
associated with redesigning the burner configuration to allow capture 
and control of the emissions and the small amount of additional 
emissions reductions achieved by the additional afterburner control.
    The MACT floor for scrap preheaters at new sources, however, is 
still based on an afterburner control system. As discussed when 
considering the performance limits for cupola afterburners, we believe 
that a 20 ppmv emissions limits is still appropriate, but that the 20 
ppmv limit should be based on specific VOHAP and should not necessarily 
include uncombusted methane emissions.
    We have acknowledged that all foundries cannot completely eliminate 
organic contaminants from their scrap. However, some foundries use only 
scrap that can be certified to be free of the organic contaminants. In 
the final rule, we distinguish two general grades of scrap in the scrap 
selection and inspection program. Under a certification program, 
foundries can certify that they use only certified-metal ingots, pig 
iron and similar material that do not contain organic contaminants. 
Foundries that use scrap without organic contaminants will not generate 
organic HAP emissions from their scrap, regardless of the type of 
preheater used. Most foundries that use this type of material are small 
production foundries, and most of these are not major sources of HAP 
emissions. However, this may be a potentially viable alternative for 
some major source foundries as well. Therefore, we provide a compliance 
option for scrap preheaters that charge only clean scrap as described 
by the certification alternative in the scrap selection and inspection 
program. The compliance option for scrap preheaters that charge clean 
scrap at new and existing iron and steel foundries is the work practice 
of charging only material that has been certified to comply with the 
scrap certification alternative in the scrap selection and inspection 
program.
    In summary, based on comments received and changes in the control 
configurations used at the top 12 percent of scrap preheaters, we 
revised the organic HAP MACT floor for scrap preheaters. The MACT floor 
for scrap preheaters at existing sources is the work practice of using 
a gas-fired preheater in which the gas flame directly contacts the 
scrap. Alternatively, scrap preheaters at existing sources can meet a 
20 ppmv VOHAP emissions limit (with alternatives of measuring TGNMO or 
TOC as hexane as a surrogate for VOHAP). MACT for scrap preheaters at 
new iron and steel foundries is the 20 ppmv VOHAP emissions limit. 
Also, we provide an alternative compliance option for preheaters at new 
and existing foundries that charge only clean scrap as described in the 
certification alternative of the scrap selection and inspection 
program. In this case, owners or operators need only certify that their 
preheater heats only scrap as described in the scrap certification 
alternative.
    Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirement for direct 
measurement of VOC emissions from scrap preheaters and pouring, 
cooling, and shakeout (PCS) lines. The commenters believed that CEMS 
are not practical for scrap preheaters or justifiable (technically or 
economically) for PCS lines. Some commenters noted that VOC 
measurements for scrap preheaters and PCS lines would be more accurate 
with calibration by xylene or toluene rather than propane. One 
commenter explained that most HAP emitted from foundries have six 
carbons or more. Therefore, the VOC measurement should be calibrated 
with toluene or xylene as these would provide a better measure of VOC 
emissions than propane.
    Response: The point concerning the representativeness of propane to 
characterize the HAP emissions is well-taken. Even though a wide 
variety of HAP are expected to be emitted from these sources, an 
analysis of the available VOHAP emissions data indicate that the 
average carbon number for the VOC emitted from these operations is six. 
Additionally, the historical documents where EPA has established the 20 
ppm VOC emissions limit indicates that it was established by compound 
exit concentration rather than by a specified indicator of VOC, such as 
propane. Therefore, based on the available data and a review of the 
basis for VOC measurements, we have adjusted the organic HAP emissions 
limits to either measure VOHAP concentrations directly or to measure 
TOC using hexane as the calibration gas (i.e., measure VOC outlet 
concentrations as hexane or C6 equivalents) as a surrogate for VOHAP. 
These organic HAP emissions limits now apply to cupolas (at new and 
existing foundries),

[[Page 21916]]

scrap preheaters (at new foundries and as an alternative at existing 
foundries), and automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and 
automated shakeout lines that use sand mold systems (at new foundries).
    Although a VOC CEMS is technically feasible for these applications, 
especially for new foundries, a review of the relative costs associated 
with these monitoring requirements compared to the control equipment 
costs to achieve the emissions limits does not appear to justify the 
requirement to install and operate VOC CEMS for cupola afterburners or 
scrap preheaters. Furthermore, for cupolas and scrap preheaters which 
use thermal destruction, the combustion zone (or flame) temperature 
provides an excellent indicator of on-going control device performance. 
Therefore, alternative continuous parameter monitoring requirements for 
these emissions sources can be used that will ensure continuous 
compliance with the emissions limit without undue additional costs. No 
alternative continuous parameter monitoring requirement could be 
identified for the cooling and shakeout operations. As the organic HAP 
emissions limits only apply to automated conveyor and pallet cooling 
lines and automated shakeout lines that use a sand mold system at a new 
iron and steel foundry, we maintained the VOC CEMS requirement for 
these emissions sources. We provide options to either meet the 20 ppmv 
VOHAP limit directly using the VOC CEMS (measuring total hydrocarbons 
as hexane) or to develop an equivalent site-specific VOC CEMS emissions 
limit based on the results of the VOHAP emissions measured during the 
performance test. The VOC CEMS actually measures total hydrocarbons, 
which includes non-HAP compounds. As a result, using a VOC CEMS to 
directly measure total hydrocarbons may be more stringent than the 
site-specific VOC limit correlated to measured VOHAP emissions.
    We also included procedures in the final rule that will allow other 
monitoring methods to demonstrate compliance with the VOHAP emissions 
limit. For example, if you use a carbon adsorption system to control 
organic HAP emissions, appropriate monitoring parameters may include 
carbon breakthrough by replacing the carbon at specified frequencies. 
Other compliance methods, such a pollution prevention (P2) techniques, 
also may be used to meet the VOHAP emissions limit. If you use P2 
techniques, appropriate monitoring methods may include measuring loss 
on ignition or recording the type of binder formulation used, total 
chemical usage rate, and/or chemical usage rate per volume of sand. If 
through P2 measures you can eliminate all HAP emissions from the 
emissions source or you can demonstrate continued HAP emissions 
reductions equal to or better than the MACT level of control, you may 
be eligible for a P2 compliance alternative under amendments to the 
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These amendments 
were proposed on May 15, 2003 (68 FR 26249).
    The procedures in the final rule require that you submit a 
monitoring plan that includes a description of the control technique 
(or P2 measures), a description of the continuous monitoring system or 
method (including appropriate operating parameters to be monitored), 
test results demonstrating compliance with the emissions limit, 
operating limit(s) if applicable determined according to the test 
results, and the frequency of measuring and recording to establish 
continuous compliance. If applicable, you also must include operation 
and maintenance requirements for the monitor(s).
Pouring, Cooling, and Shakeout
    Comment: Several commenters requested that we clarify the 
applicability of the emissions limits with regard to ``pouring areas'' 
and ``shakeout.'' In general, large area casting producers requested 
that we remove reference in the definition of ``pouring area'' to 
maintaining the molds in a stationary position through cooling. One 
commenter requested that the definition for ``shakeout'' be revised to 
indicate that it is a mechanical operation, typically automated, and 
does not include manual operations that dismantle or separate castings 
from molds as seen in pouring areas. The change is needed because 
otherwise such manual operations may be subject to the requirements for 
new lines; however, it is infeasible to capture and control these 
operations, especially when they involve large castings in a pouring 
area.
    Other commenters pointed out that centrifugal and permanent molds 
have very low organic content compared to sand molds. The commenters 
recommended that these systems be subcategorized and stated that the 
MACT floor for pouring, cooling, and shakeout for these operations at 
new sources would be no control.
    Response: We agree with some of the commenters suggestions for 
clarifying definitions. We examined the data and found that no cooling 
lines associated with floor or pit molding operations are currently 
controlled for organic HAP emissions. Of the three cooling lines that 
have end-of-pipe controls, two are automated conveyor lines and one is 
a pallet line. One of the foundries that has a carbon adsorption unit 
performs both pallet and floor molding; however, only the pallet 
cooling line is controlled.
    Based on this information and in response to comments, we removed 
the proposed rule definition of ``pouring, cooling, and shakeout line'' 
and adjusted the proposed rule definition of ``pouring area'' to 
clarify that it includes floor and pit molding processes. In addition, 
the molds in a pouring area do not have to remain stationary for the 
duration of mold cooling. We also adjusted the proposed definition of 
``pouring station'' to clarify that it means the fixed location to 
which molds are brought by an automated conveyor or pallet molding 
line. We added a definition for ``automated conveyor and pallet cooling 
line'' (i.e., cooling lines associated with pouring stations) and 
``floor and pit cooling operation'' (i.e., a cooling operation 
associated with a pouring area). We also removed the proposed rule 
definition of ``shakeout'' and added a definition for ``automated 
shakeout line'' that distinguishes automated shakeout operations from 
manual knockout operations. The purpose of these revisions is to 
clarify that the 20 ppmv VOHAP limit for a new iron and steel foundry 
applies only to automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and to 
automated shakeout lines.
    As discussed in the BID for the final standards, permanent and 
centrifugal molds have significantly lower organic HAP emissions than 
green sand molds. Our re-evaluation of new source MACT for organic HAP 
demonstrates the need for a subcategorization of permanent and 
centrifugal molds for cooling and shakeout. For this reason, we also 
adjusted the VOHAP limit for new foundries to apply only to lines 
(automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and automated shakeout 
lines) that use a sand mold system.
Capture Systems
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the requirement of a 
minimum face velocity of 200 feet per minute (ft/min) has no underlying 
MACT floor basis and that it does not account for variability. Numerous 
commenters stated that a blanket requirement of 200 ft/min is not 
universally applicable and it is not consistent with good engineering 
design. Other commenters stated that the capture requirements creates a 
safety hazard, increases energy requirements

[[Page 21917]]

(for building heating and air conditioning), and creates defects in the 
castings (especially during pouring).
    Several commenters noted that indoor air quality is regulated by 
other agencies and stated that when a process is operated in a manner 
that limits worker exposure (e.g., so as to comply with standards 
established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), then 
there is no basis for requiring stricter capture and ventilation 
standards. Another commenter noted that adjustments to individual fans 
for workers, which were installed for worker comfort, can change air 
flow in the surrounding area and impact face velocity, making it 
difficult to maintain compliance with the standard. Consequently, the 
requirement to maintain a minimum of 200 ft/min face velocity would 
require much higher design and operating face velocities in order to 
ensure continuous compliance, increasing energy consumption with no 
demonstrable environmental benefit.
    A few commenters stated that it was technically infeasible to 
install close capture hoods on their induction furnaces, pouring 
stations, or pouring areas due to process configurations and 
accessibility limitations. The only option would be to evacuate the 
entire building at huge costs and energy requirements for very limited 
HAP emissions reduction.
    One commenter noted that their foundry has reduced VOC and HAP 
emissions by judicious reductions in capture and collection, and that 
the prescriptive ventilation requirement would reduce operator 
flexibility and may increase HAP emissions. Another commenter noted 
that they had received a patent for controllers that limit air 
ventilation at times of lower emissions, which saves heating and energy 
costs without impairing air quality.
    Most of the commenters recommended that the final rule require that 
existing capture systems be operated consistent with good engineering 
practices and consistent with the facility's operation and maintenance 
plan. Two commenters recommended requiring a best engineering design 
based on the ``Industrial Ventilation Manual of Recommended Practice.''
    Response: Due to the comments received regarding the capture system 
requirements, we have decided to eliminate the 200 ft/min capture 
velocity requirement. In the final rule, we require that capture 
systems be designed and operated according to accepted engineering 
practices, such as the ``Industrial Ventilation Manual of Recommended 
Practice.'' Periodic inspection, maintenance, and continuous parametric 
monitoring are required to ensure they are properly operated and 
maintained on a continuing basis.
    Additionally, we agree that there are process configurations and 
designs for which capture is infeasible, impractical, and ineffective. 
For example, capture systems at some iron and steel foundries would 
interfere with the movement of overhead cranes used to move large 
molds. Some pouring areas cover several thousand square feet, which 
makes capture impractical because of the enormous evacuation rate that 
would be needed. Physical constraints and space limitations, such 
inadequate clearance between equipment and structural columns, also 
pose problems for installing capture systems. For operations that 
cannot feasibly be captured, the emissions from the operation are 
released into the interior of foundry buildings and may be emitted as 
fugitive emissions through roof vents, doors, and other openings. We 
specifically require control of such fugitive emissions as described 
above.
Opacity Limit
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that fugitive emissions 
from miscellaneous sources not be included because the control of these 
emissions would be costly and will not contribute to a significant 
reduction in HAP emissions. These commenters do not believe an opacity 
limit for fugitive emissions is necessary or appropriate. One commenter 
noted that an opacity limit of 5 percent would be beyond the MACT 
floor. The commenter stated that they have two plants regulated under a 
single permit that included a 5 percent opacity limit as a condition to 
proposed modifications. Modifications have been completed to one of the 
plants to meet this limit and modifications are planned at the other 
plant (at an investment of $3 to $11 million) to enable them to meet 
the permit limit by December 2004.
    On the other hand, two commenters stated that EPA needs to set a 
limit for fugitive emissions and also develop work practices to control 
fugitive emissions. One of the commenters submitted a summary of dust 
analysis results surrounding a steel foundry indicated elevated levels 
of several HAP, including chromium (total), lead, manganese, and 
nickel, near the foundry. The commenter suggested that these elevated 
metal HAP emissions are due largely to uncontrolled fugitive emissions 
from the foundry.
    Response: The CAA directs EPA to establish standards under section 
112(d) to reduce emissions of HAP from stationary sources, and 
expressly includes fugitive emissions. Our data indicate that there are 
significant sources of fugitive HAP emissions at iron and steel 
foundries. Fugitive HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries include 
un-captured metal fumes from metal melting and pouring operations. The 
available emissions data clearly demonstrates that metal fumes from 
these sources contain metal HAP including manganese, lead, and other 
heavy metals. Additionally, commenters have submitted data regarding 
the elevated HAP content in dust surrounding one foundry, and suggested 
that fugitive emissions may have contributed to these high HAP 
concentrations. In general, it is clear that fugitive emissions 
contribute to the overall HAP emissions from foundry operations. 
Moreover, such fugitive emissions are often subject to emission 
limitations.
    Our evaluation indicates that these fugitive emissions have been 
effectively regulated by establishing opacity limits. We examined State 
regulations for fugitive emissions and found that almost all States 
apply an opacity limit for the buildings that house the process 
equipment. We ranked the regulations and chose the most stringent 
(Michigan's limit of 20 percent with one exception per hour up to 27 
percent) because at least 6 percent of the foundries are subject to 
this limit. This opacity limit represents the MACT floor for existing 
sources and is the primary standard for fugitive emissions.
    This opacity limit is indicative of the achievable performance of 
these foundries under the most adverse circumstances that can 
reasonably be expected to recur. Based on observations of visual 
emissions at a number of iron and steel foundries, this opacity limit 
can be achieved at well controlled foundries. Furthermore, we know of 
no facility that is currently subject to, and able to meet, a more 
stringent opacity limit. One commenter appears to be in the process of 
trying to meet a 5 percent opacity, but the overall regulated facility 
(which consists of two plants) has yet to be able to meet this limit, 
and as such, we do not consider the 5 percent opacity limit achieved. 
Therefore, we conclude that the MACT floor for fugitive emissions from 
new sources is the same as for existing sources (20 percent opacity 
except for one 6-minute average per hour not to exceed 27 percent) 
because this is the emissions limit required of the best performing 
facility, and we believe this

[[Page 21918]]

emissions limit is indicative of the actual emissions limitations 
achieved by these facilities under the most adverse circumstances that 
can reasonably be expected to recur. The opacity limit applies 
specifically to fugitive emissions from the foundry buildings, and 
fugitive emissions are defined as all releases to the atmosphere that 
are not discharged through a conveyance.
Mold and Core Making
    Comment: Several industry representatives commented that the 
scrubbers evaluated for MACT appeared to be operating with fresh acid 
solution with a pH below 2. However, contractors who recycle used TEA 
will not accept material with a pH less than 2. One commenter felt that 
recyclers would not accept the scrubber solutions because of the low pH 
that would result from the 1 ppmv emissions limit. Commenters also 
questioned the technical validity of the 1 ppmv emissions limit, 
especially for systems with high inlet TEA concentrations. The 
commenters recommended that we adjust the proposed operating limit for 
wet acid scrubbers to require operating within manufacturer's 
specifications, maintaining the pH at 4.5 or less, and assess 
performance in terms of percent removal as specified by the 
manufacturer.
    Response: The commenters' point regarding the test data being 
representative of TEA scrubber performance with fresh acid solution is 
well-founded. All of the available TEA scrubber performance data was 
generated from tests that used fresh acid solution (pH of 2 or less). 
Discussions with control equipment vendors indicate that the scrubbers 
are designed to operate at a scrubbing solution pH of 4.5 or lower. 
Discussions with foundry operators, as well as the public comments 
received, indicate that these foundries replace the scrubbing solution 
when the pH reaches either 4.5 or 5, depending on the foundry. As 
recycling of the TEA in the scrubbing solution is environmentally 
beneficial, we do not want to preclude the recycling of TEA by 
establishing a very low pH operating limit during the performance test. 
Also, because the performance limits were derived from test data of 
systems with fresh acid solution, it is not necessarily appropriate to 
require foundries to meet an emissions limit with spent acid solution 
(i.e., a pH nearing 4.5) when the data used to establish the 
performance limit of the scrubbers were all based on performance with 
fresh acid solution (i.e., a pH of 2 or less). From the information 
collected regarding the operation of these systems, at least 12 percent 
of the units replace the scrubbing solution at a pH of 4.5 or less 
(rather than at a pH of 5 or less). No units were identified that 
replaced the scrubbing solution at a pH of 4.0 or less. Therefore, 
replacing the scrubber solution at a pH of 4.5 or less is 
representative of MACT floor operating conditions for these scrubbing 
systems at new and existing iron and steel foundries.
    The data used to establish the performance of the wet scrubber 
systems were also limited in that we have no data for systems with 
inlet TEA concentrations greater than 250 ppmv. Based on comments 
received from both foundry and TEA scrubber vendor representatives, the 
TEA systems are designed to achieve a percent removal of TEA and that 
the 1 ppmv limit is not achievable for systems with inlet TEA 
concentrations in the 1,000 ppmv range or higher. We believe that these 
are valid concerns and that a percent reduction alternative is 
warranted for systems with high TEA concentrations. After reviewing the 
source test data and the operating parameters associated with the TEA 
scrubber at the best-performing sources, we concluded that the MACT 
floor performance of the TEA scrubbers is correctly defined as a 99 
percent or more TEA removal efficiency or an outlet TEA concentration 
of 1 ppmv or less, as determined when the system is operated with fresh 
scrubbing media. These emissions limits are consistent with the 
available data that establish the MACT floor level of control, and the 
operating limits are consistent with the operation of the best-
performing TEA acid scrubbers.
    For these reasons, we adjusted the proposed emissions limit to 
require the owner or operator to reduce TEA emissions from a TEA cold 
box mold or core making line at a new or existing foundry by at least 
99 percent or to a level that does not exceed 1 ppmv, as determined 
when scrubbing with fresh acid solution. We also adjusted the proposed 
operating limit to require that the 3-hour average pH of the scrubber 
blowdown not exceed 4.5. We also added compliance provisions to 
implement these new requirements. Plants must conduct an initial 
performance test to establish that the TEA scrubber is correctly 
designed to meet the required emissions limit and to establish the 
minimum flow rate of scrubbing media that must be maintained. 
Continuous compliance is established by maintaining the scrubber media 
flow rate at or above the limit established during the performance test 
and maintaining the pH of the scrubbing media at or below a pH of 4.5.

C. Why Did We Revise the Proposed Work Practice Standards?

Scrap Selection and Inspection
    Comment: We received about 20 comments from foundries and recyclers 
on the proposed work practice standards. Most believed that the 
requirements are unnecessary because the emissions limits for organic 
HAP already require capture and control. They stated that cupolas are 
both designed for and capable of handling some of the restricted 
material, such as oily scrap, and a cupola is the most environmentally 
acceptable process in which to recycle these materials.
    Response: We proposed a single scrap selection and inspection 
requirement regardless of the type of melting furnace used. Upon 
consideration of the public comments and data submitted regarding used 
oil filter recycling, we agree that a cupola, properly controlled with 
an afterburner, provides a safe and environmentally beneficial means of 
recycling oily scrap. That is, our test data and engineering analyses 
indicate that the afterburner will destroy organic compounds resulting 
from the melting of oily scrap. Therefore, we have included a specific 
provision that allows oily scrap in cupolas as long as it is drained of 
free liquids and an afterburner is used that meets specific design and 
operating requirements to ensure destruction of organic compounds.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that we include additional 
specifications or a requirement to ensure that no mercury switches are 
included in the scrap. These requirements are needed to reduce mercury 
emissions from the furnaces. These commenters provided information on 
programs to remove mercury switches from automobile scrap and the 
potential reductions in mercury emissions when this scrap is melted. 
Other commenters stated that restrictions on HAP metals in scrap were 
unnecessary because the melting furnaces have PM controls and are 
subject to emissions limits for PM.
    Response: Although there are provisions for metal HAP emissions 
control for all furnace types, mercury is not well-controlled by these 
control systems because of its volatility. We agree with the commenters 
that removing mercury switches from automobile scrap is the best 
technique to reduce mercury emissions from melting furnaces. We 
researched programs currently in place for the removal of mercury 
switches. We found that there are some mandatory and voluntary programs 
that are being

[[Page 21919]]

implemented by the States to remove mercury switches from end of life 
vehicles. However, we could not confirm that the removal of mercury 
switches would be part of the floor of a scrap inspection program for 
iron and steel foundries because some programs were voluntary and 
others affected scrap recyclers rather than foundries. We evaluated the 
costs and emissions reductions of mercury switch removal and found that 
the removal of mercury switches associated with convenience lighting 
was cost effective. The switches are readily accessible, and for 
automobiles manufactured in 2001 and earlier, they account for the vast 
majority of mercury in automobile components. We estimate that such a 
program could achieve annual mercury reductions of 2,800 pounds at an 
annual cost of only $3.6 million. This evaluation indicates that it is 
a reasonable and cost effective beyond-the-floor alternative. 
Consequently, we incorporated requirements into the scrap inspection 
program to address the removal of mercury switches from under hoods and 
trunks.
    We also considered the feasibility of the removal of the small 
amount of mercury that may be used in flat panel displays used in 
entertainment and navigation systems and in some headlamps. These uses 
of mercury comprise only 1 percent of that used in automobiles 
historically, such as convenience light switches. The small amount of 
mercury, poor accessibility to the mercury, and the costs of removal 
indicated that removal of mercury from these small applications was not 
a cost effective alternative for beyond the MACT floor.
    There are several other efforts underway to reduce the use of 
mercury switches in automobiles and to remove them from end of life 
vehicles. The U.S. automobile industry has committed to removing 
mercury convenience lighting switches from new automobiles. The 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a trade association of car and 
light truck manufacturers) reports that the use of mercury in 
automobile components has been reduced to 1 percent of the level used 
in the 2001 calendar year. Several States and EPA have initiated 
programs, such as legislative efforts, pilot projects, and outreach 
campaigns to facilitate the removal of mercury switches from automobile 
scrap, which is particularly important for vehicles manufactured in 
2001 and earlier. These efforts supplement the scrap inspection program 
in the final rule and will help to ensure continued reductions in 
mercury emissions in the future.
    Several commenters also expressed concerns that lead may not 
necessarily be well-controlled by these systems depending on the 
operating temperatures of the control system. Although the data for the 
two cupola control systems that we tested indicated excellent control 
of lead emissions, experience with a variety of PM control systems at 
other industries (but similar types of emissions) indicate that lead 
removal efficiency may be reduced at higher temperatures. In addition, 
many plants already limit and inspect for lead components, and many 
such components are identifiable in scrap. Our analysis of the 
practices currently used by iron and steel foundries indicates that 
preventing or removing identifiable lead components in scrap is part of 
the MACT floor. Therefore, we have included requirements restricting 
lead components in scrap. However, we have eliminated restrictions for 
other metal components, such as galvanized parts, both because it is 
difficult to distinguish these parts from other scrap metals and 
because the metal HAP that might be released during the melting process 
are low in volatility and are well controlled by PM control devices 
over the range of temperatures that these devices operate.
    Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that we write the final 
rule to include specifications with restrictions on the amount of free 
liquids, grease, oil, and plastic parts; procedures to inspect a 
representative number of scrap shipments (e.g., 10 percent), and 
procedures to ensure that oily turnings are properly drained of free 
liquids. These commenters also stated that the requirement to perform 
the inspections at the best vantage point was nebulous and makes 
compliance difficult to ensure. One commenter requested that we write 
the final rule to exempt any foundry from the scrap inspection and 
recordkeeping requirements if they use certified metal ingots that do 
not contain HAP.
    Response: We reconsidered the practicality and, in some cases, the 
vagueness of the proposed scrap inspection program. These commenters 
have offered several suggestions that will improve the program, and we 
have written the scrap selection and inspection requirements to 
incorporate many of these suggestions. For example, we realize it is 
impractical and almost impossible to inspect all shipments, so we 
require inspection of representative shipments (but not less than 10 
percent of the shipments). The undefined best vantage point for 
performing the inspections has been revised to a reasonable vantage 
point. We also clarified that a continuing scrap inspection program is 
not necessary for those foundries that do not use scrap containing the 
HAP generating contaminants if they meet compliance certification 
requirements for their furnace charge materials. These adjustments and 
the resulting requirements are consistent with the practices at the 
best-controlled foundries and are representative of the MACT floor.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA require foundries to 
implement the work practice requirements that will reduce mercury 
emissions (i.e., scrap selection and inspection program) within 1 year 
of the effective date. The commenters pointed out that most foundries 
already have these programs in place and no control equipment is needed 
that might require more time to install. Implementing these 
requirements sooner would result in greater reductions in mercury 
emissions especially considering the phase out of mercury switches in 
new automobiles.
    Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestions and see no 
reason why foundries can not implement the scrap selection and 
inspection program or certification requirements sooner. While owners 
or operators of iron and steel foundries are provided 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule to comply with other requirements, we 
are requiring that existing iron and steel foundries comply with the 
scrap selection and inspection program in Sec.  63.7700(b) or the 
certification requirements in Sec.  63.7700(c) within 1 year of the 
effective date of the final rule.
Mold and Core Making
    Comment: Several commenters opposed the proposed requirement to 
manually light off molds because some molds do not produce gases that 
will support combustion, and they would automatically ignite if they 
were combustible. It is not practical to inspect each mold vent at high 
production foundries, and in some cases, hoods or enclosures make it 
impractical and unsafe to manually ignite and inspect vents. Some 
commenters stated that the requirements are burdensome and unclear with 
respect to how to demonstrate compliance (e.g., how quickly they must 
be lit, how long must they burn, and does the requirement depend on 
mold size and binder type). Others stated that EPA has not demonstrated 
that mold light off represents the MACT floor and presented no data to 
show that HAP emissions would be reduced.

[[Page 21920]]

    Response: From our observations of foundry operations, ignition of 
mold vents was a standard operating procedure, although we recognize 
that ignition of mold vent gasses generally occurs spontaneously. In 
reviewing the public comments, it is evident that the requirements, as 
proposed, had several significant short-comings. For foundries with 
mold vents that are not ignitable, there must be a mechanism to 
document this fact, they should not be required to try to manually 
ignite every mold vent, and it should not be necessary to keep records 
of which mold vents did not ignite. In addition, we did not intend to 
endanger the safety of the workers through this requirement. Finally, 
we did not intend to limit mold light off to only manual means. The use 
of natural gas pilot flames in automated cooling lines to light off 
mold vents is certainly acceptable; consequently, we adjusted the 
requirement to manually ignite the gases.
    There is no doubt that mold vent gases contain HAP and that the 
ignition of the mold vent gases will reduce the HAP emissions that 
occur due to mold off-gassing. Therefore, we have not eliminated 
requirements for mold vent light off, but we have significantly revised 
the requirements. The final rule incorporates the mold vent ignition 
requirements into the O&M plan. The plan must include procedures for 
providing an ignition source to mold vents unless the owner or operator 
determines the gases either are not ignitable, ignite automatically, or 
cannot be ignited due to legitimate accessibility or safety reasons. 
Criteria are included for determining ignitability. The final rule 
requires that foundries document and maintain records of this 
determination.

Coating and Binder Formulations

    Comment: We received one comment supporting the proposed 
requirement for non-HAP coating formulations. We also received many 
comments from industry representatives opposing the total elimination 
of HAP. Most of these commenters asked us to allow HAP compounds in 
small percentages in coatings when they are needed to achieve the 
physical and chemical properties required by the coating 
specifications. One commenter explained that there is a small but 
specialized need for methanol-based coatings. The methanol-based 
coatings are designed for light off in which the flammable components 
are consumed so that minimal methanol is released to the environment. 
Methanol used as a carrier in the coating could be replaced, but not 
methanol used as an active ingredient in the coating. While methanol 
has been replaced in many cases by water, methanol in small quantities 
is needed in coatings as a biocide or surfactant. Several commenters 
suggested that Material Safety Data Sheets be used to satisfy 
recordkeeping requirements.
    Response: After considering the numerous comments and the technical 
details associated with this issue, we concluded that we could not show 
that prohibiting methanol in this application would be a cost-effective 
beyond-the-floor option. In addition, we cannot show that it is 
technically feasible in all cases, considering the specialized use of 
methanol in some applications and the unknown effect on the quality of 
certain products that must meet coating specifications. For these 
reasons, we deleted the proposed requirement for non-HAP coating 
formulations from the final rule. Consistent with our intent to have 
foundries consider the HAP content and potential HAP emissions from 
their coating formulations, we are applying recordkeeping requirements 
to HAP used in coatings. These include requirements to record annual 
chemical usage rates for each binder system, annual HAP specific usage 
rates for each binder system, and total HAP usage rate by the foundry. 
These records will identify those systems with the highest HAP usage 
rates and make it easier for foundries to focus on opportunities to 
reduce the HAP content.
    Comment: Several commenters said the no methanol requirements 
placed on furan warm box binder systems should be removed because they 
were beyond the floor and had not been justified. Also, there is no 
assurance that binders without methanol can provide the quality of 
castings that is needed. The commenters explained that the catalyst 
portion of the binder system is water-based in most current 
formulations, but the resin portion of the binder system typically 
contains up to 5 percent methanol as a stabilizer for the resin. 
Therefore, the no methanol requirement for furan warm box systems 
should be clarified to limit the requirement of no methanol only to the 
catalyst and should allow up to 5 percent methanol in the resin 
material. One commenter recommended that EPA defer all specific binder 
reformulation requirements until residual risk standards; this will 
allow time to complete testing on low-emitting binder systems. Another 
commenter recommended that all specific binder reformulation 
requirements be deleted because they limit greener alternatives from 
being evaluated.
    Response: The proposed no methanol requirement was not based on a 
beyond-the-floor analysis; it was based on the fact that over 40 
percent of the mold and core making lines using the furan warm box 
system (based on responses to a detailed industry survey) had switched 
from a methanol-based catalyst. However, it appears that we 
mischaracterized the extent to which methanol can be eliminated from 
the furan warm box system. The survey responses used to establish the 
MACT floor specifically indicated that the conversion was performed 
only for the catalyst portion of the binder system. The comments we 
received verify that conversion to a no-methanol or water-based 
catalyst is technically feasible. Therefore, we revised the requirement 
for furan warm box binder systems to indicate that foundries must use a 
furan warm box catalyst that does not include methanol as a specific 
ingredient as listed in the Material Data Safety Sheet. We also revised 
this provision to clarify that the requirement does not apply to the 
resin portion of the binder system. Methanol is allowed in the resin 
portion of the binder system. The final rule also requires plants to 
maintain records of all catalyst binder formulations.
    Comment: While one commenter supported the proposed requirement for 
naphthalene-depleted solvents in binders for phenolic urethane cold box 
or nobake mold or core making lines, several commenters opposed the 
requirement. According to these commenters, EPA should delete the 
requirement because it is beyond the floor and unjustified. Three 
commenters stated that naphthalene-depleted solvents may increase VOC 
emissions and that EPA had underestimated the cost. One commenter added 
that the proposed requirement would be ineffective because naphthalene-
depleted solvents contain other HAP. The proposed requirement may 
require expensive tooling modifications and product testing if cores 
are changed, and there is no assurance that binders without naphthalene 
will be capable of providing the quality of castings that is needed, 
will work at all foundries, or will be available for all major source 
foundries. Some commenters recommended that EPA encourage 
environmentally friendly resins using New Source Review Clean 
Technology concepts and have foundries report on the results. Others 
recommended requiring a study or deferring the requirement until the 
residual risk is evaluated.
    Response: Based on a review of the comments and upon further 
analysis, we determined that the requirement for naphthalene-depleted 
solvents is not warranted. First, the naphthalene-

[[Page 21921]]

depleted solvent does not provide the same characteristics as the 
traditional phenolic urethane base solvent and, therefore, may not 
achieve acceptable quality castings in all applications. Second, we 
feel we underestimated the cost of the required binder system 
substitution by not considering the cost to recertify the castings 
through a production parts approval process. Third, we may have 
overestimated the amount of HAP emissions reductions that are 
achievable by the use of the naphthalene-depleted solvent. Therefore, 
we feel that we cannot require that all phenolic urethane binder 
systems be converted to a naphthalene-depleted solvent. In addition, 
the requirement to convert solvents is not a cost-effective 
alternative; consequently, we rejected the use of naphthalene-depleted 
solvents as a beyond-the-floor requirement. Therefore, this specific 
requirement has been removed from the final rule. With this change, 
almost all of the concerns expressed by the commenters have been 
addressed.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the binder system 
evaluation requirements be deleted. The mold and core binder assessment 
is a beyond-the-floor requirement with no economic cost-effectiveness 
demonstration, imposes a heavy burden on the foundry, and is written in 
a manner subject to interpretation and potential compliance actions. 
The MACT floor is mostly no change in formulation. Most of these 
commenters state that EPA does not have the authority to require a re-
evaluation every 5 years because MACT standards are to represent a one-
time identification of the technologies currently available.
    Response: We felt that foundries routinely evaluated alternative 
binder systems to identify systems that might help to reduce costs, 
speed production, improve casting quality, and reduce defects. 
Primarily, we wanted foundries to include in this process an evaluation 
of the potential HAP emissions and factor in these HAP emissions 
reductions in the process of selecting an appropriate binder system. 
However, as proposed, the requirement was too broad (evaluate all 
binder systems) and too vague (what is a reduced-HAP binder system?) to 
be practically implemented. As we attempted to craft this requirement 
into something that could be reasonably implemented without undue 
burden, we still struggled with numerous questions: what is a reduced-
HAP binder system; do we consider emissions only from mold curing or 
from both mold making and subsequent releases from cooling and 
shakeout; and how do we define what is technically and economically 
feasible?
    After considering the numerous comments and the technical details 
associated with this issue, we concluded that any prescriptive 
requirement we developed would not be a cost-effective beyond-the-floor 
option. Consistent with our intent to have foundries consider the HAP 
content and potential HAP emissions from their binder formulations, we 
are requiring foundries to record the annual chemical usage rates for 
each binder system employed at the foundry, the annual HAP specific 
usage rates for each binder system, and the total annual HAP usage rate 
by the foundry. These records will identify those systems with the 
highest HAP usage rates and make it easier for foundry owners or 
operators to focus on opportunities to reduce HAP content. This 
information can also be considered when alternative binder systems are 
routinely evaluated for reasons related to production, cost, and 
quality. In addition, these data will also help to further address mold 
and core making emissions, if necessary, under section 112(f) for 
residual risk.

V. 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that the final rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action 
was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB 
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in the final rule 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. The records and reports required by 
the final rule are necessary for EPA to: (1) Identify major sources and 
new or reconstructed sources subject to the rule, (2) ensure that MACT 
is being properly applied, and (3) ensure that the emissions control 
devices are being properly operated and maintained on a continuous 
basis. Based on the reported information, EPA can decide which plants, 
records, or processes should be inspected. 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 annual average public reporting and recordkeeping burden for 
this collection of information over the first three years of the 
information collection request (ICR) is estimated to total 22,325 labor 
hours per year. This includes 10 responses per year from 98 respondents 
for an average of 22.7 hours per response. The total annualized cost 
burden to the facility is estimated at $1,626,649, including labor, 
capital, and operation and maintenance. The capital cost of monitoring 
equipment is estimated at $293,700; the estimated annual cost for 
operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment is $133,300.
    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

[[Page 21922]]

and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying 
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search 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 in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICR 
is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in the 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The 
EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of the final 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
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 $3.3 million in compliance costs, or 15 percent 
of the total industry compliance costs of $21.2 million. The mean 
annual compliance cost as a share of sales for small businesses is 
estimated at 0.40 percent, and the median is 0.26 percent, with a range 
of 0.04 to 1.04 percent. We estimate that one small business may 
experience an impact between 1 and 3 percent of sales, but no small 
business is expected to experience an impact greater than 3 percent of 
sales. No significant impacts on their viability to continue operations 
and remain profitable is expected.
    Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, we have nonetheless worked 
to minimize the impact of the final 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 final 
rule. By changing the proposed requirements for capture systems and 
revising our initial MACT floor determinations, we have minimized the 
final rule impacts on small entities to the maximum extent allowable 
under the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess 
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.
    Today's final rule contains no Federal mandate (under the 
regulatory provisions of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments. The EPA has determined that the final 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. Thus, today's final 
rule is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has 
also determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, 
today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (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 final 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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to

[[Page 21923]]

ensure ``meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that have tribal implications.''
    The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments 
own or operate facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 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 final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control 
technology and not on health or safety risks.

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

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined 
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that the 
final rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 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 final rule involves technical standards. The final rule uses 
EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 12, and 
18, 25, or 25A 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, 5D, and 
12. The search and review results have been documented and are placed 
in the docket for the final rule.
    The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 17 
voluntary consensus standards applicable to the final rule. Three of 
the 17 voluntary consensus standards were not available at the time of 
promulgation and EPA determined that 14 of these 17 standards were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods. Therefore, EPA is not 
adopting these standards in the final rule. The reasons for this 
determination are in docket for the final 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 the final 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 including these standards in today's rule, the EPA will 
consider the standards when they are finalized.

J. Congressional Review Act

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

VI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 
112, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 
This rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the 
CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 29, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:


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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
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?

[[Page 21924]]

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?
63.7747 How do I apply for alternative monitoring requirements for a 
continuous emissions monitoring system?

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?

Definitions

63.7765 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. Your iron and steel foundry is a major 
source of HAP for purposes of this subpart 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 or if 
it is located at a facility that 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) The affected source is each new or existing iron and steel 
foundry.
    (b) This subpart covers emissions from metal melting furnaces, 
scrap preheaters, pouring areas, pouring stations, automated conveyor 
and pallet cooling lines, automated shakeout lines, and mold and core 
making lines. This subpart also covers fugitive emissions from foundry 
operations.
    (c) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source before December 23, 2002.
    (d) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or 
reconstruction of the affected source on or 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) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, if you 
have an 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 April 23, 
2007. Major source status for existing affected sources must be 
determined no later than April 23, 2007.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the work practice standards in Sec.  63.7700(b) or (c), as applicable, 
no later than April 22, 2005.
    (c) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup 
date is on or before April 22, 2004, you must comply with each 
emissions limitation, work practice standard, and operation and 
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you by April 
22, 2004.
    (d) If you have a new affected source for which the initial startup 
date is after April 22, 2004, 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.
    (e) 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).
    (f) 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 or standard in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (11) of this section that applies to you.
    (1) For each electric arc metal melting furnace, electric induction 
metal melting furnace, or scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel 
foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to the 
atmosphere that exceed either the limit for particulate matter (PM) in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or, alternatively the limit for 
total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:
    (i) 0.005 grains of PM per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), or
    (ii) 0.0004 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
    (2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and 
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to 
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total metal 
HAP in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section:
    (i) 0.006 gr/dscf of PM, or
    (ii) 0.0005 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
    (3) For each cupola metal melting furnace or electric arc metal 
melting

[[Page 21925]]

furnace at a new iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge 
emissions through a conveyance to the atmosphere that exceed either the 
limit for PM in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section or, alternatively 
the limit for total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section:
    (i) 0.002 gr/dscf of PM, or
    (ii) 0.0002 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
    (4) For each electric induction metal melting furnace or scrap 
preheater at a new iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge 
emissions through a conveyance to the atmosphere that exceed either the 
limit for PM in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section or, alternatively 
the limit for total metal HAP in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section:
    (i) 0.001 gr/dscf of PM, or
    (ii) 0.00008 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
    (5) For each pouring station at an existing iron and steel foundry, 
you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to the atmosphere 
that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this 
section or, alternatively the limit for total metal HAP in paragraph 
(a)(5)(ii) of this section:
    (i) 0.010 gr/dscf of PM, or
    (ii) 0.0008 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
    (6) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new iron and 
steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions through a conveyance to 
the atmosphere that exceed either the limit for PM in paragraph 
(a)(6)(i) of this section or, alternatively the limit for total metal 
HAP in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section:
    (i) 0.002 gr/dscf of PM, or
    (ii) 0.0002 gr/dscf of total metal HAP.
    (7) For each building or structure housing any emissions source at 
the iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge any fugitive 
emissions to the atmosphere that exhibit opacity greater than 20 
percent (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour 
that does not exceed 27 percent opacity.
    (8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron 
and steel foundry, you must not discharge emissions of volatile organic 
hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) through a conveyance to the atmosphere 
that exceed 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) corrected to 10 
percent oxygen.
    (9) As an alternative to the work practice standard in Sec.  
63.7700(e) for a scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry 
or in Sec.  63.7700(f) for a scrap preheater at a new iron and steel 
foundry, you must not discharge emissions of VOHAP through a conveyance 
to the atmosphere that exceed 20 ppmv.
    (10) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines 
that use a sand mold system or automated shakeout lines that use a sand 
mold system at a new iron and steel foundry, you must not discharge 
emissions of VOHAP through a conveyance to the atmosphere that exceed a 
flow-weighted average of 20 ppmv.
    (11) For each triethylamine (TEA) cold box mold or core making line 
at a new or existing iron and steel foundry, you must meet either the 
emissions limit in paragraph (a)(11)(i) of this section or, 
alternatively the emissions standard in paragraph (a)(11)(ii) of this 
section:
    (i) You must not discharge emissions of TEA through a conveyance to 
the atmosphere that exceed 1 ppmv, as determined when scrubbing with 
fresh acid solution; or
    (ii) You must reduce emissions of TEA from each TEA cold box mold 
or core making line by at least 99 percent, as determined when 
scrubbing with fresh acid solution.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(5) of this section that applies to you.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture and 
collection system for all emissions sources subject to an emissions 
limit or standard for VOHAP or TEA in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of 
this section.
    (i) Each capture and collection system must meet accepted 
engineering standards, such as those published by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
    (ii) 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 wet scrubber applied to emissions from a 
metal melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring area, or pouring 
station subject to an emissions limit for PM or total metal HAP in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section such that the 3-hour 
average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate does not fall below 
the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test.
    (3) You must operate each combustion device applied to emissions 
from a cupola metal melting furnace subject to the emissions limit for 
VOHAP in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, such that the 15-minute 
average combustion zone temperature does not fall below 1,300 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Periods when the cupola is off blast and for 15 
minutes after going on blast from an off blast condition are not 
included in the 15-minute average.
    (4) You must operate each combustion device applied to emissions 
from a scrap preheater subject to the emissions limit for VOHAP in 
paragraph (a)(9) of this section or from a TEA cold box mold or core 
making line subject to the emissions limit for TEA in paragraph (a)(11) 
of this section, such that the 3-hour average combustion zone 
temperature does not fall below the minimum level established during 
the initial or subsequent performance test.
    (5) You must operate each wet acid scrubber applied to emissions 
from a TEA cold box mold or core making line subject to the emissions 
limit for TEA in paragraph (a)(11) of this section such that:
    (i) The 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate does not fall 
below the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent 
performance test; and
    (ii) The 3-hour average pH of the scrubber blowdown, as measured by 
a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS), does not exceed 4.5 or 
the pH of the scrubber blowdown, as measured once every 8 hours during 
process operations, does not exceed 4.5.
    (c) If you use a control device other than a baghouse, wet 
scrubber, wet acid 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 PM, 
total metal HAP, VOHAP, or TEA 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 comply with the certification requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section or prepare and implement a plan for the 
selection and inspection of scrap according to the requirements in 
paragraph (c) of this section.

[[Page 21926]]

    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written certification that the foundry purchases and uses only 
certified-metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do 
not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine 
blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, mercury switches, 
plastics, or organic liquids.
    (c) 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 iron and steel foundry. This 
scrap selection and inspection plan is subject to approval by the 
Administrator. You must keep a copy of the plan onsite and readily 
available to all plant personnel with materials acquisition or 
inspection duties. You must provide a copy of the material 
specifications to each of your scrap vendors. Each plan must include 
the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) A materials acquisition program to limit organic contaminants 
according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) For scrap charged to a scrap preheater, electric arc metal 
melting furnace, or electric induction metal melting furnaces, 
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent 
practicable) of the presence of used oil filters, plastic parts, 
organic liquids, and a program to ensure the scrap materials are 
drained of free liquids; or
    (ii) For scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace, 
specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent 
practicable) of the presence of plastic, and a program to ensure the 
scrap materials are drained of free liquids.
    (2) A materials acquisition program specifying that the scrap 
supplier remove accessible mercury switches from the trunks and hoods 
of any automotive bodies contained in the scrap and remove accessible 
lead components such as batteries and wheel weights. You must obtain 
and maintain onsite a copy of the procedures used by the scrap supplier 
for either removing accessible mercury switches or for purchasing 
automobile bodies that have had mercury switches removed, as 
applicable.
    (3) Procedures for visual inspection of a representative portion, 
but not less than 10 percent, 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 a reasonable 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 
fail to meet specifications for more than three inspections in one 
calender year.
    (d) For each furan warm box mold or core making line in a new or 
existing iron and steel foundry, you must use a binder chemical 
formulation that does not contain methanol as a specific ingredient of 
the catalyst formulation as determined by the Material Safety Data 
Sheet. This requirement does not apply to the resin portion of the 
binder system.
    (e) For each scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry, 
you must meet either the requirement in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this 
section. As an alternative to the requirement in paragraph (e)(1) or 
(2) of this section, you must meet the VOHAP emissions limit in Sec.  
63.7690(a)(9).
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a gas-fired preheater 
where the flame directly contacts the scrap charged; or
    (2) You must charge only material that is subject to and in 
compliance with the scrap certification requirement in paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (f) For each scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry, you 
must charge only material that is subject to and in compliance with the 
scrap certification requirement in paragraph (b) of this section. As an 
alternative to this requirement, you must meet the VOHAP emissions 
limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(9).

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 iron and steel foundry, 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). Your operation and maintenance 
plan also must include procedures for igniting gases from mold vents in 
pouring areas and pouring stations that use a sand mold system. This 
operation and maintenance plan is subject to approval by the 
Administrator. Each plan must contain the elements described in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 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 as soon as practicable.
    (2) Operating limits for each capture system for an emissions 
source subject to an emissions limit or standard for VOHAP or TEA in 
Sec.  63.7690(a)(8) through (11). You must establish the operating 
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 flow rate 
through each separately ducted hood, total volumetric flow rate 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

[[Page 21927]]

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 site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection 
system. For each bag leak detection system that operates on the 
triboelectric effect, the monitoring plan must be consistent with the 
recommendations contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015). This baghouse monitoring plan is subject to approval by 
the Administrator. The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the 
bag leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring 
plan at all times. The plan must address all of the items identified in 
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained including 
a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored.
    (5) 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 PM emissions.
    (6) Procedures for providing an ignition source to mold vents of 
sand mold systems in each pouring area and pouring station unless you 
determine the mold vent gases either are not ignitable, ignite 
automatically, or cannot be ignited due to accessibility or safety 
issues. You must document and maintain records of this determination. 
The determination of ignitability, accessibility, and safety may 
encompass multiple casting patterns provided the castings utilize 
similar sand-to-metal ratios, binder formulations, and coating 
materials. The determination of ignitability must be based on 
observations of the mold vents within 5 minutes of pouring, and the 
flame must be present for at least 15 seconds for the mold vent to be 
considered ignited. For the purpose of this determination:
    (i) Mold vents that ignite more than 75 percent of the time without 
the presence of an auxiliary ignition source are considered to ignite 
automatically; and
    (ii) Mold vents that do not ignite automatically and cannot be 
ignited in the presence of an auxiliary ignition source more than 25 
percent of the time are considered to be not ignitable.

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 iron and steel foundry in Sec.  63.7683 and the date when 
applicable operating limits have been established during the initial 
performance test, you must 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). The 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan also must specify what 
constitutes a shutdown of a cupola and how to determine that operating 
conditions are normal following startup of a cupola.

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 no later than 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is 
specified in Sec.  63.7683 for your iron and steel foundry 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 no later than 30 calendar 
days after the compliance date that is specified for your iron and 
steel foundry in Sec.  63.7683.
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
December 23, 2002 and April 22, 2004, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with either the proposed emissions limit or the promulgated 
emissions limit no later than October 19, 2004 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 April 22, 2004, 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 October 19, 2007 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?

    (a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable PM or total metal HAP, VOHAP, and TEA 
emissions limitations in Sec.  63.7690 for your iron and steel foundry 
no less frequently than every 5 years. The requirement to conduct 
performance tests every 5 years does not apply to an emissions source 
for which a

[[Page 21928]]

continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) is used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance.
    (b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(7) for your iron 
and steel foundry no less frequently than once every 6 months.


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 
iron and steel foundry according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7(e)(1) and the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) through (h) 
of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the applicable emissions limit for 
PM in Sec.  63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting furnace, 
scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of PM according to the test methods 
in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 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 
flow rate 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 PM 
concentration. The PM concentration is determined using only the front-
half (probe rinse and filter) of the PM catch.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of gas during each 
PM sampling run. A minimum of three valid test runs are needed to 
comprise a performance test.
    (3) For cupola metal melting furnaces, sample only during times 
when the cupola is on blast.
    (4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting 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 applicable emissions limit for 
total metal HAP in Sec.  63.7690(a)(1) through (6) for a metal melting 
furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area, follow the 
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of total metal HAP according to the 
test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in 
paragraphs (c)(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 
flow rate 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 29 to determine the total metal HAP concentration.
    (2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of gas during each 
total metal HAP sampling run. A minimum of three valid test runs are 
needed to comprise a performance test.
    (3) For cupola metal melting furnaces, sample only during times 
when the cupola is on blast.
    (4) For electric arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces, 
sample only when metal is being melted.
    (5) For scrap preheaters, sample only when scrap is being 
preheated.
    (d) To determine compliance with the opacity limit in Sec.  
63.7690(a)(7) for fugitive emissions from buildings or structures 
housing any emissions source at the iron and steel foundry, follow the 
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using a certified observer, conduct each opacity test according 
to the requirements in EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) and 
Sec.  63.6(h)(5).
    (2) Conduct each test such that the opacity observations overlap 
with the PM performance tests.
    (e) To determine compliance with the applicable VOHAP emissions 
limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(8) for a cupola metal melting furnace or in 
Sec.  63.7690(a)(9) for a scrap preheater, follow the test methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according 
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 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 
flow rate 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 18 to determine the VOHAP concentration. Alternatively, 
you may use Method 25 to determine the concentration of total gaseous 
nonmethane organics (TGNMO) or Method 25A to determine the 
concentration of total organic compounds (TOC), using hexane as the 
calibration gas.
    (2) Determine the average VOHAP, TGNMO, or TOC concentration using 
a minimum of three valid test runs. Each test run must include a 
minimum of 60 continuous operating minutes.
    (3) For a cupola metal melting furnace, correct the measured 
concentration of VOHAP, TGNMO, or TOC for oxygen content in the gas 
stream using Equation 1 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.003

Where:

CVOHAP = Concentration of VOHAP in ppmv as measured by 
Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or the concentration of TGNMO 
or TOC in ppmv as hexane as measured by Method 25 or 25A in 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A; and

[[Page 21929]]

%O2 = Oxygen concentration in gas stream, percent by volume 
(dry basis).

    (4) For a cupola metal melting furnace, measure the combustion zone 
temperature of the combustion device with the CPMS required in Sec.  
63.7740(d) during each sampling run in 15-minute intervals. Determine 
and record the 15-minute average of the three runs.
    (f) Follow the applicable procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through 
(3) of this section to determine compliance with the VOHAP emissions 
limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(10) for automated pallet cooling lines or 
automated shakeout lines.
    (1) Follow these procedures to demonstrate compliance by direct 
measurement of total hydrocarbons (a surrogate for VOHAP) using a 
volatile organic compound (VOC) CEMS.
    (i) Using the VOC CEMS required in Sec.  63.7740(g), measure and 
record the concentration of total hydrocarbons (as hexane) for 180 
continuous operating minutes. 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.
    (ii) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(g)(2).
    (iii) Compute and record the 3-hour average of the monitoring data.
    (2) As an alternative to the procedures in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section, you may demonstrate compliance with the VOHAP emissions limit 
in Sec.  63.7690(a)(10) by establishing a site-specific TOC emissions 
limit that is correlated to the VOHAP emissions limit according to the 
procedures in paragraph (f)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section.
    (i) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according 
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) through (vi) of this section.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric 
flow rate of the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (v) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (vi) Method 18 to determine the VOHAP concentration. Alternatively, 
you may use Method 25 to determine the concentration of TGNMO using 
hexane as the calibration gas.
    (vii) Using the CEMS required in Sec.  63.7740(g), measure and 
record the concentration of total hydrocarbons (as hexane) during each 
of the Method 18 (or Method 25) sampling runs. 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.
    (viii) Calculate the average VOHAP (or TGNMO) concentration for the 
source test as the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured 
for the individual test runs, and determine the average concentration 
of total hydrocarbon (as hexane) as measured by the CEMS during all 
test runs.
    (ix) Calculate the site-specific VOC emissions limit using Equation 
2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.004


Where:

CVOHAP,avg = Average concentration of VOHAP for the source 
test in ppmv as measured by Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or 
the average concentration of TGNMO for the source test in ppmv as 
hexane as measured by Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and
CCEM = Average concentration of total hydrocarbons in ppmv 
as hexane as measured using the CEMS during the source test.
    (3) For two or more exhaust streams from one or more automated 
conveyor and pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines, compute 
the flow-weighted average concentration of VOHAP emissions for each 
combination of exhaust streams using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.005


Where:

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration of VOHAP or VOC, ppmv (as 
hexane);
Ci = Concentration of VOHAP or VOC from exhaust stream 
``i'', ppmv (as hexane);
n = Number of exhaust streams sampled; and
Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from exhaust 
stream ``i,'' in dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm).
    (g) To determine compliance with the emissions limit or standard in 
Sec.  63.7690(a)(11) for a TEA cold box mold or core making line, 
follow the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, specified in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine the TEA concentration for each test run according to 
the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A that are specified in 
paragraphs (g)(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. If you elect to meet the 99 
percent reduction standard, sampling sites must be located both at the 
inlet to the control device and at the outlet of the control device 
prior to any releases to the atmosphere. If you elect to meet the 
concentration limit, the sampling site 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 
flow rate 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 18 to determine the TEA concentration. The Method 18 
sampling option and time must be sufficiently long such that either the 
TEA 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. The adsorbent tube approach, as described in Method 18, may be 
required to achieve the necessary analytical detection limits. The 
sampling time must be at least 1 hour in all cases.
    (2) Conduct the test as soon as practicable after adding fresh acid 
solution and the system has reached normal operating conditions.
    (3) If you use a wet acid scrubber that is subject to the operating 
limit in Sec.  63.7690(b)(5)(ii) for pH level, determine the pH of the 
scrubber blowdown using the procedures in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (ii) 
of this section.
    (i) Measure the pH of the scrubber blowdown with the CPMS required 
in Sec.  63.7740(f)(2) during each TEA sampling run in intervals of no 
more than 15 minutes. Determine and record the 3-hour average; or

[[Page 21930]]

    (ii) Measure and record the pH level using the probe and meter 
required in Sec.  63.7740(f)(2) once each sampling run. Determine and 
record the average pH level for the three runs.
    (4) If you are subject to the 99 percent reduction standard, 
calculate the mass emissions reduction using Equation 4 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.006


Where:

Ei = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device inlet, kg/
hr; and
Eo = Mass emissions rate of TEA at control device outlet, 
kg/hr.
    (h) To determine compliance with the PM or total metal HAP 
emissions limits in Sec.  63.7690(a)(1) through (6) when one or more 
regulated emissions sources are combined with either another regulated 
emissions source subject to a different emissions limit or other non-
regulated emissions sources, you may demonstrate compliance using one 
of the procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Meet the most stringent applicable emissions limit for the 
regulated emissions sources included in the combined emissions stream 
for the combined emissions stream.
    (2) Use the procedures in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) Determine the volumetric flow rate of the individual regulated 
streams for which emissions limits apply.
    (ii) Calculate the flow-weighted average emissions limit, 
considering only the regulated streams, using Equation 3 of this 
section, except Cw is the flow-weighted average emissions 
limit for PM or total metal HAP in the exhaust stream, gr/dscf; and 
Ci is the concentration of PM or total metal HAP in exhaust 
stream ``i'', gr/dscf.
    (iii) Meet the calculated flow-weighted average emissions limit for 
the regulated emissions sources included in the combined emissions 
stream for the combined emissions stream.
    (3) Use the procedures in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through (iii) of 
this section.
    (i) Determine the PM or total metal HAP concentration of each of 
the regulated streams prior to the combination with other exhaust 
streams or control device.
    (ii) Measure the flow rate and PM or total metal HAP concentration 
of the combined exhaust stream both before and after the control device 
and calculate the mass removal efficiency of the control device using 
Equation 4 of this section, except Ei is the mass emissions 
rate of PM or total metal HAP at the control device inlet, lb/hr and 
Eo is the mass emissions rate of PM or total metal HAP at 
the control device outlet, lb/hr
    (iii) Meet the applicable emissions limit based on the calculated 
PM or total metal HAP concentration for the regulated emissions source 
using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP04.007


Where:

Creleased = Calculated concentration of PM (or total metal 
HAP) predicted to be released to the atmosphere from the regulated 
emissions source, in gr/dscf; and
Ci = Concentration of PM (or total metal HAP) in the 
uncontrolled regulated exhaust stream, in gr/dscf.


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)(ii), you must establish site-specific operating limits in 
your operation and maintenance plan according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Concurrent with applicable emissions and opacity 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).
    (2) 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.
    (3) Review and record the monitoring data. Identify and explain any 
times the capture system operated outside the applicable operating 
limits.
    (b) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you must 
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.7740(c), measure and record 
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in intervals of no more 
than 15 minutes during each PM test run.
    (2) Compute and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and average 
scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the applicable 
emissions limit is met.
    (c) For each combustion device applied to emissions from a scrap 
preheater or TEA 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 (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.7740(e), 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 limit in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5), you must establish a site-specific operating limit 
for scrubbing liquid flow rate according to the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.7740(f), measure and record 
the scrubbing liquid flow rate during each TEA sampling run in 
intervals of no more than 15 minutes.
    (2) Compute and record the 3-hour average scrubbing liquid flow 
rate 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.

[[Page 21931]]

    (f) You may use a previous performance test (conducted since 
December 22, 2002) to establish an operating limit provided the test 
meets the requirements of this subpart.


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 electric arc metal melting furnace, electric induction 
metal melting furnace, or scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel 
foundry,
    (i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did 
not exceed 0.005 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0004 gr/dscf.
    (2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and 
steel foundry,
    (i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did 
not exceed 0.006 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0005 gr/dscf.
    (3) For each cupola metal melting furnace or electric arc metal 
melting furnace at a new iron and steel foundry,
    (i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did 
not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0002 gr/dscf.
    (4) For each electric induction metal melting furnace or scrap 
preheater at a new iron and steel foundry,
    (i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, determined 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did 
not exceed 0.001 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.00008 gr/dscf.
    (5) For each pouring station at an existing iron and steel foundry,
    (i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, measured 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did 
not exceed 0.010 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0008 gr/dscf.
    (6) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new iron and 
steel foundry,
    (i) The average PM concentration in the exhaust stream, measured 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(b), did 
not exceed 0.002 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) The average total metal HAP concentration in the exhaust 
stream, determined according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec.  63.7732(c), did not exceed 0.0002 gr/dscf.
    (7) For each building or structure housing any emissions source at 
the iron and steel foundry, the opacity of fugitive emissions 
discharged to the atmosphere, determined according to the performance 
test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(d), did not exceed 20 percent (6-
minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that did not 
exceed 27 percent opacity.
    (8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron 
and steel foundry, the average VOHAP concentration, determined 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(e), did 
not exceed 20 ppmv corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
    (9) For each scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry 
that does not meet the work practice standards in Sec.  63.7700(e)(1) 
or (2) and for each scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry 
that does not meet the work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(f), the 
average VOHAP concentration determined according to the performance 
test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(e), did not exceed 20 ppmv.
    (10) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines 
that use a sand mold system or automated shakeout lines that use a sand 
mold system at a new foundry,
    (i) You have reduced the data from the CEMS to 3-hour averages 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7732(f)(1) or 
(2); and
    (ii) The 3-hour flow-weighted average VOHAP concentration, measured 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7332(f)(1) or 
(2), did not exceed 20 ppmv.
    (11) For each TEA cold box mold or core making line in a new or 
existing iron and steel foundry, the average TEA concentration, 
determined according to the performance test procedures in Sec.  
63.7732(g) did not exceed 1 ppmv or was reduced by 99 percent.
    (b) You have demonstrated initial compliance with the operating 
limits in Sec.  63.7690(b) if:
    (1) For each capture system subject to the operating limit in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(1)(ii),
    (i) You have established appropriate site-specific operating limits 
in your operation and maintenance plan according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7710(b); and
    (ii) You have a record of the operating parameter data measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7733(a); and
    (2) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7690(b)(2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you have 
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7733(b).
    (3) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(3) for combustion zone temperature, you have a record 
of the combustion zone temperature measured during the performance test 
in accordance with Sec.  63.7732(e)(4).
    (4) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(4) 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).
    (5) For each acid wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5) for scrubbing liquid flow rate and scrubber 
blowdown pH,
    (i) You have established appropriate site-specific operating limits 
for the scrubbing liquid flow rate and have a record of the scrubbing 
liquid flow rate measured during the performance test in accordance 
with Sec.  63.7733(d); and
    (ii) You have a record of the pH of the scrubbing liquid blowdown 
measured during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  
63.7732(g)(3).


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 certification 
requirement in Sec.  63.7700(b), you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if you have certified in your notification of compliance 
status

[[Page 21932]]

that: ``At all times, your foundry will purchase and use only certified 
metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do not include 
post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine blocks, oil 
filters, oily turnings, lead components, mercury switches, plastics, or 
organic liquids.''
    (b) For each iron and steel foundry subject to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7700(c) for a scrap inspection and selection plan, you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified in your 
notification of compliance status that:
    (1) You have submitted a written plan to the Administrator for 
approval according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7700(c); and
    (2) You will operate at all times according to the plan 
requirements.
    (c) For each furan warm box mold or core making line in a new or 
existing foundry subject to the work practice standard in Sec.  
63.7700(d), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have 
certified in your notification of compliance status that:
    (1) You will meet the no methanol requirement for the catalyst 
portion of each binder chemical formulation; and
    (2) 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.
    (d) For each scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry 
subject to the work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(e)(1) or (2), 
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified in your 
notification of compliance status that:
    (1) You have installed a gas-fired preheater where the flame 
directly contacts the scrap charged, you will operate and maintain each 
gas-fired scrap preheater such that the flame directly contacts the 
scrap charged, and you have records documenting your certification of 
compliance that are onsite and available for inspection; or
    (2) You will charge only material that is subject to and in 
compliance with the scrap certification requirements in Sec.  
63.7700(b) and you have records documenting your certification of 
compliance that are onsite and available for inspection.
    (e) For each scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry 
subject to the work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(f), you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified in your 
notification of compliance status that you will charge only material 
that is subject to and in compliance with the scrap certification 
requirements in Sec.  63.7700(b) and you have records documenting your 
certification of compliance that are 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), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have met 
the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You have certified in your notification of compliance status 
that:
    (i) You have submitted the capture system operation and maintenance 
plan to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.7710(b); and
    (ii) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each capture system 
according to the procedures in the 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.
    (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 submitted the control device operation and maintenance 
plan to the Administrator for approval 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) For each bag leak detection system, you have demonstrated 
initial compliance if you have certified in your notification of 
compliance status that:
    (1) You have submitted the bag leak detection system monitoring 
plan to the Administrator for approval according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.7710(b);
    (2) You will inspect, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection 
system according to the procedures in the plan; and
    (3) You will follow the corrective action procedures for bag leak 
detection system alarms according to the requirements in the plan.
    (d) For each pouring area and pouring station in a new or existing 
foundry, you have demonstrated initial compliance if you have certified 
in your notification of compliance status report that:
    (1) You have submitted the mold vent ignition plan to the 
Administrator for approval according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7710(b); and
    (2) You will follow the procedures for igniting mold vent gases 
according to the requirements in the plan.

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), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according 
to the requirements in Sec.  63.7741(a) and the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 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 flow rate through each 
separately ducted hood or the average hourly total volumetric flow rate 
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 negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure 
baghouse equipped with a stack that is applied to meet any PM or total 
metal HAP emissions limitation in this subpart, you must at all times 
monitor the relative change in PM 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

[[Page 21933]]

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)(2), you must at all times monitor the 3-hour average 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate 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)(3), you must at all times monitor the 15-minute 
average combustion zone temperature using a CPMS according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(d).
    (e) For each combustion device subject to the operating limit in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(4), you must at all times monitor the 3-hour average 
combustion zone temperature using CPMS according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7741(d).
    (f) For each wet acid scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5),
    (1) You must at all times monitor the 3-hour average scrubbing 
liquid flow rate using CPMS according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.7741(e)(1); and
    (2) You must at all times monitor the 3-hour average pH of the 
scrubber blowdown using CPMS according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7741(e)(2) or measure and record the pH of the scrubber blowdown 
once per production cycle using a pH probe and meter according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7741(e)(3).
    (g) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and 
automated shakeout lines at a new iron and steel foundry subject to the 
VOHAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(10), you must at all times 
monitor the 3-hour average VOHAP concentration using a CEMS according 
to the requirements of Sec.  63.7741(g).


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)(1), 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 flow rate.
    (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.
    (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) You must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection 
system according to the requirements 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 bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall 
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using 
electronic or other means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data 
logger).
    (3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when 
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm 
set point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and the 
alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate 
plant personnel.
    (4) The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist 
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity 
(range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the 
alarm set points and the alarm delay time (if applicable).
    (5) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time 
without approval from the Administrator. Except, once per quarter, you 
may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account 
for seasonable effects including temperature and humidity according to 
the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan required by Sec.  
63.7710(b).
    (6) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed downstream of the 
baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (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)(2), you must install and maintain CPMS to measure and record 
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate according to the 
requirements 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.

[[Page 21934]]

    (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 flow rate, 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 flow rate.
    (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)(3) or (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 wet acid scrubber subject to the operating limits in 
Sec.  63.7690(b)(5), you must:
    (1) Install and maintain CPMS to measure and record the scrubbing 
liquid flow rate according to the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section; and
    (2) Install and maintain CPMS to measure and record the pH of the 
scrubber blowdown according to the requirements in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (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.
    (3) As an alternative to the CPMS required in paragraph (e)(2) of 
this section, you may use a pH probe to extract a sample for analysis 
by a pH meter that meets the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The pH meter must have a range of at least 1 to 5 or more;
    (ii) The pH meter must have a accuracy of 0.1; and
    (iii) The pH meter must have a resolution of at least 0.1 pH.
    (f) You must operate each CPMS used to meet the requirements of 
this subpart 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 automated conveyor and pallet cooling line and 
automated shakeout line at a new iron and steel foundry subject to the 
VOHAP emissions limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(10), you must install, 
operate, and maintain a CEMS to measure and record the concentration of 
VOHAP emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (3) 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.
    (3) You must operate each CEMS according to the requirements 
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) You must reduce CEMS data as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2).
    (iii) 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.
    (iv) 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) You must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the 
applicable conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (12) of this 
section:

[[Page 21935]]

    (1) For each electric arc metal melting furnace, electric induction 
metal melting furnace, or scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel 
foundry,
    (i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream 
at or below 0.005 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 0.0004 gr/dscf.
    (2) For each cupola metal melting furnace at an existing iron and 
steel foundry,
    (i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream 
at or below 0.006 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 0.0005 gr/dscf.
    (3) For each cupola metal melting furnace or electric arc metal 
melting furnace at new iron and steel foundry, (i) Maintaining the 
average PM concentration in the exhaust stream at or below 0.002 gr/
dscf; or
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 0.0002 gr/dscf.
    (4) For each electric induction metal melting furnace or scrap 
preheater at a new iron and steel foundry,
    (i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream 
at or below 0.001 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 0.00008 gr/dscf.
    (5) For each pouring station at an existing iron and steel foundry,
    (i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream 
at or below 0.010 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 0.0008 gr/dscf.
    (6) For each pouring area or pouring station at a new iron and 
steel foundry,
    (i) Maintaining the average PM concentration in the exhaust stream 
at or below 0.002 gr/dscf; or
    (ii) Maintaining the average total metal HAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 0.0002 gr/dscf.
    (7) For each building or structure housing any emissions source at 
the iron and steel foundry, maintaining the opacity of any fugitive 
emissions discharged to the atmosphere at or below 20 percent opacity 
(6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does 
not exceed 27 percent opacity.
    (8) For each cupola metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron 
and steel foundry, maintaining the average VOHAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 20 ppmv corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
    (9) For each scrap preheater at an existing new iron and steel 
foundry that does not comply with the work practice standard in Sec.  
63.7700(e)(1) or (2) and for each scrap preheater at a new iron and 
steel foundry that does not comply with the work practice standard in 
Sec.  63.7700(f), maintaining the average VOHAP concentration in the 
exhaust stream at or below 20 ppmv.
    (10) For one or more automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines or 
automated shakeout lines that use a sand mold system at a new iron and 
steel foundry,
    (i) Maintaining the 3-hour flow-weighted average VOHAP 
concentration in the exhaust stream at or below 20 ppmv;
    (ii) 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
    (iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for according to the 
requirements of Sec.  63.7741(g) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (11) For each TEA cold box mold or core making line at a new or 
existing iron and steel foundry, maintaining a 99 percent reduction in 
the VOHAP concentration in the exhaust stream or maintaining the 
average VOHAP concentration in the exhaust stream at or below 1 ppmv.
    (12) Conducting subsequent performance tests at least every 5 years 
for each emissions source subject to an emissions limit for PM, total 
metal HAP, VOHAP, or TEA in Sec.  63.7690(a) and subsequent performance 
tests at least every 6 months for each building or structure subject to 
the opacity limit in Sec.  63.7690(a)(7).
    (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) Operating the capture system at or above the lowest values or 
settings established for the operating limits in your operation and 
maintenance plan; and
    (2) Monitoring the capture system according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7740(a) and collecting, reducing, and recording the monitoring 
data for each of the operating limit parameters according to the 
applicable requirements in this subpart.
    (c) For each baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system,
    (1) 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
    (2) 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.
    (d) For each wet scrubber that is subject to the operating limits 
in Sec.  63.7690(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining the 3-hour average pressure drop and 3-hour average 
scrubber water flow rate 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 flow rate according to the requirements of Sec.  
63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document conformance 
with these requirements.
    (e) For each combustion device that is subject to the operating 
limit in Sec.  63.7690(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining the 15-minute average combustion zone temperature 
at a level no lower than 1,300[deg]F;
    (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.
    (f) 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

[[Page 21936]]

requirements of Sec.  63.7741(f) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements.
    (g) 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 flow rate at a 
level no lower than the level established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test;
    (2) Maintaining the 3-hour average pH of the scrubber blowdown at a 
level no higher than 4.5 (if measured by a CPMS) or maintaining the pH 
level of the scrubber blowdown during each production shift no higher 
than 4.5;
    (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 
flow rate and scrubber blowdown pH according to the requirements of 
Sec.  63.7741(f) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements. If the pH level of the scrubber 
blowdown is measured by a probe and meter, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by maintaining records that document the date, 
time, and results of each sample taken for each production shift.


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

    (a) You must maintain records that document continuous compliance 
with the certification requirements in Sec.  63.7700(b) or with the 
procedures in your scrap selection and inspection plan required in 
Sec.  63.7700(c). Your records documenting compliance with the scrap 
selection and inspection plan must include a copy (kept onsite) of the 
procedures used by the scrap supplier for either removing accessible 
mercury switches or for purchasing automobile bodies that have had 
mercury switches removed, as applicable.
    (b) You must keep records of the chemical composition of all 
catalyst binder formulations applied in each furan warm box mold or 
core making line at a new or existing iron and steel foundry to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements in Sec.  
63.7700(d).
    (c) For a scrap preheater at an existing iron and steel foundry, 
you must operate and maintain each gas-fired preheater such that the 
flame directly contacts the scrap charged to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the requirement Sec.  63.7700(e)(1). If you choose to 
meet the work practice standard in Sec.  63.7700(e)(2), you must keep 
records to document that the scrap preheater charges only material that 
is subject to and in compliance with the scrap certification 
requirements in Sec.  63.7700(b).
    (d) For a scrap preheater at a new iron and steel foundry, you must 
keep records to document that each scrap preheater charges only 
material that is subject to and in compliance with the scrap 
certification requirements in Sec.  63.7700(b) to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the requirement in Sec.  63.7700(f).


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;
    (3) Operating and maintaining each bag leak detection system 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan required by Sec.  
63.7710(b)(4) and recording all information needed to demonstrate 
conformance with these requirements;
    (4) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak 
detection system alarm according to the corrective action plan required 
by Sec.  63.7710(b)(5) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (5) Igniting gases from mold vents according to the procedures in 
the plan required by Sec.  63.7710(b)(6). (Any instance where you fail 
to follow the procedures is a deviation that must be included in your 
semiannual compliance report.)
    (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 
iron and steel foundry or until the iron and steel foundry 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).


Sec.  63.7747  How do I apply for alternative monitoring requirements 
for a continuous emissions monitoring system?

    (a) You may request an alternative monitoring method to demonstrate 
compliance with the VOHAP emissions limits in Sec.  63.7690(a)(10) for 
automated pallet cooling lines or automated shakeout lines at a new 
iron and steel foundry according to the procedures in this section.
    (b) You can request approval to use an alternative monitoring 
method in the notification of construction or reconstruction for new 
sources, or at any time.
    (c) You must submit a monitoring plan that includes a description 
of the control technique or pollution prevention technique, a 
description of the continuous monitoring system or method including 
appropriate operating

[[Page 21937]]

parameters that will be monitored, test results demonstrating 
compliance with the emissions limit, operating limit(s) (if applicable) 
determined according to the test results, and the frequency of 
measuring and recording to establish continuous compliance. If 
applicable, you must also include operation and maintenance 
requirements for the monitors.
    (d) The monitoring plan is subject to approval by the 
Administrator. Use of the alternative monitoring method must not begin 
until approval is granted by the Administrator.

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.  
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e); 63.8(f)(4) and (6); 
63.9(b) through (h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your iron and 
steel foundry before April 22, 2004, you must submit your initial 
notification no later than August 20, 2004.
    (c) If you start up your new iron and steel foundry on or after 
April 22, 2004, 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 iron and steel foundry 
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 iron 
and steel foundry.
    (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, whichever date comes 
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each iron and steel foundry that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 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 iron and steel foundry 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 emissions 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 iron and 
steel foundry 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

[[Page 21938]]

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 iron and steel foundry pursuant to 40 CFR part 
70 or 40 CFR 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 iron and steel foundry 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 iron and steel foundry to your permitting 
authority.


Sec.  63.7752  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (4) 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).
    (4) Records of the annual quantity of each chemical binder or 
coating material used to make molds and cores, the Material Data Safety 
Sheet or other documentation that provides the chemical composition of 
each component, and the annual quantity of HAP used at the foundry.
    (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 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 onsite 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 offsite.

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 non-opacity emissions limitations 
in Sec.  63.7690 and work practice standards in Sec.  63.7700 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.

Definitions


Sec.  63.7765  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
in Sec.  63.2, and in this section.
    Automated conveyor and pallet cooling line means any dedicated 
conveyor line or area used for cooling molds received from pouring 
stations.
    Automated shakeout line means any mechanical process unit designed 
for and dedicated to separating a casting from a mold. These mechanical 
processes include, but are not limited to, shaker decks, rotary 
separators, and high-frequency vibration units. Automated shakeout 
lines do not include manual processes for separating a casting from a 
mold, such as personnel using a hammer, chisel, pick ax, sledge hammer, 
or jackhammer.
    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

[[Page 21939]]

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 or to the 
atmosphere. 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.
    Conveyance means the system of equipment that is designed to 
capture pollutants at the source, convey them through ductwork, and 
exhaust them using forced ventilation. A conveyance may, but does not 
necessarily include, control equipment designed to reduce emissions of 
the pollutants. Emissions that are released through windows, vents, or 
other general building ventilation or exhaust systems are not 
considered to be discharged through a conveyance.
    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 an affected 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 iron and steel foundry 
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 through a 
conveyance as defined in this subpart.
    Fresh acid solution means a sulfuric acid solution used for the 
control of triethylamine emissions that has a pH of 2.0 or less.
    Fugitive emissions means any pollutant released to the atmosphere 
that is not discharged through a conveyance as defined in this subpart.
    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 as a furan warm box system by the foundry industry.
    Hazardous air pollutant means any substance on the list originally 
established in 112(b)(1) of the CAA and subsequently amended as 
published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
    Iron and steel foundry means a facility or portion of 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 final or near 
final shape products for introduction into commerce. Research and 
development facilities and operations that only produce non-commercial 
castings are not included in this definition.
    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, an argon oxygen 
decarburization vessel, or ladle that receives molten metal from a 
metal melting furnace, to which metal ingots or other material may be 
added to adjust the metal chemistry.
    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 intentional 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.
    Pouring area means an area, generally associated with floor and pit 
molding operations, in which molten metal is brought to each individual 
mold. Pouring areas include all pouring operations that do not meet the 
definition of a pouring station.
    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.
    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.

[[Page 21940]]



           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      Yes....................
                                        emissions standards.
63.6(i)-(j)..........................  Compliance extension     Yes....................
                                        and Presidential
                                        compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        performance test dates.                           applicability and
                                                                                          performance test
                                                                                          dates.
63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)..................  Performance testing      Yes....................
                                        requirements.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)-        Monitoring requirements  Yes....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
 (c)(3), (c)(6)-(c)(8), (d), (e),                                                         requirements for
 (f)(1)-(f)(6), (g)(1)-(g)(4).                                                            alternative monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
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 (CMS)                                      requirements for
                                        requirements.                                     operation of CMS and
                                                                                          CEMS.
63.8(c)(5)...........................  Continuous opacity       No.....................  Subpart EEEEE does not
                                        monitoring system                                 require COMS.
                                        (COMS) Minimum
                                        Procedures.
63.8(g)(5)...........................  Data reduction.........  No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements.
63.9.................................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        requirements.
63.10(a)-(b), (c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-      Recordkeeping and        Yes....................  Additional records for
 (15), (d)(1)-(2), (e)(1)-(2), (f).     reporting requirements.                           CMS in Sec.
                                                                                          63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
                                                                                          (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.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Reporting opacity or     Yes....................
                                        visible emissions
                                        observations.
63.10(e)(3)..........................  Excess emissions         No.....................  Subpart EEEEE specifies
                                        reports.                                          reporting
                                                                                          requirements.
63.10(e)(4)..........................  Reporting COMS data....  No.....................  Subpart EEEEE data 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the 
Federal Register on September 5, 2003.
[FR Doc. 04-8977 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P