# National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A00-4143 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** March 23, 2000 - **Citation:** 65 FR 15690 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [FRL-6513-8] RIN 2060-AE77 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources at secondary aluminum production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities that would be regulated by this final rule include organic HAPs, inorganic gaseous HAPs (hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and chlorine), and particulate HAP metals. Some of these pollutants, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, are known or suspected carcinogens and all can cause toxic effects in humans following sufficient exposure. Emissions of other pollutants include particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and are based on the Administrator's determination that secondary aluminum production facilities are major sources of HAP emissions and emit several of the HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA from the various process operations found within the industry. The final rule will provide protection to the public health by requiring secondary aluminum production facilities to meet emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources would be subject to limitations on emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) only. Implementation of this rule will reduce emissions of all identified pollutants by about 14,200 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (15,600 tons per year (tpy)) and HAP emissions would be reduced by about 11,300 Mg/yr (12,400 tpy). EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective March 23, 2000. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 23, 2000. ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-61, containing information considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or local agency representative. If no State or local representative is available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in the Supplementary Information section of this preamble. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-1084, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address “santiago.juan@epamail.epa.gov.” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities Entities potentially regulated by this action are secondary aluminum production facilities using clean charge, post-consumer scrap, aluminum scrap, ingots, foundry returns, dross, or molten metal as the raw material, and performing one or more of the following processes: aluminum scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations ( i.e., melting, holding, refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. The EPA identified an estimated 3,000 facilities potentially affected by the rule (including sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, and foundries) which include one or more of the designated affected sources, 86 of which are estimated to be major sources. Most establishments are included in NAICS 331314 (Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum), although others may fall in NAICS 331315 (Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing), NAICS 331316 (Aluminum Extruded Product Manufacturing), NAICS 331319 (Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing), NAICS 331521 (Aluminum Die-Castings), and NAICS 331524 (Aluminum Foundries). Affected sources at facilities that are major sources of HAPs are regulated under the final rule. In addition, emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) from affected sources at facilities that are area sources of HAPs are also regulated. The final rule does not apply to manufacturers of aluminum die castings, aluminum foundries, or aluminum extruders that melt no materials other than clean charge and materials generated within the facility and that also do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. Secondary aluminum production facilities that are collocated with primary aluminum production are regulated under today's final rule. Regulated categories and entities include: Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities Industry 331314 3341 Secondary smelting and alloying of aluminum facilities. Secondary aluminum production facility affected sources that are collocated at: 331312 3334 Primary aluminum production facilities. 331315 3353 Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing facilities. 331316 3354 Aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities. 331319 3355 Other aluminum rolling and drawing facilities. 331521 3363 Aluminum die casting facilities. 331524 3365 Aluminum foundry facilities. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the Agency is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1500 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative: Region I—Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region I, CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3595. Region II—Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000. Region III—Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region III (3AT10), 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2110. Region IV—Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9131. Region V—George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region V (5AE-26), 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-2088. Region VI—John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220. Region VII—Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7446. Region VIII—Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6432. Region IX—Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1138. Region X—Dan Meyer, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region X (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128, (206) 553-4150. Judicial Review The NESHAP for secondary aluminum production was proposed on February 11, 1999 (63 FR 6946). Today's Federal Register action announces the EPA's final decision on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Only those objections to this rule which were raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of today's final rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Technology Transfer Network (TTN) In addition to being available in the docket, following promulgation, a copy of the rule will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The TTN provides information from EPA in various areas of air pollution technology or policy. If more information on the TTN is needed, call the TTN help line at (919)541-5384. Outline The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble to the final rule. I. Background and Public Participation II. Summary of Final Rule A. Applicability and Definitions B. Emission Limits and Requirements C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements D. Reconsideration of Standard for Die Casters and Foundries III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments A. Applicability B. Emission Standards and Operating Requirements C. Monitoring Requirements D. Impacts IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal V. Summary of Impacts A. Air Quality Impacts B. Economic Impacts C. Non-Air Health and Environmental Impacts D. Energy Impacts VI. Administrative Requirements A. Congressional Review Act B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review C. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks D. Executive Order 13084—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Regulatory Flexibility Act H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background and Public Participation The CAA (section 101(b)(1)) was created in part “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” Section 112(b), as revised in 61 FR 30816 (June 18, 1996), lists 188 HAPs believed to cause adverse health or environmental effects. Section 112(d) requires that emission standards be promulgated for all categories and subcategories of “major” sources of these HAP and for “area” sources listed for regulation, pursuant to section 112(c). Major sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to emit (from all emission points in all source categories within the facility) at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAPs. Area sources are stationary sources of HAPs that are not major sources. The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate national emission standards for sources of HAPs. Section 112(d) provides that these standards must reflect: * * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the HAP * * * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which such emission standard applies (42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2)). This level of control is referred to as MACT. For new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory “shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator” (section 112(d)(3)). Existing source standards shall be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for source categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for sources or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)). These two minimum levels of control define the MACT floor for new and existing sources. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of categories of sources slated for regulation under section 112(c). This list included the secondary aluminum production source category regulated by the standards being promulgated today. The statute requires emissions standards for the listed source categories to be promulgated between November 1992 and November 2000. On June 4, 1996, the EPA published a schedule for promulgating these standards (61 FR 28197). Standards for the secondary aluminum production source category covered by this rule were proposed on February 11, 1999 (63 FR 6946). As in the proposal, the final standards give existing sources 3 years from the date of promulgation to comply. New sources that begin construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with the standards by the date of promulgation or upon startup, whichever is later. The EPA believes these standards to be achievable by affected sources within the time provided. Emission limits, operating limits, methods for determining initial compliance, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are included in the final rule. All of these components are necessary to ensure that sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time. However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in the rule. The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal. To provide interested individuals the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards, a public hearing was offered at proposal. However, the public did not request a hearing; therefore, one was not held. The public comment period was from February 11, 1999 to April 12, 1999. A total of 36 comment letters were received. Commenters included industry representatives, State and local agencies, and environmental groups. Today's final rule reflects the EPA's full consideration of all of the comments. Major public comments on the proposed rule along with the EPA's responses to these comments are summarized in this preamble. A more detailed discussion of public comments and the EPA's responses can be found in the Response to Comment Document (Docket No. A-92-61). II. Summary of Final Rule A. Applicability and Definitions The rule applies to the following affected sources at secondary aluminum production facilities: each new, existing or reconstructed aluminum scrap shredder, thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 2 ( i.e., processing clean charge only and no reactive fluxing) furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, and rotary dross cooler; each existing secondary aluminum processing unit (composed of all existing group 1 ( i.e., processing other than clean charge and/or performing reactive fluxing) furnace emission units and all existing in-line fluxer emission units); and each new or reconstructed secondary aluminum processing unit (composed of all new or reconstructed group 1 furnace emission units and all new or reconstructed in-line fluxer emission units which are simultaneously constructed or reconstructed after February 11, 1999) located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source of HAP. The rule also limits emissions of D/F from each new, existing or reconstructed thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, and sweat furnace; and from each new, existing or reconstructed secondary aluminum processing unit that contains one or more group 1 furnace(s) not processing clean charge, and that is located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area source. The rule also applies to secondary aluminum production processes designated as affected sources if they are collocated at a primary aluminum production facility. The rule does not apply to facilities that are aluminum extruding, aluminum die casting, and aluminum foundry facilities that (1) only process clean charge and material generated within the facility, and (2) do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. Those aluminum extruding, die casting, and foundry facilities that purchase or otherwise obtain materials other than “clean charge” and operate a group 1 furnace or operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are considered secondary aluminum production facilities under this rule and as such are subject to the requirements of this rule. The EPA categorized process furnaces into two classes. A group 1 furnace includes any furnace that melts, holds, or processes aluminum containing paint, lubricants, coatings, or other foreign materials with or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean charge with reactive fluxing. Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux, other than cover flux, (including but not limited to chlorine gas and magnesium chloride) that results in a HAP emission. A group 2 (clean charge) furnace processes only molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, billet, pig, alloying elements; thermally dried unpainted aluminum chips, aluminum scrap dried at 343 °C (650 °F) or higher or delacquered/decoated at 482 °C (900 °F); oil- and lubricant-free unpainted/uncoated gates and risers; and oil- and lubricant-free unpainted/uncoated scrap, shapes, or products ( e.g., pistons) that have not undergone any process ( e.g., machining, coating, painting, etc.) that would cause contamination of the aluminum (with coatings, oils, lubricants, or paints); and internal runaround. A group 2 furnace performs no fluxing or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating gases (such as argon and nitrogen) or agents. This rule allows permitting authorities the discretion to defer Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permitting requirements until December 9, 2004, for area sources of air pollution subject to this NESHAP. This deferral is an option at the permitting authority's discretion under EPA-approved part 70 permit programs and not an automatic deferral that the source can invoke. Thus, Part 70 permitting authorities are free to require area sources subject to this NESHAP to obtain title V permits. In areas where no approved part 70 program is in effect, and the part 71 permitting program is administered by EPA, we will defer the requirement for title V permitting for these area sources until December 9, 2004. In a separate action, the Agency proposed final amendments on August 18, 1999 to extend title V operating permit deferrals for area sources in five source categories (64 FR 45116). B. Emission Limits and Requirements The rule applies to major sources. In addition, the following emission sources located at secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources of HAPs are regulated for emissions of D/F: new and existing thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, sweat furnaces, and secondary aluminum processing units containing group 1 furnaces that process other than clean charge. The emission limits for these units are summarized in Table 1 to subpart RRR in the final rule. The particulate matter (PM) emission limits apply to new, reconstructed and existing aluminum scrap shredders, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources. Controlling PM emissions also controls emissions of HAP metals. A surrogate approach to emission limits is used to allow easier and less expensive measurement and monitoring requirements. The rule limits total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions from new and existing thermal chip dryers and from new and existing scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns at secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources. The THC represents emissions of HAP organics. Hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limits apply to new, reconstructed and existing scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources. The HCl is itself a HAP, and it also serves as a surrogate measure of HAP inorganics including hydrogen fluoride (HF) and chlorine (Cl 2 ) emissions. The rule limits emissions of D/F from new, reconstructed and existing thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns and sweat furnaces, and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum production facilities that are major or area sources. The D/F emission limit does not apply to facilities that are primarily die casting, extruding, or foundry facilities provided that they do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, and do not process materials other than materials generated within the facility unless it is “clean charge” (defined in the rule). No surrogate is used for D/F emissions. C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements The rule includes operating and monitoring requirements for each affected source and emission unit within a secondary aluminum processing unit to ensure continuous compliance with the emissions standards. The rule incorporates all requirements of the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) except as provided in the appendix to the rule (Appendix A to subpart RRR). The operating and monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 2 to subpart RRR in the final rule. D. Reconsideration of Standard for Die Casters and Foundries EPA has based its MACT standard for aluminum die casting and aluminum foundries, as well as its assessment of the economic impacts on small businesses in these industries, on information on representative facility practices provided to EPA by these industries to date. However, affected facilities in these industries have expressed concern that the information and assumptions upon which EPA has relied may be incomplete or may not adequately represent the processes and emissions at such facilities. Accordingly, EPA has decided that it would be prudent to gather further information concerning facilities in the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries and then to reevaluate MACT requirements and the economic impact on small businesses in these industries in light of this information. Accordingly, EPA will issue within three months a proposed rule to remove the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries from the present secondary aluminum standard, and a proposed rule to stay the applicability of the present standard to the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries while EPA reevaluates the MACT requirements applicable to such facilities. EPA intends to take final action concerning the proposed stay as soon thereafter as practicable. EPA will also initiate a formal process to collect further information from the facilities in these industries on the activities in which they engage and the potential of these activities to contribute to HAP emissions. After evaluating this information, EPA will make a new determination concerning MACT requirements for both major facilities and area sources in these industries. EPA expects to adopt any alternative MACT standard applicable to these industries, and to take final action to remove the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries from the current standard, within two years. Any alternative MACT standard adopted for these industries will provide three years from the date of promulgation for affected facilities to achieve compliance. III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments This section presents a summary of responses to selected comments. A more comprehensive comment summary and responses can be found in Docket No. A-92-61. A. Applicability Comment: Several commenters wanted to exempt unvented in-line flux boxes from testing and monitoring requirements and suggested regulating them via work practices based on the following statements: • Emissions do not have the potential to exceed the emission limit because small amounts (< 0.2 lbs/ton) of chlorine gas flux are used; • There is no acceptable method for sampling their fugitive emissions, so exclusion from testing and monitoring would improve the SAPU concept and substantially reduce costs; and • Unvented in-line flux boxes are a pollution prevention design that operate within allowable OSHA limits and should be considered representative of the MACT floor when properly installed. Response: Unvented in-line fluxers are capable of using and emitting chlorine and HCl in excess of the HCl emission standard for in-line fluxers, 0.04 lb/ton. One manufacturer of unvented in-line fluxers specifies a flux rate of 0.92 pounds chlorine per ton aluminum. The Agency has no reason to believe that fluxing at 0.2 to 0.9 lb/ton in an “unvented” in-line fluxer will meet the MACT floor level of emissions. Owner/operators can meet the emission limit by capturing and venting emissions to add-on controls or limiting the chlorine flux input to the fluxer. Limiting chlorine flux input to levels below the emission limit and monitoring flux addition is a work practice that would avoid the need for testing to demonstrate compliance. If testing is necessary, testing costs may be reduced through like-for-like testing allowed in the final rule, i.e., with multiple uncontrolled flux boxes of same design and same operating practice, only one needs to be tested to demonstrate compliance. The commenter's claim that such units cannot be tested is not valid. One unvented flux box at a facility that will be subject to this rule has been tested since proposal, and the results reported to the Agency. This particular unit was tested by measuring emissions at the point where fluxed metal exits the flux box. Another method of testing is to construct a temporary enclosure around the fluxer for the short duration of performance tests to capture fugitive emissions for measurement purposes (see Docket Item IV-A-1). Following the performance tests, flux usage must be monitored, and the flux box operating procedures must be maintained to ensure continuous compliance with the HCl standard. With regard to “unvented” fluxers being a pollution prevention design that should be considered a MACT floor, commenters have referred to perceived lower emissions that presumably are achieved by lower and more efficient use of fluxing agents. The MACT floor technology for control of in-line flux boxes upon which the emission limit is based is a lime-injected fabric filter; this technology can achieve an emission limit of 0.04 lb/ton HCl. No data were provided by the commenters to demonstrate equal or lower emissions from “unvented” fluxers over the full range of input flux as compared to vented fluxers with the floor technology. Comment: Several commenters opposed regulation of area manufacturing sources of D/F emissions, such as extrusion, die casting, and foundry facilities. Another commenter asserted that the EPA assumed area and major source D/F emitting processes emit at about equal rates per ton of feed, but data available to EPA for side-charge and roll top melters processing clean charge show those furnaces are not significant sources of D/F as compared to furnaces charging dirty scrap. This commenter also contended the EPA assumption that 55 percent of all delacquering furnaces are located at area sources was the basis for regulating area sources. In comments on the Integrated Urban Air Toxics strategy, the commenter claimed there were inappropriate assumptions and errors in the inventories for sections 112(c)(6) and 112(k). Response: The EPA acknowledges the error regarding delacquering furnaces in the inventory for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics strategy. The EPA recognizes that emissions of D/F from affected sources in secondary aluminum processing facilities are site-specific and depend on the type of materials (scrap) fed to the process, flux type, flux rate, and flux practices among other variables. For both major and area sources, the materials fed to the furnace and combustion processes contain varying amounts of oil (hydrocarbons) and coatings (hydrocarbons and chlorides). These compounds found in scrap containing oils and coatings, as well as some fluxes, are D/F precursors. Processes located at facilities that are area sources and using the same feed and flux materials as are used at major sources will emit D/F at levels equal to the same processes at major source facilities. The EPA is not claiming that the total D/F emissions from affected sources located at facilities that are area sources are equal to the total D/F emissions from facilities that are major sources. However, there were also other commenters who mentioned large numbers of sweat furnaces in their States whose emissions were not counted, suggesting there are additional D/F emissions beyond those estimated in the national impacts at proposal. The EPA has developed an estimate of D/F emissions from sweat furnaces located at facilities that are area sources. That estimate is now included in the national impact calculations. Comment: Numerous commenters representing aluminum extruders, aluminum die casters, and aluminum foundries stated that their facilities should not be regulated because they differ fundamentally from large secondary aluminum production facilities in emission potential, particularly D/F emissions. The commenters raised the following issues: • Extruders encompass a broad spectrum of facilities and appear to fall within the broad definition of secondary aluminum production facilities, which range from relatively small facilities owned by large companies to facilities owned by independent business people, many of which the commenter claimed are small businesses. • Some extruders, die casters, and foundries use no purchased scrap but do use internally generated scrap, while other facilities use small amounts of “clean” purchased scrap. Some are concerned that regulation may interfere with the effort to recycle at the plant, while others who purchase scrap see the regulation as creating a disincentive to recycle from outside the plant. • Impurities in scrap are a principal source of D/F precursors. The commenters stated that extruders, die casters, and foundries cannot be large contributors to D/F emissions because they use or process only small amounts of higher quality scrap and do limited fluxing. One commenter argued that EPA should exclude extruders as small contributors to D/F emissions as in Alabama Power vs. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980) using the de minimis exception articulated in that case. • Previous EPA publications support the distinction between die casters and secondary aluminum production facilities: •• The Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List defines secondary aluminum production as facilities that smelt, and not including die casters; •• An EPA new source review guidance memo (Treatment of Aluminum Die Casting Operations for the Purposes of New Source Review Applicability from, Thomas Curran, Director, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, December 4, 1998) states “die casting facilities typically need not be considered secondary metal production plants” (the commenters argued that this memo acknowledges that die casters could engage in in-house recycling of castings and not be considered a secondary aluminum production facility); and •• The Secondary Brass and Bronze New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) distinguishes between facilities that reclaim brass and bronze and those that create a finished product. Applying the D/F standard to affected sources located at facilities that are area sources will subject facilities such as extruders, die casters, and foundries to the burden of title V permitting and MACT monitoring and reporting. One of these commenters stated that no environmental benefit will be gained from regulating area source aluminum production facilities since they already meet the emission limitation. Response: The EPA has considered these issues and responds as follows to the points raised: • With respect to the first issue, the EPA agrees that based on the definition of secondary aluminum production facility and current operations of some facilities that are extruders, those extruders would be subject to this rule. Numerous comments on the applicability section and definitions in the proposed rule were received and after consideration of those comments, the EPA has revised those sections of the final rule. As part of the revisions, the EPA has concluded that aluminum extruding, aluminum die casting, and aluminum foundry facilities that process no materials other than materials generated within the facility and “clean charge” (defined in the rule), and that do not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are not secondary aluminum production facilities and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of the rule. Based on comments and information received in response to the proposal and subsequent meetings with the sources, the Agency believes that most small businesses will not fall under the definition of secondary aluminum production facility. Those aluminum extruding, die casting, and foundry facilities that do purchase or otherwise obtain materials other than “clean charge” and/or operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln are secondary aluminum production facilities and are subject to this rule. The commenter's reference to some small facilities being owned by large companies is consistent with the EPA's knowledge that large companies in the secondary aluminum production industry engage in extruding operations. The commenter also claimed that some extruders are owned by independent businesses, many of which are small, however no specific quantitative data were provided to assist the Agency in assessing potential impacts. • With regard to the second issue, the regulation discouraging recycling within the plant, the final rule does not prevent facilities that are area sources from using internally-generated scrap as charge to their group 1 furnaces. Regarding purchased scrap, although some extruders, die casters, and foundries use only small amounts of purchased scrap in their operations, other information provided to the EPA since proposal indicates that some of this type facility use more than half scrap (purchased and internally generated) as feed/charge in their operations (see Docket Item IV-E-2). The issue with purchased scrap is the level of contamination with D/F emission precursors. The EPA worked with industry representatives during the regulatory development phase to establish definitions and specifications for purchased scrap that would yield lower HAP emissions. Data collected indicated that the percentage of oil and coatings in scrap (hydrocarbon and chloride content) varies over a large range. No concurrence was achieved on the levels of scrap oil and coatings content that would reliably limit the processing of D/F precursors from affected sources, nor was concurrence achieved on a way to measure these levels of oil and coatings. Further, a similar discussion with industry representatives failed to reach a consensus on how to define limited reactive fluxing, the other important aspect of D/F emission potential. The EPA has concluded that facilities in which aluminum scrap is processed, whether purchased or otherwise acquired from outside the facility, fall within the secondary aluminum production source category. • With regard to the third issue, these commenters assert that these facilities are not large contributors to D/F emissions because they purchase only small amounts of scrap or “clean” scrap, thus limiting the availability of D/F precursors in the affected sources. However, three factors (the total quantity of scrap fed to processes, the percentage of oil and coatings contamination of the scrap, and the flux rate) are significant variables that affect generation of D/F precursors. As mentioned above, some facilities use significant amounts of purchased scrap. Regarding the comment citing Alabama Power vs. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and requesting de minimis exemption for extruders, EPA notes that CAA Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to regulate sources accounting in the aggregate for more than 90 percent of certain dioxin and furan emissions, and that EPA cannot use a de minimis rationale to exclude area sources from regulation if this would be inconsistent with this statutory mandate. • With regard to the fourth issue, documentation for the Source Category Listing states that the secondary aluminum production source category includes “any facility engaged in the cleaning, melting, refining, alloying, and pouring of aluminum recovered from scrap, foundry returns, and dross, to form aluminum products such as alloy ingots, billets, notched bars, shot, hot metals, and hardeners.” The documentation also states that the category includes pretreatment processes which include drying, burning, and sweating, among others. Although there can be differences in operations and products between secondary aluminum production facilities and those facilities that are primarily die casting, foundry, and extrusion facilities, for the purposes of this NESHAP, the Agency considers the die casting, foundry, and extrusion facilities that use aluminum scrap and other coated/painted aluminum bearing materials obtained from outside their facilities to be engaging in secondary aluminum production operations. The EPA new source review guidance memo referenced by the commenter has, in addition to the commenter's quote, an extensive discussion of the fact that some facilities whose primary activity is die casting also perform secondary metals production from post-consumer scrap or unspecified aluminum scrap. This type of facility was identified in the memo as a “nested” secondary aluminum support facility. Such facilities also use processing equipment that is defined as an affected source under this rule. It is the acquisition of aluminum-bearing materials from outside the facility that are not “clean charge,” and the presence of affected sources that subject the facility to this rule. The difference in products is not the determining factor. The final rule clarifies that aluminum die casting, aluminum foundry, and aluminum extrusion facilities that process only clean charge (as distinct from scrap) are not secondary aluminum production facilities (regardless of the remelting of internally generated scrap), provided they do not operate thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, or sweat furnaces. Aluminum die casting, extruding, and foundry facilities that process aluminum scrap, etc., in the furnaces (i.e., materials that are not clean charge) from outside the facility are secondary aluminum production facilities and subject to the final rule. • Regarding the fifth issue, the burden of title V permitting, monitoring, and reporting for area sources, the final rule has been changed to allow permitting authorities the discretion to defer the title V permitting requirements for secondary aluminum production area source facilities that are not otherwise subject to title V permitting requirements under other regulatory actions. A further change that will reduce the burden for area sources is that they will only be required to conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate compliance. The requirement to repeat the performance test every 5 years has been eliminated for area sources. Facilities that use add-on controls will be required to monitor parameters in accordance with their approved site-specific OM&M plan. Facilities that are area sources which use purchased scrap, but meet the D/F emission limit without add-on controls, i.e., use work practices, will also be required to monitor in accordance with their site-specific OM&M plan. Their monitoring provisions will include a calculation method for determination of scrap contamination levels, or a scrap inspection program to demonstrate they are not exceeding the scrap quantity and oil and coatings contamination levels, and flux rate established during the initial performance test. The environmental benefit of controlling D/F from these affected sources is reduction of emissions of an environmentally persistent HAP. The benefits of monitoring for those sources who meet the limit without add-on controls is continuing evidence that the operating practices used during the compliance tests are maintained and emissions remain at a level below the limit. Comment: Commenters desired to allow new or reconstructed units into the SAPU and encourage EPA to do it with a discount applied to the new unit's allowed emissions. The commenters stated that: • It will allow sources to take advantage of the more efficient fluxing achievable in new flux boxes, in particular the “unvented” flux boxes. • It promotes pollution prevention and is consistent with common sense initiatives and project XL innovations that allow plantwide applicability limits. • It is not standard avoidance, but a more effective way of complying. Response: To allow new or reconstructed units into a SAPU consisting of existing units would involve averaging the emission reductions achieved by new and existing affected sources. Since new and existing sources are subject to separate standards and must individually demonstrate compliance, creation of a source which has both new and existing emission units is not permitted by the CAA. Therefore, EPA will not allow new units to become part of a SAPU comprised of existing units. In order for new units to have the same benefits available to existing emission units, the Agency has revised the rule to allow for a new SAPU, that is composed entirely of simultaneously constructed new sources and/or simultaneously reconstructed sources, in addition to the SAPU for existing emission units. Comment: In comments on combining and treating emissions from existing sources with those from new sources in a single control system: • One commenter asked to group an existing or new furnace with a new in-line fluxer as a separate affected source (outside the SAPU). The combined unit would have the same limits as the furnace by itself for PM, HCl, and D/F ( i.e., no emission increment for the new fluxer). The industry claimed a significant improvement in fluxing efficiency with much lower emissions is associated with moving fluxing from the furnace to in-line fluxers. • Another commenter requested that the rule be expanded to affirm that new emission units may be ducted to existing control systems if capacity is available or can be expanded to accommodate the new source. Response: The problem with combining a new affected source with an existing affected source is that the new source is required to meet the specified emission limits, but once combined, the new source emissions are not measurable separately from the emissions from the existing source. As noted in the response to the previous comment, there is no legal construct under the CAA that permits combining control requirements for existing and new sources, therefore, the combination of an existing furnace and new in-line fluxer is not permitted. The revisions to the final rule do provide for the establishment of a SAPU composed entirely of simultaneously constructed new emission units. This will allow the combination of a new furnace and new in-line fluxer as a SAPU, but not allow combining a new furnace or in-line fluxer with an existing SAPU. Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the applicability of the rule to sweat furnaces: • One commenter, a manufacturer of sweat furnaces, expressed concern about economic impacts on small aluminum reclamation operators. This commenter estimated that there are at least several hundred sweat furnaces manufactured by them currently being used nationally with capacities considerably less than the model sweat furnace used in EPA's analysis of impacts (5,000 tons/year). All of their furnaces are equipped with integral afterburners. This commenter also submitted an afterburner performance test report showing 97.8 percent removal of PM by the afterburner and claimed, but did not have measurements, that D/F removal should be similar. The commenter stated that the preamble did not show D/F results upstream of the afterburners or what destruction efficiency was achieved. • Another commenter attached a brochure from a manufacturer claiming to have distributed over 2,000 small sweat furnaces. This commenter states that the proposal underestimated the number of these sources. The commenter believes that testing and control costs will eliminate small businesses from the market and suggested that regulations for area sources be withdrawn until small business, health, and environmental impacts have been reassessed. Another manufacturer of sweat furnaces suggested a technology-based standard for area source sweat furnaces with no testing required. Response: The EPA has no test data to support a comparison between PM and D/F removal efficiencies. The D/F emission limit in the proposed and final rules has been proven to be achievable with MACT floor technology. Based on the information contained in these comments, the EPA requested additional information and data from sweat furnace manufacturers to further assess impacts of regulating D/F emissions from the furnaces. The large number of units reported to be manufactured suggested large numbers of these affected sources are currently in operation. The EPA's further investigation found that although one manufacturer who commented only sells sweat furnaces with integral afterburners for emission control; that is not the case for all domestic manufacturers. Due to the large number of these sources and the types of scrap materials processed, their D/F emission potential is significant both individually and in the aggregate. Recognizing this, the EPA considered additional regulatory strategies for sweat furnaces and performed an economic analysis to examine the impacts of those strategies. The conclusion from this analysis is that the cost of measuring D/F emissions from sweat furnaces through a performance test is significant in comparison to the cost of the furnace and afterburner. Based on this analysis the EPA has revised the rule to add an alternative means of compliance. Owner/operators electing to install and operate an afterburner meeting the design criteria of operating temperature of at least 1600 °F and a 2 second residence time will not have to conduct performance tests. The final rule retains the numerical standard so that owner/operators with control equipment that does not meet the design criteria have the option to test to show that the D/F emissions are below the limit. These revisions to the proposed rule, combined with many anticipated State permitting authority decisions to exercise their discretion to defer the requirement for title V permits, will significantly reduce the burden for both large and small businesses operating sweat furnaces. The economic impact analysis conducted for this regulation reports minimal economic impacts to owners and operators of sweat furnaces. B. Definitions Comment: Numerous comments were received on the definition of “clean charge.” • One commenter stated that the definition should include as clean charge, outside runaround that is contractually ensured to be clean. • Other commenters stated that they support inclusion of “non-coated runaround” scrap in the definition, which may have small amounts of lubricant, and that some runaround is returned from customers. These commenters stated that the rule should allow external, preconsumer, and non-coated runaround scrap in group 2 furnaces. • Several commenters requested that EPA define non-coated runaround scrap or redefine clean charge to allow scrap covered with lubricants or substances low in materials that could generate D/F. Many die casters use scrap generated on-site (miscast material, defective parts, and cutoffs of excess aluminum) that may have inorganic agents (clay or talc) or die release agents (heavy waxes or high molecular weight oils) that do not generate D/F when burned. • Commenters representing extruders also wanted to revise the definition to include purchased scrap low in materials that contribute to D/F generation. • Other commenters noted the proposed definition of clean charge allows only pure aluminum (pure aluminum is an incorrect term) that cannot be cast in a die casting machine. They stated that the definition of clean charge also restricts the use of chips that have not been processed in a chip dryer and this is a disincentive for exploration of new technology (presses, centrifuges, and washers) alternatives to chip drying. Some facilities that do dry chips do not heat to 343 °C because it may oxidize the metal. The temperature to which chips must be heated to qualify as clean charge is arbitrary and was not considered with any input from foundries and die casters. Response: In regard to the first four comments on “clean charge,” EPA has reviewed and reconsidered the definition of clean charge. The definition of clean charge at proposal erroneously included non-coated runaround scrap which commenters wanted clarified to include runaround from outside the facility ( i.e., external, relatively “clean,” preconsumer, non-coated runaround). The commenters acknowledged that the runaround may have “small” amounts of lubricant and coatings. Lubricants, oils, and coatings are D/F precursors. As explained in a previous response, the EPA worked with industry representatives during the regulatory development phase to establish definitions and specifications for purchased scrap that would yield consistently lower HAP emissions when charged to furnaces. Data collected indicated that the percentage of oil and coatings in scrap (hydrocarbon and chloride content) varies over a large range. No concurrence was achieved on the levels of scrap oil and coatings content, or a universal method of measuring the scrap content of oils/coatings, that would reliably limit the processing of D/F precursors from affected sources. Group 2 and those group 1 furnaces that are “clean charge” furnaces have no D/F emission limit. It is not consistent with the concept of clean charge furnaces to allow oil- and lubricant-bearing scrap purchased or otherwise obtained from outside the facility to be charged as clean charge. For this reason, the Agency has clarified that the definition of clean charge includes internally generated runaround. Internal runaround is defined in the final rule as scrap material generated on-site by aluminum extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/stamping, cutting, and trimming operations that do not contain paint or solid coatings. Aluminum chips generated by turning, boring, milling, and similar machining operations that have not been dried at 343 °C (650 °F) or higher, or by an equivalent non-thermal drying process, are not considered internal runaround. Clean charge also does not include “runaround” scrap that is purchased or otherwise obtained from outside the facility. Secondary aluminum production facilities may use painted and/or purchased runaround in group 2 furnaces by drying or delacquering it to meet the definition of clean charge, so as to eliminate the possibility of D/F formation in the furnace. Owner/operators may also charge painted and/or purchased runaround scrap to uncontrolled group 1 furnaces in a SAPU, provided they achieve an initial compliance demonstration and operate according to an OM&M plan approved by the permitting authority. For group 1 furnaces operated without add-on controls, the plan would likely include a site-specific scrap inspection or certification program of some type to indicate the contamination level and to define the percentage of scrap in the total furnace charge. As noted in a response to a previous comment, facilities that are primarily aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders that process only on-site materials or clean charge, and that do not operate a thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or sweat furnace are not secondary aluminum production facilities and are not subject to this rule. • With regard to the fifth comment, relating to the use of the term “pure aluminum” in the definition of “clean charge” in the proposed rule, the definition has been revised for the final rule to eliminate the word “pure” as a modifier of aluminum and instead describe it as oil- and lubricant-free uncoated/unpainted aluminum. With respect to the issue of chip drying and the potential for oxidation of the aluminum, the final rule does not contain a minimum temperature requirement for thermal chip drying to make the chips “clean charge.” With regard to other chip processing, the Agency is not precluding new technology such as presses, centrifuges, and washers that may be capable of producing chips with no oily residue, thus qualifying those processed chips as clean charge. C. Emission Standards and Operating Requirements Comment: One commenter urged EPA to review the application of fluoride and chlorine fluxes in the secondary aluminum industry and to verify the appropriateness of HCl as a surrogate. Response: Emission limits for HCl were proposed because test data indicate that HCl is emitted when chlorine and reactive chloride fluxes are used, and the technology representing the MACT floor for HCl removal, which was determined to be lime injected fabric filters, also achieves MACT floor level removal of chlorine and HF. Although some fluoride fluxes are used by the industry, differences in flux properties, cost relative to chlorine/chloride fluxes, and occupational health considerations related to in-plant particulate levels limit the amounts used, thus limiting the potential for HF emissions. Comment: One commenter stated that emission limits do not reflect limits achievable using currently available technology, and that neither the limits nor the selected MACT accurately reflect MACT. The commenter stated that the MACT floor emission levels violate section 112 of the CAA in that they are not based on the best-controlled sources for new sources and are not at least as stringent as the best performing 12 percent for existing sources. According to the commenter, EPA should consider, but did not, emission limits more stringent than the floor. In a related comment, another commenter disagrees with the dioxin emission standards and states that they are unsupported by emissions data. According to the commenter, the method of developing the limit is inconsistent with the CAA and fails to recognize the law of averages and, in the case of SAPUs, is illegal because it permits individual group 1 furnaces to emit dioxin at levels in excess of the MACT floor. Response: The commenters argued that EPA did not properly consider the available emissions data in establishing the MACT floor emissions limits. In the case, Sierra Club v. EPA (March 2, 1999), the DC Circuit held that because MACT standards must be achievable in practice, EPA must assure that the standards are achievable “under most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur” (assuming proper design and operation of control technology). The court further held that EPA can reasonably interpret the MACT floor methodology language so long as the Agency's methodology in a particular rule allows it to “make a reasonable estimate of the performance of the top 12 percent of units,” that evaluating how a given MACT technology performs is a permissible means of estimating this performance, and that new source standards need not be based on performance of a single source. The court's decisions give EPA latitude in determining the MACT floor and the MACT floor emission limits. The EPA determined the MACT floor based on information available for each affected source and emission unit. At proposal, the EPA selected emission limits at the floor level of control, and the commenters provided no additional emissions data for any pollutant for EPA to consider. The emission standards are based on the emissions levels achieved through the application of MACT floor technologies and account for variation in the process and in the air pollution control device effectiveness. Comment: Several commenters did not want an exceedance of an operating parameter to be a violation of an operating requirement. According to the commenters: • The rule is not clear as to what constitutes a violation of the operating requirements. • Operating parameters are only indicators of process and control performance, not a direct measure of excess emissions. • An exceedance should not to be a violation until six exceedances occur in a 6-month period. • No more than one violation should be counted per 24 hour period for any one parameter. • The rule is not clear on whether a failure to take corrective action in response to an exceedance is a violation of the standard. • A failure to initiate corrective action within 1 hour should constitute a violation. • The rule should specify that if corrective action is begun within 1 hour and completed in accordance with the startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) plan, no violation has occurred. Response: The EPA has considered the issue of a deviation being a violation and addresses the commenters' points as follows: • With regard to the commenters' first point, the language in the final rule has been written to make clear that a deviation of an operating parameter is a violation of the operating standard. Each major source facility owner/operator is required to define the compliance parameters to be monitored in their OM&M plan. Then, during the initial performance tests, they are required to monitor and establish the value or range of the parameters. These values must be reported in the results of the test and notification of compliance status to the permitting authority and must be approved by the permitting authority. During subsequent operations, if the monitored parameters exceed the values or fall outside the range determined during the initial performance test, it is a violation of the operating requirements of the standard, unless it is the result of a malfunction to which the facility responds to in accordance with the SSM plan. • Regarding the second point, the owner/operator may use continuous emission monitors (CEMs) as a direct measure of the emissions rather than using operating parameters if such CEMs can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the permitting agency to reliably measure emissions. • Regarding the third point, the EPA has no basis for allowing six deviations before considering the facility to be in violation. The owner/operator has ample opportunity to establish a range for the operating parameters and must thereafter operate within that range. • Regarding the fourth point, any deviation of an operating parameter limit is a violation of the operating standard, regardless of when it occurs, unless it is the result of a malfunction to which the owner or operator responds in accordance with the SSM plan. • Regarding the fifth and sixth points, the rule requires corrective action as a result of an operating parameter deviation or bag leak detector alarm. Corrective action must be conducted in accordance with the operations, maintenance and monitoring plan. Failure to take corrective action and to complete corrective action as expeditiously as practicable is a violation of the operating standard. • Regarding the seventh point, a deviation that is the result of a malfunction, to which the facility responds in accordance to its SSM plan, is excluded as a violation. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the requirement that capture and collection systems meet the criteria established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for hooding and ventilation systems. The commenters claimed EPA has not shown that MACT floor facilities' hooding and ventilation systems met ACGIH criteria so that the requirement is arbitrary; EPA should show that the facilities met the ACGIH criteria. Several commenters stated that because EPA has no data to support the requirement for ACGIH criteria for capture and collection equipment for existing sources, they recommended the requirement apply only to new sources. Other commenters stated that although currently protecting work space air quality, most existing systems would not meet ACGIH criteria, meaning significant expenditures to upgrade those systems. The EPA likely did not account for these costs in their economic analysis; they agree with the commenters who stated that the requirement should be limited to new or modified sources. Response: For affected sources and emission units that require an air pollution control device, a capture and control system meeting ACGIH criteria is necessary for occupational safety and to meet the emission standards. The emission standards are based on systems that effectively capture and contain emissions at the source (minimizing fugitives) and convey them to the control device for removal. In addition, a capture and control system meeting ACGIH criteria with good hooding design will result in a lower volume of exhaust air to be treated, and in many cases, a smaller, lower-cost control device. The EPA considers an ACGIH capture and collection system to be part of MACT floor technology for affected sources with add-on controls. Comment: One commenter supported not counting false alarms of the bag leak detection system in the alarm time. Another commenter stated that the monitoring and reporting requirements are reasonable in order to confirm compliance, with the exception of bag leak detectors. The commenter stated that a facility should not be penalized for rapid response to an alarm and recommends that the actual time be counted and delete the 1-hour minimum alarm time. Response: The rule has been clarified so that false alarms are not counted and a 1-hour minimum has been retained in the final rule to encourage proactive fabric filter maintenance. Comment: Several commenters did not want the labeling requirement. They argued that, (1) The inspectors can get this information from the OM&M plan in the office before entering the plant; (2) the labels will be hard to maintain in a plant environment; (3) it creates opportunity for violation with no commensurate benefit and increases/duplicates regulatory paperwork; and (4) the labeling requirement generates safety concerns. Response: The EPA believes that labeling requirements are necessary for enforcement and operating purposes and should be retained due to the complexity of the industry and the numerous possible facility configurations (and emission units that could be combined within a SAPU). Labeling will help prevent operators from charging the wrong materials or improperly operating the units and will help inspectors in identifying units and determining if the units are being properly operated. However, EPA understands industry's concerns over the implementation of the labeling requirements and has revised the proposed rule to require labeling only at those affected sources and emission units that can be operated in more than one mode and/or which are physically very similar, including group 1 furnaces with and without add-on controls, group 2 furnaces, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, and in-line fluxers. In addition, the final rule requires that labels contain only the identification of the unit and the applicable operational standards. These revisions respond to industry's concerns regarding increased regulatory paperwork with no commensurate benefits while maintaining enforceability of the standards since both operators and inspectors will clearly know the operating standards/requirements of each emission unit. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the requirement to maintain the same flux injection schedule as used in performance tests. One commenter stated that they should be given flexibility to develop schedule procedures during performance tests subject to approval by the permitting authority. According to one commenter, the requirement to maintain the same flux injection schedule as used in performance tests, which would be done under worst case conditions, would result in an increase in HCL emissions and cause other negative environmental impacts. Another commenter stated that this requirement will cause increased HCL emissions for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces and will restrict work practices to minimize chlorine use. The commenter suggested a separate provision to maintain the same flux injection schedule for baghouses with semi-continuous lime feed systems. One commenter wanted flux monitoring on a monthly basis and the schedule requirement eliminated. The rule could be interpreted to preclude a system with computerized monitoring of furnace operations/controls with correlated emissions and online continuous emissions calculations. Response: Owners or operators are required to conduct performance tests under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur. This is represented by the maximum reactive flux rate. The final rule provides that sources may flux (on a lb per ton of feed/charge basis), up to the limit established during a successful performance test, and does not require maintaining the same schedule. The rule also does not require owners or operators to use more flux than necessary to produce a saleable product. These requirements will not lead to increased HC1 emissions. The standards for emission units performing reactive fluxing, all of which are included in the SAPU affected source, were developed using emissions data gathered during a complete cycle. Because of the difference in cycle times and schedules, the EPA recognized the need to develop emission limits for SAPUs that would account for overlapping cycles of the emission units included in the emissions calculation and a 3-day, 24-hour rolling average was selected as the maximum averaging time required. Reactive flux monitoring on a monthly basis is not acceptable in that it is inconsistent with the emission standards based on 3-day, 24-hour rolling average and the established monitoring parameter values or ranges derived during the performance test. Monitoring over a period consistent with the basis of the emission standards provides the necessary evidence of continuous compliance. The issue of flux injection rate and schedule is related to lime injection practice for the fabric filter control systems. The final rule provides operating requirements for the floor technology, which is continuous lime injection systems with lime-injected fabric filters. Owners/operators who want to use intermittent lime feed systems (as opposed to continuous injection) must show compliance with the emission limits and must apply to the permitting authority for approval of an alternative lime addition monitoring procedure. The owners/operators must provide information as necessary to show that the applicable emission limits will be achieved on a continuous basis. The rule does not preclude the use of computerized systems that correlate controls and operating practices with emissions and calculate emissions on a continuous basis once this approach is approved by the permitting authority and incorporated into the site-specific OM&M plan. Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the +25 °F associated with the inlet temperature limit for fabric filters established during the initial performance test. According to two commenters, the operating temperature of these fabric filters will vary more than 25 °F due to changes in ambient temperatures. This creates an unnecessary risk of violation and provides no environmental benefit. Another commenter stated that instead of the temperature requirement, electrochemical HCl sensors for automatic lime feed adjustment and other automatic systems should be considered to allow greater operating flexibility. One commenter stated that in-line fluxers are not regulated for dioxin emissions and therefore do not need a temperature limit. Response: The proposed rule has been changed to eliminate this requirement for fabric filters only controlling in-line fluxers since these units operate at temperatures that are close to ambient temperature. For other affected sources and emission units, or fluxers ducted to a device co-controlling other sources, the +25 °F limit is retained. Operators would be expected to add dilution air or water sprays as required to maintain the fabric filter inlet temperature within the range. Also, performance tests could be conducted at worst case conditions. For example, performance tests could be conducted so that the inlet temperature is much higher than the normal operating inlet temperature (450 °F vs 380 °F, for example, thus providing a larger operating range). Dioxin formation is strongly influenced by the temperature at the fabric filter inlet, and temperature control is the means of preventing D/F formation (and enhancing HCl removal) in the fabric filter. Temperature is also a parameter which is monitored to ensure continuous compliance between periodic performance tests. This is because it is an indicator of control device performance for D/F and HCl emissions. Comment: According to one commenter, owners and operators could demonstrate compliance with the HCl emission limit by monitoring total chlorine input and showing it to be less than the emission limit. Response: The EPA agrees that, for in-line fluxers and group 1 furnaces processing only clean charge, operators may demonstrate compliance (in lieu of performance tests) by demonstrating that reactive flux injection is limited to a rate which would not exceed the standard if emitted in its entirety. D. Monitoring Requirements Comment: Several comments were received that requested more flexibility in the monitoring requirements aimed at reducing the burden to the industry: • One commenter stated that the operating and monitoring requirements of §§ 63.1506 and 63.1510 are too prescriptive and not consistent with preamble statements regarding flexibility. • Several commenters stated that EPA should allow alternative site-specific monitoring and operating plans to improve feasibility and cost effectiveness. • Another commenter stated that separate provisions should be included in each of §§ 63.1506 and 63.1510 allowing facilities to develop alternative procedures approvable by the applicable permitting agency. • Two commenters claimed the provisions will result in burdensome, labor-intensive requirements without commensurate benefit to the environment. • Another commenter with a rolling mill facility claimed their plant is operating at demonstrated low emission levels and seeks monitoring plan flexibility to allow their facility to continue in its present mode. Referring to this plant, another commenter stated that the plant has developed a correlation between opacity and PM which has been used for over a year, in accordance with a regulatory order. This monitoring has been approved by EPA and the local agency and is federally enforceable. Response: The final rule has been written to incorporate more flexibility in the monitoring requirements: • With regard to the commenters' first, second, and third points, the final rule includes explicit provisions for obtaining approval to use alternative monitoring procedures and lists the types of information needed in the application. It includes data or information to justify the request such as technical or economic infeasibility, a description of the proposed alternative monitoring requirements including operating parameters and how the limit for SAPUs (if SAPUs are included in the application) will be calculated, and information as to how the alternative monitoring requirements would provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the standards. In addition, in response to the numerous comments received regarding the proposed monitoring and operating provisions, the final rule has been written to provide more flexibility to individual facilities in developing their OM&M plans and for approval of site-specific monitoring and operating alternatives, within EPA guidelines, by the permitting authority. Additional comment responses below discuss some specific changes made in the final rule. • Regarding the fourth point, the monitoring requirements are necessary to demonstrate continuous compliance and, as such, are environmentally beneficial. Most, if not all, of the monitoring data collection or logging can be computerized and, therefore, will not be labor intensive. • Regarding the fifth point, specifically, the final rule allows the owner/operator of a plant to apply to the Administrator for alternative monitoring, if necessary, or document their current procedures in the facility OM&M plan. The OM&M plan is submitted to the permitting authority for review and approval. The final rule gives more flexibility, for example, through guidance for scrap inspections (used in operating limits and monitoring) that is less prescriptive and more options for lime injection monitoring. Comment: Several commenters stated that the monitoring frequencies and data quality objectives are too restrictive and specific for application across a diverse industry and bear no relevance to the emission standards or ensuring proper operation of emission controls. Another commenter agreed with the selection of the monitoring parameters in the proposed rule, but stated that the monitoring intervals are too frequent. Response: Monitoring frequency requirements are related to the need for evidence of continuous compliance, and frequent readings are essential to provide the demonstration. However, the final rule changes the frequency of recording monitored parameter values from that proposed. For example, the frequency of recording fluxing rates has been reduced by requiring readings only during periods when flux additions are occurring. Additional options included for monitoring free-flowing lime change those monitoring and frequency requirements and increase the monitoring options. Furthermore, the provisions for site-specific OM&M plans approved by permitting authorities allow opportunity for adjustment of monitoring, within EPA guidelines, to fit site-specific conditions. Comments dealing with data-quality objectives for specific monitored parameters are addressed in more detail below. Comment: Several commenters argued that the requirements for accuracy of 1 percent when applied to feed/charge weight and flux injection rates are overly stringent and burdensome and create an unnecessary increment for a violation. Response: The EPA has retained the 1 percent accuracy requirement in the final rule. However, the EPA recognizes there may be situations in which 1 percent accuracy for feed/charge weight and chlorine flux injection rate is not workable. An example of this may be operating at a very low flux injection rate. The final rule has been written to allow the permitting authority to approve alternative accuracy requirements for monitoring equipment, on a site-specific basis, in situations where the 1 percent accuracy requirement is not workable and where the owner/operator provides data/information to substantiate that emission standards will be achieved on a continuous basis. Comment: In comments on accuracy of performance test measurements and feed/charge weight measurements: • One commenter stated that the EPA reference methods are not better than 10 percent repeatable, so the requirement for 1 percent accuracy in charge weight is arbitrary and unnecessarily burdensome. • Another commenter requested less stringency in the accuracy requirement for the sources whose emissions are well under the emission limit, noting that the expected accuracy of Methods 26A and 5 is 10 percent. This commenter suggested that the charge weight monitoring be restricted to only those sources having to comply with a lb/ton emission limit. • An additional commenter stated that an aggregate accuracy of 5 percent is more representative of reproducible floor practice. • Another commenter wanted the weight monitoring not to be required for each emission unit, but allowed to be aggregated across emission units. Response: The EPA considered the measurement accuracy issue raised by the commenters and addresses their points as follows: • With regard to the commenters' first, second, and third points concerning the test method accuracy, the EPA notes that the variability in the test methods, process, and control equipment is incorporated into the testing results upon which the emission limits are based. The limits have been established to accommodate that variability. Given that the emission limits are on a lb-of-emission/ton-of-feed (or charge) basis, it is also in the owner/operators best interest to make an accurate weight determination because inaccurate measurements could cause them to be out of compliance. As noted in the previous response, the final rule provides additional flexibility with regard to feed/charge measurement in situations where the 1 percent accuracy is not workable. • Regarding the fourth point, weight monitoring is required because the emission limits are based on lb/ton of feed/charge or product. Under the site-specific OM&M plans, individual emission units of the same type may have different allowable emission rates based on the presence of add-on control devices, fluxing practice, and feed/charge practices. The only way to determine compliance is to monitor weights for individual emission units. Comment: Commenters wanted the compliance date to be 3 years after promulgation rather than “on or after the date of the initial performance test.” They argued that: • Carrying out performance tests prior to the end of 3 years is essential to completing the monumental job; but they do not like having to comply “on and after the date of the initial performance test” which could be the emission test program for the SAPU. • The submittal deadlines for the OM&M plan, the SAPU emission plan, and the site-specific test plan are inconsistent with each other; they wanted EPA to remove all the interim compliance requirements to give the necessary flexibility to evaluate and agree with the permitting agency on compliance requirements before the 3-year deadline. Response: A facility must be in compliance on and after the date of the initial performance test. The date of that initial performance test, for existing sources, may be up to 3 years after the promulgation date of the standard. For existing SAPUs, the initial performance test is considered to be the date of approval of the OM&M plan by the permitting authority. In response to the comments regarding the inconsistent plan requirements and dates for submittal, the EPA has revised and clarified those requirements. The final rule requires the owner/operator of a SAPU to perform tests that will define the operating modes of the controlled and uncontrolled emission units within the SAPU, and to define which parameters to monitor to demonstrate continuous compliance. These same tests can be used to measure the emission rates from the affected sources and emission units for performance test purposes. A site-specific test plan for this program must be submitted to the permitting authority for review and approval before the tests are conducted. The plan must identify the parameters to be monitored during the tests, the test methods to be used, the units to be tested, and planned operating modes for each unit during the tests. After the test plan has been approved by the permitting authority, the owner/operator is required to notify the Administrator of the test dates. The results from this test program, including the emission rates measured, values of parameters monitored, monitoring parameters selected by the owner/operator for compliance demonstration, and values of the parameters to be used as operating limits must be submitted to the permitting authority for review and approval. As a result of the review, the permitting authority may request changes to selected monitoring parameters or values of the parameters used for compliance demonstration if it is determined the parameters or values do not provide an adequate means of demonstrating continuous compliance. When all of these elements are approved by the permitting authority, the owner/operator prepares an OM&M plan using the approved monitoring scheme and submits the OM&M plan to the permitting authority for approval. The compliance date is the approval date of the OM&M plan. The approved OM&M plan will be included by reference in the operating permit. The latest date for an existing facility to achieve compliance is 3 years from the date the standard is promulgated. The OM&M plan must be submitted to the permitting authority for approval no later than 6 months before the planned compliance date. Given these conditions and lead times for preparing plans and conducting tests, it is clear that owner/operators must act expeditiously to develop test plans and execute the test programs. Facilities that choose to comply by demonstrating that each emission unit in the SAPU meets the emission limit for that unit, and by monitoring the parameters as designated in the rule for each emission unit and control device, are also required to develop a test plan and notify the permitting authority of the test date(s). Comment: One commenter stated that inspection of lime feed systems once per 8-hour shift and more frequently when found to be plugged may be difficult, arguing that visual inspection at silo and bin tops is dangerous. The commenter suggested alternate language that reduces the required checks from every 4 hours for 3 days, if plugged, to checks for only 2 consecutive 4-hour periods following restoration to free flow. Another commenter also disagreed with the requirement to inspect every 4 hours for 3 days, even if the problem is corrected earlier. Response: Based on the comments received the final rule has been written to provide other options to demonstrate free-flowing lime. In addition to the option to perform visual checks to verify free-flowing lime, the owner/operator may use devices such as load cells to demonstrate this via weight changes in lime feed bins, use pressure sensors in pneumatic conveying systems to distinguish low or “no flow” conditions, continuously monitor lime feed rate, use an HCl monitoring device at the fabric filter outlet, or another method subject to approval by the permitting authority. Comment: One commenter requested that lime feeder inspection requirements and corrective action requirements demonstrate compliance and that discovery and correction of a blockage or feeder setting drift not be an automatic violation. The commenter suggested that the rule be rewritten to require corrective action when necessary and not to make blockage or feeder setting drift a violation. Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, the final rule provides additional options for monitoring the lime system to maintain free-flowing lime. One of those options, the HCl monitor, provides a direct indication of continued effective operation of the control system which is the desired goal of any monitoring option selected. Other options that detect lime feeder blockages are not direct and immediate performance indicators, so the time until remedied is a critical variable. For this reason, EPA requires maintenance of free flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times. Blockages that occur as a result of equipment breakage or failure would potentially fall under the malfunction provision, and if determined to be a malfunction, would be covered by the SSM plan and would not be a violation, if corrected in accordance with the SSM plan. However, continued and frequent blockages indicate a system design and operating problem rather than a malfunction. Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed regulatory requirements for scrap inspection programs. They stated that the requirements are too onerous, expensive, complex and overly prescriptive, and further, some provisions are not technically feasible or cannot be reasonably met. Three of the commenters suggested that the broadly stated scrap inspection requirements provided in the preamble to the proposed rule could be acceptable, and that approval of site-specific plans by the permitting authority would be a more acceptable requirement. Two commenters also stated that the scrap should not have to be inspected if the necessary control systems are in place. According to these commenters, inspection is only needed for control by work practices or pollution prevention. They stated that the EPA needs to be clearer as to which sources are covered; the preamble says all furnaces and the rule says uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. Response: The scrap inspection program requirements apply only to those facilities that elect to use such a program as a monitoring technique to ensure the oil and coatings content of scrap charged to a group 1 furnace stays below levels established during the performance tests. Such a program could apply to facilities that have only uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, or facilities that have both add-on controlled and uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. As a result of the numerous comments received regarding the scrap inspection program elements, the EPA has modified the proposed rule. The detailed requirements contained in the proposed rule have been deleted and the general scrap inspection guidelines provided in the proposal preamble have been adopted. This change will provide more flexibility to owner/operators to tailor the program to specific conditions for their facility. The scrap inspection program, if selected by the facility, will become part of the site-specific OM&M plan. The specific inspection program elements, which must be consistent with guidance in the rule, will be approvable by the permitting authority as part of the site-specific OM&M plan and will be enforceable under the facility's permit. Comment: Several commenters wanted EPA to allow testing one representative unit from a group of similar sources, that is one unit to represent similar furnaces or in-line fluxers, instead of having to test every emission unit. One of the commenters stated that this practice should be allowed for either controlled or uncontrolled units. Several commenters claim this approach is widely used under existing State permits and has been used by EPA in other NESHAPs. Commenters claimed that it would significantly reduce costs, provide flexibility, and provide more cost-effective test programs. Response: Based on the comments received, the EPA is modifying the testing requirements to allow representative or similar uncontrolled emission units that use like charge and flux materials to be tested, instead of requiring each unit to be tested. Testing of representative or similar units may be used provided approval is obtained from the applicable permitting authority. The representative unit selected for testing must be subject to the same work practices and be of the same design as those emission units it is representing for test purposes. The representative unit must be tested under worst case conditions. It is up to the owner/operator to define the worst case scenario(s) for review and approval by the permitting authority. At least one of each different style unit must be tested. Each add-on control device controlling emissions from an affected source or emission unit must be tested. E. Impacts Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the results of EPA's regulatory impact analysis and believed that EPA underestimated the cost of the rule. The commenters identified the following as deficiencies in the impact analysis: • The EPA underestimated the number of area sources that would be impacted as a result of the area source D/F standard. In particular, owners or operators of sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, foundries, and extruders were identified as potentially affected area sources that were either excluded or not adequately accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, the commenters claimed that the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and title V permit requirements would impose a significant burden on area sources. • The EPA understated the number of small businesses that would be affected by the rule and, as a result, EPA's analysis of impacts on small entities was not adequate. According to several of the commenters, the small business impacts analysis underestimated small business impacts because it did not accurately account for sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, foundries, and extrusion facilities, many of which are small businesses and would be subject to the rule. The commenters also claimed that the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and title V permit requirements would impose significant burdens on these small businesses. They argued that the rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and that EPA must, therefore, perform a regulatory flexibility analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. • Commenters took issue with the methods and assumptions used by EPA to estimate the costs and economic impacts of the rule, including failure to adequately account for the large number of affected area sources, title V permitting costs for area sources, and underestimating performance test costs due to the assumption of shared stacks. As a result, the commenters state that EPA's costs and economic impact estimates are too low. They argue that the annualized cost of the rule exceeds $100 million and is, therefore, a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Response: Based on the numerous comments received regarding the regulatory impact analysis, the EPA has reviewed, revised, updated, and refined the analysis to address commenters' points: • With regard to commenters' first point, for the proposed rule, the EPA used the information available on area sources of D/F emissions and requested additional information on the number of area sources, levels of emissions from these sources, the level of control currently employed, and the number of area sources that are also small businesses. In response to the comments on the proposed rule and using the information provided by commenters on sweat furnaces, die casting facilities and foundries, EPA has reassessed the cost of the rule on area sources (see Docket No. A-92-61). In addition, EPA has clarified and, in some cases, revised the proposed rule to address commenter concerns that the proposed rule will be overly burdensome for area sources. These changes include clarifications or revisions in the applicability of the rule, the performance testing requirements, the scrap inspection program, and giving the State permitting authorities the discretion to defer the requirements for a title V permit for area sources. On the basis of the information submitted to EPA during the public comment period and changes made to the proposed rule that narrow the applicability to facilities that are area sources, primarily aluminum extruders, die casters, and foundries, the EPA believes the number of those facilities subject to the rule to be small. • Regarding the commenters' second point, after reviewing the comments on the small business impacts of the proposed rule and using the information on sweat furnaces, die casting facilities, and foundries provided by commenters, EPA has refined its small business impacts analysis (see Docket No. A-92-61). The analysis shows that the final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. The small business impact analysis shows that the impact to small businesses operating sweat furnaces, and to small firms in the aluminum die casting and aluminum foundry industries is minimal. • Regarding the commenters' third point, EPA considered the comments objecting to the costing methods and assumptions it used to estimate the impacts of the proposed rule. The EPA has reexamined its cost estimating procedures and believes that overall it has overstated the cost of the proposed rule. However, in view of the changes in the proposed rule and to incorporate revisions in the estimated number of affected area sources, EPA has updated its estimate of the cost of the rule (see Docket No. A-92-61). The revised cost of the rule is below the $100 million per year threshold, therefore, the rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866. IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal In response to comments received on the proposed rule and after further analysis, the following changes have been made: Applicability. The applicability section has been clarified to distinguish the affected sources at major sources from those at area sources. Chip dryers and scrap shredders have been changed to “thermal chip dryers” and “aluminum scrap shredders” to more precisely define the type of equipment covered by the rule. A new secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU) has been added to the list of affected sources; new group 1 furnaces and new in-line fluxers have been removed from the list of affected sources but are covered as emission units within new SAPUs. This change enables simultaneously constructed new emission units to meet emission standards on an analogous basis to existing SAPUs and does not affect the required level of control or continuous compliance. Subject to certain limitations, manufacturers of aluminum die castings, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extruders have been exempted from the rule. The final rule contains explicit language exempting research and development equipment. The final rule also gives States the discretion to defer the requirement for secondary aluminum production area sources to obtain a title V permit. This discretion may reduce the burden of the rule on both area sources and States, without decreasing control requirements or increasing emissions. The EPA's authority for establishing the deferrals is section 502(a) of the CAA, which allows EPA to exempt non-major sources from the permitting requirement if EPA finds that compliance with title V is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the sources. The General Provisions implementing section 112 of the CAA provide that unless EPA explicitly exempts or defers area sources subject to a NESHAP from the title V permitting requirement, they are subject to permitting (40 CFR section 63.1(c)(2)(iii)). As a result, under 40 CFR sections 70.3(b)(2), 71.3(b)(2), and 63.1(c)(2), we are to determine whether area sources will be required to obtain title V permits when we adopt the underlying NESHAP. The EPA has previously allowed permitting authorities to defer permit applications for area sources in a series of rulemakings (60 FR 29484, June 5, 1995; 61 FR 27785, June 3, 1996; and 64 FR 37683, July 13, 1999). When EPA initially established the ability of permitting authorities to defer area sources from title V, the Agency stated that it would decide whether to adopt permanent exemptions by the time deferrals expired, and that it would continue to evaluate permitting authorities' implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP requirements for area sources not covered by title V permits, the likely benefit of permitting such sources, and the costs and other burdens on such sources associated with obtaining title V permits. Many permitting authorities are struggling to issue in a timely fashion initial title V permits to major sources and other sources that have been subject to the permitting requirements since the beginning of the program, and we are concerned about the impact on permitting authorities of subjecting area sources to the permit application deadlines. Therefore, to be consistent with the previously allowed deferrals of permit applications for area sources by permitting authorities, the most reasonable approach is to defer the requirement for title V permitting for area sources in the secondary aluminum production source category until December 9, 2004. As a result, today's action defers the requirement for title V permitting for area sources in the secondary aluminum production source category until December 9, 2004. The deferral is not an automatic benefit provided to the sources. Rather, permitting authorities may exercise their discretion to either defer the area sources, or to require them to apply for and obtain part 70 permits. Some permitting authorities may decide that area sources in the subject source category warrant permitting mechanisms (such as the use of general permits or “permits by rule”) that minimize the burden on both the permitting authoring and the source. For area sources that are not covered by an effective approved part 70 program and are subject to the EPA-administered part 71 permitting program, today's action also defers those area sources subject to the secondary aluminum production NESHAP from permitting under part 71 until December 9, 2004. Definitions. The definitions of clean charge, fluxing, reactive fluxing, aluminum scrap shredder, secondary aluminum processing unit, secondary aluminum production facility and thermal chip dryer have been revised and clarified to reflect the meanings intended at proposal. Definitions of internal runaround and cover flux have been added to the final rule. Emission standards. In response to comments from the regulated community, a standard for new SAPUs has been included in the final rule. Also, for sweat furnace operations, the final rule provides an alternative to the emission standard that does not require emission testing. The alternative is expressed in terms of design and operating parameters of afterburners that ensure the emission limit will be achieved. Operating requirements. The compliance date for SAPUs has been clarified. Lime addition requirements have been specified only for continuous lime injection systems. Lime addition requirements for intermittent lime addition have been eliminated because the MACT floor control technology, upon which the emission standards are based, includes continuous lime injection. Provisions for obtaining approval for intermittent lime addition and establishing operating requirements have been added to the rule. Labeling requirements have been redefined to include only the emission unit or affected source identification and the applicable operating requirements and pollution prevention parameters. In addition, the applicability of the labeling requirement has been narrowed to specific affected sources and emission units. The final rule allows the option to demonstrate compliance for specific affected sources on the basis of aluminum production as opposed to feed/charge. Owners or operators of SAPUs that choose to demonstrate compliance on the basis of aluminum production as opposed to feed/charge must account for aluminum production on an emission unit by emission unit basis. This option will provide additional flexibility for existing measurement equipment and will not increase HAP emissions. The inlet temperature limit has been eliminated for fabric filters that control only in-line fluxers because these fabric filters typically operate at near-ambient temperatures. Monitoring requirements. The final rule includes options for permitting authority approval of measuring devices of alternative accuracy in cases where the use of devices of specified accuracy is not workable, such as measurement of very low chlorine flow rates. Additional options for ascertaining the free flow of lime, including the use of load cells, flow sensors and HCl concentration sensors, have been added to the final rule. Specific temperature monitoring relative accuracy and calibration drift requirements have been eliminated because they are not necessary. The requirements for scrap inspection plans have been made less prescriptive to allow for a wider range of situations as experienced in the secondary aluminum production industry. Procedures for obtaining approval of alternative site-specific monitoring practices have been included to increase flexibility. Performance testing. The final rule eliminates the requirement for repeat performance testing at area sources for cost and economic reasons, but maintains the operating, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan requirement to ensure continuous compliance through monitoring of appropriate parameters. Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting required design specifications are not subject to performance testing requirements in the final rule. The rule has also been changed to reduce the cost of performance testing by allowing owners or operators to conduct worst case performance tests on a single affected source or emission unit that is not equipped with an add-on control device to represent the performance of other sources of the same design and operating characteristics. V. Summary of Impacts In response to comments that EPA's assessment of impacts was not adequate, and as a result of revisions made to the rule to provide more flexibility to affected sources and to minimize the burden on area sources, EPA reanalyzed the impacts of the rule. A. Air Quality Impacts At the current level of control, emissions of HAPs and other pollutants are estimated to be approximately 28,700 Mg/yr (31,600 tpy). Of these emissions, 16,400 Mg/yr (18,100 tpy) are HAPs. The EPA estimates that implementation of the NESHAP will reduce all pollutants by 14,200 Mg/yr (15,600 tpy) and HAP emissions would be reduced by about 11,300 Mg/yr (12,400 tpy). Baseline emissions and emission reductions are summarized by pollutant in Table 1 below. Table 1.—Nationwide Annual Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions Pollutant Baseline emissions (Mg/yr) Emissions reduction (Mg/yr) Baseline emissions (tpy) Emissions reduction (tpy) THC 1 3,782 0 4,169 0 D/F 0.54 kg/yr 0.43 kg/yr 1.19 lb/yr 0.94 lb/yr HCl 15,365 11,224 16,902 12,372 Cl 2 996 NQ 2 1,098 NQ POM 37 9 41 10 HAP Metals 58 36 64 40 PM 8,508 2,889 9,379 3,185 Total: HAPs 16,425 11,269 18,106 12,422 PM 8,508 2,889 9,379 3,185 HAPS and other pollutants 28,657 14,158 31,589 15,607 1 THC is a surrogate for organic HAPs. 2 NQ Not quantified due to lack of emissions data. There are no THC emission reductions expected because all sources with a THC emission limit are already equipped with the technology representative of the MACT-level of control. The estimated emissions reductions represent the minimum that will be achieved by the final rule since they are based on a reduction in baseline emissions to a level equal to the promulgated emission limit. In reality, if emission control equipment is installed to achieve compliance with the rule, emissions will likely be reduced to a level below the emission limit and the actual emissions reductions will be larger than the estimates. In addition, emissions reductions are also expected for other pollutants for which there are no specific emission limits. Although these potential emissions reductions were not quantified, emission controls installed to reduce HCl emissions are likely to also reduce Cl 2 emissions, the lime added or injected to fabric filters would reduce fluoride as well as chloride emissions, and fabric filters installed to meet PM emission limits also would reduce HAP metal and polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions. For example, emission test data indicate that a fabric filter will reduce HAP metal emissions by approximately the same percentage as PM emissions. If the same reduction (61.4 percent from the baseline, taking into account that some sources already have these controls) is applied to HAP metal emissions, emission reductions of about 39.5 tpy from the estimated baseline level of 64.4 tpy would be achieved. B. Economic Impacts EPA revised the economic impact analysis (EIA) to consider revised estimates of costs due to changes in the requirements of the rule between proposal and promulgation as well as additional information received concerning potential impacts of the regulation to owners of sweat furnaces, aluminum die casting facilities, and aluminum foundries. Due to the number of facilities and variety of processes used in the affected industries, model plants were developed to categorize facilities based on possible combinations of processes that are performed. These model plant categories were used to estimate applicable emission control costs, including the costs of monitoring, reporting, and record keeping (MRR). Sixteen model plants were created and annual compliance costs were calculated for each. Estimates of total capital and total annualized costs for each model plant and nationwide are shown in Table 2. Total nationwide annualized costs for this regulation are estimated at $76.7 million. The model plant (1-8) control cost estimates include control device costs, auxiliary equipment, and direct and indirect installation costs, but do not include monitoring costs. The nationwide annual costs include costs for monitoring, reporting, and record keeping estimated at $9.2 million annually. (All values are shown in 1994 dollars.) Table 2.—Estimated Capital and Annualized Costs by Model Plant [Thousands of 1994 dollars] Model plants Per facility Capital costs Annual costs Nationwide Capital costs Annual costs Model Plant 1 $805 $380 $24,960 $11,766 Model Plant 2 950 362 9,500 3,621 Model Plant 3 1,833 702 12,832 4,911 Model Plant 4 2,944 1,203 26,492 10,829 Model Plant 5 1,441 851 14,409 8,510 Model Plant 6 976 671 6,833 4,696 Model Plant 7 198 134 1,188 807 Model Plant 8 0 0 0 0 MRR for Model Plants 1-8 3,885 Sweat Furnace 1 0 0 0 133 Sweat Furnace 2 0 0 0 299 Sweat Furnace 3 9 24 9,167 23,489 Die Casting 1 0 4 0 46 Die Casting 2 0 4 0 364 Die Casting 3 0 4 0 241 Foundry 1 0 4 0 2,489 Foundry 2 0 4 0 622 Nationwide Total 105,381 76,708 Firms producing products in SIC codes 3341 Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals, 3353 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil, 3334 Primary Aluminum Production, 3354 Aluminum Extruded Product Manufacturing, 3363 Aluminum Die-Casting, 3365 Aluminum Foundries, 4953 Refuse Systems, 5093 Scrap and Waste Materials, and 5015 Motor Vehicle Parts—Used may be affected by this regulation. A market impact analysis was completed for secondary aluminum producing firms. Table 3 presents primary and secondary market impacts estimated for the secondary aluminum market. Primary market impacts include estimated changes in price, domestic production, industry revenues, and potential facility closures. Secondary market impacts relate to potential employment losses, decreases in exports, and increases in imports. Table 3.—Secondary Aluminum Production Primary and Secondary Market Impacts Estimated impacts Primary Market Impacts: Price Increase (Percent) 0.64 Production Decrease (Percent) [0.40] Industry Revenues—Increase in Value of Domestic Shipments (Percent) 0.24 Potential Facility Closures 0-1* Secondary Market Impacts: Labor Market Potential Employee Reductions: Number of workers 94 Percent decrease [0.40] International Trade: Import increase (Percent) 1.51 Export decrease (Percent) [0.22] Decreases are shown in brackets [ ]. *Firm or facility closures are unlikely. However, if one makes a number of worst case assumptions, one facility or firm closure is possible. In general, the economic impacts of this regulation are expected to be minimal to the secondary aluminum industry with price increases and production decreases of less than one percent. A market price increase of 0.64 percent and domestic production decrease of 0.40 percent are predicted. Revenues or the value of domestic shipments for the industry are expected to increase by 0.24 percent. Individual facilities or firms within the industry may experience revenue increases or decreases, but on average the industry revenues are anticipated to increase slightly with this regulation. Facility or firm closures are unlikely to occur as a result of this regulation. However, if a number of worst case assumptions are made, one could conclude that a single facility may close as a result of the regulation. Approximately 94 workers may face employment displacement as a result of the regulation. This job loss estimate results from the decrease in production expected to result from the regulation and does not consider any employment increases that may occur relative to emission control. Exports of secondary aluminum products to other countries are expected to decline by 0.22 percent while imports of secondary aluminum are expected to increase 1.51 percent. Since the impact of the regulation is anticipated to be minimal to firms owning sweat furnaces, aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and secondary aluminum dross reclamation facilities (categorized as model plants 7 and 8), a streamlined economic impact analysis was completed for these markets. This analysis computes the estimated cost of the regulation as a percentage of annual revenues. The cost to sales ratio refers to the change in annualized control costs divided by the sales revenues of a particular good or goods being produced in the process for which additional pollution control is required. It can be estimated for either individual firms or as an average for some set of firms such as affected small firms. While it has different significance for different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential impact. If costs for the individual (or group) of firms are completely passed on to the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, it is an estimate of the price change (in percentage form after multiplying the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the producer, it is an estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of costs to sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the market, and profit to sales ratios are among the obvious factors that may influence the significance of any particular cost to sales ratio for an individual facility. This analysis was completed on a model plant basis using estimated annual revenues and for a sample of firms using actual company revenue data. A cost to sales ratio of 3 percent or above is an indicator of the potential for significant economic impact for firms in the industries affected by this rule. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the cost to sales ratios using both model plant data and actual facility data are substantially below one percent for aluminum die casters, aluminum foundries, and firms operating sweat furnaces. This indicates that firms in these industries are not likely to incur significant economic impacts as a result of this regulation. Table 4.—Cost to Sales Ratios for Aluminum Die Casting, Aluminum Foundries, Firms Owning Sweat Furnaces, and Firms Owning Aluminum Dross Reclamation Facilities Description Cost to sales ratios (%) Firms Operating Sweat Furnaces Model Plant Data: Sweat Furnace 1 0.16 Sweat Furnace 2 0.06 Sweat Furnace 3 0.08 Average Actual Firm Data 0.01 Aluminum Die Casting Model Plant Data: Model Plant 1 <0.01 Model Plant 2 0.01 Model Plant 3 0.04 Average Actual Firm Data 0.04 Aluminum Foundries Model Plant Data: Model Plant 1 0.16 Model Plant 2 0.04 Average Actual Firm Data 0.03 Secondary Aluminum Dross Reclamation Facilities for Model Plants 7 and 8 Model Plant Data: Model Plant 7 1.08 Model Plant 8 0.07 Average Actual Firm Data: Model Plant 7 0.73 Model Plant 8 0.18 Cost to sales ratios for secondary aluminum dross reclamation facilities (model plants 7 and 8) approximate or are less than one percent on a model plant and actual firm data basis. These firms are also not anticipated to incur significant economic impacts as a result of this regulation. For further information, please see Economic Impact For the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, Final Report, October 1999. C. Non-Air Health and Environmental Impacts As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the NESHAP is based on air pollution control systems which are of the dry type ( e.g., afterburners and fabric filters), and there are no water pollution impacts resulting from their use. Solid waste generated by fabric filters in the form of particulate matter (including HAP metals and lime from fabric filters) is typically disposed of by landfilling. With the addition of fabric filters and lime conditioned fabric filters, the amount of solid waste is expected to increase by about 97,904 Mg/yr (107,921 tpy) nationwide. The increase in solid waste is estimated as the sum of the annual reduction in PM emissions and the annual increase in the use of lime in lime-injected fabric filters. Implementation of the NESHAP will aid in reducing aerial deposition of D/F and HAP metals (lead, cadmium, and mercury), will substantially reduce ambient concentrations of HCl and Cl 2 , and will reduce emissions. D. Energy Impacts Operating fabric filters and afterburners require the use of electrical energy to operate fans that move the gas stream. The additional electrical energy requirements are estimated at 78 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr), or 282 terajoules per year (TJ/yr), over current requirements. Afterburners may also use natural gas as fuel. Approximately 325,500 kilocubic feet per year (kft 3 /yr) or 322 billion British thermal units (Btu)/yr (340 TJ/yr) of additional natural gas will be required. The increased energy requirements for facilities will result in an increase in utility emissions as more energy is generated. Nationwide emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) from electric power plants are estimated to increase by 8.1 Mg/yr (8.9 tpy), 323 Mg/yr (356 tpy), and 161 Mg/yr (178 tpy), respectively. VI. Administrative Requirements A. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. In response to comments that the rule as proposed would result in adverse impacts to sources in the secondary aluminum production industry as well as result in costs in excess of $100 million, EPA reexamined the cost of the rule. In view of the changes in the rule that have been made since proposal to clarify applicability as well as the requirements of the rule and to provide greater flexibility in the rule, EPA finds that the cost of the final rule is below $100 million. Because the projected annual costs (including monitoring) for this NESHAP are less than $100 million, a regulatory impact analysis has not been prepared. However, because of concerns expressed by affected facilities regarding the potential for adverse economic impacts, EPA submitted this final regulation to OMB for review. Any written comments are included in the docket listed under ADDRESSES . C. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children. D. Executive Order 13084—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A00-4143. Public record. Not legal advice.