99-1475. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6946-7025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1475]

[[Page 6945]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Secondary Aluminum Production; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 1999 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 6946]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6217-2]
RIN 2060-AE77

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes 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 proposed rule include
HAP organics, inorganic HAPs (hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and
chlorine), and particulate HAP metals. Some of these pollutants,
including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, are considered to be
known or suspected carcinogens and all can cause toxic effects
following sufficient exposure. Emissions of other pollutants include
particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.
The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (the Act) and are based on the Administrator's
determination that secondary aluminum production plants are major
sources of HAP emissions and emit several of the HAPs listed in section
112(b) of the Act from the various process operations found within the
industry. The proposed NESHAP would reduce risks to public health and
environment by requiring secondary aluminum production plants to meet
emission standards reflecting application of the maximum available
control technology (MACT). Secondary aluminum production plants that
are area sources would be subject to limitations on emissions of
dioxins and furans (D/F) only. Implementation of the proposed NESHAP
would reduce emissions of HAPs and other pollutants by about 16,600
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (18,300 tons per year (tpy)).

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule
until April 12, 1999.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by March 4, 1999, a public hearing will be held on March
15, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m., at the EPA Office of Administration
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC. For more information, see
section VII.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-92-61 at the following address:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be
sent to the contact person listed below. The docket is located at the
above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor).
A copy of today's document, technical background information, and
other materials relating to this rulemaking are available for review in
the docket. Copies of this information may be obtained by request from
the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the public hearing will be
held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle
Park, NC. Persons interested in making oral presentations should notify
Ms. Tanya Medley, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5422.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed regulation, contact Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic
Chemicals Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 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 post-consumer scrap, aluminum
scrap, ingots, foundry returns, and/or dross as the raw material and
operating one or more of the following affected sources: Scrap
shredders, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns, chip dryers, group
2 process furnaces (i.e., clean charge furnaces using no reactive
flux), sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross coolers,
secondary aluminum processing units, new and reconstructed group 1
furnaces (i. e., melting, holding, fluxing, refining or alloying), and
new and reconstructed in-line fluxers. The EPA identified more than 400
facilities which include one or more of these affected sources, 86 of
which are estimated to be major sources. Most establishments are
included in SIC 3341 (Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous
Metals), although others may fall in SIC 3353 (Aluminum Sheet, Plate,
and Foil), SIC 3354 (Aluminum Extruded Products), and SIC 3355
(Aluminum Rolling and Drawing NEC). Affected sources at facilities that
are major sources of HAPs would be regulated under the proposed
standards. In addition, emissions of dioxins and furans (D/F) from
affected sources at facilities that are area sources of HAPs would also
be regulated.
The proposed standards would not apply to facilities in SIC 336
(Nonferrous Foundries/Casting), such as manufacturers of aluminum die
castings (SIC 3363) that use only clean aluminum and aluminum foundries
(SIC 3365) that process only clean aluminum. Secondary aluminum
production facilities that are collocated with primary aluminum
production are regulated under the proposed standard.
Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Owners or operators of
secondary aluminum production
facilities in SIC 3341, 3353,
3354, 3355, or that are
collocated with primary
aluminum production
facilities, that are major
sources of HAPs, or that emit
dioxins and furans and are
area sources of HAPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 also could be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1500 of the proposed
rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technology Transfer Network

The proposed regulatory text also is available on the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control.

[[Page 6947]]

The service is free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919)
541-5742 for up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN also is accessible
through the Internet at ``TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov.'' If more
information on the TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
The help desk is staffed from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; a voice menu system is
available at other times.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, has been established under Docket No. A-92-61 (including
comments and data submitted electronically). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as confidential business
information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official
rulemaking record is located at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to the EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center at: ``A-and-R-
Docket@epamail.epa.gov.'' Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
Wordperfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data
in electronic form must be identified by the docket number (A-92-61).
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.

Outline

The information in this preamble is organized as shown below.

I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
A. Background
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
D. Secondary Aluminum Industry
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements
IV. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Category
B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants
C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
2. Selection of MACT Floor Technology
3. Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Technologies
4. Selection of Emission Limits
D. Selection of Operating and Monitoring Requirements
1. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for
Affected Sources and Emission Units
2. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for
Affected Sources and Emission Units Equipped with a Fabric Filter
and Subject to PM Limits
3. Other Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Procedures
E. Selection of Performance Test Methods and Requirements
1. Rationale for Performance Test Methods, Procedures and
Surrogates
2. General Requirements
3. Performance Test Requirements and Options for Affected
Sources and Emission Units
4. Performance Test Requirements and Options for Affected
Sources and Emission Units Equipped with a Fabric Filter or Lime-
Injected Fabric Filter
F. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Air Quality Impacts
B. Cost Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
D. Non-air Health and Environmental Impacts
E. Energy Impacts
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Public Hearing
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Executive Order 13045
E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Unfunded Mandates Act
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Pollution Prevention Act
L. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

The EPA estimates that about 28,600 Mg/yr (31,500 tpy) of HAPs and
other air pollutants are released from production processes in 86
major-source secondary aluminum production facilities. The HAPs in
these emissions consist of several organic compounds, including
2,3,7,8-TCDD (a compound in the dioxin/furans (D/F) group); inorganic
``acid gas'' compounds such as hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen
fluroride (HF), and chlorine (Cl2); and 11 nonvolatile HAP
metals. NonHAP particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are also emitted.
The proposed standard reduces emissions of HAPs and other
pollutants using a combination of emission limits and pollution
prevention/work practice standards based on MACT floor controls.
Depending on the type of affected source, plants affected by the
standards could achieve the proposed requirements by upgrading or
installing a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter (i.e., a
fabric filter to which lime or other alkaline reagent is continuously
injected). Or, plants may be required to add a thermal incinerator
(also known as an afterburner), a thermal incinerator followed by a
lime-injected fabric filter, and/or apply pollution prevention
techniques to limit the type of scrap charged and the type and amount
of fluxing agents used. Raising the control performance of affected
sources with MACT-level standards would reduce emissions of HAPs by 70
percent and other pollutants by about 42 percent from the current
level, with higher reductions achieved at particular sites. Emissions
of HCl would be decreased by about 74 percent.
The nationwide total capital and annualized costs of control
equipment are estimated at $148 million and $68 million/yr,
respectively. An additional $5.1 million per year is estimated for
monitoring/implementation costs for the first 3 years following
promulgation. The economic impacts of the proposed regulation are
expected to be minimal with price increases and production decreases of
less than one percent. The regulation is not expected to result in a
significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities.
Only one of the 33 small entities is anticipated to experience
significantly adverse economic impacts as a result of this regulation.
The proposed NESHAP was developed by EPA with input from industry
representatives and associated groups including the Aluminum
Association and STAPPA/ALAPCO (State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators Association/Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials). The rule development process included a cooperative
effort with the industry in identifying data needs; collecting
additional data; planning and conducting emission tests; and meeting
with these representatives to share technical information and resolve
issues.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations for
the

[[Page 6948]]

control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. The
regulations must reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions
of HAPs that is achievable taking into consideration the cost of
achieving the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT.
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f)
and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that
emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing,
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack,
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification) as provided in section (h); or (5) a
combination of the above. (See section 112(d)(2).)

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

The Clean Air Act 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. (See
section 101(b)(1).) Section 112(b) of the Act contains a list of HAPs
believed to cause adverse health or environmental effects. Section
112(d) of the Act requires that emission standards be promulgated for
all categories and subcategories of major sources of these HAPs and for
many smaller ``area'' sources listed for regulation under section
112(c) in accordance with the schedules listed under section 112(c).
Major sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to
emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAPs.
In the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress specified
that each standard for major sources must require the maximum reduction
in emissions of HAPs that EPA determines is achievable considering
cost, health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts. In essence,
these MACT standards would ensure that all major sources of air toxic
emissions achieve the level of control already being achieved by the
better controlled and lower emitting sources in each category. This
approach provides assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic
air pollution will be required to effectively control its emissions. At
the same time, this approach provides a ``level economic playing
field,'' ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner processes and
good emissions control are not disadvantaged relative to competitors
with poorer controls.
Emission data, collected during development of this NESHAP, show
that pollutants listed in section 112(b)(1) are emitted by secondary
aluminum production processes and include organic HAPs (e.g., D/F,
benzene, styrene, xylene, acrylonitrile, methylene chloride,
naphthalene, and formaldehyde); inorganic HAPs (HCl, HF, and
Cl2), and HAP metals (antimony, arsenic, lead, manganese,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, and selenium).
Emissions of these pollutants would be decreased by implementation of
the proposed emission limits. Some of these pollutants are either known
or probable human carcinogens when inhaled, and can cause reversible
and irreversible toxic effects other than cancer following sufficient
exposure. These effects include respiratory and skin irritation,
effects upon the eye, various systemic effects including effects upon
the liver, kidney, heart and circulatory system, neurotoxic effects,
and in extreme cases, death. Following is a summary of the potential
health and environmental effects associated with exposures, at some
level, to emitted pollutants that would be reduced by the standard.
Almost all metals appearing on the section 112(b) list of HAPs are
emitted from affected sources in secondary aluminum plants. These
metals can cause a range of effects including irritation of the
respiratory tract; gastrointestinal effects; nervous system disorders
(including loss of coordination and mental retardation); skin
irritation; and reproductive and developmental disorders. Additionally,
these metals accumulate in the environment and several of them
accumulate in the human body, and may cause adverse health effects
after exposure has ceased. Cadmium, for example, is a cumulative
pollutant that can cause kidney effects after the cessation of
exposure. Similarly, the onset of effects from beryllium exposure may
be delayed by months to years. Many of the metal compounds also are
known (arsenic, chromium (VI)) or probable (cadmium, nickel carbonyl,
lead, and beryllium) human carcinogens.
Each HAP organic compound has a range of potential health effects
associated with exposures above toxic thresholds. Effects generally
associated with short-term inhalation exposure to these pollutants
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract; central
nervous system effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness, headaches,
depression, nausea, abnormal electrocardiograms); and reproductive and
developmental effects. Health effects associated with long-term
inhalation exposure in humans to the organic compounds which will
potentially be decreased by the proposed standard may include mild
symptoms such as nausea, headache, weakness, insomnia, gastrointestinal
effects, and burning eyes; disorders of the blood; toxicity to the
immune system; reproductive disorders in women (e.g., menstrual
irregularity or increased risk of spontaneous abortion); developmental
effects; and injury to the liver and kidneys. In addition to non-cancer
effects, some of the organic HAPs that would be controlled under this
proposed NESHAP are either known or probable human carcinogens.
Hydrogen chloride is highly corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous
membranes. Short-term inhalation of HCl by humans may cause coughing,
hoarseness, inflammation and ulceration of the respiratory tract, as
well as chest pain and pulmonary edema. Long-term occupational exposure
of humans to HCl has been reported to cause inflammation of the
stomach, skin, and lungs, and photosensitization.
Acute exposure to hydrogen fluoride will result in irritation,
burns, ulcerous lesions, and necrosis of the eyes, skin, and mucous
membranes. Total destruction of the eyes is possible. Other effects
include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, pneumonitis (inflammation of the
lungs), and circulatory collapse. Ingestion of an estimated 1.5 grams
produced sudden death without gross pathological damage. Repeated
ingestion of small amounts resulted in moderately advanced hardening of
the bones. Contact of skin with anhydrous liquid produces severe burns.
Inhalation of anhydrous hydrogen fluoride or hydrogen fluoride mist or
vapors can cause severe respiratory tract irritation that may be fatal.
The irritating properties of Cl2 make this HAP a serious
acute respiratory hazard, as well as a skin, eye, and throat irritant.
Prolonged exposure to low concentrations can cause respiratory
problems, tooth corrosion, inflammation

[[Page 6949]]

of the mucous membranes, and susceptibility to tuberculosis. Prolonged
exposure at moderate concentrations can cause decreased lung capacity.
Several of the HAP whose emissions will be reduced by this rule
have been found to cause serious developmental effects in animals or
humans. For example, children are more sensitive than adults to the
neurotoxic effects of lead, suffering neurobehavioral deficits such as
loss of IQ at relatively low exposures. Chlorinated dibenzodioxins and
furans are now understood to be potent developmental toxins, disrupting
a wide variety of developmental events in embryos of numerous
vertebrate species at exposures that are not toxic to adults. Although
this rule is based on emission reduction technology rather than risk
reduction per se, EPA anticipates that reductions in emissions of
developmentally-toxic HAP will especially benefit children.
In addition to the HAPs, the proposed NESHAP also would reduce some
of the pollutants whose emissions are controlled under the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. These pollutants include
particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC--precursors to
tropospheric ozone formation), and lead (also a HAP metal). The health
effects of lead, PM, and VOC are described in EPA's Criteria Documents,
which support the NAAQS. Briefly, PM emissions have been associated
with aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and
increased risk of premature death. At elevated levels, ozone has been
shown in human laboratory and community studies to be responsible for
the reduction of lung function, respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough,
chest pain, throat and nose irritation), increased hospital admissions
for respiratory causes, and increased lung inflammation. Animal studies
have shown increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung
structure changes. Exposure to ozone also has been linked to harmful
effects on agricultural crops and forests. Depending on the degree of
exposure, lead can cause subtle effects on behavior and cognition
(particularly in children), increased blood pressure, reproductive
effects, seizures, and even death.
The EPA recognizes that the degree of adverse effects to health can
range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the health
effects may be experienced is dependent upon: (1) The ambient
concentrations observed in the area, (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle)
which vary significantly with the population, and (4) pollutant-
specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in the environment,
bioaccumulation, and persistence).

D. Secondary Aluminum Industry

At least 400 facilities which include one or more secondary
aluminum affected sources currently operate in 36 States. Based on
industry responses to EPA's information collection request (ICR) and
responses to a voluntary supplemental industry/EPA survey, the 86
facilities identified as major sources operate at least 69 scrap
shredders, 5 chip dryers, 44 scrap dryers/decoating kilns/delacquering
kilns, 12 sweat furnaces, 15 dross-only furnaces, 86 secondary aluminum
processing units, and 26 rotary dross coolers.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

The proposed NESHAP applies to each new, existing or reconstructed
scrap shredder, chip dryer, scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/decoating
kiln, group 2 furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, and rotary
dross cooler; each secondary aluminum processing unit (composed of all
existing group 1 furnace emission units and all existing in-line fluxer
emission units); and each new or reconstructed group 1 furnace and in-
line fluxer located at a secondary aluminum production plant that is a
major source of HAP. The proposed NESHAP also applies to each new,
existing or reconstructed chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/
decoating kiln, and sweat furnace; each secondary aluminum processing
unit and each new or reconstructed group 1 furnace and in-line fluxer
located at a secondary aluminum production plant that is an area source
of HAP. The proposed NESHAP also applies to these secondary aluminum
production affected sources if they are collocated at a primary
aluminum production facility that is a major source of HAP.
As discussed further in section IV of this document, the EPA
categorized process furnaces into two classes. A group 1 furnace
includes any furnace that processes aluminum scrap containing paint,
lubricants, coatings, or other foreign materials or within which
reactive fluxing is performed, regardless of the type of scrap charged.
Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux
(including chlorine gas or magnesium chloride) that results in a HAP
emission.
Group 2 (``clean charge'') furnaces process only molten aluminum,
T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying elements, noncoated runaround scrap,
uncoated aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F) or higher, and
aluminum scrap dried, decoated, or delacquered at a temperature at
482 deg.C (900 deg.F) or higher. A group 2 furnace performs no fluxing
or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/nonHAP-
generating gases such as argon and nitrogen.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

The proposed NESHAP for secondary aluminum production applies to
major sources. In addition, affected sources located at area sources of
HAPs, which emit D/F are regulated for emissions of D/F. The proposed
limits are summarized in Table 1.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6950]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.000

[[Page 6951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.001

[[Page 6952]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.002

[[Page 6953]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.003

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
PM emission limits would apply to new, reconstructed and existing
scrap shredders, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns, dross-only
furnaces, rotary dross coolers; secondary aluminum processing units;
and new and reconstructed in-line fluxers, and group 1 furnaces at
secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources.
Controlling PM emissions would also control emissions of HAP metals. A
surrogate approach to emission limits is used to allow easier and less
expensive measurement and monitoring requirements.
The proposed rule limits total hydrocarbon emissions (THC) from new
and existing chip dryers and from new and existing scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kilns at secondary aluminum production
facilities that are major sources. THC represents emissions of HAP
organics. HCl emission limits would apply to new, reconstructed and
existing scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns; new and
reconstructed in-line fluxers and Group 1 furnaces; and secondary
aluminum processing units at secondary aluminum production facilities
that are major sources. HCl serves as a surrogate measure of HAP
inorganics including hydrogen fluoride (HF) and chlorine
(Cl2) emissions. The proposed rule limits emissions of D/F
from new, reconstructed and existing chip dryers, scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kilns and sweat furnaces; new and reconstructed
group 1 furnaces; and secondary aluminum processing units at secondary
aluminum production facilities that are major or area sources. No
surrogate is used for D/F emissions. A detailed explanation of the
proposed limits and the rationale for their selection is given in
section IV.C. of this document.

C. Operating and Monitoring Requirements

The proposed NESHAP 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 proposed standard would incorporate all requirements of
the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The proposed
operating and monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 2. A
detailed explanation of the monitoring requirements and the rationale
for their selection is given in section IV.D. of this document. \1/
2\Federal Register

Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Operating and Monitoring Requirements for Affected Sources and Emission Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/
Affected source/emission unit operation/process Operating requirements Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission Labeling............. Identification, emission Check monthly to confirm
units. limits and means of that labels are intact
compliance posted on all and legible.
affected sources and
emission units.
All affected sources and emission Emission capture and Design and install in Annual inspection of all
units with add-on control device. collection system. accordance with emission capture,
Industrial Ventilation: A collection, and
Handbook of Recommended transport systems to
Practice; operate in ensure that systems
accordance with O, M & M continue to operate in
plan.^{b accordance with ACGIH
standards.
All affected sources and emission Charge/feed weight... Operate a device or use an Record the weight of each
units subject to production based equivalent procedure to charge; weight
[lb/ton of feed] emission limits record the weight of each measurement device or
^{a. charge; operate in other procedure accuracy
accordance with O, M, & M of 1
plan. percent; calibration
every 3 months.
Scrap shredder with fabric filter. Bag leak detector.... Initiate corrective action Install and operate in
within 1 hour of alarm accordance with ``Fabric
and complete in Filter Bag Leak
accordance with O, M, & M Detection Guidance'' and
plan; ^{b operate such that record voltage output
alarm does not sound more from bag leak detector.
than 5% of operating time
in 6-month period.

[[Page 6954]]

COM.................. Initiate corrective action Design and install in
within 1-hour of a 6- accordance with PS-1;
minute average opacity collect data in
reading of 5% or more and accordance with subpart
complete in accordance A of 40 CFR 63;
with O, M, & M plan; ^{b. calculate and record 6-
minute block averages.

VE................... Initiate corrective action Conduct and record
within 1 hour of any results of 30 minute
observed VE and complete daily test in accordance
in accordance with the O, with Method 9.
M, & M plan.^{b
Chip Dryer with afterburner....... Afterburner operating Maintain average Continuous measurement
temperature. temperature, averaged device to meet EPA
over each 3-hour period, specifications;
at or above the average calculate and record
operating temperature average temperature for
during the performance each 15-minute block;
test. determine 3-hour block
averages; calibrate
every 3 months.
Afterburner operation Operate in accordance with Conduct annual inspection
O, M, and M plan.^{b of afterburner internal
parts to maintain good
working order.
Feed material........ Operate using only Record identity of charge
unpainted aluminum chips. daily; certify charge
materials every 6
months.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating Afterburner operating Maintain average Continuous measurement
kiln with afterburner and lime temperature. temperature, averaged device to meet EPA
injected fabric filter. over each 3-hour period, specifications; record
at or above the average temperatures in 15-
operating temperature minute block averages;
during the performance calculate 3-hour block
test. averages; calibration
every 3 months.
Afterburner operation Operate in accordance with Annual inspection of
O, M, & M plan.^{b afterburner internal
parts; complete repairs
in 10 days.
Bag leak detector.... Initiate corrective action Install and operate in
within 1 hour of alarm accordance with ``Fabric
and complete in Filter Bag Leak
accordance with the O, M, Detection Guidance'' and
& M plan; ^{b operate such record voltage output
that alarm does not sound from bag leak detector.
more than 5% of operating
time in 6-month period.

COM.................. Initiate corrective action Design and install in
within 1 hour of a 6- accordance with PS-1;
minute average opacity collect data in
reading of 5% or more and accordance with subpart
complete in accordance A of 40 CFR 63;
with the O, M, & M plan.^{b calculate and record 6-
minute block averages.
Lime injection rate Maintain free-flowing lime Inspect each feed hopper
and schedule. in the feed hopper or or silo every 8 hours to
silo at all times. verify that lime is free-
flowing; record results
of each inspection. If
blockage occurs, inspect
every 4 hours for 3
days; return to 8-hour
inspections if
corrective action
results in no further
blockage during 3-day
period.
Maintain average lime Weight measurement device
injection rate (lb/hr) at accuracy of 1 percent;
during the successful calibration every 3
compliance test and months; record weight of
adhere to the same lime lime injected for each
injection schedule used 15-minute block period
during the performance and determine 3-hour
test for each 3-hour block averages or;
period or
Maintain average lime Weight measurement device
injection rate (lb/ton of accuracy of 1 percent;
rate used during the calibrate every 3
performance test and months; record weight of
adhere to the same lime lime added or injected
injection schedule used for each 15-minute block
during the performance period and determine
test for each operating lime injection rate (lb/
cycle or time period used ton of feed) for each
in performance test or operating cycle or time
period used in
performance test or;
Maintain feeder setting at Record feeder setting
level established at daily.
performance test.

[[Page 6955]]

[[Page 6956]]

In-line fluxer with lime Maintain average lime Weight measurement device
injected fabric filter (including injection rate (lb/hr) at accuracy of 1 percent;
secondary aluminum processing during the performance calibrate every 3
unit) cont'd test and adhere to the months; record weight of
same lime injection lime injected for each
schedule used during the 15-minute block period
test for each 3-hour and determine 3 hour
period or. block averages or;
Maintain average lime Weight measurement device
injection rate (1b/ton of accuracy of 1 percent;
rate used during the calibrate every 3
performance test and months; record weight of
adhere to the same lime lime injected for each
injection schedule used 15-minute block period
during the test for each and determine lime
operating cycle or time injection rate (lb/ton
period used in of feed) for each
performance test or. operating cycle or time
period used in
performance test or;
Maintain feeder setting at Record feeder setting
level established at daily.
performance test.
Fabric filter inlet Maintain average fabric Continuous measurement
temperature. filter inlet temperature device to meet EPA
at or below the average specifications; record
temperature during the temperatures in 15-
performance test +14 minute block averages;
deg.C (25 deg.F) for each calculate 3-hour block
3-hour period. averages; calibrate
every 3 months.
Clean (group 2) furnace........... Charge materials..... Use only clean charge..... Record identity of all
charge materials;
certify every 6 months.
Flux materials....... Use no reactive flux...... Record identity of all
flux materials; certify
every 6 months that no
reactive flux was used.
Group 1 furnace with lime injected Bag leak detector.... Initiate corrective action Install and operate in
fabric filter (including those within 1 hour of alarm accordance with ``Fabric
that are part of a secondary and complete in Filter Bag Leak
aluminum processing unit). accordance with the O, M, Detection Guidance'' and
& M plan; ^{b operate such record voltage output
that alarm does not sound from bag leak detector.
more than 5% of operating
time in 6-month period.

COM.................. Initiate corrective action Design and install in
within 1 hour of a 6- accordance with PS-1;
minute average opacity collect data in
reading of 5% or more and accordance with subpart
complete in accordance A of 40 CFR 63;
with the O, M, & M plan.^{b calculate and record 6-
minute block averages.
Lime injection rate Maintain free-flowing lime Inspect each feed hopper
and schedule. in the feed hopper or or silo every 8 hours to
silo at all times. verify that lime is free-
flowing; record results
of each inspection. If
blockage occurs, inspect
every 4 hours for 3
days; return to 8-hour
inspections if
corrective action
results in no further
blockage during 3-day
period.
Maintain average lime Weight measurement device
injection rate (lb/hr) at accuracy of 1 percent;
during the performance calibrate every 3
test and adhere to the months; record weight of
same lime injection lime injected for each
schedule used during the 15-minute block period
test for each 3-hour and determine 3-hour
period or; block averages.
Maintain average lime Weight measurement device
injection rate (lb/ton of accuracy of 1 percent;
rate used during the calibrate every 3
performance test and months; record weight of
adhere to the same lime lime injected for each
injection schedule used 15-minute block period
during the test for each and determine lime
operating cycle or time injection rate (lb/ton
period used in of feed) for each
performance test or; operating cycle or time
period used in
performance test or;
Maintain feeder setting at Record feeder setting
level established at daily.
performance test.
Reactive flux Maintain the reactive flux Weight measurement device
injection rate and injection rate at or accuracy of 1 percent;
injection rate used calibrate every 3
during the performance months; record weight
test. and type of reactive
flux added or injected
for each 15-minute block
period.

[[Page 6957]]

Fabric filter inlet Maintain average fabric Continuous measurement
temperature. filter inlet temperature device to meet EPA
at or below the average specifications; record
temperature during the temperature in 15-minute
performance test +14 block averages;
deg.C (25 deg.F) for calculate 3-hour block
each 3 hour period. averages; calibrate
every 3 months.
Maintain molten Operate side-well furnaces Maintain aluminum level
aluminum level. such that the level of operating log; certify
molten metal is above the every 6 months.
top of the passage
between side well and
hearth during reactive
flux injection.
Fluxing in sidewell Add reactive flux only to Maintain flux addition
furnace hearth. the sidewell of the operating log; certify
furnace unless the hearth every 6 months.
is also controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add-on Reactive flux Maintain the reactive flux Weight measurement device
controls (including those that injection rate and injection rate at or accuracy of 1 percent;
processing unit). injection rate used calibrate every 3
during the performance months; record weight
test and adhere to same and type of reactive
flux injection schedule flux added or injected
used in performance test. for each 15-minute block
period.
Feed material (melter/ .......................... Record identity of each
holder). charge; certify charge
materials every 6
months.
Site-specific Operate furnace within the Demonstration of site-
monitoring plan range of charge specific monitoring plan
(approved by materials, contaminant to provide data and show
permitting agency). levels, and parameter correlation of emissions
values established in the across the range of
site-specific monitoring charge and flux
plan.^{c materials and furnace
operating parameters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers (including
those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) and group 1 furnaces including melter holders
(including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit).
^{b O, M, & M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
^{c Site-specific monitoring plan--Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces without control devices must develop a site-
specific monitoring plan that identifies process or feed parameter-based operating requirements. This plan
would be part of the O, M, & M plan. This plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the monitoring plan
and correlation of parameters over the range of charge materials and fluxing practices must be developed in
coordination with and be approved by the permitting authority.

IV. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Source Category

Section 112(c) of the Act directs the EPA to list each category of
major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the
HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an initial
list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and may amend
the list at any time. ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' is one of the
174 categories of sources included on the revised list of source
categories (63 FR 7155, February 12, 1998). This list includes major
and area sources of HAPs for which the EPA intends to issue regulations
between November 1992 and November 2000. The category as defined in the
EPA report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category
List'' (docket item II-A-6) for the listing includes any facility
engaged in the cleaning, melting, refining, alloying, and pouring of
aluminum recovered from scrap, foundry returns, and dross.
The listing of the secondary aluminum production major source
category was based on the Administrator's determination that some
secondary aluminum production facilities would be major sources of
HAPs. These facilities are known to emit HAPs, including PM metal HAP
(including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel), gaseous organic HAPs (including
dioxins, furans, polycyclic organic matter, benzene and formaldehyde)
and gaseous inorganic HAPs (including hydrogen chloride, hydrogen
fluoride, and chlorine).
A major source must have the potential to emit 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy)
or more of a single HAP or 23 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of a combination
of HAPs. The EPA has estimated that there are approximately 86 major
source facilities that practice one or more secondary aluminum
production processes.
Section 112(c)(6) of the Act states that by November 15, 2000, EPA
must list and promulgate section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards (i.e.,
standards reflecting MACT) for categories (and subcategories) of
sources emitting seven specific pollutants, including 2,3,7,8
tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin which
are emitted by secondary aluminum production affected sources. The EPA
must assure that source categories accounting for not less than 90
percent of the aggregated emissions of the enumerated pollutant are
subject to MACT standards. Congress (docket item II-I-13, p. 155 to 156
(cement) singled out the HAPs enumerated in section 112(c)(6) as being
of ``specific concern'' not just because of their toxicity but because
of their propensity to cause substantial harm to human health and the
environment via indirect exposure pathways (i.e., from the air through
other media, such as water, soil, food uptake, etc.). Furthermore,
these pollutants have exhibited special potential to bioaccumulate,
causing pervasive environmental harm in biota (and, ultimately, human
health risks).
The EPA estimates that secondary aluminum production facilities
emit in aggregate approximately 0.4 lb per year of D/F (from June 20,
1997; 62 FR 33635), or 3.5 percent (from April 10, 1998; 63 FR 17849),
of the total national anthropogenic emissions of D/F per year

[[Page 6958]]

(docket item II-J-2, docket item II-J-4). To assure that this pollutant
is subject to MACT, EPA has added the secondary aluminum production
area source category to the list of source categories and subcategories
listed pursuant to section 112(c)(6). (See 63 FR 17838, 17849; April
10, 1998.) The EPA has done so because area and major source secondary
aluminum D/F emitting processes emit this HAP at about equal rates per
ton of feed, because the D/F emitted by area sources are equally toxic
per amount of emissions as that emitted by major sources (i.e., the
distribution of dioxin and furan isomers is the same for both area and
major sources), and because this is a particularly toxic class of HAP.
In addition, EPA's strategy for assuring 90 percent of these pollutants
are addressed includes control of these pollutants from secondary
aluminum production facility area sources through the MACT process.
(See 62 FR 33635, 33636; June 20, 1997.)
The EPA notes, however, as it did in the April 10th document, that
although the section 112(c)(6) listing process makes sources subject to
standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4), the language of section
112(c)(6) does not specify either a particular degree of emissions
control or a reduction in emissions of these specific pollutants to be
achieved by such regulations. Rather, the specific control requirements
will result from determining the appropriate level of control under
MACT (section 112(d)(2), or section 112(d)(4)), and this interpretation
will be made during the section 112(d) rulemakings affecting the
particular source category, not as part of the section 112(c)(6)
listing process. (See 63 FR 17841; April 10, 1998.)
As noted above, EPA is interpreting section 112(c)(6) to require
the EPA to establish standards under section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) for
all sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(6), whether such sources
are major or area sources. This interpretation reflects the express
language of section 112(c)(6) that sources * * * of each such pollutant
are subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4) and is in
accord with the function of section 112(c)(6):
* * * to assure that sources emitting significant amounts of the
most dangerous HAPs are subject to the rigorous MACT standard-setting
process.

(See S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 155, 166.)
In addition, the EPA is interpreting section 112(c)(6) to require
that, for sources listed under section 112(c)(6), MACT (or section
112(d)(4)) controls apply only to the section 112(c)(6) HAPs emitted by
the source. Thus, in this proposed rule, secondary aluminum production
area sources would be subject only to the D/F emission limitations of
the MACT standards. (Since the language of section 112(c)(6) is
ambiguous as to whether the entire source must comply with MACT, or
just for the HAPs enumerated in section 112(c)(6), (see 61 FR 17365, n.
12), either interpretation is legally permissible.) Applying the
provision to the entire source could result in applying MACT to all
HAPs emitted by area sources under circumstances where control would
not otherwise be warranted. The EPA specifically requests comments and
data regarding the decision to include area sources of D/F in this
proposed rule. The Agency seeks information and data regarding the
level of emissions from area sources, the degree to which controls are
in place, and the burden that would be imposed on affected sources.

B. Selection of Emission Sources and Pollutants

The secondary aluminum production source category consists of the
following operations:
(1) Preprocessing of scrap aluminum, including size reduction and
removal of oils, coatings, and other contaminants;
(2) Furnace operations including melting, in-furnace refining,
fluxing, and tapping;
(3) Additional refining, by means of in-line fluxing; and
(4) Cooling of dross.
The following sections include descriptions of the affected sources
in the secondary aluminum production source category, the origin of HAP
emissions from these affected sources, and factors affecting the
emissions. The affected sources for which MACT standards are being
proposed include new, reconstructed and existing scrap shredders, chip
dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering/decoating kilns, group 2 furnaces,
sweat furnaces and dross coolers; secondary aluminum processing units
(composed of all existing group 1 furnace emission units and all
existing in-line fluxer emission units); and new and reconstructed
group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. Each of these affected sources
emits one or more of the HAPs listed in section 112 of the Act.
Scrap aluminum is often preprocessed prior to melting.
Preprocessing steps may include shredding to reduce the size of
aluminum scrap; drying of oily scrap such as machine turnings and
borings; and/or heating in a scrap dryer, delacquering kiln or
decoating kiln to remove coatings or other contaminants that may be
present on the scrap. Heating of high iron content scrap in a sweat
furnace to reclaim the aluminum content is also a preprocessing
operation.
Crushing, shredding, and grinding operations are used to reduce the
size of scrap aluminum. Emissions of PM and HAP metals are generated as
dust from coatings and other contaminants contained in the scrap
aluminum. A typical shredder with a capacity of 90,900 Mg/yr (100,000
tpy), is estimated to produce 190 Mg/yr (212 tpy) of PM, before
controls (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo). PM emitted from
shredders contains HAP metals.
A chip dryer is used to evaporate oil and/or moisture from uncoated
aluminum chips and borings. Chip dryers typically operate at
temperatures ranging between 150 deg.C to 400 deg.C (300 deg.F to
750 deg.F). An uncontrolled chip dryer with a typical capacity of
36,400 Mg/yr (40,000 tons/yr), is estimated to emit 2.4 g TEQ/yr (.0053
lb/yr) of D/F, and 385 Mg/yr (424 tpy) of THC (of which some fraction
is organic HAP) (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo).
Painted and/or coated materials are processed in a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln to remove coatings and other
contaminants that may be present in the scrap prior to melting.
Coatings, oils, grease, and lubricants represent up to 20 percent of
the total weight of these materials. Organic HAPs, D/F, and inorganic
HAPs including particulate metal HAP are emitted during the drying/
delacquering/decoating process.
Used beverage containers (UBC) comprise a major portion of the
recycled aluminum scrap used as feedstock by the industry. In scrap
drying/delacquering/decoating operations, UBC and other post-consumer,
coated products (e.g., aluminum siding) are heated to an exit
temperature of up to 540 deg.C (1,000 deg.F) to volatilize and remove
various organic contaminants such as paints, oils, lacquers, rubber,
and plastic laminates prior to melting. An uncontrolled scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with a typical capacity of 45,500 Mg/
yr (50,000 tpy) is estimated to emit 43.3 Mg/yr (47.7 tpy) PM (of which
some fraction is particulate metal HAP), 76.0 Mg/yr (83.6 tpy) HCl, 68
Mg/yr (75 tpy) THC (of which some fraction is organic HAP), and 3.5 g
TEQ/yr (0.0077 lb TEQ/yr) of D/F (See docket item II-B-16, impacts
memo).
A sweat furnace is typically used to reclaim (or ``sweat'') the
aluminum from scrap with high levels of iron. These furnaces operate in
batch mode at a

[[Page 6959]]

temperature that is high enough to melt the aluminum but not high
enough to melt the iron. The aluminum melts and flows out of the
furnace while the iron remains in the furnace in solid form. The molten
aluminum can be cast into sows, ingots, or T-bars that are used as
feedstock for aluminum melting and refining furnaces. Alternately,
molten aluminum can be fed directly to a melting or refining furnace.
An uncontrolled sweat furnace, with a typical capacity of 4,500 Mg/yr
(5,000 tpy) is estimated to emit 0.071 g TEQ/yr (0.00016 lb TEQ/yr) of
D/F (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo).
Process (i. e. melting, holding or refining) furnaces are
refractory-lined metal vessels heated by an oil or gas burner to
achieve a metal temperature of about 760 deg.C (1,400 deg.F). The
melting process begins with the charging of scrap into the furnace. A
gaseous (typically, chlorine) or salt flux may be added to remove
impurities and reduce aluminum oxidation. Once molten, the chemistry of
the bath is adjusted by adding selected scrap or alloying agents, such
as silicon. Salt and other fluxes contain chloride and fluoride
compounds that may be released when introduced to the bath. HCl may
also be released when chlorine-containing contaminants (such as
polyvinyl chloride coatings) present in some types of scrap are
introduced to the bath. Argon and nitrogen fluxes are not reactive and
do not produce HAPs. In a sidewell melting furnace, fluxing is
performed in the sidewell and fluxing emissions from the sidewell are
controlled. In this type of furnace, fluxing is not typically done in
the hearth and hearth emissions (which include products of combustion
from the oil and gas fired furnaces) are typically uncontrolled.
Process furnaces may process contaminated scrap which can result in
HAP emissions. In addition, fluxing agents may contain HAPs, some
fraction of which is emitted from the furnace. Process furnaces are
large sources of HAP emissions in the secondary aluminum industry. An
uncontrolled melting furnace with a typical capacity of 18,100 Mg/year
(20,000 tpy) which processes contaminated scrap and uses reactive
fluxes is estimated to emit 177 Mg/yr (195 tpy) of PM (of which
approximately 0.80 Mg/yr [0.88 tpy] is particulate metal HAP), 29.7 Mg/
yr (32.6 tpy) of HCl, and 8 g TEQ/yr (0.018 lb TEQ/yr) D/F (See docket
item II-B-16, impacts memo).
As described in section IV.C.1 of this document, process furnaces
have been divided into group 1 (unrestricted scrap content,
unrestricted fluxing) and group 2 (clean charge, no reactive flux).
Existing group 1 furnaces are emission units within the secondary
aluminum processing unit affected source.
Dross-only furnaces are furnaces dedicated to reclamation of
aluminum from drosses formed during the melting/holding/alloying
operations carried out in other furnaces. Exposure to the atmosphere
causes the molten aluminum to oxidize, and the flotation of the
impurities to the surface along with any salt flux creates ``dross''.
Prior to tapping, the dross is periodically skimmed from the surface of
the aluminum bath, and cooled. Dross-only furnaces are typically rotary
barrel furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). A dross only furnace
without controls with a typical capacity of 18,200 Mg/yr (20,000 tpy)
is estimated to emit 113 Mg/yr (125 tpy) of PM (of which some fraction
is particulate metal HAP (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo).
Rotary dross coolers are devices used to cool dross in a rotating,
water-cooled drum. A rotary dross cooler without controls with a
typical capacity of 9,090 Mg/yr (10,000 tpy) is expected to emit 15.4
Mg/yr (17.0 tpy) of PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal
HAP) (See docket item II-B-16, impacts memo, docket item II-B-15,
Peters Risk Memo 3/27/97).
In-line fluxers are devices used for aluminum refining, including
degassing, outside the furnace. The process involves the injection of
chlorine, argon, nitrogen or other gases to achieve the desired metal
purity. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAPs.
In-line fluxers are found primarily at facilities that manufacture very
high quality aluminum or in facilities with no other means of
degassing. An in-line fluxer operating without emission controls, of
typical capacity of 45,500 Mg/yr (50,000 tpy) is estimated to emit 60.8
Mg/yr (66.8 tpy) of HCl and 1.9 Mg/yr (2.1 tpy) of PM (see docket item
II-B-16, impacts memo). Existing in-line fluxers are emission units
within the secondary aluminum processing unit affected source.
Given that these processes release significant quantities of HAPs
and the availability of emission control systems, the EPA selected to
develop and propose NESHAP for the following emission sources: New,
reconstructed and existing scrap shredders, chip dryers, scrap dryer/
delacquering/decoating kilns, sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces,
rotary dross coolers, and group 2 (clean charge, no reactive flux)
furnaces; new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers;
and secondary aluminum processing units (composed of existing group 1
furnaces and in-line fluxers).
The proposed standards would limit emissions of metal HAPs, organic
HAPs (including D/F), and HCl from secondary aluminum production
facilities. (Pollutant health effects were discussed in section II.C.
of this document). As described above, these HAPs are emitted in
significant quantities from secondary aluminum production sources.

C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

1. Background
After the EPA has identified the specific source categories or
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, MACT
standards must be set for each category or subcategory. Section 112
establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new
sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. (See section 112(d)(3).) The
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources, or the average or median of the best-performing five sources
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT
standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards
must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. In
establishing the standards, the EPA may distinguish among classes,
types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. (See
section 112(d)(1).)
The next step in establishing MACT standards is to investigate
regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at
least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the
industry is analyzed to develop model plants for projecting national
impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels and cost, energy, and
secondary impacts. Regulatory alternatives (which may be different
levels of emissions control, equal to or more stringent than the floor
levels) are then evaluated to select the regulatory alternative that
best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The

[[Page 6960]]

selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the
control level selected must be technologically achievable. The
regulatory alternatives and emission limits selected for new and
existing sources may be different because of different MACT floors.
The Agency may consider going beyond the floor to require more
stringent controls. Here, the EPA considers the achievable emission
reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled) and the cost impacts.
Subcategorization within a source category may be considered when
there is enough evidence to demonstrate clearly that there are
significant differences among the subcategories. The criteria to
consider include process operations (including differences between
batch and continuous operations), emission characteristics, control
device applicability, safety, and opportunities for pollution
prevention.
The EPA examined the processes, the process operations, and other
factors to determine if separate classes of units, operations, or other
criteria have an effect on air emissions from emission sources, or the
controllability of those emissions. Based on differences in emissions,
the type of materials processed and the fluxing practices employed, the
EPA has distinguished two specific classes of melting, holding, and
refining furnaces. Because HAP emission potential is strongly
influenced by the contaminants present in the materials that are melted
and the type and amount of flux added, these furnaces would be subject
to separate standards under the proposed rule.
The classes of process furnaces which are characterized by the
types of scrap charged to the furnace and the operations carried out in
the furnace are: (1) Group 1 (all process furnaces except group 2)
furnaces and (2) group 2 (``clean charge/no reactive flux'') furnaces.
Dross-only furnaces and sweat furnaces are distinctly different
from the other types because they each specialize in recovering
aluminum from a particular type of raw material. As the name implies,
``dross-only'' furnaces charge only dross collected from other furnace
operations. Sweat furnaces recover aluminum from materials with a high
iron (or other ferrous material) content. Both of these furnaces are
unique in their method of operation and are treated as separate sources
in development of the proposed NESHAP.
2. Selection of MACT Floor Technology
In establishing these proposed emission standards, the technology
representative of the MACT floor level of control was determined for
each affected source. Add-on control technologies were considered as
well as work practices and pollution prevention techniques. Data
related to operating procedures and emissions for secondary aluminum
plants were obtained through a combination of site visits, an ICR, an
EPA/industry voluntary follow-up questionnaire, and emissions tests.
Emission tests were conducted at 12 facilities to measure
uncontrolled and controlled emissions from selected production
processes and to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology
representative of the MACT floor level of control. Sites for these
tests were selected jointly by the EPA and industry as operating
technology representative of the MACT floor level of control. Funding
for tests was provided by the EPA, The Aluminum Association, and
individual facilities. The EPA also met frequently with industry
representatives to discuss the test program and available data, and to
identify and resolve issues. In addition to the data from the emission
testing program, the Agency also used emissions data from the ICR
database (docket item II-D-105, ICR database). Data from all these
sources were considered in the selection of emission limits for
individual emission points at secondary aluminum plants. Additional
details on the emission test data can be found in the docket. (See
Docket Item II-B-17. Memorandum. M. Wright, Research Triangle
Institute, to J. Santiago, EPA:MICG. Summary of Emissions Data. 1998.)
One important aspect of the more effective control technologies is
the system that captures and collects the HAPs generated by each of the
processes. Well-designed hoods and their proper placement, adequate air
flows or ventilation rates, and adequately sized ductwork and fans, in
well-maintained systems are representative of the MACT floor technology
control systems. These well-designed capture and collection systems can
be achieved by following the design standards in the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.'' The standards
described in Chapters 3 and 5 of this manual are incorporated by
reference in the rule as a requirement applicable to affected sources
equipped with add-on control devices.
Scrap shredders. Based on information provided in the ICR
responses, the EPA identified 69 shredding and crushing operations at
51 facilities. Emissions test measurements show that shredders and
crushers are sources of PM (containing particulate metal HAP). Fabric
filters are used to control emissions at 49 of the 69 shredders and
crushers in the industry. The best performing 12 percent of the
existing 69 scrap shredders and crushers are equipped with a fabric
filter for controlling PM and HAP metals. Therefore, the floor level of
control for existing sources is determined by the average/median of the
best performing 8 sources within the category. This median level of
control is represented by a well designed and operated pulse-jet fabric
filter using fiberglass bags with an air to cloth ratio of about 6.0.
This same level of control is also the MACT floor for new sources
since it is also the level of control achieved by the best controlled
source.
Chip dryers. The EPA identified five chip dryers based on
information provided in the ICR responses. Emissions test measurements
show that these sources emit THC (containing organic HAP) and D/F. Four
of these five dryers are equipped with an afterburner. The MACT floor,
for categories of less than 30 sources is determined by the median of
the five best controlled sources in the category. The best performing 4
of the existing 5 chip dryers are equipped with an afterburner for
organics (i.e., THC and D/F) control. Therefore, the floor level of
control for existing sources is determined by the median of the best
performing 5 sources within the category. This median level of control
is represented by a well designed and operated afterburner with a
minimum of 1-second residence time and operated at a temperature of
1,200 deg.F.
The same level of control which represents the existing source MACT
is also the MACT floor for new sources since it is also the level of
control achieved by the best controlled source.
Scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns. Based on
information provided in the ICR responses, the EPA identified 46 scrap
dryers, delacquering kilns, and decoating kilns. Emissions test
measurements show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate
metal HAP), HCl, THC (containing organic HAP) and D/F.
Afterburners followed by a lime injected fabric filter system are
used to control emissions at 13 of the 46 scrap dryers/delacquering
kilns/decoating kilns in the industry. The best performing 12 percent
of the existing 46 scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns are
equipped with an

[[Page 6961]]

afterburner for organics (i.e., THC and D/F) control and a lime
injected fabric filter for controlling HCl, D/F, PM and HAP metals.
Therefore, the floor level of control for existing sources is
determined by the average/median of the best performing 6 sources
within the category. This median level of control is represented by a
well designed and operated afterburner with a minimum of 1-second
residence time and operated at a temperature of 1400 deg.F followed by
a pulse-jet fabric filter using fiberglass bags with an air to cloth
ratio of about 4.0 and continuous lime injection.
The existing source MACT is also the MACT floor for new sources
since it is also the level of control achieved by the best controlled
source.
Sweat furnaces. Based on data provided in the ICR responses, the
EPA identified 12 sweat furnaces in the industry. These sources reclaim
aluminum from scrap containing high levels of iron by heating the scrap
to a temperature above the melting point of aluminum but below that of
iron. Emissions test measurements show that these sources emit THC and
D/F. Six of the 12 sweat furnaces are equipped with afterburners to
control THC and D/F. The MACT floor, for categories of less than 30
sources is determined by the median of the five best controlled sources
in the category. Therefore, afterburners represent the MACT floor level
of control for existing sweat furnaces. An afterburner representative
of this median level of control is designed for a minimum of 1-second
residence time and operated at a temperature of 1600 deg.F.
The existing source MACT is also the MACT floor for new sources
since it is also the level of control achieved by the best controlled
source.
Group 1 furnaces. Existing group 1 furnaces are emission units
within a secondary aluminum processing unit affected source. Each new
and reconstructed group 1 furnaces is a separate affected source. The
EPA identified 528 Group 1 furnaces based on information provided in
the ICR responses. Approximately one-half of these furnaces operate
with no add-on air pollution control devices. Emissions test
measurements show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate
metal HAP), HCl, and D/F. The add-on controls used on group 1 furnaces
include fabric filters, lime coated fabric filters, lime injected
fabric filters, cyclones, incinerators and wet scrubbers.
Other furnaces in group 1 limit emissions through the use of work
practices, design practices, and pollution prevention approaches. These
techniques include, but are not limited to, charging only clean scrap
to the furnaces and design and work practice approaches for fluxing,
limiting oil and coatings content of furnace charges through the use of
scrap purchasing specifications and scrap inspection, fluxing only in
holding furnaces, fluxing in in-line fluxers, and limiting the use of
reactive fluxes. Work practices and pollution prevention approaches may
also be combined with add-on controls to achieve HAP reductions.
Lime injected fabric filter systems are used to control emissions
at 68 of the 528 group 1 furnaces in the industry. The best performing
12 percent of the existing 528 group 1 furnaces are equipped with a
lime injected fabric filter for controlling HCl, PM and HAP metals, and
for controlling D/F from those furnaces which process scrap containing
oil and coatings. Therefore, the floor level of control achievable by
existing emission units is determined by the average/median of the best
performing 63 sources within the category. This median level of control
is represented by a well designed and operated pulse jet fabric filter
with an air to cloth ratio of about 6.5 and continuous lime injection.
The level of control achievable by existing emission units
represents the MACT floor for new sources since it is also the level of
control achieved by the best controlled source.
Group 2 furnaces. Based on the ICR data, the EPA estimates that
about 75 group 2 furnaces are currently in operation. None of the
furnaces in group 2 are equipped with add-on air pollution control
devices. Emissions from these furnaces are typically controlled by work
practices that require charging only clean charge materials, coupled
with fluxing operations using only non-reactive agents (i.e. fluxes
which do not contain or produce HAPs). Since emissions from these units
are at very low levels and considering the cost of emissions testing,
the application of emission measurement methodology and setting
specific emissions limits for this particular class of source is not
practicable due to economic limitations. Thus, work practice procedures
under section 112(h) of the Act (limitations on type of charge and type
of flux used) constitute the MACT floor level of control for existing
Group 2 furnaces as well as MACT for new group 2 furnaces.
Dross-only furnaces. Based on the information reported in the ICR,
the EPA identified 15 dross-only furnaces. Emissions test measurements
show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate metal HAP). All
dross-only furnaces are equipped with control systems that include a
fabric filter, some of which have lime injection systems. The MACT
floor, for categories of less than 30 sources is determined by the
median of the five best controlled sources in the category. The ICR
data show that the control technology in place at the five best-
controlled sources is a lime injected fabric filter. Therefore, lime
injected fabric filters represent the MACT floor level of control for
existing dross-only furnaces. The technology at the median level of
control is represented by a well designed and operated fabric filter
with polyester bags at an air to cloth ratio of 6.5 to 1 with
continuous lime injection.
The existing source MACT floor is also the MACT floor for new
sources since it is also the level of control achieved by the best
controlled source.
Rotary dross coolers. The EPA identified 26 rotary dross coolers
based on the information provided in the ICR responses. Emissions test
measurements show that these sources emit PM (containing particulate
metal HAP). All 26 rotary coolers are equipped with fabric filters. The
MACT floor, for categories of less than 30 sources is determined by the
median of the five best controlled sources in the category. Therefore,
fabric filters represent the MACT floor level of control for existing
rotary dross coolers. A fabric filter representative of the median of
the best 5 controlled sources is a well designed and operated pulse-jet
fabric filter system using polyester bags with an air to cloth ratio of
3.0.
The existing source MACT floor is also the MACT floor for new
sources since it is also the level of control achieved by the best
controlled source.
In-line fluxers. Existing in-line fluxers are emission units within
a secondary aluminum processing unit affected source. Each new and
reconstructed in-line fluxer is a separate affected source. The EPA
identified a total of 120 in-line fluxers (also referred to as
degassing boxes) from the information reported in the ICR responses.
Emissions test measurements show that in-line fluxers are sources of
low concentrations of PM (containing particulate metal HAP) and HCl.
Eleven in-line fluxers are controlled by fabric filters and 7 of these
have lime (or other alkaline reagent) injection systems. The average of
the best performing 12 percent of the existing 120 in-line fluxers is
represented by a lime injected fabric filter for controlling HCl, PM
and HAP metals. The level of control achievable by existing emission
units is represented by a well designed and operated pulse-jet fabric
filter using

[[Page 6962]]

fiberglass bags with an air to cloth ratio of about 7.0 and continuous
lime injection.
The level of control achievable by existing emission units
represents the MACT floor for new sources since it is also the level of
control achieved by the best controlled emission unit.
Secondary aluminum processing units. A secondary aluminum
processing unit consists of all of the existing group 1 furnace
emission units and all of the existing in-line fluxer emission units at
a secondary aluminum production facility. The MACT floor level of
control is determined by applying the level of control achievable to
each emission unit within the affected source. As described in the
paragraphs in this section of the document which address the
determination of the MACT floor for group 1 furnaces and in-line
fluxers, this is represented by the level of control achieved by a lime
injected fabric filter of appropriate design, coupled with continuous
lime injection. Each new or reconstructed group 1 furnace or in-line
fluxer is a separate affected source subject to the MACT floor emission
limitations as described in the paragraphs in this section of the
document which address the determination of the MACT floor for group 1
furnaces and in-line fluxers.
3. Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Technologies
The EPA investigated beyond-the-floor controls for each pollutant
and affected source regulated by the proposed rule. For each of the
cases evaluated, the Agency did not identify cost-effective emission
control technologies that would accomplish additional emission
reductions to a level below that achieved by the MACT floor technology.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing emission limits at the MACT floor
level of control.
4. Selection of Emission Limits
The EPA and industry conducted comprehensive emission tests at 12
facilities to characterize uncontrolled and controlled emissions from
the various processes and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
control devices and work practice and pollution prevention approaches.
Sites with add-on control technologies selected for emission testing
represented the use of technology identified by the EPA as the MACT
floor technology. Other sites were tested where work practice and
pollution prevention approaches were used to achieve HAP emission
reductions. Data from these sites showed that work practices and
pollution prevention approaches could achieve HAP emission levels
similar to those achieved with add-on MACT floor technologies.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing a combination of work practice/
pollution prevention based standards and MACT floor control technology
based numerical emission limits for control of HAP from affected
sources subject to the proposed rule.
The EPA is, in most cases, proposing emission limits in a mass per
unit (e.g., kg/Mg or lb/ton) of feed format. This format provides
several advantages. For example, for process units that release
emissions from more than one stack and where multiple similar affected
sources are controlled by a common control device, total emission rates
can be determined by measuring emissions for a particular pollutant
from each stack or discharge point, e.g. lbs/hr, adding those, and
dividing by the sum of all affected source feed rates, e.g. tons/hr. In
addition, this format is tied to production and the emission limits are
unaffected by dilution. In specific cases, concentration based
numerical emission limits, or minimum percentage reduction standards
are appropriate; the format of these standards is explained in the
discussion of these emission standards.
All limits on particulate metal HAP emissions are expressed in
terms of a surrogate pollutant, PM. The use of the surrogate PM
emissions limit will require the installation and operation of the
appropriate MACT floor technology for metal HAPs control from new and
existing sources. Use of PM as a surrogate for metal HAPs also has the
advantage of simplifying and reducing the cost of performance testing
and monitoring.
Except for D/F which merits special consideration due to high
toxicity, all emission standards for gaseous organic HAPs are expressed
in terms of a surrogate pollutant, THC. The use of a surrogate THC
emissions limit for gaseous organic HAPs will require facilities to
install and operate the appropriate MACT floor technology for gaseous
organic HAPs from new and existing sources.
All limits on D/F emissions are expressed in units of toxic
equivalent (TEQ). Toxic equivalent refers to the international method
of expressing toxicity equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in
the EPA report, ``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated
with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and -
dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (docket item II-A-1).
In addition to the emission limits discussed below, the EPA is also
proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to affected sources
with fabric filter control devices that choose to monitor with a COM
and affected scrap shredders that choose to monitor with a COM or by
visible emissions monitoring. During the course of many emission tests
conducted at secondary aluminum facilities, the EPA has determined that
the exhaust gases from properly designed, operated, and maintained
fabric filters have essentially zero opacity. An opacity of 10 percent
or greater following a successful performance test on a fabric filter
controlled affected source is a clear indication that the control
device is not functioning properly.
Scrap shredders. The proposed PM limit for scrap shredders and
crushers of 23 mg/dscm, (0.010 gr/dscf) is based on test results from
four facilities equipped with well designed and operated fabric filters
representative of the MACT floor technology for new and existing
sources where PM measured emissions ranged from 0.0002 gr/dscf to
0.0069 gr/dscf. The EPA took into consideration the wide variation in
controlled emissions for the four MACT floor fabric filter systems in
selection of the emission limits of 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf). Such a
range in performance represents the typical variations associated with
the process and with application of the floor technology. The proposed
PM emission limit represents a level that can be achieved by all scrap
shredders and crushers using the MACT floor technology. The supporting
emissions data are presented in Figure 1 and Table 3 below.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.004

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

Table 3.--Summary of Scrap Shredders and Crushers Particulate Emissions Test Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average PM emissions
Plant Control device -------------------------------
PM (gr/dscf) PM (mg/dscm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24......................................... Fabric Filter...................... 0.0022 5.0
25......................................... Fabric Filter...................... 0.0069 15.8
26......................................... Fabric Filter...................... 0.0002 0.46
27......................................... Fabric Filter...................... 0.0008 1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this affected source, a concentration format is appropriate
because PM concentration is easily and reliably measured from these
sources and PM concentration reflects fabric filter performance, the
technology representative of MACT for new and existing sources.
The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to
fabric filters applied to scrap shredder waste gas streams if the owner
or operator chooses to monitor either with a COM or by visible
emissions monitoring. As noted above, the EPA has determined that the
presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a fabric
filter following a successful performance test is a clear indication
that the device is not functioning properly.
Chip dryers. One chip dryer with a well designed and operated
afterburner representative of the MACT floor was tested. The controlled
THC emissions from tests at this facility averaged 0.21 kg/Mg (0.42 lb/
ton) of feed and the D/F emissions averaged 1.3 /Mg D/F TEQ
(1.7 x 10 ^-5 gr/ton) of feed. The data are shown in Figure 2
below.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6964]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.005

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6965]]

Based on these data the EPA is proposing a THC limit of 0.40 kg/Mg
(0.80 lb/ton) of feed and a D/F (TEQ) limit of 2.5 ``g/Mg (3.5
x 10^-5 gr/ton) of feed.
Scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns.
The same process equipment can function as a scrap dryer, a
delacquering kiln, or a decoating kiln. Equipment of an identical
design is capable of performing different functions by changing the
operating temperature and charge make-up. In addition, the control
technology representative of MACT for new and existing sources is the
same for kilns operating as scrap dryers and kilns operating as
delacquering/decoating kilns. The EPA/industry task group spent
considerable effort trying to define scrap dryers and delacquering/
decoating kilns such that separate emission standards could be set for
each. Despite this substantive effort, the task group was unable to
develop consistent, unambiguous definitions which would permit the
establishment of different classes of scrap dryers, delacquering kilns,
or decoating kilns. In recognition of the different operating modes
applicable to these affected sources such as operating temperatures,
charge make-up, difference in uncontrolled emission levels; to provide
operational flexibility; and to ensure that the technology
representative of the MACT floor for new and existing sources is
installed and properly operated at these sources, the EPA is proposing
two alternate sets of emission standards.
One set of emission standards is based on emissions data obtained
from a kiln operating as a delacquering/decoating kiln with an
operating temperature about 1,000 deg.F and processing only coated
materials, such as painted siding and used beverage containers, and
operating a well designed afterburner/lime injected fabric filter
system representative of MACT for new and existing sources. This set of
standards for PM, HCl, THC, and D/F is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Emission Limits for Scrap Dryers, Delacquering Kilns, and Decoating Kilns Operating as
Delacquering Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (lb/ton of HCl (lb/ton of THC (lb/ton of D/F (g/
Process feed) feed) feed) Mg of feed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrap Dryer, Delacquering Kiln, Decoating
Kiln....................................... 0.080 0.80 0.060 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other set of emission standards is based on the emissions data
obtained from a kiln that had an operating temperature of about
700 deg.F and was processing scrap with oils, coatings, paints,
insulation, etc. The control technology in use was an afterburner/lime
injected fabric filter system representative of MACT for new and
existing sources. That set of standards and control device design and
operating requirements is summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.--Summary of Alternate Emission Limits and Control Equipment Requirements for Scrap Dryers, Delacquering Kilns, and Decoating Kilns Operating as
Scrap Dryers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afterburner design and operating
requirements
Process PM (lb/ton of HCl (lb/ton of THC (lb/ton of D/F (g/---------------------------------
feed) feed) feed) Mg of feed) Temperature ( Residence time^{a
deg.F) (seconds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrap Dryer, Delacquering Kiln, Decoating Kiln.... 0.30 1.50 0.20 5.0 1,400 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Afterburner design residence time.

The first set of proposed emission limits for scrap dryers,
delacquering kilns, decoating kilns in Table 4 is supported by the
delacquering emissions data summarized in Table 6 and Figure 3. Under
this set of standards an operator is required to meet a more stringent
set of emission limits, but the afterburner design parameters are not
requirements.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.006

[[Page 6967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.007

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6968]]

Table 6.--Summary of Scrap Dryer, Delacquering Kiln, Decoating Kiln Emissions Data With MACT Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F (g/Mg of
feed) feed) feed) feed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--Scrap Dryer.................................. 0.167 0.827 .............. ..............
3--Scrap Dryer.................................. 0.214 1.26 ^{a 0.072 ^{a 2.66
4--Delacquering................................. ^{b 0.00057 ^{b 0.544 ^{b 0.006 ^{b 0.118
5--Delacquering................................. ^{c 0.024 ^{.............. ^{c 0.037 ^{..............
^{d 0.051 ^{.............. ^{d 0.035 ^{..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Calculated by applying the afterburner efficiency to the uncontrolled fugitive emissions escaping from the
kiln product discharge point. These emissions are supposed to be captured and controlled by the afterburner
but problems during testing allowed emissions to escape from the kiln end where material leaves the process.
^{b Emissions test of kiln processing used beverage containers for D/F test and painted siding for all other
tests.
^{c Emissions test of kiln processing used beverage containers.
^{d Emissions test of kiln processing painted siding.

Because of the lower level of uncontrolled emissions generated when
a kiln is operated as a delacquering kiln (i.e., operating temperature
of about 1,000 deg.F and processing used beverage containers and
painted siding only), an operator could conceivably operate a kiln
primarily as a delacquering/decoating kiln but add a small amount of
materials, such as oils or insulation, and classify it as a scrap
dryer. In this case the operator could thereby operate with less than
the MACT floor control equipment 1400 deg.F and 1 second residence time
afterburner design, while only reducing emissions to the level of the
less stringent alternate emission
limits. To preclude this, the EPA is specifying minimum afterburner
design and operating requirements of 1 second residence time and
1400 deg.F, MACT floor technology, for those operators electing to
process material with oils, coatings, and insulation, in addition to
used beverage containers and painted siding, thus operating the
equipment as a scrap dryer rather than a delacquering/decoating kiln.
The EPA is proposing the second, or alternate, set of emission
standards based on data obtained from a kiln being operated as a scrap
dryer. These alternate limits are combined with control device design
and operating requirements to ensure that
control technology representative of MACT is used when an operator
chooses to comply with the higher, or less stringent, emission limits
associated with a scrap dryer processing scrap with oils, coatings,
paints, etc.
As noted above, the emissions data supporting the second or
alternate emission limits were obtained from a kiln operating as a
scrap dryer at a temperature of about 700 deg.F. These data are
summarized in Table 6 and shown in Figure 4. The control technology in
use was an afterburner/lime injected fabric filter system
representative of MACT for new and existing sources.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.008

[[Page 6970]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.009

BILLINC CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6971]]

The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to
fabric filters applied to scrap dryer, and delacquering and decoating
kiln waste gas streams if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option. As
noted above, the EPA has determined that the presence of a 10 percent
or greater opacity discharge from a fabric filter following a
successful performance test is a clear indication that the device is
not functioning properly.
Sweat furnaces. EPA tested one sweat furnace equipped with a well
designed and operated afterburner representative of MACT for new and
existing sources.
Controlled D/F emissions averaged 0.35 ng/dscm (1.5 x
10^-10 gr/dscf) and are shown in Figure 5. Based on these
data, the EPA is proposing a D/F limit for sweat furnaces of 0.80 ng/
dscm D/F TEQ (3.5 x 10^-10 gr/dscf) corrected to an 11
percent oxygen basis.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.010

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
A concentration limit, as opposed to a production based limit, is
proposed for this source because materials charged to these furnaces
are typically introduced in a random fashion without being weighed.
Consequently, determining an emission rate per unit of feed is not a
practical option as a format for the emission limit.
Dross-only furnaces. The EPA/industry tested one dross only furnace
equipped with a well designed and operated fabric filter representative
of the MACT floor for new and existing sources. The PM emissions from
tests at this facility averaged 0.104 kg/Mg of feed (0.207 lb/ton).
Based on these data as shown in Figure 6, the EPA is proposing a PM
limit of 0.15 kg/Mg of feed (0.30 lb/ton).

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.011

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to
fabric filters applied to dross-only furnace waste gas streams if a COM
is chosen as the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has
determined that the presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity
discharge from a fabric filter following a successful performance test
is a clear indication that the device is not functioning properly.
Rotary dross coolers. The EPA/industry tested two rotary dross
coolers equipped with a well designed and operated fabric filter
representative of the MACT floor technology for new and existing
sources. The PM emissions from tests at these facilities averaged 2.29
and 75.5 mg/dscm (0.001 and 0.033 gr/dscf), respectively. These data
are summarized in Table 7 and Figure 7.

Table 7.--Summary of Rotary Dross Cooler Emission Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (gr/
Plant PM (mg/dscm) dscf)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21........................................... 2.29 0.001
22........................................... ^{a 75.5 ^{a 0.033
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Plant 22 is equipped with a lime-injected fabric filter.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.012

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Based on these data the EPA is proposing a PM limit of 92 mg/dscm
(0.040 gr/dscf). The proposed PM emission limit represents a level that
can be achieved by all rotary dross coolers using the floor technology
for new and existing sources.
The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to
fabric filters applied to rotary dross cooler waste gas streams if a
COM is chosen as the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has
determined that the presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity
discharge from a fabric filter following a successful performance test
is a clear indication that the device is not functioning properly.
In-line fluxers. The EPA/industry tested one in-line fluxer
equipped with a well designed and operated fabric filter with
continuous lime injection representative of the control which is
achievable for these emission units. Additional performance test data
from the same in-line fluxer was also available (see docket item II-B-
19, historical data memo). The PM emissions from tests performed at
this facility averaged 0.00170 kg/Mg (0.00340 lb/ton) of feed and are
shown in Figure 8. Based on these data the EPA is proposing a PM limit
of 0.005 kg/Mg (0.01 lb/ton) of feed for new and reconstructed in-line
fluxers. The HCl emissions from tests at this facility averaged 0.0072
kg/Mg (0.014 lb/ton) of feed and are also shown in Figure 8. Based on
these data the EPA is proposing an HCl limit of 0.02 kg/Mg (0.040 lb/
ton) of feed for new and reconstructed in-line fluxers.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6974]]

=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.013

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6975]]

The EPA is also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit applicable to
fabric filters applied to in-line fluxer waste gas streams if a COM is
chosen as the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has determined
that the presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a
fabric filter following a successful performance test is a clear
indication that the device is not functioning properly.
Furnace Operations The EPA spent considerable effort analyzing ICR
data and emissions data to evaluate the need for different classes for
the remaining furnace types and configurations. Operating practices,
control practices, work practices, pollution prevention efforts,
furnace charge materials, flux rates and methods, and emissions vary
widely within the industry. All of these factors entered into the
consideration of different classes (Ref. ICR database, emission data
summaries). In addition, there were many meetings and discussions with
the industry to discuss and evaluate a multitude of options and issues
associated with each factor. At one time, as many as five potential
classes were under consideration and discussion. As analyses of the
potential classes progressed, many issues were raised regarding
definitions of the classes, process operating practices, and control
approaches. Further, as potential emissions limits for these classes
were discussed, it became evident to the EPA that these furnaces could
be compressed into two classes. Therefore, based on evaluation of these
options, the EPA is proposing two classes for process furnace
operations:
Group 2 furnaces--clean charge materials with no reactive
fluxing.
Group 1 furnaces--furnaces charging different gradations
of clean materials with reactive fluxing to dirty materials with
various fluxing amounts/techniques.
Group 2 furnaces. For group 2 furnaces the EPA is proposing work
practice/pollution prevention practices under section 112(h) of the
Act. Section 112(h) of the Act provides for the establishment of work
practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard.
The MACT floor for new and existing sources for this group of
furnaces consists of work practices/pollution prevention practices
including charging and melting only ``clean'' charge materials, as
defined in the proposed regulation (molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot,
alloying elements, uncoated aluminum chips, aluminum scrap dried/
delacquered/decoated, and noncoated runaround scrap), and no reactive
fluxing. Compliance with the standard would be demonstrated by labeling
of the furnace as group 2, and record keeping of charge and flux
materials along with certification every six months that only clean
charges were used and that no reactive flux was used in the furnace.
The Administrator has determined it is not feasible to prescribe an
emission standard for this class of furnaces because the application of
measurement methodology is not practicable due to economic limitations.
Group 1 furnaces. Group 1 furnaces consist of all process (melting,
holding, refining) furnaces that do not meet the requirements for a
group 2 furnace. These include combinations of:
(1) Dirty furnace charge materials and fluxing with or without
reactive fluxes, and
(2) Clean furnace charge materials (work practices) with use of
reactive fluxing.
The achievable emissions limitation for group 1 furnace emission
units and the standard for new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces is
based on furnaces in which dirty charge materials and unlimited fluxing
are used, and that are equipped with the MACT floor control technology,
a fabric filter with a continuous lime injection system. The proposed
limits for new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces are shown in Table 8.
The basis and rationale for these limits are provided in the emission
test data graphs and discussion below.

Table 8.--Summary of Group 1 Furnace Emission Limits for New and Reconstructed Sources (Except Melter/Holders
Processing Clean Charge)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl^{a
Process PM (lb/ton) D/F (g ---------------------------------
TEQ/Mg) (lb/ton) Removal (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Furnaces............................ 0.40 15 0.40 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Facilities with add-on control devices will choose which requirement to comply with.

To meet the emission limits based on MACT floor technology, not all
new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces will have to be equipped with
lime injected fabric filter systems. Work practices, pollution
prevention practices, process design changes, charging clean or almost
clean materials, and reduced use of reactive fluxes while controlling
the reactive flux injection rate are some control approaches that may
be applied to some group 1 furnace installations with varying add-on
control approaches such that the resulting HCl and other HAP emissions
are below the emission limits being proposed.
To determine the emissions limitations achievable by group 1
furnace emission units and to establish the emission limits for new and
reconstructed group 1 furnaces, the EPA and industry tested furnaces in
6 facilities (Plants 6 through 11) with the MACT floor technology
applied. The emissions data are presented in Figures 9, 10, and 11
below. The furnace emissions data with control status labeled as ``lime
baghouse'' were equipped with the MACT floor technology.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.014

[[Page 6977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.015

[[Page 6978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.016

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 6979]]

In addition, the EPA and industry tested group 1 furnaces that had
no add-on control technologies, but used work practices/pollution
prevention practices such as process design changes that allowed
reduced levels of reactive fluxing, as well as selective scrap charging
(but not ``clean charge''), to achieve lower levels of HAP emissions.
Both melting and holding furnaces were included in these tests. These
results are also shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11. These furnace data are
labeled with control status as ``work practice.''
All of the data in Figures 9, 10, 11 were considered in determining
the achievable emissions limitations for group 1 furnace emission units
and in establishing the proposed emission limits for new and
reconstructed individual Group 1 furnaces that are listed in Table 8
above. Some of the variations in the work practice/ pollution
prevention emissions are due to different design of process, work
practice, and pollution prevention alternatives, and the fact that
these emissions will vary with the differing grades of aluminum
produced.
Average PM emission levels from group 1 furnaces equipped with MACT
floor add-on air pollution control devices varied from a low of 0.029
to a high of 0.28 lb/ton of feed. Average HCl emission levels from
furnaces equipped with MACT floor add-on air pollution control devices
varied from a low of 0.07 to a high of 0.36 lb/ton of feed. The
equivalent ranges of emissions for the work practice/pollution
prevention practice furnaces were 0.019 to 0.37 lb/ton and 0.001 to
0.36 lb/ton of PM and HCl, respectively.
The three test results for average D/F emissions from group 1
furnaces equipped with MACT floor add-on air pollution control devices
ranged from a low value of 0.46 to a high value of 4.5 g D/F
TEQ/Mg of feed. For the four work practice/pollution prevention
practice furnaces, the range was 0.21 to 0.41 g D/F TEQ/Mg.
To provide another perspective on the achievable D/F emission
limitation, the 15 g/Mg of feed emission limit (proposed for
new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces) expressed on a concentration
basis for the furnaces tested would be about 0.9 to 15.5 ng D/F TEQ/
dscm depending on the quantity of waste gas flow from the furnace.
The proposed standards for new and reconstructed group 1 furnaces
shown in Table 8 provide the option of achieving a 90 percent emission
reduction in HCl discharged from the furnace in lieu of meeting an
emission limit of 0.40 lb/ton. The EPA considered that group 1 furnaces
can be used to process a wide variety of scrap types (i.e., clean, with
insulation, oils, coated, painted, etc.) and perform various fluxing
operations with multiple agents including HAP producing and non-HAP
producing fluxes (i.e., salts, chlorine gas, nitrogen/chlorine bi-gas,
etc.) to produce a wide range of aluminum alloys. Because of the
potential differences in charge make-up, fluxing, work practices, and
final aluminum properties, there is potential for variability in HCl,
organic HAPs, particulate metal HAPs, and D/F emitted by the group 1
furnaces. In recognition of the different operating modes applicable to
these emission units and affected sources and to promote the most cost-
effective and economical approach to MACT controls while achieving the
MACT add-on air pollution control device equivalent reductions, the EPA
is proposing a dual HCl emission standard for new and reconstructed
group 1 furnaces. Both a numerical emission limit and an alternate
percent reduction requirement are being proposed. Some furnaces process
scrap that contains relatively large amounts of chloride compounds.
This factor in combination with high fluxing rates necessary to refine
some aluminum can yield control device inlet HCl quantities in excess
of 4 lbs/ton of feed. In these circumstances the floor technology may
not be able to meet the limit of 0.40 lb/ton, but can comply with the
90 percent removal requirement which is representative of what the MACT
floor technology is capable of achieving. Test results from Plants 7,
9, and 10, shown in Figure 10, indicated that HCl efficiencies in
excess of 90 percent removal were achieved. The range of variation in
measured efficiencies was significant at two facilities with some test
results below 90 percent. In these tests the lime usage rates were not
adequately controlled to achieve consistent HCl removal, hence a wide
variation in HCl removals resulted.
The level of removal achievable became an issue with the industry
and to resolve this issue the EPA tested another group 1 furnace in
Plant 11 with a lime injected fabric filter. During these tests the
lime injection rate was controlled to consistently achieve greater than
90 percent removal of HCl. Individual test results for this furnace are
shown in Table 9. These and other data demonstrate that fabric filters
operated with continuous lime injection into the gas stream upstream of
the fabric filter inlet are capable of consistently achieving at least
90 percent removal.

Table 9.--Plant 11 HC1 Individual Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inlet lb/ Outlet Percent
Test No. ton lb/ton removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... 2.64 .018 99.3
2...................................... 2.66 0.020 99.2
3...................................... 1.31 0.050 96.2
4...................................... 2.10 0.028 98.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

New and reconstructed group 1 furnaces processing clean charge
materials only, that perform both melting and holding functions
including reactive fluxing within the same unit (i.e., melter/holder),
and that do not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace
would be subject to alternate standards. These units perform the
operations normally carried out in two or more separate furnaces within
the confines of one furnace. Emission data obtained from tests on a
melter/holder furnace are shown in Figure 12.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 6980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.017

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Emission limits are proposed for PM and HCl emissions from new and
reconstructed group 1 melter/holders. Those limits are shown in Table
10. The PM standard for new and reconstructed group 1 melter/holder
furnaces processing only clean charge materials is 0.40 kg/Mg (0.80 lb/
ton) of charge and the alternate HCl standard is 0.20 kg/Mg (0.40 lb/
ton) of charge.

Table 10.--Summary of New and Reconstructed Group 1 Melter/Holder Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D/F^{b (g TEQ/Mg) HCl (lb/ton)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Melter/Holder Furnaces ^{a. 0.80 .............. 0.40 or 90 percent removal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Performing both melting and holding functions in the same furnace and processing only clean charge materials.
^{b No dioxin limit because this furnace uses clean charge.

[[Page 6981]]

Operators of group 1 side-well furnaces would be permitted to
conduct reactive fluxing operations in the furnace side-well only. If
reactive fluxing operations are conducted in the furnace hearth, those
emissions must be captured and ducted to a control device. In this
event total furnace emissions (hearth plus side-well) would be subject
to the new and reconstructed group 1 furnace emission limits.
In addition to the above standards, the EPA is also proposing a 10
percent opacity limit applicable to the waste gas discharge from any
fabric filter applied to a group 1 furnace if a COM is chosen as the
monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has determined that the
presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a fabric
filter following a successful performance test is a clear indication
that the device is not functioning properly.
Secondary aluminum processing units. Available data from existing
group 1 furnace emission units and existing in-line fluxers were
analyzed to determine the emissions limitations which could be realized
through the application of add-on control devices and pollution
prevention/work practices. These data have been presented in the
paragraphs in this section of this document relating to group 1
furnaces and in-line fluxers. A secondary aluminum processing unit is
composed of all of the existing group 1 furnace emission units and all
of the existing in-line fluxer emission units at a secondary aluminum
production facility. Emission standards for this affected source have
been proposed, based on throughput weighted processing of material in
emission units controlled to achievable emission limitations. Limits
for PM, HCl and D/F have been proposed on a production basis.
(Operators of group 1 furnaces with very high potential HCl emissions
may choose to calculate the HCl limit for any or all individual group 1
furnace emission units on the basis of achieving a 90 percent reduction
in potential HCl emissions.) Based on the emissions achievable by
individual emission units, the following standards are proposed:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.020

Where:

LiPM=the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in
the secondary aluminum processing unit kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]
Ti=the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the
secondary aluminum processing unit
LtPM=the overall PM emission limit for the secondary
aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]
LiHCl=the HCl emission limit for individual emission unit i
in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed].
Operators may choose to calculate this limit on the basis of 90 percent
reduction in potential HCl emissions.
LtHCl=the overall HCl emission limit for the secondary
aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]
LiD/F=the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i
[g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed]
LtD/F=the overall D/F emission limit for the secondary
aluminum processing unit [g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed], and
n=the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit.

The emissions limits LiPM, LiHCl, and
LiD/F to be used in calculating the proposed standards for
secondary aluminum processing units are those proposed for individual
new and reconstructed in-line fluxers and group 1 furnaces. Production
in clean charge group 1 furnaces can not be included in calculating the
overall D/F emission limit, because it is assumed that these furnaces
are capable of operation with no D/F emissions, and because these
emission units are not subject to D/F limits. In-line fluxers that
operate using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in the
calculations of the overall PM and HCl emission limits since they are
not subject to emission limits for PM and HCl.
In addition to the above standards, the EPA is also proposing a 10
percent opacity limit applicable to the waste gas discharged from any
fabric filter applied to a furnace process train if a COM is chosen as
the monitoring option. As noted above, the EPA has determined that the
presence of a 10 percent or greater opacity discharge from a fabric
filter following a successful performance test is a clear indication
that the device is not functioning properly.

D. Selection of Operating and Monitoring Requirements

The EPA identified and analyzed the hierarchy of monitoring options
available for this source category. The array of monitoring options
includes the direct measurement of HAP or HAP surrogates by a CEM or
COM, periodic performance tests, continuous monitoring of process or
control device operating parameters that are related to emissions of
HAP, and recordkeeping and certification requirements. Each option that
was relevant to a process or add-on control device was evaluated
relative to its technical feasibility and cost.
A CEM provides a direct measurement of emissions of HAP or HAP
surrogates. CEMs are commercially available for HCl and THC. PM CEMs
are also available, however, the technical feasibility of these devices
for monitoring affected sources and emission units in this source
category has not yet been demonstrated, and the estimated capital cost
of PM monitoring systems is $213,000 with annual costs of $66,000 (see
docket item II-B-24, enhanced monitoring options memo). These costs are
significantly higher than those of other available options.
Continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMs) do not provide a
direct measurement of PM emissions but do provide continuous indication
of fabric filter performance. These devices are presently in use on
affected sources and emission units within this source category. Bag
leak detection systems also provide a continuous indication of fabric
filter performance and are less expensive to install and operate than
COMs.
Periodic performance tests by established EPA test methods are
required by the proposed rule. These tests provide important
information about HAP emissions. The expense of conducting performance
tests (see docket item II-B-24, enhanced monitoring options memo)
limits their usefulness as a means of ensuring continuous compliance
with an emission standard.
Another option for compliance assurance is monitoring control
device operating parameters coupled with repeat emission tests prior to
permit renewal (i.e., every 5 years). Control

[[Page 6982]]

device operating parameters can be monitored to ensure continued good
operation and maintenance. Test data and operating experience have
shown that maintaining operating parameters within a specified range of
values (those established based on existing data or performance tests)
can be used to ensure that the control device is operating properly and
is well maintained. Operating parameters and defined work practices
consistent with pollution prevention can also be used to maintain
emissions within limits.
In selecting monitoring requirements to ensure continuous
compliance with the proposed emission standards, the EPA has considered
technical feasibility and cost for all applicable options for each
combination of pollutant, affected source and control technique. In
some cases, where several monitoring options are technically feasible
and equally reliable, and where the operator has already installed a
particular type of monitor, the proposed rule allows the owner or
operator to select a monitoring technique such that a presently
installed, appropriate monitor may continue to be used.
Finally, the proposed rule recognizes that the owner or operator
may, through performance testing under varying conditions, be able to
devise and demonstrate the feasibility of certain monitoring parameters
and procedures. The proposed rule provides a procedure by which site-
specific monitoring plans for certain affected sources and emission
units can be submitted with appropriate documentation for consideration
by the permitting authority. A site-specific monitoring plan, when
approved, would provide alternate monitoring procedures and parameter
levels for secondary aluminum processing units, emission units and
combinations of emission units. Performance testing requirements,
discussed in section IV. E. of this preamble, are proposed to ensure
that each affected source is capable of meeting the applicable emission
standards for HAP or HAP surrogates. Operating requirements are
proposed to ensure that affected sources continuously meet these
emission standards. Monitoring requirements are proposed to ensure that
each owner or operator can demonstrate that the operating requirements
have been met.
1. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected
Sources and Emission Units
Owners or operators of affected sources would be required to submit
an O, M, & M plan as part of their applications for a part 70 or part
71 permit. The plan would include procedures for the proper operation
and maintenance of affected sources and control devices used to comply
with the emission limits as well as the corrective actions to be taken
when control devices or process parameters deviate from allowable
levels established during performance testing. The plan would also
identify the procedures for proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring devices including periodic calibration and verification of
accuracy.
Operating requirements. The proposed rule provides specific
operating requirements for each affected source, and for emission units
within a secondary aluminum processing unit, which are necessary to
ensure that the conditions during initial and periodic performance
tests are not changed between performance tests in such a way as to
increase emissions beyond the proposed standards. Owners or operators
of affected sources are required to operate the affected source and
controls within established parameter ranges. In addition, the proposed
operating requirements incorporate the applicable provisions of the
site-specific O, M, & M plan. These plans include specific corrective
actions to be taken to maintain emissions within acceptable levels.
Operating requirements are also proposed which specify work
practices for group 2 ``clean charge'' furnaces; require labeling of
all affected sources and emission units to facilitate compliance
assurance; specify capture system design and operating parameters for
all affected sources and emission units with add-on control devices;
restrict operation and fluxing practices conducted in group 1 sidewell
furnaces; and establish a means by which site-specific operating plans
for group 1 furnaces without add-on control devices can be developed
and approved.
Monitoring requirements. The EPA is proposing monitoring procedures
for each emission limitation proposed under the rule. The EPA is not
requiring the use of CEMs. PM CEMs have not been demonstrated for use
with affected sources and emission units in this source category. PM
CEMs, as well as HCl CEMs and THC CEMs, are substantially more
expensive than other effective monitoring methods (see docket item II-
B-24, enhanced monitoring options memo).
(a) Scrap Shredder. The proposed monitoring alternatives for scrap
shredders are COMs, bag leak detectors or daily visual emissions
testing by EPA Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Continuous
opacity monitoring systems (COMs) provide a continuous indication of
fabric filter performance. These devices are presently in use on
affected sources within this source category. Bag leak detection
systems also provide a continuous indication of fabric filter
performance and are less expensive to install and operate than COMs.
Requirements for COMs and bag leak detectors are discussed in section
IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and
Options for Affected Sources and Emission Units Equipped with Fabric
Filters or Lime Injected Fabric Filters.
Under the visible emission monitoring option, a certified observer
would perform daily visible emissions observations (five 6-minute
readings in a 30-minute period) for each fabric filter according to the
requirements of Method 9 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and the
general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. If any visible
emissions were observed, the owner or operator would be required to
initiate corrective actions in accordance with the O, M, & M plan
within 1-hour to correct the cause of the emissions. Visual emissions
monitoring by Method 9 is an appropriate monitoring option for scrap
shredders because these affected sources are intermittently operated
and Method 9 can be used to determine opacity during periods of
operation.
(b) Chip Dryer. Monitoring requirements for chip dryers under the
proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight monitoring as discussed in
section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating Requirements,
Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight, afterburner
temperature monitoring as discussed in section V.D.3 of this document,
Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures:
Afterburner Operating Temperature. The identity (i.e. uncoated,
unpainted aluminum chips) of each batch of material charged must be
recorded to ensure compliance with the requirement to process only
uncoated, unpainted aluminum chips.
(c) Scrap Dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln.
Monitoring requirements for scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/
decoating kilns under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight
monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other
Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge
Weight, afterburner temperature monitoring as discussed in section
IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring
Systems and Procedures: Afterburner Operating Temperature, and fabric
filter

[[Page 6983]]

monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating
and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Process Units Equipped with
Fabric Filters or Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
(d) Clean Charge (Group 2) Furnace. Monitoring requirements for
clean charge (group 2) furnaces under the proposed NESHAP are charge
makeup and flux identity recordkeeping, and periodic certification that
only clean charge has been processed and that no reactive flux has been
used. No numerical emission limits are proposed for clean charge
furnaces as discussed in section D.2. of this document, Selection of
MACT Floor Technologies: Group 2 furnaces. Recordkeeping and
certification requirements are necessary to ensure that the affected
sources are operating as clean charge (group 2) furnaces.
(e) Sweat Furnace. The monitoring requirement for sweat furnaces
under the proposed NESHAP is afterburner temperature monitoring as
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Afterburner Operating
Temperature.
(f) Dross-only Furnace. Monitoring requirements for dross-only
furnaces under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge recordkeeping as
described in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight,
and fabric filter monitoring, (bag leak detection systems or COMs) as
discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and Monitoring
Requirements and Options for Process Units Equipped with Fabric Filters
and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
(g) In-line Fluxer. Monitoring requirements for in-line fluxers
under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight monitoring as
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight,
monitoring of chlorine injection rate as described in section IV.D.3 of
this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and
Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and schedule,
and, for in-line fluxers equipped with add-on control devices, fabric
filter monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document,
Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Process Units
Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
(h) Rotary Dross Cooler. Monitoring requirements for rotary dross
coolers are to comply with one of two monitoring options to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the PM standard. These options (bag leak
detection systems or COMs), and the applicable monitoring requirements,
are discussed in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and
Monitoring Requirements and Options for Process Units Equipped with
Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
(i) Group 1 Furnace With Add-on Controls. Monitoring requirements
for group 1 furnaces with add-on controls under the proposed NESHAP
include feed/charge weight monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.3 of
this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and
Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight, monitoring of chlorine injection rate
as described in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Monitoring
Systems and Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and
schedule, and fabric filter monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.2
of this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for
Process Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric
Filters.
(j) Group 1 Furnace Without Add-on Controls and Using Pollution
Prevention/Work Practices (Processing Only Clean Charge). Monitoring
requirements for group 1 furnaces without add-on controls (processing
only clean charge) and employing pollution prevention/work practices to
limit emissions under the proposed NESHAP include feed/charge weight
monitoring as discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other
Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge
Weight, monitoring of chlorine injection rate as described in section
IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring
Systems and Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and
schedule and a semi-annual certification that only clean charge had
been processed.
(k) Group 1 Furnace Without Add-on Controls Using Pollution
Prevention/Work Practices Processing Scrap Other Than Clean Charge.
Proposed monitoring requirements for group 1 furnaces not equipped add-
on controls using pollution prevention/work practices and processing
scrap other than clean charge include feed/charge weight monitoring as
discussed in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight and
monitoring of chlorine injection rate as described in section IV.D.3 of
this document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and
Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and schedule.
Operators of these furnaces would be required to develop a site-
specific monitoring plan acceptable to the permitting authority. The
plan would include additional parameters to be monitored, based on
supporting information provided by the operator and developed in
coordination with the permitting authority, which demonstrates the
correlation between these parameters and the actual emissions from
these furnaces.
If the site-specific monitoring plan includes scrap sampling as a
means of monitoring, the scrap sampling program must, at a minimum,
include the elements described in section IV.D.3 of this document,
Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Scrap
inspection program. If the site-specific monitoring plan includes the
use of CEMs, the operator must install, operate and maintain the CEMs
as described in section IV.D.3 of this document, Other Operating
Requirements, Monitoring Systems and Procedures: Continuous emission
monitoring systems. If the site-specific monitoring plan includes
limitations on the chlorine injection rate, the operator must monitor
reactive flux injection as described in section IV.D.3 of this
document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and
Procedures: Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and schedule.
The specific parameters monitored under a site-specific monitoring plan
must be proposed by the owner or operator along with supporting
documentation and approved by the permitting authority.
(l) Secondary Aluminum Processing Units. All of the existing group
1 furnaces and all of the existing in-line fluxers within a facility
make up the secondary aluminum processing unit. Each group 1 furnace
emission unit within the secondary emission processing unit would be
subject to the same operating and monitoring requirements as proposed
for group 1 furnaces. Each in-line fluxer emission unit within the
secondary emission processing unit would be subject to the same
operating and monitoring requirements as proposed for in-line fluxers.
Operators of secondary aluminum processing units would be required
to determine throughput weighted emissions of PM, HCl and D/F for each
24 hour period. Compliance with the overall emission limits would be
determined daily, on the basis of a rolling average of the daily
throughput weighted emissions determined for the three most recent 24
hour periods. The

[[Page 6984]]

daily emissions determination, coupled with the three day (24 hour)
rolling average for compliance determination, are being proposed in
recognition of the overlapping operating cycles of the equipment within
the secondary aluminum emissions unit. The three day (24 hour) rolling
average will have the effect of damping out spikes in calculated
emissions which might occur when emission units are charged just before
or just after the beginning of a 24 hour determination period, and will
accommodate different furnace cycles.
2. Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected
Sources and Emission Units Equipped With a Fabric Filter and Subject to
PM Limits
Operating requirements. The proposed rule provides specific
operating requirements for fabric filters and lime-injected fabric
filters which are necessary to ensure that the conditions during
initial and periodic performance tests are not changed between
performance tests in such a way as to increase emissions beyond the
proposed standards. Owners or operators of affected sources and
emission units controlled by these devices are required to operate bag
leak detectors or COMs (in the case of scrap shredders, visible
emissions testing may be conducted as an alternative).
If a bag leak detection system is used, the owner or operator must
operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak detection
system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time
during a 6-month reporting period. In calculating this operating time
fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time would be counted. If
corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted as a minimum
of one hour. The proposed standard requires that the owner or operator
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of an alarm. If the owner or
operator takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the
alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the
owner or operator to initiate corrective action. If a COM is used, the
owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any
6-minute average reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the
corrective action procedures in accordance with the O, M, & M plan.
Additional operating requirements are proposed to ensure that lime
injection is maintained at performance test levels and schedules, and
(for scrap dryers/ delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces
and in-line fluxers) that inlet gas temperatures do not exceed
performance test levels. In addition, the proposed operating
requirements incorporate the applicable provisions of the site-specific
O, M, & M plan. These plans include specific corrective actions to be
taken to maintain emissions within acceptable levels.
(a) PM Monitoring Alternatives. The owner or operator of a scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace (including
melter/holder), dross-only furnace, rotary dross cooler or in-line
fluxer equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-conditioned fabric
filter would have two monitoring options. These options are
installation and operation of a COM in accordance with PS-1 of appendix
B to part 60 of this chapter, or installation and operation of a bag
leak detection system.
Operators of scrap shredders may conduct visual emissions
observations as an alternative to the use of bag leak detection systems
or COMs. Requirements for the use of visual emission monitoring are
described in section IV.D.1 of this document, Operating and Monitoring
Requirements for Affected Sources: Scrap Shredder.
If a bag leak detection system is the selected monitoring
alternative, it must be installed and operated according to ``Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997.
This document is available from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
The bag leak detection system also must meet equipment
specifications included in the rule. These include: (1) Manufacturer
certification that the system is capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 10 mg per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per
actual cubic foot) or less; and (2) inclusion of a sensor to provide
output of relative emissions, a device to continuously record the
sensor output voltage, and an audible alarm that sounds when an
increase in relative PM emissions above the setpoint is detected.
Following initial adjustment of the system, the owner or operator may
not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set
points, or alarm delay time except as described in the O, M, & M plan.
If a COM system is the selected monitoring alternative, the
proposed standard requires installation and operation of a COM for each
exhaust stack. The monitor would be required to meet all specifications
in PS-1 in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. The operational requirements
in the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A would
also apply. The calculation of 6-minute block averages of opacity
readings is a monitoring requirement.
(b) D/F and HCl Monitoring (Fabric Filter Inlet Gas Temperature).
The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating kiln,
group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer equipped with a lime-injected fabric
filter would be required to install and operate a continuous
temperature measurement device consistent with the requirements for
continuous monitoring systems in the general provisions to this part
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
The temperature monitoring system would be required to record the
temperature at the inlet to the fabric filter in 15 minute block
averages and to calculate and record the average temperature for each
3-hour block period. The recorder response range would be required to
include zero and 1.5 times the established operating parameter.
Calibration drift would be required to be less than 2 percent of 1.5
times the established operating parameter. The relative accuracy would
be required to be no greater than 20 percent. The reference method
would be required to be a National Institute of Standards and
Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system, or
an alternate reference subject to the approval of the Administrator.
(c) D/F and HCl Monitoring (Lime Injection Rate). Where lime-
injected fabric filters are used to control emissions from scrap
dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, in-line fluxers, and group 1
furnaces the proposed rule includes monitoring requirements for lime
injection. Owners or operators would be required to inspect each feed
hopper or silo every 8 hours to verify that lime is free-flowing and
record the results of each inspection. If a blockage is found, the
inspection frequency would increase to every 4 hours for the next 3
days. The owner or operator would be permitted to return to an 8-hour
inspection interval if corrective action taken to remedy the cause of
the blockage results in no additional blockage during the 3-day period.
Additional monitoring requirements would depend on which operating
requirement alternative was chosen. Operators choosing to maintain the
feeder setting at performance test levels would be required to record
the feeder setting daily. Operators choosing to maintain the time rate
(lb/hr) of lime injection would be required to install and operate a
weight measurement device and determine and record the

[[Page 6985]]

weight of lime added for each 15 minute block period. The weight
measurement device would be required to have an accuracy of 1 percent
and be calibrated once every 3 months. The operator would be required
to use these data to calculate the lime injection rate for each 3-hour
block period of operation.
Operators choosing to maintain the throughput based rate of lime
addition (lb/ton of feed) would be required to install and operate a
weight measurement device and determine and record the weight of lime
added for each 15 minute block period. The operator would be required
to use these data to calculate the weight of lime injected per ton of
charge for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance
test. The weight measurement device would be required to have an
accuracy of 1 percent and be calibrated once every 3
months. The monitoring requirements described in section IV.D.3 of this
document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and
Procedures: Feed/Charge Weight would also apply.
3. Other Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Procedures
Operating requirements. The proposed rule includes operating
requirements to ensure that capture equipment is properly designed and
operated, to require that affected sources and emission units are
clearly labeled, and to ensure that operating parameters do not change
between performance tests in such a way as to allow emissions to exceed
the levels measured under performance test conditions.
(a) Capture Equipment Design. As a monitoring requirement, to
ensure continuous compliance with the applicable emission limits or
standards, the operator would be required to inspect each capture,
collection, and transport system annually to ensure that it is
continuing to operate in accordance with ACGIH standards, and to record
the results of each inspection.
(b) Labeling. As a monitoring requirement, operators would be
required to inspect the labels monthly and verify that they are intact
and legible, and to maintain records of this inspection.
(c) Feed/Charge Weight. All affected sources with throughput based
emission limits (lb/ton, g/Mg) are required to record the
weight of each charge within 1 percent, and to calibrate
any weighing devices once every 3 months. This requirement is necessary
to ensure operation within the emission limits and compliance with lime
addition and flux injection parameters established during the
performance test.
(d) Afterburner Operating Temperature. The owner or operator of an
afterburner would be required to install and operate a continuous
temperature measurement device consistent with the requirements for
continuous monitoring systems in the general provisions to this part
(40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
The temperature monitoring system would be required to record the
afterburner temperature in 15 minute block averages and to calculate
and record the average temperature for each 3-hour block period. The
recorder response range would be required to include zero and 1.5 times
the established operating parameter. Calibration drift would be
required to be less than 2 percent of 1.5 times the established
operating parameter. The relative accuracy would be required to be no
greater than 20 percent. The reference method would be required to be a
National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated reference
thermocouple-potentiometer system, or an alternate reference subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
The owner or operator would be required to further monitor
afterburner performance by conducting an inspection of the afterburner
at least once per year. All necessary repairs to the afterburner would
have to be completed in accordance with the O, M, & M plan.
(e) Total Reactive Chlorine Flux Injection Rate and Schedule. To
monitor the flux injection rate, the operator would be required to
install and operate a device to continuously measure the weight of
reactive flux injected or added to the affected source. The device
would determine and record the weight in 15-minute block averages over
the same operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
The accuracy of the device would be 1 percent of the weight
being measured and the operator would verify the calibration every 3
months.
The owner or operator would use the weight measurement to calculate
and record the reactive flux injection rate using the same procedures
as in the performance test. If a gaseous or liquid reactive flux other
than chlorine is used, the proposed rule requires the owner or operator
to record the type of flux and weight of each addition. The owner or
operator also would record this information for each addition of solid
reactive chloride flux. Using the same procedures as in the performance
test, the owner or operator would calculate and record the total
reactive chlorine flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time
period used in the performance test.
(f) Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems. The proposed rule does
not require the use of continuous emission monitors (CEMs). Operators
may develop, submit and obtain approval for site-specific monitoring
plans which may include the use of CEMs. The site-specific O,M,&M plan
must include operating and monitoring requirements satisfactory to the
permitting authority to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed
standard.
If an HCl or THC continuous emission monitoring system is used, a
monitor must be installed and operated for each exhaust stack. An HCl
continuous emission monitoring system must be installed to meet PS 13
in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Performance Specification 13,
``Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrochloric Acid Continuous
Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources'' was proposed April 19, 1996
(61 FR 17509). A THC continuous emission monitoring system must be
installed to meet PS 8A in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Performance
Specification 8A, ``Specifications and Test Procedures for Total
Hydrocarbon Continuous Monitoring Systems in Hazardous Waste-burning
Stationary Sources'' was proposed April 19, 1996 (61 FR 17358). The
proposed standard requires that HCl and THC continuous emission
monitoring systems meet all applicable requirements in the NESHAP
general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and the quality control
requirements of appendix F to 40 CFR part 60.
If a PM CEM is used it must meet all applicable performance
specifications, general provision requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, quality control requirements of appendix F to 40 CFR part
60, and in addition the use of the PM CEM must be validated in
accordance with Method 301 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
(g) Scrap inspection Program. If a site-specific monitoring plan
includes the use of a scrap inspection plan the program must include
operating and monitoring requirements satisfactory to the permitting
authority to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed standard.
The procedures and minimum requirements for scrap inspection programs
are described in Sec. 63.1509(o) of the proposed standard. The
following elements must be included in a scrap inspection plan, at
minimum:
(1) A proven method for collecting representative samples and
measuring the oil and coatings content of scrap samples;

[[Page 6986]]

(2) A scrap inspector training program;
(3) An established correlation between visual inspection and
physical measurement of oil and coatings content of scrap samples;
(4) Periodic physical measurements of oil and coatings content of
randomly-selected scrap samples and comparison with visual inspection
results;
(5) A system for assuring only acceptable scrap is charged to an
affected group 1 furnace; and
(6) Recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with plan
requirements.
(h) Scrap Contamination Level Determination and Certification by
Calculation. Operators of group 1 furnaces dedicated to processing a
distinct type of charge composed of scrap with a uniform composition
(such as rejected product from a manufacturing process for which the
owner or operator can document the coating to scrap ratio) may develop,
submit and obtain approval of a site-specific O,M,&M plan that includes
provisions for scrap contamination level determination and
certification by calculation. Under such a plan, the operator would
characterize the contaminant level of the scrap prior to a performance
test. Following a performance test the operator would limit the charge
to the furnace to scrap of the same composition used in the performance
test (through charge selection or blending of coated scrap with clean
charge). The site-specific O,M,&M plan would be required to include
operating and monitoring requirements to ensure that no scrap with a
contaminant level higher than that used in the successful performance
test was charged.

E. Selection of Performance Test Methods and Requirements

1. Rationale for Performance Test Methods, Procedures and Surrogates
As a chemical class, THC contains a wide variety of organic
compounds including HAPs and non-HAPs such as VOC. Both HAPs and non-
HAP VOCs are destroyed by incineration. THC can be measured by Method
25A, ``Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a
Flame Ionization Analyzer'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). This method
applies to the measurement of total gaseous organic concentrations of
vapors. The concentration is expressed in terms of propane (or other
appropriate organic calibration gas) or in terms of carbon.
Consequently, the Agency proposes to regulate emissions of organic HAPs
using THC as a surrogate measure for the proposed emission limits.
Because of the high potency of D/F at very low levels, separate
measurements are needed and no surrogate is proposed for D/F emissions.
Method 23, ``Determination of Poly-Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A), would be used to measure emissions of (D/F). The
procedures and factors in the EPA report, ``Interim Procedures for
Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 update
(EPA-625/3-89-016, NTIS No. PB 90-145756) would be used to convert
measured D/F emissions to TEQ units.
Emissions of HCl would be measured using EPA Method 26A,
``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from
Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
Emissions of PM exiting the fabric filter or lime-injected fabric
filter would be measured using EPA Method 5, ``Determination of
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Visible emission observations by a certified observer were made
during numerous emission tests using Method 9, ``Visual Determination
of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. Thus, Method 9 is specified as an option for
demonstrating continuous compliance with the PM emission standards for
scrap shredders in the proposed rule. Scrap shredders are
intermittently operated and Method 9 can be used to determine opacity
during periods of operation. Method 9 is not included as an option for
demonstrating continuous compliance with the PM emission standards for
other affected sources, which are in continuous operation under normal
conditions.
2. General Requirements
Following approval of a site-specific test plan (in accordance with
Sec. 63.7 of subpart A of this part), the proposed NESHAP requires an
initial performance test for most affected sources and emission units
to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limitation(s).
Performance tests (where required) would be conducted every 5 years to
demonstrate continued compliance. The tests would be conducted
according to the requirements in the NESHAP general provisions in 40
CFR part 63, subpart A, except as specified in the rule.
The owner or operator of an existing affected source would be
provided 3 years from the effective date of the final rule to
demonstrate compliance. A new or reconstructed source would be required
to demonstrate compliance within 180 days following startup.
All monitoring devices are to be installed and calibrated prior to
the initial performance test (or prior to the compliance date in the
rule if a performance test is not conducted). The owner or operator
would also be required to post a label on each affected source as to
its proper classification (e.g., scrap shredder, chip dryer, scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, dross cooler, in-line fluxer,
sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, or group 1 or 2 furnace). The label
would also include the applicable emission limit, operational standard,
and control method (work practice or control device), the parameters to
be monitored and the compliant value or range of each parameter.
Emission units within secondary aluminum processing units would also be
subject to labeling requirements which include the measured emission
rate of all pollutants for which an emission limitation applies. New
and reconstructed group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers and emission
units which are part of furnace process trains would be labeled to
specify the other affected sources and/or emission units which make up
the furnace process train. The visible marking of the furnaces is
intended to enable management, workers, and enforcement personnel to
easily identify the applicable work practice requirements, emission
limitations and monitoring requirements. The owner or operator may
change the initial furnace classification subject to approval by the
applicable regulatory authority.
Each performance test would consist of three separate runs. For
emission sources operating in a batch mode, each test run would be
conducted over a minimum of one operating cycle of the process unit. In
some cases, a longer sampling time may be required by the permitting
authority upon review of the performance test plan. For sources that
operate continuously, each test run would be conducted for the time
period specified in the approved performance test plan. The emission
(expressed in the units of the standard) for each test run would be
determined. The arithmetic average of the emissions determined for the
three test runs would be used to determine compliance.
The proposed standard allows the owner or operator to use
historical data to establish operating parameters in addition to the
results of a performance

[[Page 6987]]

test provided that the full emission test reports are submitted, the
test methods required by the rule have been used, all required
parameters have been monitored, the process operation has been
documented, and the owner or operator certifies that no changes have
been made to the process or emission control equipment since the time
of the report.
Where multiple affected sources and/or emission units are exhausted
through a common control device, and if the emission limit for all such
units is in units of kg/Mg (lbs/ton) of feed, compliance may be
demonstrated if measured emissions do not exceed the combined emission
limit for all units that exhaust through the stack. Performance tests
conducted on control devices used to control multiple affected sources
and/or emission units would be conducted at the maximum processing rate
typical of normal operation of the affected sources and/or emission
units. The performance test run period would span one complete
operating cycle of all cocontrolled affected sources and/or emission
units. Where the exhausts from multiple emission units within a
secondary aluminum processing unit, that are not equipped with add-on
air pollution control devices, are discharged through a common stack
similar performance test period requirements are proposed.
3. Performance Tests Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and
Emission Units
Scrap shredder. A PM performance test is required for each scrap
shredder. The test would be conducted while the unit operates at the
maximum processing rate typical of normal operation for the unit.
During the test, the owner or operator would comply with the
performance test requirements associated with either the COM or the bag
leak detector monitoring option selected for a unit equipped with a
fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These requirements are
described in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and Monitoring
Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and Emission Units
Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters. As an
alternative, the owner or operator of a scrap shredder could choose to
monitor visible emissions.
An owner or operator electing to monitor visible emissions would
perform a Method 9 test of the same duration as, and simultaneously
with, the Method 5 performance test and determine the average opacity
for each fabric filter exhaust stack. The Method 9 performance test
would be conducted by a certified observer according to the
requirements of Method 9 and the NESHAP general provisions in subpart A
of 40 CFR part 63. This test would be conducted simultaneously with any
required initial or periodic Method 5 performance test.
Chip dryer. The owner or operator would conduct a performance test
to demonstrate compliance with the THC and D/F emission limits for each
chip dryer while the unit processes only unpainted/uncoated aluminum
chips at the maximum production rate typical for the unit during normal
operation. During the test, the owner or operator would measure the
weight of feed to the chip dryer during each test run and determine the
arithmetic average of the recorded measurements. Using the monitoring
devices and procedures required by the proposed rule, the owner or
operator would measure and record the afterburner operating temperature
during each of the Method 23 test runs and determine the average of the
recorded measurements for each test run. The arithmetic average of the
three average test run temperatures would then be determined.
Scrap dryer/decoating kiln/delacquering kiln. The owner or operator
of a scrap dryer/decoating kiln/delacquering kiln would conduct a
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the THC, D/F, HCl, and
PM emission limits while the affected source processes scrap containing
the highest level of contaminants within the normal operating range.
During the test, the owner or operator would determine and record the
weight of feed to the unit for each test run and determine the
arithmetic average of the recorded measurements. Using the monitoring
devices and procedures required by the proposed rule, the owner or
operator would measure and record the afterburner operating
temperature, the injection rate of lime or other equivalent alkaline
reagent, and the inlet temperature of the lime-injected fabric filter
for each test run and determine the arithmetic average of each
parameter of the recorded measurements, for each test run. The
arithmetic average of the three values for each parameter would then be
determined. The owner or operator also would comply with the
performance test requirements associated with the monitoring option
selected for a unit equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-injected
fabric filter. These requirements are described in section IV.D.2 of
this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for
Affected Sources and Emission Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and
Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
Group 1 furnace. The proposed standard requires the owner or
operator to conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with
the PM emission limits and either the HCl emission limit or the HCl
percent reduction requirement for each group 1 furnace. Owners or
operators, except for those that process only clean charge materials
would also be required to conduct a performance test to demonstrate
compliance with the D/F emission limit. The test would be conducted
while the unit operates at the maximum production rate, while charging
scrap with the highest contaminant level within the range of normal
operation for the furnace, and while performing all reactive fluxing
operations at the maximum rate. During the performance test, the owner
or operator would record the type of scrap charged and the amount of
feed to the furnace for each test run. Using the required monitoring
device (or procedure), the owner or operator also would measure and
record the flux injection rate and determine the arithmetic average of
the recorded measurements for each test run. The arithmetic average of
the three averages would then be determined.
In addition, owners or operators of group 1 furnaces equipped with
add-on control devices would be required to measure and record the
injection rate and schedule of lime or other equivalent alkaline
reagent for each test run and determine the average injection rate for
each run. The arithmetic average of the three averages would then be
determined. Owners or operators choosing to demonstrate compliance with
the percent HCl removal standard would also be required to
simultaneously measure the HCl present in the group 1 furnace exit at a
point before lime or other alkaline reagent is introduced and determine
the HCl percentage reduction achieved by the lime-injected fabric
filter.
If an add-on control device is used, the owner or operator also
would be required to comply with the performance test requirements
associated with the monitoring option selected for a unit equipped with
a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These requirements
are described in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and
Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and Emission
Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
If an add-on control device is not used, owners or operators would
be required to monitor and record

[[Page 6988]]

additional parameters in accordance with the site-specific O, M, & M
plan developed in conjunction with and approved by the permitting
authority.
Sweat furnace. A D/F performance test for each sweat furnace would
be conducted while the furnace operates at the maximum production rate
typical of normal operation for the furnace. During the test, the owner
or operator would use the required monitoring device and procedure to
measure and record the afterburner operating temperature for every 15-
minute period of each test run and determine the arithmetic average of
the recorded measurements for each test run. The average of the three
averages would then be determined.
Dross-only furnace. A PM performance test would be conducted for
each furnace using dross as the sole feedstock. During the test, the
owner or operator would record the type of feed charged and the amount
(weight) of the dross charged for each test run and determine the
arithmetic average of the three weights. The owner or operator also
would be required to comply with the performance test requirements
applicable to a unit equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-injected
fabric filter. These requirements are discussed in section IV.D.2 of
this document, Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for
Affected Sources and Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-
injected Fabric Filters.
In-line fluxer. The proposed rule requires an HCl performance test
to be conducted while the in-line fluxer operates at the maximum
production rate and while performing all reactive fluxing operations at
the maximum rate typical of normal operation for the unit. During the
performance test, the owner or operator would record the molten
aluminum throughput. During the test, the owner or operator would use
the required monitoring device and procedure to calculate and record
the reactive flux injection rate for each test run. In addition, the
owner or operator would be required to determine the arithmetic average
of the three averages for throughput and flux injection rate. The owner
or operator would also comply with the performance test requirements
associated with the monitoring option selected for a unit equipped with
a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These requirements
are described in section IV.D.2 of this document, Operating and
Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected Sources and Emission
Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected Fabric Filters.
Rotary dross cooler. A PM performance test would be conducted for
each rotary dross cooler while operating at the maximum production rate
typical of normal operation of the unit. During the performance test,
the owner or operator would comply with the performance test
requirements associated with the monitoring option selected for a unit
equipped with a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter. These
requirements are described in section IV.D.2 of this document,
Operating and Monitoring Requirements and Options for Affected Sources
and Emission Units Equipped with Fabric Filters and Lime-injected
Fabric Filters.

F. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed standard would incorporate all requirements of the
NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) except as
specified in the proposed standard. The COM requirements in the general
provisions would apply if the owner or operator elects as a monitoring
option, to install and operate a COM to measure and record opacity from
the exhaust stacks of a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter.
The general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) include
requirements for notifications of applicability; intention to construct
or reconstruct a major source, the date construction or reconstruction
commenced, the anticipated date of startup and the actual date of
startup; special compliance obligations for new sources; date of
performance test (including opacity and visible emissions observations,
if applicable); notification a COM will be used to comply with an
opacity standard, if applicable; notifications for sources with
continuous monitoring systems (CMS), as provided in Sec. 63.9(g) of
this chapter; and initial and annual notification of compliance status.
In addition to the information required by the NESHAP general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the notification of compliance
status must include for each affected source: the approved site-
specific test plan and a complete performance test report, performance
evaluation test results for each CMS (including a COM or CEM), unit
labels (e.g., process type or furnace classification), and compliant
operating parameter value or range with supporting documentation. If
applicable, owner or operator also must include design information and
supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with requirements (if
applicable) for capture/collection systems, bag leak detection systems,
and the 1-second residence time requirement for afterburners used to
control emissions from a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating kiln
subject to alternative emission standards. All facilities would be
required to submit the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan and
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The notification of compliance
status also would include (if applicable), the approved site-specific
monitoring plan for each group 1 furnace with no add-on air pollution
control device; or other site-specific monitoring plan. The
notification of compliance status must be signed by the responsible
official who must certify its accuracy. Provisions also are included in
the proposed standard to eliminate duplicative submissions.
The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan would be prepared
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6(e) of the NESHAP general
provisions. This plan would specify the procedures to be followed to
minimize emissions during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction and a
program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and air
pollution control equipment. The proposed standard requires that the
plan also include procedures to determine and record the cause of the
malfunction and the time the malfunction began and ended. A semiannual
report to EPA is required when a reportable event occurs and the steps
in the plan were not followed.
The O, M, & M plan for each affected source, emission unit and
control system would be submitted to the permitting authority as part
of the initial notification of compliance status. Each plan would
include the applicable operating requirements for each affected source
and emission unit; process and control device parameters to be
monitored, along with established operating levels or ranges; a
monitoring schedule with monitoring procedures; procedures for the
proper operation and maintenance of each affected source and emission
unit, add-on air pollution control device, and monitoring device or
system; maintenance schedule; and corrective action procedures to be
taken in the event of an excursion or exceedance (including procedures
to determine the cause of the excursion or exceedance, the time the
excursion began and ended, and for recording the actions taken to
correct the cause of the excursion or exceedance). The plan also must
document the work practices and pollution prevention measures used to
achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits for a group 1
furnace not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device.

[[Page 6989]]

Examples of procedures that might be used to determine the cause of
an excursion from an operating parameter level or range for an
afterburner include inspecting burner assemblies and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation and cleaning; adjusting primary and
secondary chamber combustion air; inspecting dampers, fans, blowers,
and motors for proper operation; and shutdown procedures. Examples of
procedures that might be used for bag leak detection systems include
inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken filter
elements, or any other defect that may cause an increase in emissions;
sealing off defective filter bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device; replacing defective bags or filter media
or otherwise repairing the control device; sealing off a defective
compartment in the fabric filter; and shutting down the process
producing the emissions.
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace not equipped with add-on
air pollution control devices would be required to submit a site-
specific monitoring plan that addresses monitoring and compliance
requirements for PM, HCl, and D/F emissions. The plan would be
developed in consultation with the applicable permitting authority and
submitted for review as part of the O, M, & M plan. The provisions of
the plan must ensure continuing compliance with applicable emission
limits and demonstrate, based on documented test results, the
relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F and the proposed
monitoring parameters for each pollutant. The plan must include
provisions for complying with applicable operating and monitoring
requirements (unit labeling and measurements of feed/charge and flux
weight). If a CEM or COM is used, provisions must be included to comply
with installation, operation, maintenance, and quality assurance
requirements of the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A). If a scrap inspection program for monitoring the scrap contaminant
level of furnace charge materials is included, the site-specific
monitoring plan must include provisions for the demonstration and
implementation of the program to meet the requirements in the proposed
standard. These requirements are discussed in section IV.E.3 of this
document, Other Operating Requirements, Monitoring Systems and
Procedures: Scrap inspection program.
The owner or operator would submit a semiannual excess emissions/
progress report, which would include each excursion from compliant
operating parameters or measured emissions exceeding an applicable
limit or standard; inconsistencies between actions taken during a
startup, shutdown or malfunction and the procedures in the startup,
shutdown and malfunction plan; failure to initiate corrective action
within 1-hour for a bag leak detection alarm, a 6-minute average
exceeding 5 percent opacity or an observation of visible emissions from
a scrap shredder; an excursion of a compliant process or operating
parameter value or range; or any event where an affected source was not
operated according to the requirements of the rule. If no excess
emissions occurred in the reporting period, the owner or operator would
be required to submit a report stating that no excess emissions had
occurred. The owner or operator also would submit the results of any
performance test conducted during the reporting period and semi-annual
certifications attesting to compliance with restrictions on feedstock
and other operating conditions applicable to each chip dryer, dross-
only furnace, sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution
control devices, group 1 melter/holder without add-on air pollution
control devices, and group 2 furnace.
In addition to the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.10 of
the NESHAP general provisions, the owner or operator would be required
to maintain records of information needed to determine compliance.
Additional recordkeeping requirements are given in Table 11.
The NESHAP general provisions require that all records be
maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each record. The owner
or operator must retain the records onsite for at least 2 years but may
retain the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. The files may be
retained on microfilm, microfiche, on computer disks, or on magnetic
tape. Reports may be made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using
commonly available and compatible computer software.

Table 11.--Recordkeeping Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source/emission unit/control
device/monitoring system Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag leak detection systems............. Number of total operating hours for the affected source/emission unit
during each 6-month reporting period, time of each alarm, time
corrective action was initiated and completed, and description of
cause of alarm and corrective action taken.
COM.................................... Opacity data, times when 6-minute average exceeds 5 percent, time of
exceedance, time corrective action was initiated and completed, and
description of cause of emissions and corrective action taken.
Scrap shredders monitored by visible Visible emission data, times when any visible emissions occurred during
emissions observations. daily test, time of excursion, time corrective action was initiated
and completed, and description of cause of emissions and corrective
action taken.
Affected sources/Emission units subject Records of feed or charge weight measurements for each operating cycle
to throughput based emission limits. or time period used in performance test.
Lime injected fabric filters subject to Inlet temperature data, times when 3-hour block average exceeds
temperature limits. operating parameter value by 25 deg.F, description of cause of
excursion and corrective action taken.
Lime injected fabric filters........... Lime blockage inspection records and either: (1) daily inspections of
feeder settings and any deviation from established setting with cause
of deviation and corrective action taken or (2) 3-hr block average
lime weight, injection rate (lb/hr) and schedule with supporting
calculations, times when 3-hour block average rate or schedule falls
below established value, description of cause of excursion and
corrective action taken or (3) lime weight for operating cycle or time
period used in performance test, injection rate (lb/ton) and schedule
with calculations, times when rate or schedule falls below established
value, description of cause of excursion and corrective action taken.
Group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers Weight of gaseous or liquid flux injected, total reactive chlorine flux
where reactive flux is used. injection rate and calculations (including identity, weight,
composition of all reactive fluxing agents), times flux rate exceeds
established value, description of cause of excursion and corrective
action taken.

[[Page 6990]]

Afterburners........................... Operating temperature data, times 3-hour block average temperature
falls below established value, description of excursion and corrective
action taken and annual inspections.
Group 1 furnace without add-on air Site-specific monitoring plan with records to document conformance.
pollution control device.
Group 1 sidewell furnace............... Operating logs documenting conformance with operating standards for
maintaining molten metal level and adding reactive flux only to the
sidewell or furnace hearth equipped with controls.
Chip dryer, dross-only furnace, and Records of all charge materials.
group 1 melter/holder without air
pollution control device processing
clean charge.
Group 2 furnace........................ Records of all charge materials and fluxing materials or agents.
All affected sources/emission units.... Monthly inspections for unit labeling, current copy of all required
plans with revisions, records of any approved alternative monitoring
or test procedure.
Capture/collection systems............. Annual inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Impacts of Proposed Standards

The EPA analyzed the impacts of the proposed standards by
developing model processes and model plants based on site-specific
information contained in responses to the ICR and voluntary follow up
questionnaires, coupled with data obtained during site visits and
emission tests. These model processes were then combined to form eight
model plants used as the basis for environmental, cost, economic, and
other regulatory impact analyses. Additional information on the model
processes and model plants is included in the docket. (Docket Item II-
B-1. Memorandum. J. Santiago, EPA:MICG, to K. Durkee, EPA:MICG. (Date)
Model Processes and Control Device Options for the Secondary Aluminum
Industry.)

A. Air Quality Impacts

As shown in Table 12, emission sources in the estimated 86 major
source secondary aluminum production plants that would be subject to
the NESHAP emit approximately 28,600 Mg/yr (31,500 tpy) of HAPs and
other pollutants at the current level of control. Of these emissions,
16,300 Mg/yr (18,000 tpy) are HAPs. The EPA estimates that
implementation of the NESHAP would reduce all pollutants by 16,700 Mg/
yr (18,300 tpy). Nationwide HAP emissions would be reduced by about
11,300 Mg/yr (12,500 tpy).

Table 12.--Nationwide Annual Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reduction
Pollutant Baseline emissions (Mg/yr) Emission reduction (Mg/yr) Baseline emissions (tpy) (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC \1\.......................... 3,782.......................... 4,169......................... ....................
D/F.............................. 0.81 kg/yr..................... 0.71 kg/yr.................... 1.79 lb/yr.................... 1.55 lb/yr.
HCl.............................. 15,365......................... 11,300........................ 16,902........................ 12,457.
Cl 2............................. 996............................ 1,098......................... ....................
HAP Metals....................... 58.4........................... 36.3.......................... 64.4.......................... 40.
PM............................... 8,508.......................... 5,331......................... 9,378......................... 5,864.
Total:
HAPs......................... 16,420......................... 11,336........................ 18,065........................ 12,496.
PM........................... 8,508.......................... 5,331......................... 9,378......................... 5,864.
HAPS and other pollutants.... 28,620......................... 16,524........................ 31,548........................ 18,215.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ THC is a surrogate for organic HAPs.

No reduction in THC emissions is estimated because all sources with
a THC emission limit for which an afterburner would be required are
already equipped with this MACT-level control.
The estimated emission reductions are felt to represent the minimum
that would be achieved by the proposed rule since they are based on a
reduction in baseline emissions to a level equal to the proposed
emission limit. In reality, if emission control equipment is installed
to achieve compliance with the proposed rule, emissions would likely be
reduced to a level below the emission limit and the actual emission
reductions would be larger than the estimates. In addition, emission
reductions would also be expected for other pollutants for which there
are no specific emission limits. Although these potential emission
reductions were not quantified, emission controls installed to reduce
HCl emissions are likely to also reduce Cl2 emissions, the
lime added or injected to fabric filters would reduce fluoride as well
as chloride emissions, and fabric filters installed to meet PM emission
limits also would reduce HAP metal emissions. For example, emission
test data indicate that a fabric filter will reduce HAP metal emissions
by approximately the same amount 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, an
emission reduction of about 39.5 tpy from the estimated baseline level
of 64.4 tpy would be achieved. Additional information on nationwide and
model plant air quality impacts is included in the docket. (See Docket
item II-B-16. Memorandum. M. Wright, Research Triangle Institute, to J.
Santiago, EPA:MICG. Regulatory Impacts for Secondary Aluminum MACT
Standards. September 17, 1998.)

B. Cost Impacts

Nationwide total capital costs are estimated at $148 million with
total

[[Page 6991]]

annualized costs of $68 million/yr. Estimates of total capital and
total annualized costs for each model plant are shown in Table 13.

Table 13.--Estimated Capital and Annualized Costs by Model Plant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total capital annualized
Model plant costs costs
(thousands $) (thousands $/
yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1,390 541
2....................................... 1,660 574
3....................................... 1,833 702
4....................................... 2,944 1,203
5....................................... 2,159 1,400
6....................................... 3,731 2,142
7....................................... 198 134
8....................................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost estimates are based on cost algorithms from the ``OAQPS
Control Cost Manual'' (EPA 450/3-90-006, January 1990) applied to the
model process control devices. The estimates include control device
costs, auxiliary equipment, and direct and indirect installation costs,
but do not include costs associated with retrofit situations or
monitoring systems. The nationwide annual costs for monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping are estimated at $5.1 million/yr, for the
first three years. Additional information on the model plants and cost
estimates are included in the docket. (See Docket item II-B-16.
Memorandum. M. Wright, Research Triangle Institute, to J. Santiago,
EPA:MICG. Regulatory Impacts for Secondary Aluminum MACT Standards.
September 17, 1998.)

C. Economic Impacts

The economic impact analysis (EIA) provides an estimate of the
anticipated regulatory impacts of the Secondary Aluminum National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The goal of the EIA is
to determine the primary market impacts of the regulation on the
secondary aluminum industry including estimated changes in market
price, market production, industry annual revenues, and potential
facility closures. Secondary market impacts such as potential labor
market, energy input, and international trade impacts are also
analyzed. The impact of the regulation on small secondary aluminum
producers is also evaluated.
The secondary aluminum industry includes facilities primarily
engaged in recovering aluminum from new and used scrap and from dross
and facilities engaged in producing aluminum sheet, plate, and foil.
Establishments in the secondary aluminum industry produce products
classified primarily in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
3341 Secondary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metals and 3353
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil. The specific processes regulated by
the secondary aluminum maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standard include crushing and shredding; drying; delaquering; furnace
operations; in-line fluxers; dross-only furnaces; sweating furnaces;
and dross cooling.
In recent years, the secondary aluminum industry has become a major
market force in the domestic aluminum industry. The recycling of scrap
provides a source of aluminum that not only helps the aluminum industry
to maintain growth, but also helps conserves energy and slows the
depletion of bauxite sources. For many applications, secondary aluminum
is comparable to primary aluminum. However, for certain specialized
applications only primary aluminum is employed. The secondary aluminum
market is highly competitive with numerous sellers, none of which is
large enough to influence market price. Primary aluminum producers are
typically producers of secondary aluminum also. There is competition
between secondary and primary aluminum producers for those grades of
metals which the secondary smelters produce.
Although the number of facilities affected by this regulation is
not known with precision, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Census reports companies with aluminum inventory. In 1994, those
producers reporting inventories included 12 primary aluminum producers,
141 companies unaffiliated with primary producers reported inventories,
and 25 smelters. The section 114 information collection request (ICR)
reports collected for this regulation from secondary aluminum producers
indicates that 134 facilities are potentially affected by this
regulation. The secondary aluminum facilities are dispersed throughout
the country in 36 different states with the largest concentration of
facilities in California, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky,
and Pennsylvania. Approximately 28 percent of the domestic facilities
producing secondary aluminum are owned by companies that are classified
as small businesses.
1. Control Cost Estimates and Analytical Approach
Eight different model plants were developed to estimate the
facility and nationwide annualized and capital emission control costs
for this regulation. Table 14 presents the capital and annualized costs
for each of the model plants, as well as estimates of the nationwide
costs. The capital costs for this regulation are estimated to be
approximately $147.9 million while national annualized costs of
approximately $73 million are anticipated. These annualized costs
include the burden costs, or costs of monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping. (All values are shown in 1994 dollars.)

Table 14.--Model Plant and Nationwide Control Cost Estimates Secondary
Aluminum NESHAP
[Thousands of 1994 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Model plant/nationwide Capital costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Plant 1........................... $43,094 $16,770
Model Plant 2........................... 16,603 5,740
Model Plant 3........................... 12,832 4,911
Model Plant 4........................... 26,492 10,829
Model Plant 5........................... 21,587 14,001
Model Plant 6........................... 26,119 14,992
Model Plant 7........................... 1,188 807
Model Plant 8........................... 0 0
Burden Costs............................ .............. 5,142
-------------------------------
Nationwide Totals................... 147,915 73,191
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6992]]

Since capital costs relate to emission control equipment that will
be utilized over a period of years, this cost is annualized or
apportioned to each year of the anticipated equipment life. The annual
capital costs include annual depreciation of equipment plus the cost of
capital associated with financing the capital equipment over its useful
life. A seven percent discount rate or cost of capital is assumed for
this regulation. The annualized capital costs are combined with annual
operating and maintenance costs, recordkeeping, monitoring, and
reporting costs, and other annual costs to compute the total annualized
costs to comply with the proposed rule.
A market model was utilized in the EIA to estimate the impact of
the regulation on the secondary aluminum industry and other related
markets. For purposes of the EIA, a partial equilibrium microeconomic
model of the secondary aluminum industry was developed that assumes the
supply of secondary aluminum will decrease as a result of the increased
costs of emission controls from levels that would have occurred absent
the regulation. The decrease in supply is anticipated to increase
market price and decrease the market equilibrium quantity of secondary
aluminum produced domestically.
2. Economic Impacts
Table 15 presents primary and secondary market impacts estimated
for the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP. Primary market impacts include
estimated changes in price, production, industry revenues, and
potential facility closures. Secondary market impacts relate to
potential employment losses, potential decreases in exports, and
increases in imports.

Table 15.--Primary and Secondary Market Impacts Secondary Aluminum
NESHAP
[Thousands of 1994 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Market Impacts:
Price Increase (%)...................................... 0.75
Production Decrease (%)................................. (0.49)
Industry Revenues-Value of Domestic Shipments (%)....... 0.25
Potential Facility Closures............................. 0-1
Secondary Market Impacts:
Labor Market--Potential Employee Reductions (number of
workers) Percent decrease.............................. 117
(0.49)
International Trade:
Exports (%)......................................... (0.25)
Imports (%)......................................... 1.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreases are shown in brackets ( ).

In general, the economic impacts of this regulation are expected to
be minimal with price increases and production decreases of less than
one percent. A market price increase of 0.75 percent and domestic
production decrease of 0.49 percent are predicted. Revenues or the
value of domestic shipments for the industry are expected to increase
by 0.25 percent. The increase in the value of shipments results because
the price elasticity of demand for secondary aluminum is inelastic.
Products that demonstrate inelastic price elasticity of demand are
characterized by larger percentage price increases than production
percentage decreases occurring with price increases. For products with
inelastic demand, a price increase leads to increases in revenue or
value of shipments. Individual facilities within the industry may
experience revenue increases or decreases, but on average the industry
revenues are anticipate to increase slightly with this regulation.
Potentially, one facility may close as a result of the regulation.
Approximately 117 workers may face employment losses as a result of
the regulation. Exports of secondary aluminum products to other
countries are expected to decline by 0.25 percent while imports of
secondary aluminum are expected to increase 1.75 percent.

D. Non-air Health and Environmental Impacts

Secondary aluminum plants are subject to effluent guidelines and
standards set pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
EPA's effluent guidelines for secondary aluminum smelting (40 CFR part
421, subpart C) apply to conventional pollutants and/or fluoride,
ammonia, aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc from sources that include wet
air pollution control systems for scrap drying, scrap screening and
milling, dross washing, demagging, delacquering, and casting cooling.
For several sources, either no discharge of process wastewater is
allowed (requiring recycling) or none (zero) of the specified
pollutants are allowed in the discharge.
The proposed 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 104,235 Mg/yr (114,900 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. (See Docket item II-B-16. Memorandum. M.
Wright, Research Triangle Institute, to J. Santiago, EPA:MICG.
Regulatory Impacts for Secondary Aluminum MACT Standards. September 17,
1998.)
Dioxins and furans (D/F) and HAP metals (lead, cadmium, and
mercury) have been found in the Great Lakes and other water bodies, and
have been listed as pollutants of concern due to their persistence in
the environment, potential to bioaccumulate, and toxicity to humans and
the environment. (See Docket item II-A-3. Deposition of Air Pollutants
to the Great Waters: First Report to Congress. EPA:OAQPS. EPA-453/R-93-
055. May 1994. pp. 18-21.) Implementation of the NESHAP would aid in
reducing aerial deposition of these emissions.
As acid gases, HCl and Cl2 contribute to the formation
of acid rain. In addition, Cl2 is a very reactive element
and combines easily with a variety of organic compounds; these chemical
reactions constitute the primary mechanism for the destruction of ozone
in the stratosphere. Both HCl and Cl2 are very corrosive and
can cause damage to building materials such as limestone, plant
equipment, and to all types of metals and textiles. HCl and
Cl2 also are phototoxicants, which can be injurious to crops
and plants including tomatoes, sugar beets, alfalfa, tobacco,
blackberries, radishes, certain trees (box elder, crab apple, pin oak,
sugar maple, and sweet gum), and certain flowers (roses, sunflowers,
and zinnias). (See Docket item II-I-2. Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride.
National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. 1976. pp. 85-86, 93, 145-
53, 161, 166.) Ambient concentrations of these HAPs would be reduced
substantially by the proposed NESHAP.
Occupational exposure limits under 29 CFR part 1910 are in place
for each of the regulated HAPs (and surrogates) except D/F. The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends an
exposure level for D/F

[[Page 6993]]

at the lowest feasible concentration. (See Docket item II-I-110, NIOSH
Recommendations for Occupational Safety and Health: Compendium of
Policy Documents and Statements. National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. January 1992. p. 124.) The proposed NESHAP would
reduce emissions, and consequently, occupational exposure levels for
plant employees.

E. Energy Impacts

Operating fabric filters and afterburners requires the use of
electrical energy to operate fans that move the gas stream. The
additional electrical energy requirements are estimated at 116 million
kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr), or 418 terajoules per year (TJ/yr),
over current requirements. Afterburners may also use natural gas as
fuel. Approximately 325,500 kilocubic feet per year (kft³/
yr) or 322 billion Btu/yr (340 TJ/yr) of additional natural gas would
be required.
The increased energy requirements for plants will result in an
increase in utility emissions as more energy is generated. Nationwide
emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from electric power plants are estimated to increase
by 9.8 Mg/yr (10.8 tpy), 393 Mg/yr (433 tpy), and 197 Mg/yr (217 tpy),
respectively. (See Docket item II-B-16. Memorandum. M. Wright, Research
Triangle Institute, to J. Santiago, EPA:MICG. Regulatory Impacts for
Secondary Aluminum MACT Standards. September 17, 1998.)

VI. Request for Comments

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from
all interested parties. In addition, the Agency is specifically
requesting comments on the applicability section of the rule. As
proposed, aluminum die casters (SIC 3363) and aluminum foundries (SIC
3365) are specifically exempted from the requirements of the rule. The
Agency is aware that some operations at these locations may include
melting, refining, and some level of reactive fluxing as well as chip
drying. The Agency requests data and comment regarding the extent of
these secondary aluminum operations at these facilities and the need
for emission controls under this NESHAP. The Agency also specifically
requests information regarding the extent of small businesses in these
two SIC codes which have secondary aluminum operations and which are
also major sources as defined in the Clean Air Act. The Agency also
requests information regarding the number of large businesses which
operate foundry or die casting processes and which are major sources
either independently or due to co-location (e.g., foundries or die
casters located at automobile plants). The Agency is also requesting
information or estimates regarding the quantities of HAP emissions from
both major sources and area sources within these SIC codes. Full
supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted with all
comments to allow the EPA to make maximum use of the comments.
All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Docket No. A-92-61 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on
this notice must be submitted on or before the date specified in DATES.
Commentors wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be
sent directly to the following address, and not to the public docket,
to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in
the docket: Attention: Mr. Juan Santiago, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S.
EPA Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Information covered by such a
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent
allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim
of confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by
EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to
the commentor.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is intended to be an organized and complete file of the
administrative records compiled by EPA. The docket is a dynamic file,
because material is added throughout the rulemaking development. The
docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that
they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with
the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the
contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. If
a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying
questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the
presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting
information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral
statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public
hearing. Persons wishing to attend or to make oral presentations or to
inquire as to whether or not a hearing is to be held should contact the
EPA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To provide an opportunity
for all who may wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each.
Any member of the public may file a written statement on or before
April 12, 1999. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to
Docket A-92-61. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public
inspection and copying, or be mailed upon request, at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center.

C. Executive Order 12866

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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the EPA has
determined that this regulatory action is not

[[Page 6994]]

``significant'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this
action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review
under Executive Order 12866.

D. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1)
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 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
reasonable alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866.

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule implements requirements specifically set forth by the
Congress in 42 U.S.C. 7410 without the exercise of any discretion by
EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order
12875 do not apply to this rule.

F. 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 the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule implements requirements specifically set forth by the
Congress in 42 U.S.C. 7410 without the exercise of any discretion by
EPA. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order
13084 do not apply to this rule.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative with other than the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. In addition, EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no regulatory
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon
them. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) provides
that, whenever an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. (MARK)
553, after being required to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking, an agency must prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The EPA analyzed the potential impact of the rule on small
entities. The EPA received responses to an information collection
request from 135 facilities producing products in SIC's 3341 (secondary
smelting and refining of nonferrous metals) and 3353 (aluminum sheet,
plate, and foil);

[[Page 6995]]

however, it is thought that there are in excess of 400 facilities which
produce these products. To define the small business entities, the 135
facilities were matched with their parent companies and it was
determined that 33 of these companies meet the Small Business
Administration definition of a small business entity (less than 750
employees).
The analysis of small business impacts for the secondary aluminum
industry focused on a comparison of compliance costs as a percentage of
sales (cost/sales ratio). Cost to sales ratio refers to the change in
annualized control costs divided by the sale 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.
Due to the number of facilities and variety of processes used in
the affected industry, 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. Eight model plants were created and
annual compliance costs were calculated for each one. The individual
facilities were then assigned to the model plant that most closely fit
their process structure, and the annual compliance cost for that model
plant was used in calculating the company's cost/sales ratio.
Two alternative approaches were used to estimate the sales revenues
for the affected small businesses. If actual sales data were available,
these data were used to compute cost to sales ratios for affected
entities. In cases where the actual sales data were unavailable, model
plant revenues were estimated based upon the estimated model plant
annual production and the average 1994 price of secondary aluminum
alloy A-380. Cost to sales data were developed using actual revenue
data where available and model plant estimate revenues for each of the
33 small businesses. Cost to sales ratios based on model plant data
yield ratios of less than 1 percent for each model plant and range from
0.02 percent to 0.97 percent for model plant 8 and model plant 1,
respectively. A summary of the cost to sales ratios for the affected
small secondary aluminum producers using model plant data and actual
company annual revenues is shown in Table 16 below. As depicted in
Table 16, the majority of affected small businesses had cost to sales
ratios below 1 percent. Ten companies had cost to sales ratios above 1
percent. Of these ten companies, only one had cost to sales above 3
percent. A cost to sales ratio above 3 percent is an indicator that
this small business may experience a significant economic impact as a
result of this regulation. Based upon this analysis, the EPA concludes
that this regulation will not result in a significant economic impact
for a substantial number of small entities. Only one of the 33 small
entities is anticipated to experience significantly adverse economic
impacts as a result of this regulation.

Table 16.--Company-Specific Cost Sales Ratios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
small
Cost/sales ratio companies in
range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00%-0.99%............................................. 23
1.00%-1.99%............................................. 7
2.00%-2.99%............................................. 2
>3.00%.................................................. 1
---------------
Mean cost/sales ratio = 0.919%
Total............................................... 33
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1894.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The proposed information requirements include mandatory
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information requirements
are needed to confirm the compliance status of major sources, to
identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards and any new
or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, to confirm that
emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained,
and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based on the
recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which plants,
records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically authorized under section 114 of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA for which a
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to
Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (See 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251,
September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the rule) is estimated to total 9,482 labor hours per
year at a total annual cost of $4.1 million. This estimate includes
notifications; a performance test and report (with repeat tests where
needed); one-time preparation of a startup,

[[Page 6996]]

shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any event
where the procedures in the plan were not followed and an operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan; semiannual excess emissions reports;
initial and semiannual furnace certifications; and recordkeeping. This
estimate also includes one time preparation of emissions averaging
plans and scrap sampling plans for some respondents. Total capital
costs associated with monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of
the ICR is estimated at $993 thousand; this estimate includes the
capital and startup costs associated with installation of monitoring
equipment.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2136), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Office for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after February 11, 1999, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 15, 1999. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to
provide Congress, through the OMB, and explanation of the reasons for
not using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to
the requirements of the NTTA for the analytical test methods included
in the proposed rule.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted a search to identify
voluntary consensus standards. However, no candidate consensus
standards were identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule. The proposed rule
requires standard EPA methods well known to the industry and States.
Approved alternative methods also may be used. The EPA, in coordination
with the industry and States, have agreed on the use of these test
methods in the rule.

K. Pollution Prevention Act

During the development of the proposed NESHAP, EPA explored
opportunities to eliminate or reduce emissions through the application
of new processes or work practices. The proposed NESHAP requires the
implementation of site-specific work practices to prevent or limit the
use of materials in furnace operations that generate HAP emissions.

L. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Dated: December 31, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

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

Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Secondary Aluminum Production

Sec.

General

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

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission units.
63.1506 Operating requirements.
63.1507 [Reserved]
63.1508 [Reserved]
63.1509 [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.1515 Notifications.
63.1516 Reports.
63.1517 Records.

Other

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

[[Page 6997]]

Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart RRR

Subpart RRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

General

Sec. 63.1500 Applicability.

(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator
of each secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as defined in Sec. 63.2 of this part
or is an area source of D/F emissions.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to the following new or
existing affected sources:
(1) Each new and existing scrap shredder;
(2) Each new and existing chip dryer;
(3) Each new and existing scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln;
(4) Each new and existing group 2 furnace;
(5) Each new and existing sweat furnace;
(6) Each new and existing dross-only furnace;
(7) Each new and existing rotary dross cooler;
(8) Each new group 1 furnace;
(9) Each new in-line fluxer; and
(10) Each secondary aluminum processing unit.
(c) The owner or operator of a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source is subject to title V permitting
requirements.

Sec. 63.1501 Dates.

(a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must
comply with the requirements of this subpart by: [date 3 years after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register].
(b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after February 11, 1999 must comply with
the requirements of this subpart by [date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register] or upon startup, whichever is later.

Sec. 63.1502 Incorporation by reference.

(a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of
certain publications listed in the rule will be approved by the
Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of the date of
publication of the final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. This material is incorporated as it exists on the date of
approval and notice of any change in the material will be published in
the Federal Register: Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A
Manual of Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR approved for
Sec. 63.1506(c).
(b) The material incorporated by reference is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., Suite 700, 7th Floor, Washington, DC and at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC. The material also is available for purchase from the
following address: Customer Service Department, American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45240-1634, telephone number (513) 742-2020.

Sec. 63.1503 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as
amended (the Act), in Sec. 63.2 of this part, or in this section as
follows:
Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed on a
process vent that reduces the quantity of a pollutant that is emitted
to the air.
Afterburner means an air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases; also known as an incinerator.
Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of
monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric
filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak
detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that
operates on triboelectric, light scattering, transmittance, or other
effect to monitor relative particulate matter loadings.
Chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate water, oil,
or oil/water mixtures from unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips.
Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of aluminum
scrap, typically below 1\1/4\ inches in any dimension, primarily
generated by turning, milling, boring, and machining of aluminum parts.
Clean charge means furnace charge materials of pure aluminum,
including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying elements,
uncoated aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F) or higher,
aluminum scrap dried/delacquered/decoated at 482 deg.C (900 deg.F) or
higher, and noncoated runaround scrap.
Dross means the slags and skimmings from aluminum melting and
refining operations consisting of fluxing agent(s) and impurities from
scrap aluminum charged into the furnace and/or oxidized and non-
oxidized aluminum.
Dross-only furnace means a furnace, typically of rotary barrel
design, dedicated to the reclamation of aluminum from dross formed
during melting, holding, fluxing, or alloying operations carried out in
other process units. Dross is the sole feedstock to this type of
furnace.
Emission unit means an existing group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer
at a secondary aluminum production facility.
Fabric filter means an add-on air pollution control device used to
capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter
media; also known as a baghouse.
Feed/charge weight means, for a furnace that operates in batch
mode, the total weight of scrap (including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow,
ingot, etc.), alloying agents, and solid fluxes that enter the furnace
during an operating cycle. For a furnace or other process unit that
operates continuously, feed/charge weight means the weight of scrap
(including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, etc.), alloying agents,
and solid fluxes that enter the process unit within a specified time
period (e.g., a time period equal to the performance test period).
Fluxing means refining of molten aluminum to improve product
quality, achieve product specifications, or reduce material loss,
including the addition of salts such as magnesium chloride to cover the
molten bath to reduce oxidation (cover flux), the addition of solvents
to remove impurities (solvent flux); and the injection of gases such as
chlorine to remove magnesium (demagging) or hydrogen bubbles
(degassing). Fluxing may be performed in the furnace or outside the
furnace by an in-line fluxer.
Furnace hearth means the combustion zone of a furnace, in which the
molten metal is contained.
Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes aluminum scrap containing paint, lubricants, coatings, or
other foreign materials or within which reactive fluxing is performed.
Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs
fluxing using only nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/nonHAP-generating
gases or agents.

[[Page 6998]]

HCl means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of hydrogen
chloride that serve as a surrogate measure of the total emissions of
the HAPs hydrogen chloride and chlorine.
In-line fluxer means a device exterior to a furnace, typically
located in a transfer line from a furnace, used to refine (flux) molten
aluminum; also known as a flux box, degassing box, or demagging box.
Lime means calcium oxide or other alkaline reagent.
Lime-injection means the continuous mechanical addition of lime
upstream of a fabric filter to adsorb or react with pollutants.
Melting/holding furnace means a group 1 furnace that processes only
clean charge, performs melting, holding, and fluxing functions, and
does not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace.
Operating cycle means for a batch process, the period beginning
when the feed material is first charged to the operation and ending
when all feed material charged to the operation has been processed. For
a batch melting or holding furnace process, operating cycle means the
period including the charging and melting of scrap aluminum and the
fluxing, refining, alloying, and tapping of molten aluminum.
PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of
particulate matter that serve as a measure of total particulate
emissions and as a surrogate for metal HAPs contained in the
particulates including but not limited to: antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
and selenium.
Pollution prevention means source reduction as defined under the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (e.g., equipment or technology
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or
redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements
in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control), and
other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants
through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy,
water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by
conservation.
Process train means any set of group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers
that sequentially handle the same material. A process train may consist
of affected sources and emission units within an affected source. For
example, a new group 1 furnace may feed a secondary aluminum processing
unit. Other examples of a process train include:
(1) A melting furnace (or multiple melting furnaces operating in
parallel) and a holding furnace (or multiple holding furnaces operating
in parallel) where molten aluminum is transferred from the melting
furnace(s) to the holding furnace(s) and then to a casting operation;
(2) A melting furnace (or multiple melting furnaces operating in
parallel) and an in-line fluxer where molten aluminum is transferred
from the furnace(s) to the in-line fluxer and then to a casting
operation;
(3) A melting/holding furnace (or multiple melting/holding furnaces
operating in parallel) and an in-line fluxer where molten aluminum is
transferred from the furnace(s) to the in-line fluxer and then to a
casting operation; or
(4) A melting furnace (or multiple melting furnaces operating in
parallel), a holding furnace (or multiple holding furnaces operating in
parallel), and an in-line fluxer where molten aluminum is transferred
sequentially from the melting furnace(s) to the holding furnace(s) and
to the in-line fluxer and then to a casting operation.
Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux
that results in a HAP emission. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and
do not produce HAPs.
Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an affected
source or emission unit such that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent
of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a
comparable new source; and
(2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the
reconstructed source to meet relevant standard(s) established in this
subpart.
Replacement of the refractory in a furnace is routine maintenance
and is not a reconstruction. The repair and replacement of in-line
fluxer components (e.g., rotors/shafts, burner tubes, refractory,
warped steel) is considered to be routine maintenance and is not
considered a reconstruction. In-line fluxers are typically removed to a
maintenance/repair area and are replaced with a repaired unit. This
replacement of an existing in-line fluxer with a repaired unit is not
considered a reconstruction.
Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone.
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion
zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream
in actual cubic feet per second.
Rotary dross cooler means a water-cooled rotary barrel device that
accelerates cooling of dross.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln means a unit used primarily
to remove various organic contaminants such as oils, paint, lacquer,
ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including used
beverage containers) prior to melting.
Scrap shredder means a unit that crushes, grinds, or breaks scrap
into a more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a chip
dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln, or furnace.
Secondary aluminum processing unit means all existing group 1
furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a secondary aluminum
production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace or existing in-line
fluxer is considered an emission unit within a secondary aluminum
processing unit.
Secondary aluminum production facility means any establishment
using 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: Scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/
decoating, chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding,
refining, fluxing, or alloying), in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. A
secondary aluminum production facility may be independent or part of a
primary aluminum production facility. Facilities such as manufacturers
of aluminum die castings and aluminum foundries are included in this
definition if the facility includes any of the affected sources subject
to D/F emission limits or has an on-site group 1 furnace (i.e., the
facility is an area source of D/F emissions).
Sidewell means an open well adjacent to the hearth of a furnace
with connecting arches between the hearth and the open well through
which molten aluminum is circulated between the hearth, where heat is
applied by burners, and the open well, which is used for charging scrap
and solid flux or salt to the furnace, injecting fluxing agents, and
skimming dross.
Sweat furnace means a furnace used exclusively to reclaim aluminum
from scrap that contains high iron levels by using heat to separate the
low-melting point aluminum from the scrap while the higher melting-
point iron remains in solid form.
TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in ``Interim Procedures
for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-

[[Page 6999]]

Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA-625/
3-89-016), available from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, NTIS no. PB
90-145756.
THC means, for the purposes of this subpart, total hydrocarbon
emissions that also serve as a surrogate for the total emissions of
organic HAP compounds.
Three-day, 24-hour rolling average means daily calculations of the
average 24-hour emission rate (lbs/ton of feed), over the three most
recent consecutive 24-hour periods, for a secondary aluminum processing
unit.
Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate means the sum of the
total weight of chlorine in the gaseous or liquid reactive flux and the
total weight of chlorine in the solid reactive chloride flux as
determined by the procedure in Sec. 63.1512(o).

Sec. 63.1504 [Reserved]

Emission Standards and Operating Requirements

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

(a) Summary. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section
for secondary aluminum processing units in an approved emissions plan,
the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source must comply
with each applicable limit in this section. Table 1 to this section
summarizes the emission standards for each type of source.
(b) Scrap shredder. On and after the date the initial performance
test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is
earlier,
(1) The owner or operator of a scrap shredder at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of
0.023 grams (g) of PM per dry standard cubic meter (dscm) (0.010 grain
(gr) of PM per dry standard cubic foot (dscf)).
(2) The owner or operator of a scrap shredder at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control
device if a COM or visible emissions monitoring is chosen as the
monitoring option.
(c) Chip dryer. On and after the date the initial performance test
is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier,
the owner or operator of a chip dryer must not discharge or cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of:
(1) 0.40 kilogram of THC, as propane, per megagram (Mg) (0.80 lb of
THC, as propane, per ton) of feed from a chip dryer at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source; and
(2) 2.50 micrograms (g) of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5 x
10^-5 gr per ton) of feed from a chip dryer at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
(d) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. On and after the date
the initial performance test is conducted or required to be conducted,
whichever date is earlier,
(1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating
kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
emissions in excess of:
(i) 0.03 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.06 lb of THC, as propane,
per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/ delacquering/decoating kiln at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source;
(ii) 0.04 kg of PM per Mg (0.08 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source;
(iii) 0.25 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (3.5 x 10^-6 gr
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/delacquering/ decoating
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or
area source; and
(iv) 0.40 kg of HCl per Mg (0.80 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source.
(2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source
must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on
air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring
option.
(e) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln: alternative limits.
The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln may
choose to comply with the emission limits in this paragraph as an
alternative to the limits in paragraph (d) of this section if the scrap
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln is equipped with an afterburner
having a design residence time of at least 1 second and the afterburner
is operated at a temperature of at least 750 deg.C (1,400 deg.F) at
all times. On and after the date the initial performance test is
conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier:
(1) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating
kiln must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
emissions in excess of:
(i) 0.10 kg of THC, as propane, per Mg (0.20 lb of THC, as propane,
per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source;
(ii) 0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source;
(iii) 5.0 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (7.0 x 10 ^-5 gr
of D/F TEQ per ton) of feed from a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or
area source; and
(iv) 0.75 kg of HCl per Mg (1.50 lb per ton) of feed from a scrap
dryer/decoating/delacquering kiln at a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source.
(2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating
kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source
must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
visible emissions in excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on
air pollution control device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring
option.
(f) Sweat furnace. On and after the date the initial performance
test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is
earlier, the owner or operator of a sweat furnace at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major or area source must not
discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in
excess of 0.80 nanogram (ng) of D/F TEQ per dscm (3.5 x 10
^-10 gr per dscf) at 11 percent O2.
(g) Dross-only furnace. On and after the date the initial
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier:
(1) The owner or operator of a dross-only furnace at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of
0.15 kg of PM per Mg (0.30 lb of PM per ton) of feed.
(2) The owner or operator of a dross-only furnace at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.

[[Page 7000]]

(h) Rotary dross cooler. On and after the date the performance test
is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier:
(1) The owner or operator of a rotary dross cooler at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of
0.09 g of PM per dscm (0.04 gr per dscf).
(2) The owner or operator of a rotary dross cooler at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
(i) New/reconstructed group 1 furnace. The owner or operator of a
new group 1 furnace must meet the emission standards in this paragraph.
On and after the date the initial performance test is conducted or
required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a
melter/holder processing only clean charge, the owner or operator must
not discharge or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions
in excess of:
(i) 0.20 kg of PM per Mg (0.40 lb of PM per ton) of feed from a
group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a
major source;
(ii) 15 g of D/F TEQ per Mg (2.1 x 10^-4 gr of
D/F TEQ per ton) of feed from a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum
production facility that is a major or area source. This limit does not
apply if the furnace processes only clean charge; and
(iii) 0.20 kg of HCl per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl per ton) of feed or, if
the furnace is equipped with an add-on air pollution control device,
reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 90 percent, by weight,
for a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that
is a major source.
(2) The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
(3) The owner or operator of a group 1 melter/holder processing
only clean charge at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a
major source must not discharge or cause to be discharged to the
atmosphere any emissions in excess of 0.40 kg of PM per Mg (0.80 lb of
PM per ton) of feed.
(j) In-line fluxer. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of
this section for an in-line fluxer using no reactive flux material, the
owner or operator of a new/reconstructed in-line fluxer must meet the
emission standards in this paragraph. On and after the date the
performance test is conducted or required to be conducted, whichever
date is earlier:
(1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions in excess of:
(i) 0.02 kg of HCl per Mg (0.04 lb of HCl per ton) of feed; and
(ii) 0.005 kg of PM per Mg (0.01 lb of PM per ton) of feed.
(iii) The emission limits in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of
this section do not apply to a new/reconstructed or existing in-line
fluxer that uses no reactive flux materials.
(2) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer at a secondary
aluminum production facility that is a major source must not discharge
or cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in
excess of 10 percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control
device if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
(k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must
comply with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM
and HCl in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this section for each
secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production
facility that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with
the emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph
(k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
(1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average
emissions of PM in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.021

Where,

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

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

(2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average
emissions of HCl in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.022

Where,

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

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

(3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average
emissions of D/F in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.023

Where,

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

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

(4) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be
discharged to the atmosphere any visible emissions in excess of 10
percent opacity from any PM add-on air pollution control device

[[Page 7001]]

if a COM is chosen as the monitoring option.
(5) The owner or operator must comply with all requirements of an
approved site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emissions
plan and all applicable design, work practice, or operational
standards; performance test requirements; monitoring requirements;
recordkeeping requirements; and reporting requirements of this subpart
for each individual emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing
unit.
(l) Site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emissions
plan. An owner or operator of a secondary aluminum processing unit must
prepare and submit a site-specific emissions plan to the applicable
permitting authority for review and approval according to the
procedures in this paragraph.
(1) The owner or operator must submit the plan to the applicable
permitting authority for review no later than 6 months before the date
the secondary aluminum production facility intends to comply with the
emission limits.
(2) The owner or operator must include the following information as
part of the application for an operating permit for each secondary
aluminum processing unit.
(i) The identification of each emission unit in the secondary
aluminum processing unit;
(ii) The specific control technology or pollution prevention
measure to be used for each emission unit in the secondary aluminum
processing unit and the date of its installation or application;
(iii) The test plan for the measurement of emissions as required by
Sec. 63.1511(a);
(iv) The emission limit calculated for each secondary aluminum
processing unit and performance test results with supporting
calculations demonstrating initial compliance with each applicable
emission limit;
(v) Information and data demonstrating compliance for each emission
unit with all applicable design, equipment, work practice or
operational standards; monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirement of this subpart;
(vi) The monitoring requirements applicable to each emission unit
in a secondary aluminum processing unit and the monitoring procedures
for daily calculation of the 3-day, 24 hour rolling average using the
procedure in Sec. 63.1510(s);
(vii) Correlation of measured emissions with the selected process
or operating parameter to be monitored; and
(viii) A demonstration that compliance with each of the applicable
emission limits will be achieved under all operating conditions.
(3) Upon receipt, the permitting authority will review and approve
or disapprove the plan or permit application according to the following
criteria:
(i) Whether the plan includes all of the information specified in
paragraph (m)(2) of this section; and
(ii) Whether the plan or permit application presents sufficient
information to determine that compliance will be achieved and
maintained.
(4) The applicable permitting authority will not approve a site-
specific plan or permit application containing any of the following
provisions:
(i) Any averaging among emissions of differing pollutants;
(ii) The inclusion of any affected sources other than emission
units in a secondary aluminum processing unit. A new or reconstructed
emission unit cannot be part of a secondary aluminum processing unit;
(iii) The inclusion of any emission unit while it is shutdown; or
(iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in emission calculations.
(5) Following review, the applicable permitting authority may
approve the plan or permit application, request changes, or request
additional information.
(6) To revise the plan prior to the end of the permit term, the
owner or operator must submit a request to the applicable permitting
authority containing the information required by paragraph (l)(2) of
this section and obtain approval of the applicable permitting authority
prior to implementing any revisions.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 7002]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.024

[[Page 7003]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.025

[[Page 7004]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.026

[[Page 7005]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.027

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 7006]]

Sec. 63.1506 Operating requirements.

(a) Summary. On and after the date on which the performance test is
conducted or required to be conducted, whichever date is earlier, the
owner or operator must operate all new and existing affected sources
(including each emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing unit)
and control equipment according to the requirements in this section.
Operating requirements are summarized in Table 1 to this section.
(b) Labeling. The owner or operator must provide and maintain
easily visible labels posted on each affected source and emission unit
that identifies the applicable emission limits and means of compliance,
including:
(1) The type of affected source or emission unit (e.g., chip dryer,
scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln, group 1 furnace, group 2
furnace, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace).
(2) The applicable emission limit(s), operational standard(s), and
control method(s) (work practice or control device). This may include,
but is not limited to, the type of charge to be used for a furnace
(e.g., clean scrap only, all scrap, etc., dross only), the type of
charge material for a chip dryer, and flux materials, system design and
operating practices to be used.
(3) Parameters to be monitored and the compliant value or range of
each monitored parameter.
(4) The identification of each emission unit that is part of a
secondary aluminum processing unit.
(5) The measured emission rate for each emission unit that is part
of a secondary aluminum processing unit.
(6) The identification of each process train, each emission unit
that is part of a process train, and the identification of all other
emission units in the process train.
(c) Capture/collection systems. For each affected source or
emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the
owner or operator must:
(1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates
as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook
of Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.1502 of
this subpart);
(2) Vent captured emissions through a closed system; and
(3) Operate each capture/collection system according to the
procedures and requirements in the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(d) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of each affected
source or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton)
of feed must:
(1) Install and operate a device that measures and records or
otherwise determine the weight of feed/charge (or throughput) for each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test; and
(2) Operate each weight measurement system or other weight
determination procedure in accordance with the operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan.
(e) Scrap shredder. The owner or operator of a scrap shredder with
emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
(1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or
operator to initiate corrective action.
(2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(3) If visible emission observations are used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any observation of visible
emissions during a daily visible emissions test and complete the
corrective action procedures in accordance with the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(f) Chip dryer. The owner or operator of a chip dryer with
emissions controlled by an afterburner must:
(1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the
performance test.
(2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(3) Operate each chip dryer using only unpainted/uncoated aluminum
chips as the feedstock.
(g) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. The owner or operator
of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln with emissions controlled
by an afterburner and a lime-injected fabric filter must:
(1) For each afterburner,
(i) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the
performance test.
(ii) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(2) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or
operator to initiate corrective action.
(3) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(4) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each
fabric filter at

[[Page 7007]]

or below the average temperature established during the performance
test, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
(5) Maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at
all times; and
(i) Maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established
during the performance test; or
(ii) Maintain the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lbs/hr)
at or above the average rate established during the performance test.
The owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime
injection used in the performance test; or
(iii) Maintain the average lime injection rate for each operating
cycle or time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed) at
or above the average rate established during the performance test. The
owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime
injection used in the performance test.
(h) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator of a sweat furnace with
emissions controlled by an afterburner must:
(1) Maintain the 3-hour block average operating temperature of each
afterburner at or above the average temperature established during the
performance test.
(2) Operate each afterburner in accordance with the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(i) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator of a dross-only
furnace with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
(1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or
operator to initiate corrective action.
(2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(3) Operate each furnace using dross as the sole feedstock.
(j) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator of a rotary dross
cooler with emissions controlled by a fabric filter must:
(1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or
operator to initiate corrective action.
(2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(k) In-line fluxer. The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer
(including an in-line fluxer that is part of a secondary aluminum
processing unit) with emissions controlled by a lime-injected fabric
filter must:
(1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or
operator to initiate corrective action.
(2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(3) Maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at
all times; and
(i) Maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established
during the performance test; or
(ii) Maintain the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lbs/hr)
at or above the average rate established during the performance test.
The owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime
injection used in the performance test; or
(iii) Maintain the average lime injection rate for each operating
cycle or time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed) at
or above the average rate established during the performance test. The
owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime
injection used in the performance test.
(4) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or
below the average rate established during the performance test. The
owner or operator also must maintain the same flux injection schedule
used in the performance test.
(5) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during
the performance test, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
(l) In-line fluxer using no reactive flux material. The owner or
operator of a new or existing in-line fluxer using no reactive flux
materials must operate

[[Page 7008]]

each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux materials.
(m) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. The
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (including a group 1 furnace
that is part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) with emissions
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter must:
(1) If a bag leak detection system is used to meet the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510,
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1-
hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete the corrective
action procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must operate each fabric filter system
such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than
5 percent of the operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period. In calculating this operating time fraction, if inspection of
the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required,
no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm
shall be counted as a minimum of one hour. If the owner or operator
takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time
shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or
operator to initiate corrective action.
(2) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used to meet the
monitoring requirements in Sec. 63.1510, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action within 1-hour of any 6-minute average
reading of 5 percent or more opacity and complete the corrective action
procedures in accordance with the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(3) Maintain the 3-hour block average inlet temperature for each
fabric filter at or below the average temperature established during
the performance test, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
(4) Maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at
all times; and
(i) Maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established
during the performance test; or
(ii) Maintain the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lbs/hr)
at or above the average rate established during the performance test.
The owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime
injection used in the performance test; or
(iii) Maintain the average lime injection rate for each operating
cycle or time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed) at
or above the average rate established during the performance test. The
owner or operator also must maintain the same schedule of lime
injection used in the performance test.
(5) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or
below the average rate established during the performance test. The
owner or operator also must maintain the same flux injection schedule
used in the performance test.
(6) Operate each side-well furnace such that:
(i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage
between the side-well and hearth during reactive flux injection.
(ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell unless the hearth
also is equipped with a control device for PM, HCl, and D/F emissions.
(n) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices.
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (including a group 1 furnace
that is part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) without add-on
air pollution control devices must:
(1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate for
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or
below the average rate established during the performance test. The
owner or operator also must maintain the same flux injection schedule
used in the performance test.
(2) Operate each furnace in accordance with the work practice/
pollution prevention measures documented in the operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan and the site-specific monitoring plan and within
the parameter values or ranges established in the site-specific
monitoring plan.
(3) Operate each group 1 melter/holder subject to the emission
standards in Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) using only clean charge as the
feedstock.
(o) Group 2 furnace. The owner or operator of a new or existing
group 2 furnace must:
(1) Operate each furnace using only clean charge as the feedstock.
(2) Operate each furnace using no reactive flux.
(p) Corrective action. When a process parameter or add-on air
pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the value or
range established during the performance test or from the parameter in
a site-specific monitoring plan, the owner or operator must initiate
the corrective actions specified in the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. Corrective action taken by the owner or operator must
restore operation of the affected source or emission unit (including
the process or control device) to its normal or usual mode of operation
as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. Corrective actions taken
must include follow-up actions necessary to return the process or
control device parameter level(s) to the value or range of values
established during the performance test and steps to prevent the likely
recurrence of the cause of a deviation.

Table 1 to Sec. 63.1506.--Summary of Operating Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/operation/
Affected source/emission unit process Operating requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission Labeling................... Identification, emission limits and means of
units. compliance posted on all affected sources and
emission units.
All affected sources and emission Emission capture and Design and install in accordance with
units with an add-on air pollution collection system. Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of
control device. Recommended Practice; operate in accordance
with O, M & M plan.^{b
All affected sources and emission Charge/feed weight......... Operate a device that records the weight of
units subject to production-based each charge.
(lb/ton of feed) emission limits ^{a. Operate in accordance with O, M, and M plan.^{b
Scrap shredder with fabric filter.. Bag leak detector.......... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
alarm and complete in accordance with O, M, &
M plan; ^{b operate such that alarm does not
sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
month period.

[[Page 7009]]

COM........................ Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
complete in accordance with O, M, & M plan. ^{b

VE......................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of any
observed VE and complete in accordance with
the O, M, & M plan.^{b
Chip Dryer with afterburner........ Afterburner operating Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
temperature. period, at or above average operating
temperature during the performance test.
Afterburner operation...... Operate in accordance with O, M, and M plan. ^{b
Feed material.............. Operate using only unpainted aluminum chips.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating Afterburner operating Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr
kiln with afterburner and lime- temperature. period at or above average operating
injected fabric filter. temperature during the performance test.
Afterburner operation...... Operate in accordance with O, M, & M plan.^{b
Bag leak detector.......... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
M, & M plan; ^{b operate such that alarm does
not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
month period.

COM........................ Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
plan.^{b
Feed material.............. Operate using only dross as the feed material.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric Bag leak detector.......... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
filter. alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
M, & M plan ^{b; operate such that alarm does
not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
month period.
or

COM........................ Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
plan ^{b.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected Bag leak detector.......... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
fabric filter (including those alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
that are part of a secondary M, & M plan; ^{b operate such that alarm does
aluminum processing unit). not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
month period.

COM........................ Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
plan.^{b
Lime injection rate and Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
schedule. or silo at all times.
Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/hr)
at or above rate used during the performance
test and adhere to the same lime injection
schedule used during the performance test for
each 3-hr period or:

[[Page 7010]]

Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/ton
of feed) at or above rate used during the
performance test and adhere to the same lime
injection schedule used during the
performance test for each operating cycle or
time period used in the performance test or:
Maintain feeder setting at level established
during performance test.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected Reactive flux injection Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
fabric filter (including those rate and schedule. below rate used during the performance test
that are part of a secondary and adhere to same flux injection schedule
aluminum processing unit). used during the performance test.
Fabric filter inlet Maintain average fabric filter inlet
temperature. temperature for each 3-hour period at or
below average temperature during the
performance test. +14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
In-line fluxer (using no reactive Flux materials............. Use no reactive flux.
flux material).
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected Bag leak detector.......... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of
fabric filter (including those alarm and complete in accordance with the O,
that are part of a secondary M, & M plan; ^{b operate such that alarm does
aluminum processing unit). not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-
month period.

COM........................ Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-
min average opacity reading of 5% or more and
complete in accordance with the O, M, & M
plan.^{b
Fabric filter inlet Maintain average fabric filter inlet
temperature. temperature for each 3-hour period at or
below average temperature during the
performance test +14 deg.C (25 deg.F).
Reactive flux injection Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
rate and schedule. below rate used during the performance test
and adhere to the same schedule used in
performance test.
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected Lime injection rate and Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper
fabric filter (including those schedule. or silo at all times.
that are part of a secondary
aluminum processing unit).
Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/hr)
at or above rate used during the performance
test and adhere to the same lime injection
schedule used during the performance test for
each 3-hr period or:
Maintain average lime injection rate (lb/ton
of feed) at or above rate used during the
performance test and adhere to the same lime
injection schedule used during the
performance test for each operating cycle or
time period used in the performance test or:
Maintain feeder setting at level established
at performance test.
Maintain molten aluminum Operate side-well furnaces such that the level
level. of molten metal is above the top of the
passage between side well and hearth during
reactive flux injection.
Fluxing in sidewell furnace Add reactive flux only to the sidewell furnace
hearth. unless the hearth is also controlled.
Group 1 furnace without add-on Reactive flux injection Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or
controls (including those that are rate and schedule. below rate used during the performance test
part of a secondary aluminum and adhere to the same flux injection
processing unit). schedule used in performance test.
Site-specific monitoring Operate furnace within the range of charge
plan. materials, contaminant levels, and parameter
values established in the site-specific
monitoring plan.^{c
Feed material (melter/ Use only clean charge.
holder).
Clean (group 2) furnace............ Charge and flux materials.. Use only clean charge.
Use no reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Chip dryers, Scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, and in-line fluxers and
group 1 furnaces including melter/holders (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing
unit).
^{b O, M, & M plan--Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
^{c Site-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces without control devices must include a
section in their O, M, & M plan that documents work practice and pollution prevention measures by which
compliance is achieved with emission limits and process or feed parameter-based operating requirements. This
plan and the testing to demonstrate adequacy of the monitoring plan and correlation of parameters over the
range of charge materials and fluxing practices must be developed in coordination with and approved by the
permitting authority.

[[Page 7011]]

Secs. 63.1507--63.1509 [Reserved]

Monitoring and Compliance Requirements

Sec. 63.1510 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Summary. On and after the date the performance test is
completed or required to be completed, whichever date is earlier, the
owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or emission unit
must monitor all control equipment and processes according to the
requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements for each type of
affected source and emission unit are summarized in Table 1 to this
section.
(b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or
operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing affected
source and emission unit a written operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. The owner or operator must submit the plan to the
applicable permitting authority for review and approval as part of the
application for a part 70 or part 71 permit. Any subsequent changes to
the plan must be submitted to the applicable permitting authority for
review and approval. Pending approval by the applicable permitting
authority of an initial or amended plan, the owner or operator must
comply with the provisions of the submitted plan. Each plan must
contain the following information:
(1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or
ranges, as applicable, for each process and control device.
(2) A monitoring schedule for each affected source and emission
unit.
(3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each
process unit and add-on control device used to meet the applicable
emission limits or standards in Sec. 63.1505.
(4) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring devices or systems used to determine compliance, including:
(i) Quarterly calibration and certification of accuracy of each
monitoring device according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
(ii) Procedures for the quality control and quality assurance of
continuous emission or opacity monitoring systems as required by the
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
(5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device
parameters, including procedures for annual inspections of
afterburners, and if applicable, the procedure to be used for
determining charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a measurement device
is not used.
(6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the value
or range established in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, including:
(i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of an exceedance
or excursion, and the time the exceedance or excursion began and ended;
and
(ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time
corrective action was initiated, and the time/date corrective action
was completed.
(7) A maintenance schedule for each process and control device that
is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations
for routine and long-term maintenance.
(8) Documentation of the work practice and pollution prevention
measures used to achieve compliance with the applicable emission limits
and a site-specific monitoring plan as required in paragraph (o) of
this section for each group 1 furnace not equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device.
(c) Labeling. The owner or operator must inspect each affected
source and emission unit at least once per calendar month to confirm
that posted labels as required by the operational standard in
Sec. 63.1506(b) are intact and legible.
(d) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator must:
(1) Install, operate, and maintain a capture/collection system for
each affected source and emission unit equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device; and (2) Inspect each capture/collection and
closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each
system is operating in accordance with the operational standards in
Sec. 63.1506(c) and record the results of each inspection.
(e) Feed/charge weight. The owner or operator of an affected source
or emission unit subject to an emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton) or
g/Mg (gr/ton) of feed must install, calibrate, operate, and
maintain a device to measure and record the total weight of feed/charge
to the affected source or emission unit over the same operating cycle
or time period used in the performance test. As an alternative to a
measurement device, the owner or operator may use a procedure
acceptable to the applicable permitting authority to determine the
total weight of feed/charge to the affected source or emission unit.
(1) The accuracy of the weight measurement device or procedure must
be +1 percent of the weight being measured.
(2) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the weight
measurement device every 3 months.
(f) Fabric filters and lime-injected fabric filters. The owner or
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a fabric filter
or lime-injected fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this
subpart must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a
bag leak detection system as required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section or a continuous opacity monitoring system as required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The owner or operator of a scrap
shredder must install and operate a bag leak detection system as
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, install and operate a
continuous opacity monitoring system as required in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section, or conduct visible emission observations as required in
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(1) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source or existing emission unit using a bag leak
detection system.
(i) The owner or operator must install and operate a bag leak
detection system for each exhaust stack of a fabric filter.
(ii) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (dated September 1997).
This document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions,
Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission Measurement Center (MD-19),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document also is available on
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement
Technical Information (EMTIC), Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other
bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, calibrated, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less;
(iv) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute PM loadings;
(v) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output voltage from the sensor;

[[Page 7012]]

(vi) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel;
(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or
cell. For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak
detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter;
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(ix) Calibration of the system must, at a minimum, consist of
establishing the baseline output by adjusting the range and the
averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points
and the alarm delay time.
(x) Following initial adjustment of the system, the owner or
operator must not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period,
alarm set points, or alarm delay time except as detailed in the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. In no case may the
sensitivity be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more
than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete fabric filter inspection which demonstrates that the fabric
filter is in good operating condition.
(2) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source or an existing emission unit using a
continuous opacity monitoring system.
(i) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous opacity monitoring system to measure and record
the opacity of emissions exiting each exhaust stack.
(ii) Each continuous opacity monitoring system must meet the design
and installation requirements of Performance Specification 1 in
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
(3) These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing scrap shredder who conducts visible emission observations.
(i) The owner or operator must perform a visible emissions test for
each scrap shredder using a certified observer at least once a day
according to the requirements of Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. Each Method 9 test must consist of five 6-minute
observations in a 30-minute period; and
(ii) The owner or operator must record the results of each test.
(g) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the
requirements of this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the operating
temperature of the afterburner consistent with the requirements for
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
(2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these
performance and equipment specifications:
(i) The temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit
of the combustion zone of each afterburner.
(ii) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute
block averages, and determine and record the average temperature for
each 3-hour block period.
(iii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times
the average temperature established according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.1512(m).
(iv) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed 2
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature established according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.1512(m).
(v) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20
percent.
(vi) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system
or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator.
(3) The owner or operator must conduct an inspection of each
afterburner at least once a year and record the results. At a minimum,
an inspection must include:
(i) Inspection of all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation and clean pilot sensor;
(ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust, as
necessary;
(iii) Inspection of internal structures (e.g., baffles) to ensure
structural integrity;
(iv) Inspection of dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
(v) Inspection for proper sealing;
(vi) Inspection of motors for proper operation;
(vii) Inspection of combustion chamber refractory lining and clean
and replace lining as necessary;
(viii) Inspection of incinerator shell for corrosion and/or hot
spots;
(ix) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that
the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary
adjustments; and
(x) Generally verify that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(xi) Following an equipment inspection, all necessary repairs must
be completed in accordance with the requirements of the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(h) Fabric filter inlet temperature. These requirements apply to
the owner or operator of an affected source or emission unit subject to
D/F and HCl emission standards and using a lime-injected fabric filter
to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to continuously monitor and record the temperature of
the fabric filter inlet gases consistent with the requirements for
continuous monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.
(2) The temperature monitoring device must meet each of these
performance and equipment specifications:
(i) The monitoring system must record the temperature in 15-minute
block averages, and calculate and record the average temperature for
each 3-hour block period.
(ii) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times
the average temperature established according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.1512(n).
(iii) The monitoring system calibration drift must not exceed 2
percent of 1.5 times the average temperature established according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.1512(n).
(iv) The monitoring system relative accuracy must not exceed 20
percent.
(v) The reference method must be a National Institute of Standards
and Technology calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system
or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator.
(i) Lime injection. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of an affected source or emission unit using a lime-injected
fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator must inspect each feed hopper or silo at
least once each 8-hour period to verify that lime is always free-
flowing and record the results of each inspection. If lime is found not
to be free-flowing during any of the 8-hour period, the owner or
operator must increase the frequency of inspections to at least once
every 4-hour period for the next three days. The owner or operator may
return to inspections at least once every 8 hour period if corrective
action results in no further blockages of lime during the 3-day period.
(2) The owner or operator must record the lime feeder setting once
each day of operation or monitor the 3-hour block average lime
injection rate (lb/hr) or

[[Page 7013]]

monitor the average lime injection rate for each operating cycle or
time period used in the performance test (lb/ton of feed). To monitor
the lime injection rate (lb/hr or lb/ton of feed):
(i) Install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a device to
continuously monitor and record the weight [kg (lbs)] of lime injected
to each fabric filter and record the weight in 15-minute block
averages. The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be
1 percent of the weight being measured. The owner or
operator must verify the calibration of the device every 3 months.
(ii) To monitor the 3-hour block average lime injection rate (lb/
hr), determine and record the average injection rate for each 3-hour
period using the procedure in Sec. 63.1512(p)(3). The owner or operator
also must record the injection schedule for each 3-hour period.
(iii) To monitor the average injection rate (lb/ton of feed),
calculate and record the average lime injection rate for each operating
cycle or time period used in the performance test using the procedure
in Sec. 63.1512(p)(4). The owner or operator also must record the
injection schedule for each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
(j) Total reactive chlorine flux injection rate. These requirements
apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace (with or without
add-on air pollution control devices) or in-line fluxer.
(1) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, operate, and
maintain a device to continuously measure and record the weight of
gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected to each affected source or
emission unit.
(i) The monitoring system must record the weight for each 15-minute
block period over the same operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
(ii) The accuracy of the weight measurement device must be
1 percent of the weight being measured.
(iii) The owner or operator must verify the calibration of the
device every 3 months.
(2) The owner or operator must calculate and record the gaseous or
liquid reactive flux injection rate (kg/Mg or lb/ton) for each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using the
procedure in Sec. 63.1512(o).
(3) The owner or operator must record, for each 15-minute block
period during each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test, the time, weight, and identity of each addition of:
(i) Gaseous or liquid reactive chloride flux other than chlorine;
and
(ii) Solid reactive chloride flux.
(4) The owner or operator must calculate and record the total
reactive chlorine flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time
period used in the performance test using the procedure in
Sec. 63.1512(o).
(k) Chip dryer. These requirements apply to the owner or operator
of a chip dryer with emissions controlled by an afterburner.
(1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all materials
charged to the unit for each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
(2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance
with the applicable operational standard for charge materials in
Sec. 63.1506(f)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(i).
(l) Dross-only furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of a dross-only furnace.
(1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all materials
charged to each unit for each operating cycle or time period used in
the performance test.
(2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance
with the applicable operational standard for charge materials in
Sec. 63.1506(i)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(ii).
(m) In-line fluxers using no reactive flux. These requirements
apply to the owner or operator of an in-line fluxer that uses no
reactive flux materials.
(1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all flux
gases, agents, and materials in an operating log for each operating
cycle of the in-line fluxer.
(2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance
with the operational standard for no reactive flux materials in
Sec. 63.1506(l) for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification
must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(vi).
(n) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices.
These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace
(including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit)
using add-on air pollution control devices.
(1) The owner or operator must record in an aluminum level
operating log for each charge of a sidewell furnace that the level of
molten metal was above the top of the passage between the side well and
hearth during reactive flux injection.
(2) The owner or operator must record in a flux materials operating
log for each charge that no reactive flux was added to a furnace hearth
where hearth emissions are not controlled.
(3) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance
for the operational standards in Sec. 63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month
reporting period. Each certification must contain the information in
Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iii).
(o) Group 1 furnace without add-on air pollution control devices.
These requirements apply to the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace
(including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit)
not equipped with add-on air pollution control devices.
(1) The owner or operator must develop in consultation with the
applicable permitting authority a written site-specific monitoring plan
as part of the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan that
addresses monitoring and compliance requirements for PM, HCl, and D/F
emissions.
(i) The owner or operator must submit the proposed site-specific
monitoring plan to the applicable permitting authority for review at
least 6 months prior to the date the initial performance test is
conducted or required to be conducted.
(ii) The permitting authority will review and approve or disapprove
a proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based on whether the
plan contains sufficient provisions to ensure continuing compliance
with applicable emission limits and demonstrates, based on documented
test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F
and the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data
must clearly demonstrate that emissions over the entire range of charge
and flux materials processed by the furnace are less than or equal to
the emission limit. The relationship between emissions and monitoring
parameters for each pollutant must be clearly demonstrated over the
entire range of charge and flux materials processed by the furnace.
(2) Each site-specific monitoring plan must document each work
practice, equipment/design practice, pollution prevention practice, or
other measure used to meet the applicable emission standards.
(3) Each site-specific monitoring plan must include provisions for
unit labeling as required in paragraph (c) of this section, feed/charge
weight measurement as required in paragraph (e) of this section and
flux weight

[[Page 7014]]

measurement as required in paragraph (j) of this section.
(4) Each site-specific monitoring plan for a melter/holder subject
to the clean charge emission standard in Sec. 63.1505(i)(3) must
include these requirements:
(i) The owner or operator must record the identity of all charge
materials for each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test; and
(ii) The owner or operator must submit a certification of
compliance with the applicable operational standard for clean charge
materials in Sec. 63.1506(n)(3) for each 6-month reporting period. Each
certification must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(iv).
(5) If a continuous emission monitoring system is included in a
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide
quality-assured measurements of actual or correlated pollutant
emissions in accordance with all applicable requirements of the general
provisions in subpart A of this part.
(6) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is included in a
site-specific monitoring plan, the plan must include provisions for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of the system to provide
quality-assured measurements of actual or correlated pollutant
emissions in accordance with all applicable requirements of this
subpart.
(7) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a scrap inspection
program for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace charge
materials, the plan must include provisions for the demonstration and
implementation of the program in accordance with all applicable
requirements in paragraph (p) of this section.
(8) If a site-specific monitoring plan includes a calculation
method for monitoring the scrap contaminant level of furnace charge
materials, the plan must include provisions for the demonstration and
implementation of the program in accordance with all applicable
requirements in paragraph (q) of this section.
(p) Scrap inspection program for group 1 furnace (including those
that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit) without add-on
air pollution control devices. A scrap inspection program must include:
(1) Procedures for scrap inspector training and certification. An
inspector training plan must contain:
(i) A description of steps for a correctly performed visual
inspection;
(ii) Field practice of procedure with scrap above and below the
definition of acceptable scrap;
(iii) An explanation of procedures to mark or segregate clean
scrap;
(iv) An explanation of procedures for visual sampling locations
within loads;
(v) An explanation of verification and validation procedures; and
(vi) Consequences of misclassification or failure to continually
validate.
(vii) Criteria for achieving inspector certification. This must
include designation by the owner or operator, completion of scrap
inspector training, and the demonstrated ability to correctly classify
scrap.
(2) Procedures for visual inspection, including:
(i) Inspection procedures for each load received, such as visual
inspection of transporting vehicle cargo area, review of relevant
shipping documentation, visual inspection of scrap after unloading,
inspection of those parts of the load consistent with representative
sampling, and marking, tagging, or segregating clean purchased scrap
from other scrap.
(ii) Criteria for certifying clean purchased scrap. These must
include meeting a set of visual criteria for qualifying scrap as
acceptable for use and inspection by a certified inspector.
(3) Procedures for representative sampling and measurements,
including:
(i) Procedures for subdividing and sampling within each load
received. These must include procedures for dividing the load into
segments for representative sampling, sampling from all volumes into
which the load was divided, and collection of specific sample sizes.
(ii) Analytical procedure for measuring oil and coatings content.
These must include composite samples stored in containers to protect
sample integrity, weighing of samples before and after processing to
the nearest 0.1 gram, chain of custody procedures for collection,
storage, and handling of samples, and a procedure for processing the
sample to drive off oil and coatings at a set of reproducible
standardized conditions. The sample collection and analytical
procedures must clearly demonstrate that the same results are achieved
when analyzing multiple samples from the same load including those
collected by different inspectors.
(iii) Procedure for visual scrap inspection validation (initial
qualification of the scrap inspection program). These must include
selection of loads for physical measurements and validation period
duration including procedures for selection of random samples without
the knowledge of visual inspectors, procedures to ensure collection of
sufficient number of samples within a reasonable time period for
physical measurements to provide statistical evidence of validation,
and procedures for inclusion of off-spec scrap loads to challenge
visual inspectors. The criteria for concluding visual inspections can
reject unacceptable scrap must include a clear definition of the visual
appearance and emissions potential of acceptable scrap. No scrap
classified as acceptable may generate emissions in excess of the
applicable emission limits during the validation period. The procedure
must clearly show that emission limits are not exceeded while
processing scrap over the entire range of contaminant levels used.
(iv) Procedures for repeating validation when initial attempts
fail. These must include a definition of the minimum time before a new
attempt at validation and reconsideration of the definition of
acceptable scrap, inspector training, or other procedural matters than
may ensure future success.
(v) Procedures for continuing scrap inspection verification
(continuing demonstration that scrap visual inspections can reject
scrap loads that do not meet the definition of acceptable scrap). These
must include periodic verification of visual inspection procedure by
physical measurements including a definition of verification intervals
and a procedure for determining verification frequency and the number
of repetitions. Criteria for verification of scrap inspection program
must include provisions to ensure that samples collected for physical
measurement meet the definition of acceptable scrap and that
revalidation is required for frequent failures of visual inspection
procedure.
(vi) Procedure for preparing charge mixtures of clean purchased
scrap with dirty scrap. These must include requirements for
measurements and blending. All blended scrap must be physically sampled
to verify the material meets the definition of acceptable scrap.
(vii) Recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with the
plan requirements and monitoring of process or operating parameters to
demonstrate continued compliance with all applicable emission limits
and operating requirements.
(q) Monitoring of scrap contamination level by calculation method
for group 1 furnace (including those that are part of a secondary
aluminum processing unit) without add-on air pollution control devices.
The owner or operator of a group 1 furnace dedicated to processing

[[Page 7015]]

a distinct type of furnace charge composed of scrap with a uniform
composition (such as rejected product from a manufacturing process for
which the coating-to-scrap ratio can be documented) may include a
program in the site-specific monitoring plan for determining,
monitoring, and certifying the scrap contaminant level using a
calculation method rather than a scrap inspection program. A scrap
contaminant monitoring program using a calculation method must include:
(1) Procedures for the characterization and documentation of the
contaminant level of the scrap prior to the performance test.
(2) Limitations on the furnace charge to scrap of the same
composition used in the performance test (through charge selection or
blending of coated scrap with clean charge).
(3) Operating, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure that no scrap with a contaminant level higher
than that used in the performance test is charged to the furnace.
(r) Group 2 furnace. These requirements apply to the owner or
operator of a new or existing group 2 furnace.
(1) The owner or operator must record the identity of all materials
charged to each furnace, including any nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/
nonHAP-generating fluxing materials or agents.
(2) The owner or operator must submit a certification of compliance
with the applicable operational standard for charge materials in
Sec. 63.1506(p) for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification
must contain the information in Sec. 63.1516(b)(2)(v).
(s) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must
calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of
PM, HCl, and D/F for each secondary aluminum processing unit on a daily
basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average, the owner or
operator must:
(1) Calculate and record the total weight of material charged to
each emission unit in the secondary aluminum processing unit for each
24-hour day of operation using the charge weight information required
in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Multiply the total charge weight for each emission unit for the
24-hour period by the emission rate (in lb/ton of feed) for that
emission unit as determined during the performance test to provide
emissions for each emission unit for the 24-hour period, in pounds.
(3) Divide the total emissions for each secondary aluminum
processing unit for the 24-hour period by the total material charged
over the 24-hour period to provide the daily emission rate for the
secondary aluminum processing unit.
(4) The 24-hour daily emission rate can be computed using Equation
4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.028

Where,

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

(5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for
each pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for each
pollutant over the three most recent consecutive days and dividing by
3.
(t) Alternative monitoring method. The following procedure is an
approved alternative method for monitoring the lime injection rate for
use by the owner or operator of a noncontinuous lime injection system
(i.e., lime is added manually to precoat the fabric filter).
(1) The owner or operator must record the time and mass of each
lime addition during each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
(2) Using the recorded measurements for the total weight of feed or
charge and the total weight of lime added, the owner or operator must
calculate and record the average lime addition rate (lb/ton of feed) by
dividing the total weight of lime added by the total weight of feed.
The average lime addition rate, over the same operating cycle or time
period used in the performance test, must not fall below the average
lime addition rate established during the performance test.

Table 1 to Sec. 63.1510.--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission
Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/operation/
Affected source/emission unit process Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources and emission Labeling................... Check monthly to confirm that labels are
units. intact and legible.
All affected sources and emission Emission capture and Annual inspection of all emission capture,
units with an add-on air pollution collection system. collection, and transport systems to ensure
control device. that systems continue to operate in
accordance with ACGIH standards.
All affected sources and emission Charge/feed weight......... Record weight of each charge; weight
units subject to production-based measurement device or other procedure
(lb/ton of feed) emission limits ^{a. accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3
months.
Scrap shredder with fabric filter.. Bag leak detector.......... Install and operate in accordance with
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance''; record voltage output from bag
leak detector.

COM........................ Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
collect data in accordance with subpart A of
40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
averages.

VE......................... Conduct and record results of 30-min daily
test in accordance with Method 9.
Chip Dryer with afterburner........ Afterburner operating Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
temperature. specifications; record average temperature
for each 15-min block; determine and record 3-
hr block averages.

[[Page 7016]]

Afterburner operation...... Annual inspection of afterburner internal
parts; complete repairs in accordance with
the O, M, & M plan.
Feed material.............. Record identity of charge daily; certify
charge materials every 6 months.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating Afterburner operating Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
kiln with afterburner and lime temperature. specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
injected fabric filter. block averages; determine and record 3-hr
block averages.
Afterburner operation...... Annual inspection of afterburner internal
parts; complete repairs in accordance with
the O, M, & M plan.
Bag leak detector.......... Install and operate in accordance with
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance''; record voltage output from bag
leak detector.
or
COM........................ Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
collect data in accordance with subpart A of
40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
averages.
Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating Lime injection rate and Inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs
kiln with afterburner and lime schedule. to verify that lime is free-flowing; record
injected fabric filter. results of each inspection. If blockage
occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days;
return to 8-hr inspections if corrective
action results in no further blockage during
3-day period.
Weight Measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
period; determine and record 3-hr block
average rate (lb/hr) and schedule or
Weight measurement device accuracy of %; calibrate every 3 months; record
weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
period; calculate and record rate (lb/ton of
feed) and schedule for each operating cycle
or time period used in the performance test
or:
Record feeder setting daily.
Fabric filter inlet Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
temperature. specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
block averages; detemine and record 3-hr
block averages.
Sweat furnace with afterburner..... Afterburner operating Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
temperature. specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
block averages; determine and record 3-hr
block averages.
Afterburner operation...... Annual inspection of afterburner internal
parts; complete repairs in accordance with
the O, M, & M plan.
Dross-only furnace with fabric Bag leak detector.......... Install and operate in accordance with
filter. ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
leak detector.

COM........................ Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
collect data in accordance with subpart A of
40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
averages.
Feed material.............. Record identity of each charge; certify charge
materials every 6 months.
Rotary dross cooler with fabric Bag leak detector.......... Install and operate in accordance with
filter. ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
leak detector.

COM........................ Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
collect data in accordance with subpart A of
40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
averages.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected Bag leak detector.......... Install and operate in accordance with
fabric filter (including those ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
that are part of a secondary Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
aluminum processing unit). leak detector.

COM........................ Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
collect data in accordance with subpart A of
40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
averages.
Fabric filter inlet Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
temperature. specifications; record temperature in 15-min
block averages; determine and record 3-hr
block averages.
In-line fluxer using no reactive Flux materials............. Record flux materials; certify every 6 months
flux. for no reactive flux.
In-line fluxer with lime-injected Reactive flux injection Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
that are part of a secondary time, weight and type of reactive flux added
aluminum processing unit) con't. or injected for each 15-min block period;
calculate and record total reactive flux
injection rate for each operating cycle or
time period used in performance test.

[[Page 7017]]

Lime injection rate and Inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs
schedule. to verify that lime is free-flowing; record
results of each inspection. If blockage
occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days;
return to 8-hr inspections if corrective
action results in no further blockage during
3-day period.
Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
period; determine and record 3-hr block
average rate (lb/hr) and schedule or:
Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
period; calculate and record rate (lb/ton of
feed) and schedule for each operating cycle
or time period used in the performance test
or:
Record feeder setting daily.
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected Bag leak detector.......... Install and operate in accordance with
fabric filter (including those ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
that are part of a secondary Guidance''; record output voltage from bag
aluminum processing unit). leak detector.

COM........................ Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
collect data in accordance with subpart A of
40 CFR 63; determine and record 6-min block
averages.
Lime injection rate and Inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs
schedule. to verify that lime is free-flowing; record
results of each inspection. If blockage
occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days;
return to 8-hr inspections if corrective
action results in no further blockage during
3-day period.
Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
period; determine and record 3-hr block
average rate (lb/hr) and schedule or:
Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibration every 3 months; record
weight of lime injected for each 15-min block
period; calculate and record rate (lb/ton of
feed) and schedule for each operating cycle
or time period used in performance test or:
Record feeder setting daily.
Reactive flux injection Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
time, weight and type of reactive flux added
or injected for each 15-min.
Group 1 furnace with lime injected Fabric filter inlet Continuous measurement device to meet EPA
fabric filter (including those temperature. specifications; record temperatures in 15-min
that are part of a secondary block averages; determine and record 3-hr
aluminum processing unit) con't. block averages.
Maintain molten aluminum Maintain aluminum level operating log; certify
level. every 6 months.
Fluxing in sidewell furnace Maintain flux addition operating log; certify
hearth. every 6 months.
Group 1 furnace without add-on Reactive flux injection Weight measurement device accuracy of 1%; calibrate every 3 months; record
part of a secondary aluminum time, weight and type of reactive flux added
processing unit). or injected for each 15-min block period;
calculate and record total reactive flux
injection rate for each operating cycle or
time period used in performance test.
Site-specific monitoring Demonstration of site-specific monitoring plan
plan (approved by to provide data and show correlation of
permitting agency). emissions across the range of charge and flux
materials and furnace operating parameters.
Feed material (melter/ Record identity of each charge; certify charge
holder). materials every 6 months.
Clean (group 2) furnace............ Charge and flux materials.. Record charge and flux materials; certify
every 6 months for clean charge and no
reactive flux.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a Chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, and in-line fluxers and
group 1 furnaces or melter/holders (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit).

Sec. 63.1511 Performance test/compliance demonstration general
requirements.

(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting a performance test
required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare and submit
a site-specific test plan meeting the requirements in Sec. 63.7(c) of
this part.
(b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial
compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as
described in Sec. 63.1515(b). The owner or operator must conduct each
performance test according to the requirements of the general
provisions in subpart A of this part and this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator must conduct each test while the affected

[[Page 7018]]

source or emission unit is operating at the highest production level
and, if applicable, at the highest fluxing rate and representative of
the range of materials processed by the unit.
(2) Each performance test for a continuous process must consist of
three separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted
for the time period specified in the applicable method or, in the
absence of a specific time period in the test method, for a minimum of
3 hours.
(3) Each performance test for a batch process must consist of three
separate runs; pollutant sampling for each run must be conducted over
the entire process operating cycle.
(4) Where multiple affected sources or emission units are exhausted
through a common stack, pollutant sampling for each run must be
conducted for a period of time for all affected sources or emission
units to complete one entire process operating cycle or for 24 hours,
whichever is shorter.
(5) Initial compliance with an applicable emission limit or
standard is demonstrated if the average of three runs conducted during
the performance test is less than or equal to the applicable emission
limit or standard.
(c) Test methods. The owner or operator must use the following
methods to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits or
standards:
(1) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for sample
and velocity traverses.
(2) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for velocity
and volumetric flow rate.
(3) Method 3 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for gas
analysis.
(4) Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for moisture
content of the stack gas.
(5) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
concentration of PM.
(6) Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for visible
emission observations.
(7) Method 23 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
concentration of D/F.
(8) Method 25A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
concentration of THC, as propane.
(9) Method 26A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
concentration of HCl. Where a lime-injected fabric filter is used as
the control device to comply with the 90 percent reduction standard,
the owner or operator must measure the fabric filter inlet
concentration of HCl at a point before lime is introduced to the
system.
(d) Alternative methods. The owner or operator may use an
alternative test method, subject to approval by the Administrator.
(e) Repeat tests. The owner or operator of new or existing affected
sources and emission units must conduct a performance test every 5
years following the initial performance test at the time of permit
renewal.
(f) Establishment of monitoring and operating parameter values. The
owner or operator of new or existing affected sources and emission
units must establish a minimum or maximum operating parameter value or
an operating parameter range for each parameter to be monitored as
required by Sec. 63.1510 that ensures compliance with the applicable
emission limit or standard. To establish the minimum or maximum value
or range, the owner or operator must use the appropriate procedures in
this section and submit the information required by Sec. 63.1515(b)(4)
in the notification of compliance status report. The owner or operator
may use existing data instead of the results of performance tests to
establish operating parameter values for compliance monitoring provided
each of the following conditions are met to the satisfaction of the
applicable permitting authority:
(1) The complete emission test report(s) used as the basis of the
parameter(s) is submitted.
(2) The same test methods and procedures as required by this
subpart were used in the test.
(3) The owner or operator certifies that no design or work practice
changes have been made to the source, process, or emission control
equipment since the time of the report.
(4) All process and control equipment operating parameters required
to be monitored were monitored as required in this subpart.

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

(a) Scrap shredder. The owner or operator must conduct performance
tests to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control system. If
visible emission observations is the selected monitoring option, the
owner or operator must record visible emission observations from each
exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM
emission test according to the requirements of Method 9 in appendix A
to part 60 of this chapter.
(b) Chip dryer. The owner or operator must conduct a performance
test to measure THC and D/F emissions at the outlet of the control
device while the unit processes only unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips.
(c) Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. The owner or operator
must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of THC, D/F, HCl,
and PM at the outlet of the control device.
(1) If the scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln is subject to
the alternative emission limits in Sec. 63.1505(e), the average
afterburner operating temperature in each 3-hour block period must be
maintained at or above 760 deg.C (1,400 deg.F) for the test.
(2) The owner or operator of a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating
kiln subject to the alternative limits in Sec. 63.1505(e) must submit a
written certification in the notification of compliance status report
containing the information required by Sec. 63.1515(b)(7).
(d) Group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices. The
owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that processes scrap other than
clean charge materials with emissions controlled by a lime-injected
fabric filter must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of PM
and D/F at the outlet of the control device, and emissions of HCl at
the outlet (for the emission limit) or the inlet and the outlet (for
the percent reduction standard).
(e) Group 1 furnace (including melter/holder) without add-on air
pollution control devices. In the site-specific monitoring plan
required by Sec. 63.1510(o), the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace
(including a melter/holder) without add-on air pollution control
devices must include data and information demonstrating compliance with
the applicable emission limits.
(1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge
material, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure
emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F at the furnace exhaust outlet.
(2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner
or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure
emissions of PM and HCl at the furnace exhaust outlet. A D/F test is
not required. Each test must be conducted while the group 1 furnace
(including a melter/holder) processes only clean charge.
(f) Sweat furnace. The owner or operator must measure emissions of
D/F from each sweat furnace at the outlet of the control device.
(g) Dross-only furnace. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure emissions of PM from each dross-only
furnace at the outlet of each control device while the unit processes
only dross.

[[Page 7019]]

(h) In-line fluxer. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure emissions of HCl and PM at the outlet of
the control device. If the in-line fluxer uses no reactive flux
materials, emission tests for PM and HCl are not required.
(i) Rotary dross cooler. The owner or operator must conduct a
performance test to measure PM emissions at the outlet of the control
device.
(j) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must
conduct performance tests as described in paragraphs (j)(1) through
(j)(3) of this section. The results of the performance tests are used
to establish emission rates in lb/ton for PM and HCl and g/Mg
for D/F emissions from each emission unit. These emission rates are
used for compliance monitoring in the calcuation of the 3-day, 24-hour
rolling average emission rates using the equation in Sec. 63.1510(r)
(Monitoring requirements). A performance test is required for:
(1) Each group 1 furnace processing only clean charge to measure
emissions of PM at the outlet of the control device and emissions of
HCl at the outlet (for the emission limit) or at the inlet and outlet
(for the percent reduction standard);
(2) Each group 1 furnace that processes scrap other than clean
charge to measure emissions of PM and D/F at the outlet of the control
device and emissions of HCl at the outlet of the control device (for
the emission limit) or at the inlet and outlet (for the percent
reduction standard); and
(3) Each in-line fluxer to measure emissions of PM and HCl at the
outlet of the control device.
(k) Feed/charge weight measurement. During the emission test(s)
conducted to determine compliance with emission limits in a kg/Mg (lb/
ton) format, the owner or operator of an affected source or emission
unit subject to an emission limit in a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed format
must measure (or otherwise determine) and record the total weight of
feed or charge to the affected source or emission unit for each of the
three test runs and calculate and record the total weight.
(l) Continuous opacity monitoring system. The owner or operator of
an affected source or emission unit using a continuous opacity
monitoring system must conduct a performance evaluation to demonstrate
compliance with Performance Specification 1 in appendix B to part 60 of
this chapter. Following the performance evaluation, the owner or
operator must measure and record the opacity of emissions from each
exhaust stack for all consecutive 6-minute periods during the PM
emission test.
(m) Afterburner. These requirements apply to the owner or operator
of an affected source using an afterburner to comply with the
requirements of this subpart.
(1) Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or operator
must conduct a performance evaluation for the temperature monitoring
device according to the requirements of Sec. 63.8 of this part and
sections 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Performance Specification 2 in
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
(2) The owner or operator must use these procedures to establish an
operating parameter value or range for the afterburner operating
temperature.
(i) Continuously measure and record the operating temperature of
each afterburner every 15 minutes during the THC and D/F performance
tests;
(ii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures
for the three test runs.
(iii) Determine and record the 3-hour block average temperature
measurements for the three test runs.
(n) Inlet gas temperature. The owner or operator of a affected
source or emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter must use
these procedures to establish an operating parameter value or range for
the inlet gas temperature.
(1) Continuously measure and record the temperature at the inlet to
the lime-injected fabric filter every 15 minutes during the HCl and D/F
performance tests.
(2) Determine and record the 15-minute block average temperatures
for the three test runs; and
(3) Determine and record the 3-hour block average of the recorded
temperature measurements for the three test runs.
(o) Flux injection rate. The owner or operator must use these
procedures to establish an operating parameter value or range for the
total reactive chlorine flux injection rate:
(1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid
reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl and D/F
test, determine and record the 15-minute block average weights, and
calculate and record the total weight of the gaseous or liquid reactive
flux for the three test runs.
(2) Record the identity, composition, and total weight of each
addition of solid reactive chloride flux for the three test runs.
(3) Determine the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate by
adding the recorded measurement of the total weight of chlorine in the
gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected and the total weight of
chlorine in the solid reactive chloride flux using Equation 5:

Wt=F1W1+F2W2

Where,

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

(4) Divide the weight of total chlorine usage (Wt) for
the three test runs by the recorded measurement of the total weight of
feed for the three test runs.
(5) If a solid reactive flux other than magnesium chloride is used,
the owner or operator must derive the appropriate proportion factor
subject to approval by the applicable permitting authority.
(p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected source or
emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter system must use these
procedures during the HCl and D/F tests to establish an operating
parameter value for the feeder setting, the 3-hour block average lime
injection rate (lb/hr), or the average lime injection rate for each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.
(1) Ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo is free-flowing at
all times.
(2) If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the feeder rate
setting, record the feeder setting for the three test runs. If the feed
rate setting varies during the runs, determine and record the average
feed rate from the three runs.
(3) If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the 3-hour block
average lime injection rate (lb/hr):
(i) Record the schedule at which lime is injected to the fabric
filter during each 3-hour period during each of the three test runs.
Determine the average injection schedule for the three test runs.
(ii) Continuously measure and record the weight of lime injected
(lbs) for each 15-minute period.
(iii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average weights for
the three test runs.
(iv) Determine and record the 3-hour block average lime injection
rate (lb/hr) of feed for the three test runs.
(4) If the owner or operator chooses to monitor the average lime
injection rate (lb/ton of feed):
(i) Record the schedule at which lime is added during each test
run. Determine the average schedule for the three test runs.

[[Page 7020]]

(ii) Continuously measure and record the weight of lime injected
for each 15-minute period.
(iii) Determine and record the 15-minute block average weights for
the three test runs.
(iv) Determine and record the total weight of injected lime for the
three test runs.
(v) Using the recorded measurements for the total weight of feed
and the total weights of injected lime, calculate and record the
average lime injection rate (kg/Mg or lb/ton of feed) by dividing the
total weight of lime injected by the total weight of feed for the three
test runs.
(q) Bag leak detection system. The owner or operator of an affected
source or emission unit using a bag leak detection system must submit
the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(6) as part of the
notification of compliance status report to document conformance with
the specifications and requirements in Sec. 63.1510(f).
(r) Labeling. The owner or operator of each affected source or
emission unit must submit the information described in
Sec. 63.1515(b)(3) as part of the notification of compliance status
report to document conformance with the operational standard in
Sec. 63.1506(b).
(s) Capture/collection system. The owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source or emission unit with an add-on control device
must submit the information described in Sec. 63.1515(b)(2) as part of
the notification of compliance status report to document conformance
with the operational standard in Sec. 63.1506(c).

Sec. 63.1513 Equations for determining compliance.

(a) THC emission limit. Use Equation 6 to determine compliance with
an emission limit for THC:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.029

Where,

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

(b) PM, HCl and D/F emission limits. Use Equation 7 to determine
compliance with an emission limit for PM, HCl, and D/F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.030

Where,

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

(c) HCl percent reduction standard. Use Equation 8 to determine
compliance with an HCl percent reduction standard:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.031

Where,

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

(d) Conversion of D/F measurements to TEQ units. To convert D/F
measurements to TEQ units, the owner or operator must use the
procedures and equations in ``Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update'' (EPA-625/3-89-
016), available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, NTIS no. PB 90-145756.
(e) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Use the procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) or the procedure in paragraph
(e)(4) of this section to determine compliance with emission limits for
a secondary aluminum processing unit.
(1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM emissions for a
secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-
weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit
(EcPM) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcPM) calculated using
Equation 1 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.032

Where,

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

(2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum
processing unit (EcHCl) is less than or equal to the
emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit
(LcHCl) calculated using Equation 2 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.033

Where,

EcHCl = The mass-weighted HCl emissions for the secondary
aluminum processing unit; and
EtiHCl = Measured HCl emissions for individual emission unit
i.

(3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted D/F
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum
processing unit is less than or equal to the emission limit for the
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcD/F) calculated using
Equation 3 in Sec. 63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE99.034

Where,

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

(4) As an alternative to using the equations in paragraphs (e)(1),
(e)(2), and (e)(3) of this section, the owner or operator may
demonstrate compliance for a secondary aluminum processing unit by
demonstrating that each existing group 1 furnace is in compliance with

[[Page 7021]]

the emission limits for a new group 1 furnace in Sec. 63.1505(i) and
that each existing in-line fluxer is in compliance with the emission
limits for a new in-line fluxer in Sec. 63.1505(j).

Sec. 63.1514 [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec. 63.1515 Notifications.

(a) Initial notifications. The owner or operator must submit
initial notifications to the applicable permitting authority as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.
(1) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of this part, the owner or
operator must provide notification for an area source that subsequently
increases its emissions such that the source is a major source subject
to the standard.
(2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of this part, the owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed affected source, or a source that
has been reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an
initial startup after the effective date of this subpart and for which
an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not
required under Sec. 63.5(d) of this part, must provide notification
that the source is subject to the standard.
(3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) of this part, the owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed major affected source that has an
initial startup after the effective date of this subpart and for which
an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is
required by Sec. 63.5(d) of this part must provide the following
notifications:
(i) Notification of intention to construct a new major affected
source, reconstruct a major source, or reconstruct a major source such
that the source becomes a major affected source;
(ii) Notification of the date when construction or reconstruction
was commenced (submitted simultaneously with the application for
approval of construction or reconstruction if construction or
reconstruction was commenced before the effective date of this subpart
or no later than 30 days of the date construction or reconstruction
commenced if construction or reconstruction commenced after the
effective date of this subpart);
(iii) Notification of the anticipated date of startup; and
(iv) Notification of the actual date of startup.
(4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of this part, after the
effective date of this subpart, an owner or operator who intends to
construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected source
subject to this subpart, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes
an affected source subject to this subpart must provide notification of
the intended construction or reconstruction. The notification must
include all the information required for an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction as required by Sec. 63.5(d) of this
part. For major sources, the application for approval of construction
or reconstruction may be used to fulfill these requirements.
(i) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable before
the construction or reconstruction is planned to commence (but no
sooner than the effective date) if the construction or reconstruction
commences after the effective date of this subpart; or
(ii) The application must be submitted as soon as practicable
before startup but no later than 90 days after the effective date of
this subpart if the construction or reconstruction had commenced and
initial startup had not occurred before the effective date.
(5) As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of this part, the owner or operator
must provide notification of any special compliance obligations for a
new source.
(6) As required by Secs. 63.9(e) and 63.9(f) of this part, the
owner or operator must provide notification of the anticipated date for
conducting performance tests and visible emission observations. The
owner or operator must notify the Administrator of the intent to
conduct a performance test at least 60 days before the performance test
is scheduled; notification of opacity or visible emission observations
for a performance test must be provided at least 30 days before the
observations are scheduled to take place.
(7) As required by Sec. 63.9(g) of this part, the owner or operator
must provide additional notifications for sources with continuous
emission monitoring systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems.
(b) Notification of compliance status report. Each owner or
operator must submit a notification of compliance status report within
60 days after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.1501. The
notification must be signed by the responsible official who must
certify its accuracy. A complete notification of compliance status
report must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(11) of this section. The required information may be
submitted in an operating permit application, in an amendment to an
operating permit application, in a separate submittal, or in any
combination. In a State with an approved operating permit program where
delegation of authority under section 112(l) of the Act has not been
requested or approved, the owner or operator must provide duplicate
notification to the applicable Regional Administrator. If an owner or
operator submits the information specified in this section at different
times or in different submittals, later submittals may refer to earlier
submittals instead of duplicating and resubmitting the information
previously submitted. A complete notification of compliance status
report must include:
(1) All information required in Sec. 63.9(h) of this part. The
owner or operator must provide a complete performance test report for
each affected source and emission unit. A complete performance test
report includes all data, associated measurements, and calculations
(including visible emission and opacity tests);
(2) The approved site-specific test plan and performance evaluation
test results for each continuous monitoring system (including a
continuous emission or opacity monitoring system);
(3) Unit labeling as described in Sec. 63.1506(b), including:
(i) Process type or furnace classification;
(ii) Applicable emission limit, operational standard, and control
method;
(iii) Parameters to be monitored and the acceptable range of each
monitored parameter; and
(iv) For existing group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers that are part
of a process train or a secondary aluminum processing unit,
identification of all emission units in the process train or secondary
aluminum processing unit.
(4) The compliant operating parameter value or range established
for each affected source or emission unit with supporting documentation
and a description of the procedure used to establish the value (e.g.,
lime injection rate/schedule, total reactive chlorine flux injection
rate/schedule, afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet
temperature), including the operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
(5) Design information and analysis, with supporting documentation,
demonstrating conformance with the requirements for capture/collection
systems in Sec. 63.1506(c).
(6) If applicable, analysis and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag
leak detection systems in Sec. 63.1510(f).
(7) Manufacturer specification or analysis documenting the design

[[Page 7022]]

residence time of no less than 1 second for each afterburner used to
control emissions from a scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln
subject to alternative emission standards in Sec. 63.1505(e);
(8) Approved site-specific monitoring plan for each group 1 furnace
with no add-on air pollution control device.
(9) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan and Startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, with revisions.
(10) If applicable, the approved site-specific secondary aluminum
processing unit emissions plan with supporting documentation
demonstrating compliance.
(11) If applicable, the quality improvement plan.

Sec. 63.1516 Reports.

(a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports. The owner or
operator must develop and implement a written plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of this part that contains specific procedures to be
followed for operating and maintaining the source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action
for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to
comply with the standard. The owner or operator shall also keep records
of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) of this part and record and
report if an action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is
not consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). In addition to the information required in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan must include:
(1) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction
and the time the malfunction began and ended; and
(2) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction of
a process or control device, including procedures for recording the
actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.
(b) Excess emissions/summary report. As required by
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part,
the owner or operator must submit semi-annual reports within 60 days
after the end of each 6-month period. Each report must contain the
information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of the general provisions in
subpart A of this part. When no exceedances of parameters have
occurred, the owner or operator must submit a report stating that no
excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
(1) A report must be submitted if any of these conditions occur
during a 6-month reporting period:
(i) The corrective action specified in the operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan for a bag leak detection system alarm was not
initiated within 1-hour.
(ii) The corrective action specified in the operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan for a continuous opacity monitoring exceedance was
not initiated within 1-hour.
(iii) The corrective action specified in the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan for visible emissions from a scrap
shredder was not initiated within 1-hour.
(iv) An excursion of a compliant process or operating parameter
value or range (e.g., lime injection rate/schedule or screw feeder
setting, total reactive chlorine flux injection rate/schedule,
afterburner operating temperature, fabric filter inlet temperature,
definition of acceptable scrap, or other approved operating parameter.
(v) An action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction was
not consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(vi) An affected source (including an emission unit in a secondary
aluminum processing unit) was not operated according to the
requirements of this subpart.
(vii) An exceedance of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission
limit for a secondary aluminum processing unit.
(2) Each report must include each of these certifications, as
applicable:
(i) For each chip dryer: ``Only unpainted/uncoated aluminum chips
were used as feedstock in any chip dryer during this reporting
period.''
(ii) For each dross-only furnace: ``Only dross was used as the
charge material in any dross-only furnace during this reporting
period.''
(iii) For each side-well group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution
control devices: ``Each furnace was operated such that the level of
molten metal remained above the top of the passage between the side
well and hearth during reactive fluxing and reactive flux was added
only to the sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device for PM, HCl, and D/F emissions during this
reporting period.''
(iv) For each group 1 melter/holder without add-on air pollution
control devices and using pollution prevention measures that processes
only clean charge material: ``Each group 1 furnace without add-on air
pollution control devices subject to emission limits in
Sec. 63.1505(i)(2) processed only materials of pure aluminum, including
molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying elements, uncoated
aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F) or higher, aluminum scrap
dried, delacquered, or decoated at 482 deg.C (900 deg.F) or higher, and
noncoated runaround scrap during this reporting period.''
(v) For each group 2 furnace: ``Only clean charge materials of pure
aluminum, including molten aluminum, T-bar, sow, ingot, alloying
elements, uncoated aluminum chips dried at 343 deg.C (650 deg.F or
higher), aluminum scrap dried, delacquered, or decoated at 482 deg.C
(900 deg.F) or higher, and noncoated runaround scrap were processed in
any group 2 furnace during this reporting period and no fluxing was
performed or all fluxing performed was conducted using only
nonreactive, nonHAP-containing/nonHAP-generating fluxing gases or
agents during this reporting period.''
(vi) For each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux: ``Only
nonreactive, nonHAP-containing, nonHAP-generating flux gases, agents,
or materials were used at any time during this reporting period.''
(3) The owner or operator must submit the results of any
performance test conducted during the reporting period, including one
complete report documenting test methods and procedures, process
operation, and monitoring parameter ranges or values for each test
method used for a particular type of emission point tested.
(c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual
certifications of compliance required by part 70 or 71 of this chapter,
the owner or operator must certify continuing compliance based upon the
following conditions:
(1) Any period of excess emissions, as defined in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, that occurred during the year were reported as
required by this subpart; and
(2) All monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements were
met during the year.

Sec. 63.1517 Records.

(a) As required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the general provisions in
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator shall maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) required by
the general provisions and this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of
records may be retained off site.
(2) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on
computer

[[Page 7023]]

disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche; and
(3) The owner or operator may report required information on paper
or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
(b) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b) of
this part, the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source
(including an emission unit in a secondary aluminum processing unit)
must maintain records of:
(1) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions
controlled by a fabric filter or a lime-injected fabric filter:
(i) If a bag leak detection system is used, the number of total
operating hours for the affected source or emission unit during each 6-
month reporting period, records of each alarm, the time of the alarm,
the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief
description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action(s)
taken.
(ii) If a continuous opacity monitoring system is used, records of
opacity measurement data, including records where the average opacity
of any 6-minute period exceeds 5 percent, with a brief explanation of
the cause of the emissions, the time the emissions occurred, the time
corrective action was initiated and completed, and the corrective
action taken.
(iii) If a scrap shredder is subject to visible emission
observation requirements, records of all Method 9 observations,
including records of any visible emissions during a 30-minute daily
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the emissions, the time
the emissions occurred, the time corrective action was initiated and
completed, and the corrective action taken.
(2) For each affected source with emissions controlled by an
afterburner:
(i) Records of 15-minute block average afterburner operating
temperature, including any period when the average temperature in any
3-hour block period falls below the compliant operating parameter value
with a brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the
corrective action taken; and
(ii) Records of annual afterburner inspections.
(3) For each affected source and emission unit subject to D/F and
HCl emission standards with emissions controlled by a lime-injected
fabric filter, records of 15-minute block average inlet temperatures
for each lime-injected fabric filter, including any period when the 3-
hour block average temperature exceeds the compliant operating
parameter value +14 deg. C (25 deg.F), with a brief explanation of the
cause of the excursion and the corrective action taken.
(4) For each affected source and emission unit with emissions
controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter:
(i) Records of inspections at least once every 8-hour period
verifying that lime is present in the feeder hopper or silo and
flowing, including any inspection where blockage is found, with a brief
explanation of the cause of the blockage and the corrective action
taken, and records of inspections at least once every 4-hour period for
the subsequent 3-days;
(ii) If lime feeder setting is monitored, records of daily
inspections of feeder setting, including records of any deviation of
the feeder setting from the setting used in the performance test, with
a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective
action taken.
(iii) If lime injection rate (lb/hr) is monitored, records of 15-
minute block average weight of lime and 3-hour block averages,
including records of any period when the 3-hour block average rate or
schedule falls below the compliant operating parameter value, with a
brief explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective
action taken;
(iv) If lime injection rate (lb/ton of feed) is monitored, records
of 15-minute block average weights for each operating cycle or time
period used in the performance test and lb/ton of feed calculations,
including records of any period the lime injection rate or schedule
falls below the compliant operating parameter value, with a brief
explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective action
taken;
(v) If lime addition rate for a noncontinuous lime injection system
is monitored pursuant to the approved alternative monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.1510(s), records of the time and mass of each
lime addition during each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test and calculations of the average lime addition rate
(lb/ton of feed).
(5) For each group 1 furnace (with or without add-on air pollution
control devices) or in-line fluxer, records of 15-minute block average
weights of gaseous or liquid reactive flux injection, total reactive
chlorine flux injection rate and calculations (including records of the
identity, composition, and weight of each addition of gaseous, liquid
or solid reactive chlorine flux), including records of any period the
rate exceeds the compliant operating parameter value and corrective
action taken.
(6) For each continuous monitoring system, records required by
Sec. 63.10(c) of this part.
(7) For each affected source and emission unit subject to an
emission standard in kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed, records of feed/charge (or
throughput) weights for each operating cycle or time period used in the
performance test.
(8) Approved site-specific monitoring plan for a group 1 furnace
without add-on air pollution control devices with records documenting
conformance with the plan.
(9) Records of all charge materials for each chip dryer, dross-only
furnace, and group 1 melter/holder without air pollution control
devices processing only clean charge.
(10) Operating logs for each group 1 sidewell furnace with add-on
air pollution control devices documenting conformance with operating
standards for maintaining the level of molten metal above the top of
the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux
injection and for adding reactive flux only to the sidewell or a
furnace hearth equipped with a control device for PM, HCl, and D/F
emissions.
(11) Operating logs for each in-line fluxer using no reactive flux
materials documenting each flux gas, agent, or material used during
each operating cycle.
(12) Records of all charge materials and fluxing materials or
agents for a group 2 furnace.
(13) Records of monthly inspections for proper unit labeling for
each affected source and emission unit.
(14) Records of annual inspections of emission capture/collection
and closed vent systems.
(15) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test
procedure.
(16) Current copy of all required plans, including any revisions,
with records documenting conformance with the applicable plan,
including:
(i) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
(ii) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan;
(iii) Site-specific secondary aluminum processing unit emission
plan (if applicable); and
(iv) Quality improvement plan (if applicable).
(17) For each secondary aluminum processing unit, records of total
charge weight for each 24-hour period and calculations of 3-day, 24-
hour rolling average emissions.

[[Page 7024]]

Other

Sec. 63.1518 Applicability of general provisions.

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

Sec. 63.1519 Delegation of authority.

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

Sec. 63.1520 [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to
Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-63.1(a)(4)............ General Applicability.... Yes
63.1(a)(5)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-63.1(a)(8)............ ......................... Yes
63.1(a)(9)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-63.1(a)(14).......... ......................... Yes
63.1(b).......................... Initial Applicability Yes..................... EPA retains approval
Determination. authority.
63.1(c)(1)....................... Applicability After Yes
Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2)....................... ......................... Yes..................... Some plants may be area
sources.
63.1(c)(3)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-63.1(c)(5)............ ......................... Yes
63.1(d).......................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(e).......................... Applicability of Permit Yes
Program.
63.2............................. Definitions.............. Yes..................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.1503.
63.3............................. Units and Abbreviations.. Yes
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(3)............ Prohibited Activities.... Yes
63.4(a)(4)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)....................... ......................... Yes
63.4(b)-63.4(c).................. Circumvention/ Yes
Severability.
63.5(a).......................... Construction and Yes
Reconstruction-
Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)....................... Existing, New, Yes
Reconstructed Sources-
Requirements.
63.5(b)(2)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-63.5(b)(6)............ ......................... Yes
63.5(c).......................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.5(d).......................... Application for Approval Yes
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(e).......................... Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction.
63.5(f).......................... Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction Based on
State Review.
63.6(a).......................... Compliance with Standards Yes
and Maintenance-
Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-63.6(b)(5)............ New and Reconstructed Yes
Sources-Dates.
63.6(b)(6)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)....................... ......................... Yes
63.6(c)(1)....................... Existing Sources Dates... Yes Sec. 63.1501 specifies
dates.
63.6(c)(2)....................... ......................... Yes
63.6(c)(3)-63.6(c)(4)............ ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)....................... ......................... Yes
63.6(d).......................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-63.6(e)(2)............ Operation & Maintenance Yes..................... Sec. 63.1510 requires
Requirements. plan.
63.6(e)(3)....................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f).......................... Compliance with Emission Yes
Standards.
63.6(g).......................... Alternative Standard..... No
63.6(h).......................... Compliance with Opacity/ Yes
VE Standards.
63.6(i)(1)-63.6(i)(14)........... Extension of Compliance.. Yes
63.6(i)(15)...................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)...................... ......................... Yes
63.6(j).......................... Exemption from Compliance Yes
63.7(a)-(h)...................... Performance Test Yes..................... Sec. 63.1511 requires
Requirements- repeat tests every 5
Applicability and Dates. years.
63.7(b).......................... Notification............. Yes
63.7(c).......................... Quality Assurance/Test Yes
Plan.
63.7(d).......................... Testing Facilities....... Yes
63.7(e).......................... Conduct of Tests......... Yes
63.7(f).......................... Alternative Test Method.. Yes
63.7(g).......................... Data Analysis............ Yes
63.7(h).......................... Waiver of Tests.......... Yes
63.8(a)(1)....................... Monitoring Requirements- Yes
Applicability.
63.8(a)(2)....................... ......................... Yes
63.8(a)(3)....................... ......................... No...................... [Reserved].

[[Page 7025]]

63.8(a)(4)....................... ......................... Yes
63.8(b).......................... Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes
63.8(c)(1)-63.8(c)(3).......... CMS Operation and Yes
Maintenance.
63.8(c)(4)-63.8(c)(8)............ ......................... Yes
63.8(d).......................... Quality Control.......... Yes
63.8(e).......................... CMS Performance Yes
Evaluation.
63.8(f)(1)-63.8(f)(5)............ Alternative Monitoring Yes..................... Sec. 63.1510 includes
Method. approved alternative
for non-continuous lime
injection systems.
63.8(f)(6)....................... Alternative to RATA Test. Yes
63.8(g)(1)....................... Data Reduction........... Yes
63.8(g)(2)....................... ....................... No...................... Sec. 63.1512 requires
five 6-min averages for
a scrap shredder.
63.8(g)(3)-63.8(g)(5)............ ....................... Yes
63.9(a).......................... Notification Requirements- Yes
Applicability.
63.9(b).......................... Initial Notifications.... Yes
63.9(c).......................... Request for Compliance Yes
Extension.
63.9(d).......................... New Source Notification Yes
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
63.9(e).......................... Notification of Yes
Performance Test.
63.9(f).......................... Notification of VE/ Yes
Opacity Test.
63.9(g).......................... Additional CMS Yes
Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-63.9(h)(3)............ Notification of Yes
Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)....................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-63.9(h)(6)............ ....................... Yes
63.9(i).......................... Adjustment of Deadlines.. Yes
63.9(j).......................... Change in Previous Yes
Information.
63.10(a)......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes
Applicability.
63.10(b)......................... General Requirements..... Yes..................... Sec. 63.1517 includes
additional
requirements.
63.10(c)(1)...................... Additional CMS Yes
Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-63.10(c)(4).......... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)...................... ....................... Yes
63.10(c)(6)...................... ....................... Yes
63.10(c)(7)-63.10(c)(8).......... ....................... Yes
63.10(c)(9)...................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)..................... ....................... Yes
63.10(c)(13)
63.10(c)(14)..................... ....................... Yes
63.10(d)(1)...................... General Reporting Yes
Requirements.
63.10(d)(2)...................... Performance Test Results. Yes
63.10(d)(3)...................... Opacity or VE Yes
Observations.
63.10(d)(4)...................... Progress Reports/Startup, Yes
63.10(d)(5) Shutdown, and
Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-63.10(e)(2).......... Additional CMS Reports... Yes
63.10(e)(3)...................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes
Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4)...................... COMS Data Reports........ Yes
63.10(f)......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes
Waiver.
63.11(a)-(b)..................... Control Device No...................... Flares not applicable.
Requirements.
63.12(a)-(c)..................... State Authority and Yes..................... EPA retains authority
Delegations. for applicability
determinations.
63.13............................ Addresses................ Yes
63.14............................ Incorporation by Yes..................... Chapters 3 and 5 of
Reference. ACGIH Industrial
Ventilation Manual for
capture/collection
systems.
63.15............................ Availability of Yes
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-1475 Filed 2-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Visit the Official Version

Document Information

Published:: 02/11/1999
Department:: Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:: Proposed Rule
Action:: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
Document Number:: 99-1475
Dates:: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule until April 12, 1999.
Pages:: 6946-7025 (80 pages)
Docket Numbers:: IL-64-2-5807, FRL-6217-2
RINs:: 2060-AE77: NESHAP: Secondary Aluminum Industry
RIN Links:: https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2060-AE77/neshap-secondary-aluminum-industry
PDF File:: 99-1475.pdf
Supporting Documents:: » Report (no cover letter attached), Source Emissions Testing of a Clean Charge, Salt Fluxed Melting Furnace Alcoa Tennessee Operations South Ingot Operation, prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation for Aluminum Company of America, Project No. 21827-0010, January 1997, 2 volumes [A-92-61 II-D-89]; » Letter and Attachment, R. Hovan, Envisage Environmental Incorporated, to M. Mantooth, IMCO Recycling of Ohio, October 24, 1995.. [A-92-61 II-D-70]; » Text, Chapter 3, Local Exhaust Hoods and Chapter 5, Exhaust System Design Procedure, in Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1998 [A-92-61 IV-J-2]; » Letter and attachment, R. Jacko, R. B. Jacko and Associates, to S. Bruntz, Commonwealth Aluminum, January 22, 1992, Enclosing report entitled, "Compliance Emission Test report for the North Casthouse Degas/Flux Units Baghouse and Dross cooling Baghouse for Commonwealth Aluminum, Lewisport, Kentucky," dated October 8-9, 1991 [A-92-61 II-D-18]; » Report, Secondary Aluminum Emission Test at Rochester Aluminum Smelting Corporation, Rochester, New York, Entropy, Incorporated, prepared for EPA, prepared by Entropy, Incorporated, contract no. 68-D2-0163, August 1995 [A-92-61 II-A-4]; » Legacy Index for Docket A-92-61; » National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production (Draft) [A-92-61 II-F-1]; » Particulate and Gaseous Emission Study - Volume 1 [A-92-61 II-D-76]; » Memorandum: Section 114 Information Collection Responses to First ICR mailed out May 1992 [A-92-61 II-D-98]; » Source Emissions Testing of Clean Charge, Salt Fluxed Melting Furnace, Volume I [A-92-61 II-D-89]
CFR: (36): 40 CFR 63.1511(a); 40 CFR 63.1506(b); 40 CFR 63.1516(b)(2)(iii); 40 CFR 63.1506(c); 40 CFR 63.1506(f)(3); More ...