Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034

Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket

EPA Docket Center (Air Docket)

U.S. EPA West, (MD-6102T),

Room B-108

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C.20460

Comments from the Steel Founders' Society of America (SFSA) on behalf of
steel foundries covered by the proposed regulations

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

General Comments

The proposed standard as published is a great disappointment to those of
us who have been working with U.S. EPA for more than ten years on the
development of the rule. The industry invested heavily in cooperating
with the agency providing technical information, plant visits, comments
on approaches identified by the agency, and analysis of alternative
approaches including their potential environmental benefit. We were
encouraged to participate on the premise that our input would be
considered in formulating the rule. It appears from the proposed rule
that most of the industry effort was wasted. Much of the rule reflects a
lack of understanding of our process and industry and a lack of
consideration of the industry input. It is not clear why the agency
cooperated with industry in the preparation of the rule only to ignore
that cooperation. For example, a requirement for scrap selection is
included which was never discussed and is unlikely to provide any
benefit. If the promulgation of the rule is intended to provide the
agency with a strong negotiating position in litigation, then the
industry was poorly served by the invitation to provide input in the
rulemaking effort.

The proposed standard as published is a poor outcome for the agency, the
industry, and the environment. Many of the provisions burden industry
with trivial improvement in the environment. The tighter control of
particulates at melting is an example. Some of the provisions add only
burden with no demonstrated benefit. The requirement of scrap inspection
is an example. Some provisions create an incentive to avoid requirements
by adopting practices that increase emissions. The requirement to
control emissions in scrap preheating is an example. Some provisions
create uncertainty that will cause difficulty in complying or
enforcement. Determining applicability is an example. Some of the
provisions compromise safety and worker health. The requirements of
capture and control in pouring is an example. In all, it is not clear
that this proposed rule will achieve the goal of reducing hazardous air
pollutants but will create regulatory burdens. The energy used in
afterburners, air flow energy requirements, disincentives to adopt
practices or make improvements that trigger added requirements are
examples.

The proposed standard treats steel foundries in the same rule as iron
foundries. Since steel foundries are a separate source category , this
combination requires adequate justification. It is not clear why the
categories were combined in a common rule except to reduce the effort
required on the part of the agency in rule making. Steel foundries were
not analyzed separately to see if the similarities justified the
consolidation of categories. They were not even called out as a
subcategory in the rule. The agency had worked with the industry to
delist steel foundries as a category since few steel foundries have the
possibility of being a major source and the few that had been identified
as potential major sources had agreed to become synthetic minor sources.
The agency dropped this effort without notifying the industry and then
included the steel foundries in a rule that they had not been involved
directly in developing. The differences in steel casting production and
iron casting production are significant and pervasive. Most large steel
foundries use electric arc melting while only few iron foundries do.
Steel is poured at higher temperatures than iron. Steel foundries use
different molding methods, different binder formulations, and different
pouring methods. In many ways, steel foundries which produce less than 1
million tons per year share as much in common with steel minimills that
use electric arc furnaces to produce almost 50 million tons a year as
they do with iron foundries. Steel minmills with their dramatically
larger scale production were identified as area sources by the agency
while steel foundries will be subject to the iron foundry rule. The
inclusion of steel foundries into the iron rule is unjustified and
inappropriate.

The proposed standard shows a lack of understanding of the industry. The
survey used to develop the rule has been misinterpreted in several
places. For example, most large furnaces do capture the particulate
during melting and have a partial capture during charging and tapping.
Most do not control or have incomplete capture during charging or
tapping. The rule does not recognize the partial capture of emissions
during tapping and charging and assumes that an affirmative response to
the survey on capture and control in those operations indicates
effective capture during these operations. The distinction between
pouring area and pouring station is unworkable and shows another
misunderstanding of the industry and its practices. The extension of
occasional visual inspection of incoming scrap to confirm compliance
with the purchase requirements has been used to justify a mandatory
scrap inspection program. The retirement of the two principal staff
members at EPA during the final formulation of the rule has caused the
agency to waste the industry investment of time and money in the
development of the rule and has resulted in a rule that lacks a basic
understanding of the industry to be affected.

This rule will require extensive revision if it is to comply with the
requirements of the legislation and the MACT practices of the regulated
industry.

63.7680 --

The combination of iron and steel foundries into a single rule is
unwarranted, unjustified, and indefensible. Iron and steel foundries
were identified as separate source categories by the agency . They are
different industries that serve separate markets, employ different
production methods, operate dissimilar equipment, and have distinct
permitting and environmental control technologies. The Agency had
recognized the lack of identified major sources in steel foundries and
had worked with the industry to delist the industry. This effort was
dropped by the Agency without comment and the steel foundries were
included in a rule that was designed for iron foundries. As a result,
the rule does not fit the steel foundry industry.

This combination was mentioned in the preamble and supported by two
assertions. On assertion is that," because of similarities in processes,
emissions, and controls." The other assertion is that, "Several
foundries pour both iron and steel."

The differences in processes, emissions and controls are significant and
demonstrate the need for separate rules. Steel foundries produce parts
for the railroad industry and other industrial equipment makers. Iron
foundries are heavily concentrated in automotive casting production and
cast pipe for construction. Because of the different markets served and
the different technical requirements of the metal poured steel and iron
foundries use different processes that have different emissions and
controls.

Iron foundries use cupolas and induction furnaces primarily to melt 9.97
million tons in 2001. The largest iron foundry is capable of exceeding
the entire steel foundry industry output in 2001. Steel foundries melt
using EAFs like minimills. Steel foundries that use green sand molding
do not use seacoal. Seacoal additions have been identified as the
largest source of HAPs in pouring, cooling and shakeout. For core making
and nobake molds, steel foundries use different chemical binders than
iron foundries. The higher production requirements in iron foundries
require fast set times and lower temperature decomposition. Large steel
castings require longer set times and higher temperature resistance.
Steel has a higher temperature to melt and a different chemical activity
that makes the emissions of steel foundries different than the emissions
from iron foundries. Steel foundries use different pouring techniques
often pouring large castings from bottom pour ladles compared to the lip
pour ladles pouring large numbers of small castings typical in iron
foundries. This makes the distinction between pouring areas and pouring
stations unclear.

Since iron castings require lower temperatures, some steel foundries
will make limited iron casting production. Since iron melting equipment
and manufacturing techniques cannot make steel, iron foundries do not
make steel castings. The rule was developed for iron foundries and is
now being applied to steel foundries without any analysis of the
appropriateness of the provisions for steel foundries. For example, the
use of Argon Oxygen Decarburization vessels, AODs, is common in large
steel foundries but not mentioned in the rule. Another example is the
application of iron melting standards to steel when the steel mill
standards would be more pertinent.

Steel foundries have their own separate technical committees,
associations, specifications, and customers. They use supplies that are
not used by iron foundries for mold and core making, melting, and
finishing. They use processes that are different from iron foundries and
have different controls for their emissions. Combining steel and iron
foundries will impose requirements on steel foundries that were not
developed as required by the legislation, reflecting the true MACT for
steel foundry production. This imposes an unfair burden on steel
foundries when the legislation was intended to require each source
category to meet the performance of the average of the best 12% of that
source category, not some other related source category.

Steel Foundries should not be included in the iron foundry rule. The
agency included steel foundries in the rule developed on the analysis of
the iron foundry industry and practices. Steel foundries were being
considered for delisting but this action was dropped by the agency.
During the development of the rule steel foundries were not considered
since the industry and agency believed that delisting was appropriate.
The agency declined to promulgate a MACT rule for EAF producers of steel
in minimills where a typical plant produces more than a million tons of
steel a year. The steel industry in the U.S. made about 100 million tons
in 2001. The minimills using large EAF melting produced more than 47
million tons. The entire steel foundry industry only produced 0.778
million tons in 2001. While the EAF melting in minimills of 47 million
tons is not covered by a MACT rule the steel foundry industry melting
0.778 million tons is covered by this rule.

It seems clear that the Agency has failed to develop a rule for steel
foundries as directed by the legislation and is trying to combine the
steel foundries with iron foundries to eliminate this failure. This is
clearly unjustified and unwarranted.

Steel foundries should be delisted through an agreement with potential
major sources to be synthetic minor sources. At the least, steel
foundries should be separated and a MACT appropriate for the industry
base on the actual practices used in production be developed..

63.7681-

The determination of applicability based on this section is an
unreasonable burden in the rule especially on small businesses. The lack
of guidance from the Agency invites regulatory harassment of plants that
have determined themselves not to be major sources. While the Agency
contents that they are knowledgeable enough about the industry and their
emissions to write the rule, they are unwilling to use this same
knowledge to provide guidance on applicability. Clearly there are many
small plants that are not subject to the rule because they are not major
sources but the Agency requires that they prove the negative and opens
them up to arbitrary enforcement actions to prove their own
determination. Without the Agency identifying the sources of emissions
to be considered and a method of establishing applicability, the burden
is imposed not only on major sources, or even large sources, but on all
sources to make a determination. This includes all the small business in
the category, over 200 steel foundries. Without guidance, regulatory
agencies may misapply the rule and trigger large costs on unregulated
sources that are small businesses.

Sources that are large but not major are also unreasonably burdened by
the rule. What level of determination is required to demonstrate that
they are not a covered source? What level of confidence is adequate? How
much testing is necessary? What factors can be used?

The Agency estimates 100 sources to be covered by the rule. Clearly they
made an applicability determination. Why would they not provide added
guidance in the rule? How can the Agency estimate the costs and benefit
of the rule absent a clear idea of applicability? If they do have a
clear understanding of the applicability determination and are confident
in using it to establish the rule, why are they unwilling to include it
in the rule?

The Agency must promulgate a rule that covers the emissions of major
sources cover by the rule, why can it not use the regulated activities
as a basis for determining applicability?

63.7682-

The definitions used for terms in this section are not clear. For
example, if molten metal from a cupola is added to a channel induction
furnace that also receives solid scrap, is this a holding or melting
furnace? Is it covered by the rule? If it is how much solid material can
be added to a holding furnace before it becomes a melting furnace? All
furnaces have some level of solid addition. Is an AOD vessel a holding
furnace or a melting furnace? It only receives molten metal and is used
for refining.. Ladle metallurgy stations are cover in the rule for
integrated steel mills but this rule is silent on treatment.

The distinction between pouring area and pouring station is not
workable. Molds and metal are both moved in most foundry operations. How
cold must a mold be before it can be moved and the pouring operation is
still classified as a pouring area?

The added requirements on new sources will create a disincentive to
upgrade and update facilities. This will make locating future operations
in the domestic economy costly. It will prevent new large operations
with better emissions controls to be cost prohibitive. It creates an
incentive to construct and operate small unregulated plants instead of
large regulated operations. It creates incentives to export major
casting production to other regions that are less regulated.

63.7690-

\(a\)

(1) The level of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) is
    too low. The limit for ancillary metal handling operations for steel
    processing for integrated iron and steel making manufacturing 40 CFR
    Part 63 July 13,2001 vol. 66, No. 135, page 36855 paragraph 63.7790
    establishes in Table 1 item 9 a limit of 0.007 gr/dscf. For steel
    melting in a Basic Oxygen Process Furnace BOPF, Table 1 item 8. sets
    for an existing operation a limit of 0.01 gr/dscf and a limit of
    0.0052 gr/dscf for new operations. These limits are to represent the
    best controlled source under realistic operating variations. The
    limit in the rule is not demonstrated in even the best controlled
    sources. For steel foundries, the limit for electric arc furnaces
    and induction furnaces should be set the same as steel mills at 0.01
    gr/dscf and not iron foundries. There is no justification for the
    control of emissions from scrap preheating. While the criteria
    pollutants may already require capture of particulate there is no
    reason to suspect that they are a source of HAPs and should be
    regulated in the rule. In fact scrap preheating would reduce organic
    emissions in melting operations if combustion occurs. Emission
    limits creates a disincentive to preheat that will increase not
    decrease HAP emissions as well as increase secondary pollutants
    because of lower energy efficiency..

(2) The rule mandates a 0.001 grains per dry standard cubic foot
    (gr/dscf) new source emission limit. The agency has not properly
    considered the variability inherent in process operations and
    control device performance when establishing this limit. Based on
    several court cases the EPA has been involved in (*National Lime
    Association v. EPA, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA,* and
    *Sierra Club v. EPA*), the court has set the standard for MACT
    floors at a level that is a reasonable estimate of the performance
    of the "best controlled similar unit" under the worst foreseeable
    circumstances. In the case of the 0.001 gr/dscf standard, EPA has
    set the standard using relatively new equipment under optimal
    conditions while the sources were operation at less than maximum
    capacity. Based on the reference to the steel making standard above,
    new sources should have a limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf not the proposed
    0.001 gr/dscf. This also is consistent with the current NSPS for
    EAF. Scrap preheaters should not be included in the requirement.

> (3), (4) This rule is unworkable and demonstrates a complete lack of
> understanding of industry practices and controls. Pouring molten steel
> in custom molds can be hazardous so safe access to the molds to pour
> is imperative. The collection efficiencies mandated and capture
> required are inconsistent with operational requirements. This section
> also shows the fundamental misunderstanding that pouring stations and
> pouring areas are basic to the structure of the industry. Molds and
> molten metal are both moved to bring them together in the pouring
> operation. With the proposed definitions, it is not clear how to
> classify many of the actual pouring operations in a steel foundry.
> Partial capture of emissions to control worker exposure during pouring
> or furnace tapping is the common practice. In response to the survey,
> many foundries indicated capture of emissions at these operations
> because some capture was occurring. The Agency interpreted the partial
> capture to avoid worker exposure as environmental control that was
> used to establish the rule. The partial capture is often permitted
> with limits to control criteria pollutants especially particulates.
> The tightening of criteria pollutant control as HAP control is
> inappropriate in pouring operations. The levels of control in the rule
> for existing and new sources are not based on best controlled sources
> in the category but on a fundamental misunderstanding of the foundry
> operation.

(6) The imposed control limit on scrap preheating is unjustified. There
    is no

> evidence that scrap preheating is a source of HAPs. There is no
> demonstration that this control limit will reduce HAPs or is a
> practice of the industry. The effect of the rule is to discourage the
> use of preheating which would lead to higher emissions of VOCs and
> increased energy use in the foundry.

(7) The rule is unsupported by technical data or any understanding of
    the

> industry. The production of large steel castings in floor mold
> precludes the capture of emissions without turning the plant into the
> hood and controlling the exhaust from the building. The controls to
> achieve this level of reduction or emission do not exist. The air flow
> requirements and capture efficiencies can not be met in a building.
>
> \(b\)
>
> \(1\) This capture for melting and pouring is unsafe and unattainable.
> The only approach possible is to use the building as a capture device
> and achieve the airflow required at each door. The energy to temper
> make up air, the ability to enter and leave the building, the power
> and energy required for air handling would be staggering. The large
> volume of air flow would cause the cast product to be defective
> creating inclusions. It would also dramatically increase costs due to
> additional electrode consumption from increased exposure to air. This
> requirement is unsupported by any technical or practice data.
> Ventilation is complex and a simple face velocity requirement fails to
> address the actual ventilation requirements.

63.7700-

> \(a\) (1) The mandatory scrap specification is not demonstrated to
> reduce HAPs. The Agency is imposing this requirement while
> acknowledging that it is an ineffective control and does not offset
> the capture and control requirements in melting areas. It provides a
> pretext for enforcement abuse since it is an open ended requirement
> with undefined criteria. Scrap specification is for the purpose of
> quality casting production and worker safety. The need to be free from
> lead or galvanizing is already a part of the purchase activity to
> achieve these goals. The rule only creates the opportunity for
> paperwork violations and arbitrary enforcement without any added
> reduction in HAPs. The scrap not used by major source foundries will
> be used in smaller facilities or in minimills not subject to the rule.
>
> \(2\) This is another requirement that demonstrates a lack of
> understanding on the part of the Agency in the formulation of the
> rule. Most purchased materials are occasionally inspected to ensure
> compliance with the purchase specifications. The Agency has used the
> occasional visual confirmation of specification compliance to create
> whole cloth a scrap inspection program that is mandatory. This
> occasional check on compliance is no justification for a record
> keeping, mandatory inspection of each scrap load. The Agency
> acknowledges that the inspection will not achieve compliance in the
> preamble, "visual inspections are only able to identify obvious
> off-specification materials that are on the top of the load." There is
> no demonstrated evidence that this will reduce HAPs. It is based on
> the false premise that foundries already inspect to reduce HAPs. It
> increase to opportunity for enforcement abuse without any clear
> benefit in reducing HAP emissions. It is unnecessary since the foundry
> has quality and safety requirements that already require scrap
> selection. Why should the rule mandate inspection and not allow
> alternate like purchase agreements? Why create a purchase
> specification that is left up to the foundry but require inspection?
> This is not required by the integrated iron and steel producers or the
> steel minimills which melt over 100 million tons of steel a year.
>
> \(3\) What is the basis for rejecting the use of oily turnings? If
> scrap preheating is used are they acceptable? If the foundry can
> purchase them degreased why would the foundry be unable to degrease
> them? Again, the Agency has created a new practice that has no
> demonstrated benefit and is requiring it as a part of the rule.
>
> \(b\) The Agency has invented mold ignition as a HAP control. There is
> no evidence that mold ignition controls HAPs. There is no data to show
> that this practice reduces HAP emissions. The record keeping,
> procedure development, and maintenance of the practice would be
> burdensome without any demonstrated benefit. Steel foundries do not
> have a practice of lighting off molds. The opportunity for regulatory
> abuse and harassing enforcement actions is high. How quickly must the
> mold be lit? How long must it burn? Does this depend on size or binder
> type? This is a provision unsupported by the data or current
> practices.
>
> \(e\) The use of naphthalene depleted solvents in binders for steel
> castings has not been shown to reduce HAPs. In fact, most of the
> provisions of the rule if demonstrated at all have been demonstrated
> in iron foundries not steel foundries. The imposition of unproven
> production formulations of binders on the steel foundry industry
> without any data demonstrating reductions in emissions is unjustified.
>
> \(f\) This provision is irrational. It imposes a cost on those who
> have already adopted the best practices. If you adopt an improvement
> after the rule you fulfill the requirements of the provision forever,
> but if you adopt the same practice before the rule you must conduct a
> study every 5 years. The feasibility language of the provision will be
> open to misunderstanding and arbitrary enforcement and permitting
> requirements. This is an undefined requirement with no clear
> compliance guidance.
>
> Raymond W. Monroe
>
> Executive Vice President
>
> Steel Founders' Society of America
>
> 205 Park Avenue
>
> Barrington, IL 60010
>
> Telephone: (847) 382-8240
>
> Email: monroe@sfsa.org