Vol. 80 Friday, 

No. 181 September 18, 2015 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary 

Aluminum Production; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56700 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544; FRL–9932–44– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ40 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR), and the rule review, we 

conducted for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category regulated 

under national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In 

this action, we are finalizing several 

amendments to the NESHAP based on 

the rule review. These final 

amendments include a requirement to 

report performance testing through the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); 

provisions allowing owners and 

operators to change furnace 

classifications; requirements to account 

for unmeasured emissions during 

compliance testing for group 1 furnaces 

that do not have add-on control devices; 

alternative compliance options for the 

operating and monitoring requirements 

for sweat furnaces; compliance 

provisions for hydrogen fluoride; 

provisions addressing emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM); and other 

corrections and clarifications to the 

applicability, definitions, operating, 

monitoring and performance testing 

requirements. These amendments will 

improve the monitoring, compliance 

and implementation of the rule. 

DATES: Effective date: This final action 

is effective on September 18, 2015. 

Compliance dates: The compliance 

date for the final amendments listed in 

40 CFR 63.1501(b) for existing 

secondary aluminum production 

affected sources is March 16, 2016. The 

compliance date for the final 

amendments listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(c) 

for existing affected sources is 

September 18, 2017. The owner or 

operator of a new affected source that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after February 14, 2012, 

must comply with all of the 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 

63.1501(b) and (c) by September 18, 

2015 or upon startup, whichever is later. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of September 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

1390; fax number: (919) 541–3207; and 

email address: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact 

James Hirtz, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact Scott Throwe, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–7013; and email 

address: throwe.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use 

multiple acronyms and terms in this 

preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

ACGIH American Conference of 

Government Industrial Hygienists 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

APCD air pollution control device 

AMOS ample margin of safety 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BACT best available control technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California Environmental 

Protection Agency 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

D/F dioxins and furans 

Dscf dry standard cubic feet 

Dscm dry standard cubic meters 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

g grams 

gr grains 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HCl hydrogen chloride 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

HI hazard index 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICR information collection request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

km kilometer 

lb pounds 

lbs/yr pounds per year 

LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAEL no observed adverse effects level 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OM&M operation, maintenance and 

monitoring 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PEL probable effect levels 

PM particulate matter 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RTR Risk and Technology Review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56701 

SAPU secondary aluminum processing unit 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SOP standard operating procedures 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TEQ toxicity equivalents 

THC total hydrocarbons 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology Fate, Transport and 

Ecological Exposure model 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UBC used beverage containers 

UF uncertainty factor 

m/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper prediction limit 

URE unit risk estimate 

Background Information. On February 

14, 2012, and December 8, 2014, the 

EPA proposed decisions based on the 

RTR and proposed revisions to the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP based on review of the rule. In 

this action, we are finalizing decisions 

and revisions to the rule. We summarize 

major comments we timely received 

regarding the proposed rule and provide 

responses in this preamble. A summary 

of all other public comments on the 

proposal and the EPA’s responses to 

those comments is available in the 

document, National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 

Aluminum Production. Summary of 

Public Comments and Responses on 

Proposed Rule (77 FR 8576, February 

14, 2012) and Supplemental Proposal 

(79 FR 72874, December 8, 2014), 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0544. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the 

regulatory language that shows the 

regulatory changes in this action is also 

available in the docket for the 

convenience of the reader. 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production source 

category in our February 14, 2012, and 

December 8, 2014, proposals? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction? 

D. What other changes have been made to 

the NESHAP? 

E. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

F. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

G. What materials are being incorporated 

by reference? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

C. Testing of Group 1 Furnaces That Do 

Not Have Add-on Pollution Control 

Devices 

D. Changing Furnace Classification 

E. Flow Rate Measurements and Annual 

Inspections of Capture/Collection 

Systems 

F. Compliance Dates 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL

ACTION

Source category NAICS 

code a

Primary Aluminum Production Facilities .......................................... 331312 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Facilities ...................................... 331314 

Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil 

Manufacturing Facilities .............. 331315 

Aluminum Extruded Product Manufacturing Facilities ....................... 331316 

Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing Facilities ................................ 331319 

Aluminum Die Casting Facilities ..... 331521 

Aluminum Foundry Facilities .......... 331524 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the secondary aluminum 

production source category. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will be available on the Internet 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 

of this final action at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum2nd/

alum2pg.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version at this 

same Web site. 

Additional information is available on 

the (RTR) Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, and links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit has affirmed this approach of 

implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A). NRC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA 

determines that the existing technology-based 

standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then 

the Agency is free to readopt those standards during 

the residual risk rulemaking.’’). 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by November 17, 

2015. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the Administrator that it 

was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration 

should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to both the 

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, we must identify categories 

of sources emitting one or more of the 

HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and 

then promulgate technology-based 

NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit, or have the 

potential to emit, any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of 

HAP. For major sources, these standards 

are commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards and must reflect the 

maximum degree of emission reductions 

of HAP achievable (after considering 

cost, energy requirements, and non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts). In developing MACT 

standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs 

the EPA to consider the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems, 

or techniques, including but not limited 

to those that reduce the volume of or 

eliminate HAP emissions through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials, or other modifications; 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or 

treat HAP when released from a process, 

stack, storage, or fugitive emissions 

point; are design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards; or 

any combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements, and which 

may not be based on cost 

considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT standards for existing sources 

can be less stringent than floors for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor, under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see 77 FR 8576 and 79 FR 

72874. 

B. What is the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

The EPA initially promulgated the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 

15690). The rule was amended on 

December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79808), 

September 3, 2004 (69 FR 53980), 

October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57513), and 

December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75320). The 

standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR. The existing Subpart RRR 

NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities that are major sources of HAP 

and that operate aluminum scrap 

shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap 

dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating 

kilns, group 1 furnaces, group 2 

furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only 

furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and 

secondary aluminum processing units 

(SAPUs). The SAPUs include group 1 

furnaces and in-line fluxers. The 

Subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP 

emissions from secondary aluminum 

production facilities that are area 

sources of HAP only with respect to 

emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from 

thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/

delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, 

group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and 

SAPUs. The secondary aluminum 

industry consists of approximately 161 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities, of which the EPA estimates 53 

to be major sources of HAP. Several of 

the secondary aluminum facilities are 

co-located with primary aluminum, coil 

coating, and possibly other source 

category facilities. Natural gas boilers or 

process heaters may also be co-located 

at a few secondary aluminum facilities. 

The standards promulgated in 2000 

established emission limits for 

particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate 

for metal HAP, total hydrocarbons 

(THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56703 

2The capture efficiency of 66.67 percent was 

rounded to 67 percent. 

other than D/F, D/F expressed as 

toxicity equivalents (TEQ), and 

hydrogen chloride (HCl) as a surrogate 

for acid gases including hydrogen 

fluoride (HF), chlorine, and fluorine. 

HAP are emitted from the following 

affected sources: Aluminum scrap 

shredders (subject to PM standards), 

thermal chip dryers (subject to 

standards for THC and D/F), scrap 

dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating 

kilns (subject to standards for PM, D/F, 

HCl, and THC), sweat furnaces (subject 

to D/F standards), dross-only furnaces 

(subject to PM standards), rotary dross 

coolers (subject to PM standards), group 

1 furnaces (subject to standards for PM, 

HCl, and D/F), and in-line fluxers 

(subject to standards for PM and HCl). 

Group 2 furnaces and certain in-line 

fluxers are subject to work practice 

standards. For a more detailed 

description of the industry, processes, 

and the key requirements of the MACT 

rule, see the 2014 supplemental 

proposal (79 FR 72879, December 8, 

2014). 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category in our February 14, 

2012, and December 8, 2014, proposals? 

On February 14, 2012, the EPA 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 8576) for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR, 

that took into consideration the RTR 

analyses and other reviews of the MACT 

rule. We proposed that no amendments 

to Subpart RRR were necessary as a 

result of the RTR analyses. However, we 

proposed several amendments to correct 

and clarify existing requirements based 

on other reviews of the rule, including: 

• Proposed criteria and procedures 

for changing furnace classification (i.e., 

operating mode) and a limit on 

frequency of switching furnace 

classification of once per 6-month 

period, with an exception for control 

device maintenance requiring 

shutdown; 

• Proposed amendments to clarify 

that performance tests under multiple 

scenarios may be required in order to 

reflect the emissions ranges for each 

regulated pollutant; 

• Proposed compliance alternatives 

for testing of furnaces that do not have 

add-on air pollution control devices 

(also referred to as ‘‘uncontrolled 

furnaces’’), i.e., either temporary 

installation of American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) hooding or, for existing 

uncontrolled furnaces, use of an 

assumption of 67-percent capture 

efficiency for furnace exhaust. If the 

source fails to demonstrate compliance 

using the 67-percent capture efficiency 

assumption, the source would have to 

retest within 90 days using hooding that 

meets ACGIH guidelines or submit a 

petition that such hoods are impractical 

and propose alternative testing 

procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured fugitive emissions; 

• With regard to annual inspections 

of capture/collection systems, proposed 

codification of our existing 

interpretation that annual hood 

inspections include flow rate 

measurements using EPA Reference 

Methods 1 and 2; 

• Proposed removal of exemptions 

from the requirement to comply with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart RRR emission 

standards during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), 

clarification of related provisions, and 

an alternative method for demonstrating 

compliance with certain emission limits 

during startup and shutdown; 

• Proposed requirement for electronic 

submission of test results to increase the 

ease and efficiency of data submittal 

and improve data accessibility; and 

• Proposed compliance date for 

existing affected sources to comply with 

the proposed amendments within 90 

days after publication of the final rule. 

In the 2012 proposal, we also 

proposed several other corrections and 

clarifications of the rule on the 

following topics based on 

recommendations and suggestions from 

individual representatives from state 

regulatory agencies and industry, as 

well as based on EPA experience, to 

correct errors in the rule and to help 

clarify the intent and implementation of 

the rule: 

• ACGIH Guidelines; 

• Testing worst-case scenarios; 

• Lime injection rate; 

• Flux monitoring; 

• Cover flux; 

• Capture and collection system 

definition; 

• Bale breakers; 

• Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS); 

• Sidewell furnaces; 

• Testing representative units; 

• Initial performance tests; 

• Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 

kiln and scrap shredder definitions; 

• Group 2 furnace definition; 

• HF emissions compliance; 

• SAPU definition; 

• Clean charge definition; 

• Residence time definition; 

• SAPU feed/charge rate; 

• Dross-only versus dross/scrap 

furnaces; 

• Applicability of rule to area 

sources; 

• Altering parameters during testing 

with new scrap streams; 

• Controlled furnaces that are 

temporarily idled for 24 hours or longer; 

and 

• Annual compliance certification for 

area sources. 

In the December 8, 2014, 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 72874), 

we presented a revised risk review and 

a revised technology review. Similar to 

the 2012 proposal, we found risks due 

to emissions of air toxics to be 

acceptable from this source category and 

we identified no cost-effective controls 

under the updated AMOS analysis or 

the technology review to achieve further 

emissions reductions. We proposed no 

revisions to the emission standards 

based on the revised risk and 

technology review. However, in the 

2014 supplemental proposal, we 

supplemented and modified several of 

the proposed technical corrections and 

rule clarifications from the 2012 

proposal, including the following: 

• Revised proposed limit on the total 

number of furnace operating mode 

changes (i.e., frequency) of four times in 

any 6-month period, with the ability of 

sources to apply to the appropriate 

authority for additional furnace 

operating mode changes; 

• Revised wording in proposed 40 

CFR 63.1511(b)(1) related to worst-case 

scenario testing clarifying under what 

conditions the performance tests are to 

be conducted; 

• Revised proposed compliance 

requirements for performance testing of 

uncontrolled furnaces, such that if a 

source: (1) Chooses to use an 

assumption of 67-percent 2 capture/

collection efficiency, instead of 

installing temporary hooding according 

to ACGIH guidelines, and (2) fails to 

demonstrate compliance using the 67- 

percent efficiency assumption, then the 

source must either retest using ACGIH 

hooding within 180 days (rather than 

the 90 days specified in the 2012 

proposal) or petition the appropriate 

authority within 180 days that installing 

ACGIH hooding is impractical and 

propose alternative testing procedures 

that will minimize unmeasured 

emissions; 

• Revised proposed requirement that 

emission sources comply with the 

emissions limits at all times, including 

periods of SSM. Proposed definitions of 

startup and shutdown as well as an 

additional alternative method for 

demonstrating compliance with certain 

emission limits during startup and 

shutdown; 

• Revised proposed requirements for 

annual inspection of capture/collection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

systems to allow additional compliance 

options; 

• Revised proposed compliance dates 

of 180 days for certain requirements and 

2 years for other requirements; and 

• Revised operating and monitoring 

requirements for sweat furnaces to allow 

an additional compliance option. 

In addition, we withdrew our 2012 

proposal to include provisions 

establishing an affirmative defense in 

light of a recent court decision vacating 

an affirmative defense in one of the 

EPA’s CAA section 112(d) regulations. 

NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 

2014) (vacating affirmative defense 

provisions in CAA section 112(d) rule 

establishing emission standards for 

Portland cement kilns). 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category. This action also 

finalizes changes to the NESHAP, 

including technical corrections and rule 

clarifications as well as alternative 

compliance options. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

There are no rule amendments based 

on the risk review for this source 

category. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

There are no rule amendments based 

on the technology review for this source 

category. 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We have eliminated the SSM 

exemption in this rule. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has 

established standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. We have also revised 

Appendix A to Subpart RRR of part 63 

(the General Provisions applicability 

table) in several respects as is explained 

in more detail below. For example, we 

have eliminated the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We have 

also eliminated and revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting that is 

related to the SSM exemption as 

described in detail in the proposed rule 

and summarized again here. 

In establishing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, has not 

established alternate emission standards 

for those periods. 

We are finalizing amendments to 

eliminate provisions that exempt 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with the otherwise applicable CAA 

section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. As explained in 

the 2012 proposal and 2014 

supplemental proposal, because the 

scrap processed at secondary aluminum 

production facilities is the source of 

emissions, we expect emissions during 

startup and shutdown would be no 

higher, and most likely significantly 

lower, than emissions during normal 

operations since no scrap is processed 

during those periods. The final 

amendments include alternative 

methods for demonstrating compliance 

with applicable emission limits that are 

expressed in units of pounds per ton of 

feed/charge, or microgram (mg) TEQ or 

nanogram (ng) TEQ per megagram (Mg) 

of feed/charge, based on emissions 

during startup and shutdown and, 

alternatively, demonstrating compliance 

by keeping records that show that 

during startup and shutdown, the feed/ 

charge rate was zero, the flux rate was 

zero, and the affected source or 

emission unit was heated with 

electricity, propane, or natural gas as the 

sole sources of heat or was not heated. 

See 40 CFR 63.1513(f). 

We are also finalizing definitions for 

the periods of startup and shutdown to 

account for the fact that many furnaces 

are batch operations and are often in a 

standby condition that, under the 

proposed definitions, might have been 

considered to be shutdown. The final 

definition of shutdown recognizes that 

shutdown begins when the addition of 

feed/charge is halted, the heat sources 

are removed, and product is removed 

from the equipment to the greatest 

extent practicable, and ends when the 

equipment cools to near ambient 

temperature. The final definition 

recognizes that, after tapping, most 

furnaces (tilting furnaces are an 

exception) retain a molten metal heel 

and are not emptied completely. In the 

final amendments, startup is defined as 

beginning with equipment warming 

from a shutdown and ending at the 

point that feed/charge or flux is 

introduced. 

Other SSM-related changes include: 

• Revising 40 CFR 63.1510(s)(2)(iv), 

63.1515(b)(10), 63.1516(a), 

63.1516(b)(1)(v), and 63.1517(b)(16)(i) to 

reflect the revised requirements related 

to periods of SSM; 

• Revising 40 CFR 63.1506(a)(5) to 

incorporate the general duty from 40 

CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) to minimize emissions; 

and 

• Adding 40 CFR 63.1516(d), and 40 

CFR 63.1517(b)(18) and (19) to require 

reporting and recordkeeping associated 

with periods of SSM. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 

(Definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under CAA section 112, 

emissions standards for new sources 

must be no less stringent than the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources 

generally must be no less stringent than 

the average emission limitation 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 

percent of sources in the category. There 

is nothing in section 112 that directs the 

Agency to consider malfunctions in 

determining the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the 

best performing sources when setting 

emission standards. As the D.C. Circuit 

has recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be 

treated in the same manner as the type 

of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A 

malfunction is a failure of the source to 

perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ 

and no statutory language compels the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56705 

3The Court’s reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil 

judicial actions. The Court noted that ‘‘EPA’s ability 

to determine whether penalties should be assessed 

for Clean Air Act violations extends only to 

administrative penalties, not to civil penalties 

imposed by a court.’’ Id. 

4Although the NRDC case does not address the 

EPA’s authority to establish an affirmative defense 

to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, the EPA is not including such 

an affirmative defense in the final rule. As 

explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary, and in the 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we withdrew the proposed affirmative defense. 

Moreover, assessment of penalties for violatiing 

caused by malfunctions in administrative 

proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent, Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both 

the Administrator and the Court to take specified 

criteria into account when assessing penalties). 

EPA to consider such events in setting 

CAA section 112 standards. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree, and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shutdown, the 

source would go from 99-percent 

control to zero control until the control 

device was repaired. The source’s 

emissions during the malfunction 

would be 100 times higher than during 

normal operations. As such, the 

emissions over a 4-day malfunction 

period would exceed the annual 

emissions of the source during normal 

operations. As this example illustrates, 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are not reflective of 

(and significantly less stringent than) 

levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. 

It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 

112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable, 

and not caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation. 40 

CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. In summary, the EPA 

interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, CAA section 112 is 

reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

In the 2012 proposed rule, the EPA 

proposed to include an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations 

caused by malfunctions. Although the 

EPA recognized that its case-by-case 

enforcement discretion provides 

sufficient flexibility, it proposed to 

include the affirmative defense to 

provide a more formalized approach 

and more regulatory clarity. See 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 

1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding 

that an informal case-by-case 

enforcement discretion approach is 

adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 

1977) (requiring a more formalized 

approach to consideration of ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the proposed 

regulatory affirmative defense 

provisions, if a source could 

demonstrate in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. After the 2012 

proposal, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated an affirmative defense in 

one of the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 

1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating 

affirmative defense provisions in CAA 

section 112 rule establishing emission 

standards for Portland cement kilns). 

The Court found that the EPA lacked 

authority to establish an affirmative 

defense for private civil suits and held 

that under the CAA, the authority to 

determine civil penalty amounts in such 

cases lies exclusively with the courts, 

not the EPA. Specifically, the Court 

found: ‘‘As the language of the statute 

makes clear, the courts determine, on a 

case-by-case basis, whether civil 

penalties are ‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC 

at 1063 (‘‘[U]nder this statute, deciding 

whether penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a 

given private civil suit is a job for the 

courts, not EPA.’’).3 In light of NRDC, 

the EPA in the 2014 supplemental 

proposal withdrew the proposed 

affirmative defense and is not including 

a regulatory affirmative defense 

provision in the final rule. As explained 

above, if a source is unable to comply 

with emissions standards as a result of 

a malfunction, the EPA may use its caseby-case enforcement discretion to 

provide flexibility, as appropriate. 

Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, 

in an EPA or citizen enforcement action, 

the court has the discretion to consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. 

NRDC at 1064 (arguments that violation 

were caused by unavoidable technology 

failure can be made to the courts in 

future civil cases when the issue arises). 

The same is true for the presiding officer 

in EPA administrative enforcement 

actions.4

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Appendix A to Subpart 

RRR of 40 CFR part 63) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the 

general duty to minimize emissions. 

Some of the language in that section is 

no longer necessary or appropriate in 

light of the elimination of the SSM 

exemption. We have instead added 

general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 

63.1506(a)(5) that reflects the general 

duty to minimize emissions while 

eliminating the reference to periods 

covered by an SSM exemption. The 

current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

characterizes what the general duty 

entails during periods of SSM. With the 

elimination of the SSM exemption, 

there is no need to differentiate between 

normal operations, startup and 

shutdown, and malfunction events in 

describing the general duty. Therefore, 

the language the EPA is promulgating 

for Subpart RRR does not include that 

language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). 

We are also revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 

requirements that are not necessary with 

the elimination of the SSM exemption 

or are redundant with the general duty 

requirement being added at 40 CFR 

63.1506(a)(5). 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Generally, these paragraphs require 

development of an SSM plan and 

specify SSM recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is 

removing the SSM exemptions. 

Therefore, affected units will be subject 

to an emission standard during such 

events. The applicability of a standard 

during such events will ensure that 

sources have ample incentive to plan for 

and achieve compliance and, thus, the 

SSM plan requirements are no longer 

necessary. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ The 

current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 

exempts sources from non-opacity 

standards during periods of SSM. As 

discussed above, the Court in Sierra 

Club vacated the exemptions contained 

in this provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some section 112 standards 

apply continuously. Consistent with 

Sierra Club, the EPA is revising 

standards in this rule to apply at all 

times. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(h)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ The 

current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) 

exempts sources from opacity standards 

during periods of SSM. As discussed 

above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated 

the exemptions contained in this 

provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some section 112 standards 

apply continuously. Consistent with 

Sierra Club, the EPA is revising 

standards in this rule to apply at all 

times. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance 

testing requirements. The EPA is instead 

adding a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.1513(f). The 

performance testing requirements we 

are adding differ from the General 

Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 

restated the SSM exemption and 

language that precluded startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. The 

revised performance testing provisions 

include alternative methods for 

demonstrating compliance with 

emission limits that are expressed in 

units of pounds per ton of feed/charge, 

or mg TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed/ 

charge. Compliance with such limits 

during startup and shutdown can be 

demonstrated using the emissions 

measured during startup and shutdown 

along with the measured feed/charge 

rate from the most recent performance 

test associated with a production rate 

greater than zero, or the rated capacity 

of the affected source if no prior 

performance test data are available. 

Alternatively, compliance can be 

demonstrated by keeping records that 

show that during startup and shutdown, 

the feed/charge rate was zero, the flux 

rate was zero, and the affected source or 

emission unit either was heated with 

electricity, propane, or natural gas as the 

sole sources of heat or was not heated. 

As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), we are 

requiring in 40 CFR 63.1511(b) that 

performance tests conducted under this 

subpart not be conducted during 

malfunctions because conditions during 

malfunctions are often not 

representative of normal operating 

conditions. The EPA is adding language 

in 40 CFR 63.1517(b)(19) that requires 

the owner or operator to record the 

process information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions are representative of startup 

and shutdown operations. Section 

63.7(e) requires that the owner or 

operator make available to the 

Administrator such records ‘‘as may be 

necessary to determine the condition of 

the performance test’’ available to the 

Administrator upon request, but does 

not specifically require the information 

to be recorded. The regulatory text the 

EPA is adding to this provision builds 

on that requirement and makes explicit 

the requirement to record the 

information. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table (Appendix A to Subpart 

RRR of 40 CFR part 63) entry for 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to 

‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the 

general duty and SSM plan 

requirements in those subparagraphs are 

not necessary in light of other 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 

good air pollution control practices (40 

CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 

requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.8((d)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘Yes, 

except for last sentence which refers to 

an SSM plan. SSM plans are not 

required.’’ The final sentence in 40 CFR 

63.8((d)(3) refers to the General 

Provisions’ SSM plan requirement 

which is no longer applicable. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA is promulgating that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional records for startup and 

shutdown periods. However, we are 

adding an additional recordkeeping 

provision at 40 CFR 63.1517(b)(18) for 

owners and operators that wish to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

limits that are expressed in units of 

pounds per ton of feed/charge, or mg 

TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed/charge, 

during startup and shutdown by 

keeping records that show that during 

startup and shutdown no feed/charge or 

flux was added, only clean fuel was 

used, or no fuel was used. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56707 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during a 

malfunction. The EPA is adding such 

requirements to 40 CFR 63.1517. The 

regulatory text we are adding differs 

from the General Provisions it is 

replacing in that the General Provisions 

require the creation and retention of a 

record of the occurrence and duration of 

each malfunction of process, air 

pollution control, and monitoring 

equipment. The EPA is applying the 

recordkeeping requirement to any 

failure to meet an applicable standard 

and is requiring that the source record 

the date, time, and duration of the 

failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column ‘‘Applies to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

When applicable, the provision requires 

sources to record actions taken during 

SSM events when actions were 

inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 

requirement is no longer appropriate 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required. The requirement previously 

applicable under 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to 

minimize emissions and record 

corrective actions is now applicable by 

reference to 40 CFR 63.1517. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ to 

‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision 

requires sources to record actions taken 

during SSM events to show that actions 

taken were consistent with their SSM 

plan. The requirement is no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ to 

‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision 

allows an owner or operator to use the 

affected source’s SSM plan or records 

kept to satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements of the SSM plan, specified 

in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) 

through (12). The EPA is eliminating 

this requirement because SSM plans 

will no longer be required, and, 

therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer 

serves any useful purpose. 

We are revising the General 

Provisions table entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5), including (5)(i) and (ii), by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column ‘‘Applies 

to RRR’’ to ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) 

describes the reporting requirements for 

SSM. We will no longer require owners 

or operators to determine whether 

actions taken to correct a malfunction 

are consistent with an SSM plan or 

report when actions taken during a 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction were 

not consistent with an SSM plan, 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required. To replace the General 

Provisions reporting requirement, the 

EPA is adding reporting requirements to 

40 CFR 63.1516(d). The replacement 

language differs from the General 

Provisions requirement in that it 

eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 

stand-alone report. We are requiring 

sources that fail to meet an applicable 

standard at any time to report the 

information concerning such events in 

the semi-annual excess emission report 

already required under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR. The report must contain 

the emission unit ID, monitor ID, 

pollutant or parameter monitored, 

beginning date and time of event, end 

date and time of the event, cause of the 

deviation or exceedance, corrective 

action taken, a list of the affected source 

or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. Examples of 

such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available, or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters. 

The EPA is promulgating this 

requirement to ensure that there is 

adequate information to determine 

compliance, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to 

meet an applicable standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during a failure to 

meet an applicable standard. 

D. What other changes have been made 

to the NESHAP? 

This section provides a summary of 

other changes to the NESHAP. More 

details and further explanation of these 

changes are provided in section IV of 

this preamble and/or in the response to 

comments document, which is available 

in the docket for this action. These other 

changes include the following: 

1. Clarification of applicability of rule 

provisions to area sources. We are 

finalizing revisions to clarify which 

operating, monitoring, performance 

testing, and annual compliance 

certification requirements apply to area 

sources. 

2. Addition or revision of definitions. 

We added definitions for bale breaker, 

capture and collection system, HF, 

round top furnace, startup, shutdown, 

tap, and total reactive fluoride flux 

injection rate. We revised the 

definitions for aluminum scrap 

shredder, clean charge, cover flux, 

group 2 furnace, HCl, residence time, 

scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating 

kiln, and SAPU. 

3. Revision of provisions to include 

HF. We have revised 40 CFR 63.1503, 

63.1505, 63.1506, 63.1510, 63.1511, 

63.1512, 63.1513, 63.1516, and Table 1 

of the rule to address HF in the emission 

standards and in the performance 

testing, monitoring, and compliance 

demonstration provisions for group 1 

furnaces. 

4. Addition of criteria for changing 

furnace classifications and an allowed 

frequency of such changes of four times 

in any 6-month period. We are 

finalizing requirements for changing 

furnace classifications in 40 CFR 

63.1510, 63.1514, and 63.1517 of the 

final rule. 

5. Revisions to operating 

requirements. We are finalizing 

revisions to operating requirements with 

respect to the following: 

• Provisions for controlled group 1 

furnaces that will be idled for at least 24 

hours in 40 CFR 63.1506(m)(7) and 

Table 2; 

• A requirement for lime injection 

rate verification in 40 CFR 63.1506(m), 

63.1510(i)(4), 63.1512, and Table 3; and 

• Alternative compliance options for 

sweat furnaces in lieu of following the 

ACGIH Guidelines. 

6. Revisions to monitoring 

requirements. We are finalizing 

revisions to monitoring requirements 

with regard to: 

• Annual inspections of capture/

collection systems in 40 CFR 

63.1510(d)(2); 

• Flux monitoring in 40 CFR 

63.1510(j)(4) and in Table 3 of the rule; 

• Bag leak detection system 

maintenance in 40 CFR 63.1510(f)(1)(ii) 

and in Table 3; 

• Monitoring of sidewell group 1 

furnaces in 40 CFR 63.1510(n)(1); 

• SAPU compliance with emission 

factors in 40 CFR 63.1510(t); and 

• Compliance options for sweat 

furnaces in 40 CFR 63.1510(d)(3) as an 

alternative to the monitoring 

requirements to conduct annual flow 

rate measurements using EPA Methods 

1 and 2. 

As a result of comments on the 2012 

proposal, we are not finalizing an 

amendment to require a 60-day approval 

period for operation, maintenance and 

monitoring (OM&M) plans. 

7. Revisions to requirements for 

performance testing/compliance 

demonstration. We are finalizing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

revisions with respect to the following 

performance testing requirements: 

• References to ACGIH guidelines in 

40 CFR 63.1502 and 63.1506 and Tables 

2 Table 3 for capture and collection 

systems; 

• Section 63.1511(b)(1) and 

63.1511(b)(6) to clarify the conditions 

under which performance tests must be 

conducted in order to be representative 

of testing for a ‘‘worst case’’ scenario 

and that multiple tests may be required 

to characterize all regulated pollutants; 

• Section 63.1511(b)(3) to clarify 

testing requirements for batch processes; 

• Section 63.1511(f)(6) to clarify that 

testing for representative units means 

that all performance tests must be 

conducted on the same affected source 

or emission unit; 

• Section 63.1511(b) to allow 180 

days to conduct initial performance 

testing; 

• Section 63.1511(g)(5) with respect 

to altering parameters during 

performance testing with new feed/

charge types; and 

• Paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1512(e) to 

clarify the requirement to account for 

unmeasured emissions during 

performance testing of uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces, including: 

Æ Requirements for installation of 

temporary hooding for performance 

testing on uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

or, for existing uncontrolled furnaces, 

use of 80-percent capture efficiency 

assumption; 

Æ testing requirements for new 

uncontrolled furnaces; 

Æ conditions where installation of 

temporary hooding that meets ACGIH 

guidelines is impractical; and 

Æ procedures to minimize 

unmeasured emissions during 

performance testing of uncontrolled 

furnaces. 

8. Revisions to recordkeeping 

provisions. We are finalizing revisions 

to 40 CFR 63.1517(b)(4)(ii) with respect 

to lime injection rates, 40 CFR 

63.1517(b)(14) with respect to records 

related to the annual inspection of 

capture/collection systems, and 40 CFR 

63.1517(b)(19) with respect to records 

related to startups and shutdowns. 

E. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The revisions to the MACT standards 

being promulgated in this action are 

effective on September 18, 2015. 

The compliance date for the final 

amendments listed in 40 CFR 

63.1501(d) for existing secondary 

aluminum production affected sources 

is March 16, 2016. The compliance date 

for the final amendments listed in 40 

CFR 63.1501(c) for existing affected 

sources is September 18, 2017. The 

owner or operator of a new affected 

source that commences construction or 

reconstruction after February 14, 2012, 

must comply with all of the 

requirements of this subparat by 

September 18, 2015 or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

In the 2012 proposal, we proposed 

that existing affected sources comply 

with the proposed amendments within 

90 days of the publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. As 

described in detail in the 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 72906), 

commenters stated that the proposed 90- 

day compliance deadline was 

insufficient for sources to comply with 

certain provisions of the final rule. 

These commenters recommended 

compliance dates of 2 to 3 years due to 

the need to conduct operational 

planning, maintenance planning, 

reprogramming of data acquisition 

systems, design and installation of 

hooding equipment, and/or negotiations 

with permitting authorities to gain 

performance test plan approvals. The 

EPA agreed that the proposed 90-day 

compliance deadline was insufficient. 

However, we did not agree that sources 

needed 2 to 3 years to comply with all 

the requirements. Based on 

consideration of the comments and 

further evaluation of the amount of time 

needed for each of the requirements, the 

2014 supplemental proposal included 

extended compliance periods of 180 

days for the revisions listed in 40 CFR 

63.1501(d). In this action, we are 

finalizing compliance deadlines of 180 

days after publication of this final rule 

in the Federal Register for the revisions 

in 40 CFR 63.1501(d). For the 

amendments related to HF emissions 

(40 CFR 63.1505(i)(4) and (k)(2)), testing 

of existing uncontrolled furnaces (40 

CFR 63.1512(e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6) and 

(e)(7)), and changing furnace 

classification (40 CFR 63.1514), the EPA 

agrees that a longer time to comply is 

appropriate and proposed a compliance 

period of 2 years in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. In this action, 

we are finalizing a compliance deadline 

of 2 years after publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register for the 

provisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(e). 

F. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

As stated in the preamble of the 2012 

proposal, the EPA is taking a step to 

increase the ease and efficiency of data 

submittal and data accessibility. 

Specifically, the EPA is requiring 

owners and operators of secondary 

aluminum production facilities to 

submit electronic copies of certain 

required performance test reports. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

proposal, data will be collected by 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

As discussed in the proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic 

performance test report tool called the 

ERT. The ERT will generate an 

electronic report package which will be 

submitted to the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site at www.epa.gov/cdx. 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by cutting back on 

recordkeeping costs as the performance 

test reports that are submitted to the 

EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be kept in hard copy. 

As mentioned in the proposed 

preamble, state, local, and tribal 

agencies will benefit from more 

streamlined and accurate review of 

performance test data that will be 

available on the EPA WebFIRE database. 

The public will also benefit. Having 

these data publicly available enhances 

transparency and accountability. For a 

more thorough discussion of electronic 

reporting of performance tests using 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble of the proposal. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

tribal agencies, and the EPA significant 

time, money, and effort while improving 

the quality of emission inventories, air 

quality regulations, and enhancing the 

public’s access to this important 

information. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56709 

G. What materials are being 

incorporated by reference? 

In this final rule, the EPA is including 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is incorporating by 

reference the following documents 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

63.14: 

• ASTM D7520–13, Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere, approved December 1, 

2013. 

• EPA–625/3–89–016, Interim 

Procedures for Estimating Risks 

Associated with Exposures to Mixtures 

of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and 

-Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 

1989 Update, March 1989, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition, 

1998, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’ 

and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design 

Procedure.’’ American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

• Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice for Design, 27th 

Edition, 2010, American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we identified ASTM D7520–09 as an 

alternative method for the currently 

required EPA Method 9. Since then, the 

method has been updated to incorporate 

specific requirements that we included 

as add-ons to our broad alternative test 

method approval of the 2009 version of 

the ASTM method. We do not expect 

any concerns changing to the new 

version because the additional 

requirements are handled by the 

vendors of the digital camera/software 

systems. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

For each issue, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions 

and amendments, and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document, which is available in the 

docket. 

A. Residual Risk Review for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a revised residual risk review 

and presented the results of this review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and AMOS, 

in the December 8, 2014, supplemental 

proposal (79 FR 72874). The results of 

the revised risk assessment are 

presented briefly below in Table 2 and 

in more detail in the residual risk 

document, Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Secondary Aluminum Source 

Category in Support of the 2015 Risk 

and Technology Review Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results. 

The results of the chronic baseline 

inhalation cancer risk assessment 

indicate that, based on estimates of 

current actual emissions, the maximum 

individual risk (MIR) posed by the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category from major sources and 

from area sources was less than 1-in-1 

million. The estimated cancer incidence 

was slightly higher for area sources 

compared to the major sources due to 

the larger number of area sources 

nationwide. The total estimated cancer 

incidence from secondary aluminum 

production sources from both major and 

area sources based on actual emission 

levels was 0.002 excess cancer cases per 

year, with emissions of D/F, 

naphthalene, and Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons (PAH) contributing 48 

percent, 31 percent, and 11 percent, 

respectively, to this cancer incidence. In 

addition, we note that there are no 

excess cancer risks greater than or equal 

to 1-in-1 million as a result of inhalation 

exposure to actual emissions from this 

source category over a lifetime. The 

maximum modeled chronic non-cancer 

hazard index (HI) target organ-specific 

HI (TOSHI) value for the source category 

for both major and area sources based 

on actual emissions was estimated to be 

0.04, with HCl emissions from group 1 

furnaces accounting for 99 percent of 

the HI. 

TABLE 2—SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities modeled 

Maximum individual cancer 

risk (in 1-million) a Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases/yr) d

Estimated 

population at 

increased 

risk of cancer ≥ 1-in-1 

million d

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI b

Worst-case maximum 

screening acute Based on non-cancer HQ c

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

level 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

Major Sources (52) ...................................... 0.6 4 0.0007 0 0.04 0.1 HQ(REL) = 0.7 (HF). 

HQ(AEGL1) = 0.4 (HCl). 

Area Sources (103) ...................................... 0.3 1 0.001 0 0.0003 0.001 NA. 

Facility-wide (52 Major Sources) ................. 70 NA 0.05 760,000 1 NA NA. 

a Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category for major sources and D/F emissions from the source 

category for area sources. b Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category for both actual and allowable emissions is 

the respiratory system. cThere is no acute dose-response value for D/F. Thus an acute hazard quotient (HQ) value for area sources was not calculated. The maximum off-site HQ acute 

value of 0.7 for actuals is driven by emissions of hydrofluoric acid. See section III.A.3 of the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 72885) for explanation of acute 

dose-response values. Acute assessments are performed based on actual emissions. dThese estimates are based upon actual emissions. 

When considering MACT-allowable 

emissions, the inhalation cancer MIR 

was estimated to be up to 4-in-1 million, 

driven by emissions of D/F compounds, 

naphthalene, and PAHs from the scrap 

dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln. The 

estimated potential cancer incidence 

considering allowable emissions for 

both major and area sources was 

estimated to be 0.014 excess cancer 

cases per year, or 1 case every 70 years. 

Approximately 3,400 people were 

estimated to have cancer risks greater 

than or equal to 1-in-1 million 

considering allowable emissions from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

secondary aluminum production plants. 

When considering MACT-allowable 

emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value was estimated to be 

0.1, driven by allowable emissions of 

HCl from the group 1 furnaces. 

b. Acute Risk Results. Our screening 

analysis for worst-case acute impacts 

based on actual emissions indicates no 

pollutants exceeding an HQ value of 1 

based upon the REL. 

c. Multipathway Risk Screening 

Results. Results of the worst-case Tier 1 

screening analysis indicated that 36 of 

the 52 major sources exceeded the 

persistent and bio-accumulative HAP 

(PB–HAP) emission cancer screening 

rates (based on estimates of actual 

emissions) for D/F, and 3 of the 52 

major sources exceeded the Tier 1 

screen value for PAHs. Regarding area 

sources, 60 of the 103 area sources 

exceeded the PB–HAP emission cancer 

screening rates (based on estimates of 

actual emissions) for D/F. For the 

compounds and facilities that did not 

screen out at Tier 1, we conducted a 

Tier 2 screen. The Tier 2 screen replaces 

some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 

with site-specific data, including the 

location of fishable lakes and local 

precipitation, wind direction, and 

speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to 

rely on high-end assumptions about 

consumption of local fish and locally 

grown or raised foods (adult female 

angler at 99th percentile consumption 

for fish for the subsistence fisherman 

scenario and 90th percentile 

consumption for locally grown or raised 

foods for the farmer scenario). It is 

important to note that, even with the 

inclusion of some site-specific 

information in the Tier 2 analysis, the 

multipathway screening analysis is still 

a very conservative, health-protective 

assessment (e.g., upper-bound 

consumption of local fish and locally 

grown and/or raised foods). In all 

likelihood, this analysis will yield 

results that serve as an upper-bound 

multipathway risk associated with a 

facility. 

While the screening analysis was not 

designed to produce a quantitative risk 

result, the factor by which the emissions 

exceed the threshold serves as a rough 

gauge of the ‘‘upper-limit’’ risks we 

would expect from a facility. Thus, for 

example, if a facility emitted a PB–HAP 

carcinogen at a level 2 times the 

screening threshold, we can say with a 

high degree of confidence that the actual 

maximum cancer risks will be less than 

2-in-1 million. Likewise, if a facility 

emitted a noncancer PB–HAP at a level 

2 times the screening threshold, the 

maximum noncancer hazard would 

represent an HQ less than 2. The high 

degree of confidence comes from the 

fact that the screens are developed using 

the very conservative (health-protective) 

assumptions that we describe above. 

Based on the Tier 2 cancer screening 

analysis, 25 of the 52 major sources and 

34 of the 103 area sources emitted D/F 

above the Tier 2 cancer screening 

thresholds for the subsistence fisher and 

farmer scenarios. The individual D/F 

emissions were all scaled based on their 

toxicity to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin and reported as TEQ. The 

subsistence fisher scenario for the 

highest risk facilities exceeded the D/F 

cancer threshold by a factor of 80 for the 

major sources and by a factor of 70 for 

the area sources. The Tier 2 analysis 

also identified 23 of the 52 major 

sources and 26 of the 103 area sources 

emitting D/F above the Tier 2 cancer 

screening thresholds for the subsistence 

farmer scenario. The highest exceedance 

of the Tier 2 screen value was 40 for the 

major sources and 20 for the area 

sources for the farmer scenario. 

We had only one major source 

emitting PAHs above the Tier 2 cancer 

screen value with an exceedance of 2 for 

the farmer scenario. All PAH emissions 

were scaled based on their toxicity to 

benzo(a)pyrene and reported as TEQ. 

A more refined Tier 3 multipathway 

screening analysis was conducted for 

six Tier 2 major source facilities. The six 

facilities were selected because the Tier 

2 cancer screening assessments for these 

facilities had exceedances greater than 

or equal to 50 times the screen value for 

the subsistence fisher scenario. The 

major sources represented the highest 

screened cancer risk for multipathway 

impacts. Therefore, further screening 

analyses were not performed on the area 

sources. The Tier 3 screen examined the 

set of lakes from which the fisher might 

ingest fish. Any lakes that appeared not 

to be fishable or not publicly accessible 

were removed from the assessment, and 

the screening assessment was repeated. 

After we made the determination the 

critical lakes were fishable, we analyzed 

plume rise data for each of the sites. The 

Tier 3 screen was conducted only on 

those HAP that exceeded the Tier 2 

screening threshold, which for this 

assessment were D/F and PAHs. Both of 

these PB–HAP are carcinogenic. The 

Tier 3 screen resulted in lowering the 

maximum exceedance of the screen 

value for the highest site from 80 to 70. 

Results for the other sites were all less 

than 70. The highest exceedance of the 

Tier 2 cancer screen value of 40 for the 

farmer scenario was also reduced in the 

Tier 3 screening assessment to a value 

of 30 for the major sources within this 

source category. 

Overall, the refined multipathway 

screening analysis for D/F and PAHs 

utilizing the Tier 3 screen predicted a 

potential lifetime cancer risk of 70-in-1 

million or lower to the most exposed 

individual, with D/F emissions from 

group 1 furnaces handling other than 

clean charge driving the risk. Cancer 

risks due to PAH emissions for the 

maximum exposed individual were less 

than 1-in-1 million. 

The chronic non-cancer HQ was 

predicted to be below 1 for cadmium 

compounds and 1 for mercury 

compounds. For lead, we did not 

estimate any exceedances of the Primary 

Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 

Further details on the refined 

multipathway screening analysis can be 

found in Appendix 8 of the Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

in Support of the 2015 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket. 

d. Environmental Risk Screening 

Results. We conducted an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category 

for the following seven pollutants: 

PAHs, mercury (methyl mercury and 

mercuric chloride), cadmium, lead, D/F, 

HCl, and HF. 

Of the seven pollutants included in 

the environmental risk screen, major 

sources in this source category emit 

PAHs, mercuric chloride, cadmium, 

lead, D/F, HCl, and HF. In the Tier 1 

screening analysis for PB–HAP, none of 

the individual modeled concentrations 

for any facility in the source category 

exceeded any of the ecological 

benchmarks (either the lowest-observedadverse-effect level (LOAEL) or no 

observed adverse effects level (NOAEL)) 

for PAHs, mercuric chloride, cadmium, 

and D/F. For lead, we did not estimate 

any exceedances of the Secondary Lead 

NAAQS. For HCl and HF, the average 

modeled concentration around each 

facility (i.e., the average concentration 

of all off-site data points in the 

modeling domain) did not exceed any 

ecological benchmark. In addition, each 

individual modeled concentration of 

HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site data point 

in the modeling domain) was below the 

ecological benchmarks for all facilities. 

Of the seven pollutants included in 

the environmental risk screen, area 

sources in this source category are 

regulated only for D/F. In the Tier 1 

screening analysis for D/F, none of the 

individual modeled concentrations for 

any facility in the source category 

exceeded any of the ecological 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56711 

5 In summarizing the key comments, we have 

indicated when a comment was submitted on the 

2014 supplemental proposal. Unless otherwise 

noted, the remaining comments were submitted on 

the 2012 proposed rule. 

benchmarks (either the LOAEL or 

NOAEL) for D/F. 

e. Facility-wide Risk Assessment 

Results. Considering facility-wide 

emissions at the 52 major sources, the 

MIR was estimated to be 70-in-1 million 

driven by arsenic and nickel emissions, 

and the chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value was calculated to be 1, driven by 

emissions of cadmium compounds. The 

above risks were driven by emissions 

from the potline roof vents at the colocated primary aluminum production 

operations. The Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category represents 

less than 1 percent of the inhalation 

risks from the facility-wide assessment 

based upon actual emissions. The risks 

due to primary aluminum production 

operations are being addressed in a 

separate RTR rulemaking for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category that EPA plans to finalize later 

this year. 

f. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? We 

conducted a proximity analysis during 

the development of the proposed rule, 

and that analysis is also being used in 

support of this final rule. We conclude 

that this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. However, the final 

rule will provide additional benefits to 

these demographic groups by improving 

the compliance, monitoring and 

implementation of the NESHAP. 

The detailed results of the proximity 

analyses can be found in the EJ 

Screening Report for Secondary 

Aluminum Area Sources and the EJ 

Screening Report for Secondary 

Aluminum Major Sources, which are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

No new information was received that 

would alter the results of the revised 

risk review presented in support of the 

2014 supplemental proposal, so no 

changes were made. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review, and what are our 

responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the revised risk assessment for 

the Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category. The following is a 

summary of some key comments and 

our responses to those comments. Other 

comments received and our responses to 

those comments can be found in the 

document titled, National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Secondary Aluminum 

Production Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses on Proposed 

Rule (77 FR 8576, February 14, 2012) 

and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 

72874, December 8, 2014), which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Comment: One commenter 5 stated 

that the EPA should reconsider its 

finding of acceptable risk and instead 

find risks unacceptable for the following 

reasons. 

The multipathway risk from D/F 

emissions: i.e., a lifetime cancer risk of 

up to 70-in-1 million for the mostexposed individual to emissions via a 

fish (‘‘fisher’’) route of exposure, and an 

additional cancer risk of up to 30-in-1 

million for the most-exposed individual 

to such emissions from a farm 

(‘‘farmer’’) route of exposure. These 

exposures add up to 100-in-1 million. 

The EPA has a policy of adding cancer 

risks to determine the most-exposed 

individual’s maximum risk. The EPA 

estimates cancer risks ‘‘as the sum of the 

risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP’’ 

because ‘‘[s]umming the risks of these 

individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach 

that was recommended by the EPA’s 

SAB in their 2002 peer review of the 

EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment.’’ 

79 FR 72886 and n.7 (citing National Air 

Toxic Assessment (NATA)—Evaluating 

the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data—a Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Advisory). The 

Agency has given no valid justification 

for not recognizing that the maximum 

cancer risk from multipathway exposure 

could be as high as 100-in-1 million, 

sufficient for the EPA to find risk 

unacceptable. Furthermore, the EPA has 

recognized that the inhalation-based 

cancer risk could be as high as 4 (based 

on allowable emissions), or 0.6 (based 

on so-called ‘‘actual’’ emissions). 

Adding this risk (whether 0.6 or 4) to 

100-in-1 million would exceed the 

EPA’s benchmark of 100-in-1 million. 

The EPA has provided no valid basis for 

not adding inhalation and multipathway 

cancer risks. The EPA should look at the 

whole picture of cancer risk, in view of 

its additive policy for cancer. Thus, 

together these data points show that the 

EPA should find total cancer risk from 

this source category to be unacceptable. 

Moreover, the EPA’s multipathway 

risk does not evaluate all persistent and/ 

or bioaccumulative pollutants, and, 

thus, its multipathway risk assessment 

is likely underestimating these risks. 

The EPA should evaluate all persistent, 

bioaccumulative, and toxics (PBTs) 

emitted by the secondary aluminum 

source category, including all HAP 

metals emitted (such as arsenic and 

nickel). 

In addition, if inhalation-based cancer 

risk is more than 3 times as high from 

allowable emissions (as from so-called 

‘‘actual’’ emissions), then 

multipathway-based cancer risk, which 

the EPA has not evaluated based on 

allowable emissions, is also likely to be 

more than 3 times as high, or at least 

higher than the numbers the EPA found. 

Thus, the fish-based risk could be as 

high as 210-in-1 million, and the farmbased risk could be as high as 90-in-1 

million; together, the maximum 

multipathway cancer risk the EPA 

should be considering for the mostexposed individual is 300-in-1 million. 

The EPA has given no valid justification 

for not considering allowable emissionsbased risk from multipathway exposure. 

Doing so would lead the Agency to find 

cancer risk from multipathway exposure 

to be well above 100-in-1 million. 

The commenter stated that the above 

analysis shows why, based on cancer 

risk alone, the EPA should find 

secondary aluminum plants’ current 

risk is unacceptable and, thus, set 

standards to reduce these plants’ D/F 

and other cancer-causing emissions. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

also found other health risks, including 

chronic non-cancer and acute risks, 

which only add more evidence of the 

harm the most-exposed individual faces 

from this source category. The 

commenter stated that, for example, the 

acute HQ from HF is 0.7, and from HCl 

is 0.4, which, added together, to 

consider the maximum acute risk, 

would be 1.1, above the level at which 

the EPA recognizes harm can occur. The 

commenter stated that the EPA has not 

added these risks, nor given any valid 

justification for not doing so, even 

though if there is an acute spike in 

emissions, it is just as likely that the 

most-exposed person would breathe 

various pollutants that may spike 

together—i.e., HCl, HF, and other 

pollutants, not just each pollutant 

individually. The commenter stated that 

the EPA’s acute HQ is likely too low. 

The commenter stated that it is also 

unclear whether the EPA has used the 

most current, most protective D/F 

reference doses and concentrations, 

including the 2012 D/F value of 7 × 

10 ¥10 milligram (mg)/kilogram (kg)-day, 

for chronic oral exposure; the EPA 

should confirm that it has used the best 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

available scientific information on 

reference values. The commenter stated 

that the EPA should follow the best 

available scientific approach to risk 

assessment, as shown in California’s 

risk assessment guidance manual and 

supporting scientific documents. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s arguments for finding risks 

to be unacceptable and have combined 

risk to the extent that it is appropriate 

to do so. We explain below and in the 

Residual Risk Assessment document, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, why we do not sum the risk 

results from the fisher and farmer 

scenarios in our multipathway analysis 

and why we do not combine the risk 

values from our inhalation assessment 

with those of the multipathway 

analysis. We also explain the scope of 

our multipathway analysis in terms of 

the pollutants, the source of their doseresponse values, and the emission 

levels. In addition, we explain below 

why we do not use a TOSHI approach 

for acute analyses. (See also the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category in Support of the 2015 

Risk and Technology Review Final 

Rule.) 

In the multipathway screening 

assessment, we did not sum the risk 

results of the fisher and farmer 

scenarios. The modeling approach used 

for this analysis constructs two different 

exposure scenarios, which serves as a 

conservative estimate of potential risks 

to the most-exposed receptor in each 

scenario. Based on the information and 

assumptions in the assessment, it is 

highly unlikely that the most-exposed 

farmer is the same person as the mostexposed fisher, therefore, it is not 

reasonable to add risk results from these 

two exposure scenarios. (See Appendix 

5 and Section 2.5 of the Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

in Support of the 2015 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule.) 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

statement that we should combine the 

results of our inhalation and 

multipathway assessments for this 

source category. We determined that it 

would be inappropriate to do so based 

on the differences in the design and 

results of the two types of assessments, 

as well as the highly conservative nature 

of the multipathway assessment. First, 

the screening scenario is a hypothetical 

scenario, and, due to the theoretical 

construct of the screening model, 

exceedances of the thresholds are not 

directly translatable into, or additive 

with, estimates of risk or HQ for these 

facilities. The result of the 

multipathway screen is number 

representing an exceedance of a 

benchmark, which is a ratio, and the 

results of a cancer risk assessment is a 

mathematical probability (i.e., increased 

risk of cancer due to exposure to the 

HAP emissions from the source 

category). It is not mathematically 

appropriate or consistent to add them 

together. Second, the multipathway risk 

assessment was a screening-level 

assessment and not a full risk 

assessment. The screening assessment 

used highly conservative assumptions 

designed to ensure that facilities with 

results below the screening threshold 

values did not have the potential for 

multipathway impacts of concern. The 

results of the multipathway screen 

represent a high-end estimate of what 

the multipathway risk or hazard may be. 

For example, an exceedance of 2 for a 

non-carcinogen can be interpreted to 

mean that we have high confidence that 

the hazard would be less than 2. 

Similarly, an exceedance of 30 for a 

carcinogen means that we have high 

confidence that the risk is lower than 

30-in-1 million. Our confidence comes 

from the conservative, health-protective 

assumptions that are in the 

multipathway screens: We choose 

inputs from the upper end of the range 

of possible values for the influential 

parameters used in the screens; and we 

assume that the exposed individual 

exhibits ingestion behavior that would 

lead to a high total multipathway 

exposure. We conclude that it is not 

appropriate to sum the risk results from 

the chronic inhalation assessment and 

the screening multipathway assessment. 

In addition, it is highly unlikely that the 

same receptor has the maximum results 

in both assessments. In other words, it 

is unlikely that the person with the 

highest chronic inhalation cancer risk is 

also the same person with the highest 

individual multipathway cancer risk 

because it is unlikely that the same 

receptor has the maximum exposure 

and risk in both assessments. 

We currently do not have screening 

values for some PB–HAP, but we 

disagree that the multipathway 

assessment is inadequate because it did 

not include ‘‘all HAP metals emitted 

(such as arsenic and nickel).’’ We 

developed the current PB–HAP list 

considering all available information on 

persistence and bioaccumulation (see 

http://www2.epa.gov/fera/air-toxicsrisk-assessment-reference-libraryvolumes-1-3, specifically Volume 1, 

Appendix D). (The Air Toxics Risk 

Assessment Reference Library presents 

the decision process by which the PB– 

HAP were selected and provides 

information on the fundamental 

principles of risk-based assessment for 

air toxics and how to apply those 

principles.) In developing the list, we 

considered HAP identified as PB–HAP 

by other EPA Program Offices (e.g., the 

Great Waters Program), as well as 

information from the PBT profiler (see 

http://www.pbtprofiler.net/). 

Considering this list was peer-reviewed 

by the SAB and found to be acceptable, 

we believe it to be reasonable for use in 

risk assessments for the RTR program. 

Based on these sources and the limited 

available information on the persistence 

and bioaccumulation of other HAP, we 

do not believe that the potential for 

multipathway risk from other HAP not 

on the list, such as other metal HAP 

including arsenic and nickel, rises to the 

level of the PB–HAP on the list. 

However, in the future, we may add 

more pollutants to the multipathway 

analysis if we determine it is 

appropriate to do so. 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion 

that we did not base the multipathway 

risk assessment on allowable emissions, 

we believe it is reasonable for the 

multipathway risk assessment to be 

based on actual emissions for this 

source category, and not the allowable 

level of emissions that facilities are 

permitted to emit. The uncertainties 

associated with the multipathway 

screen along with uncertainties in the 

allowable emissions estimates, which 

are highly variable for this source 

category, would make a multipathway 

risk assessment based on allowable 

emissions highly uncertain. Such an 

assessment would be too uncertain to 

support a regulatory decision. Many of 

the best-performing (based on actual 

emissions) sources have allowable 

emissions that are orders of magnitude 

greater than their actual emissions, and 

those facilities could not reasonably be 

expected to operate in such a manner 

that would result in emissions that even 

approach our estimates of allowable 

emissions. 

The commenter also argues for 

summing acute hazard quotients from 

different HAP to assess acute noncancer risk. We do not sum results of 

the acute noncancer inhalation 

assessment to create a combined acute 

risk number that would represent the 

total acute risk for all pollutants that act 

in a similar way on the same organ 

system or systems (analogous to the 

chronic TOSHI) because the worst-case 

acute screen is already a conservative 

scenario. The acute screening scenario 

assumes worst-case meteorology, peak 

emissions for all emission points 

occurring concurrently and an 

individual being located at the site of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56713 

maximum concentration for an hour. 

Thus, as noted in the risk assessment 

report available in the docket, ‘‘because 

of the conservative nature of the acute 

inhalation screening and the variable 

nature of emissions and potential 

exposures, acute impacts were screened 

on an individual pollutant basis, not 

using the TOSHI approach.’’ 

The dose-response values used in the 

risk assessment, including those for 

D/F, are based on the current peer 

reviewed Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) values, as well as other 

similarly peer-reviewed values. Our 

approach, which uses conservative tools 

and assumptions, ensures that our 

decisions are appropriately health 

protective and environmentally 

protective. The approach for selecting 

appropriate health benchmark values, in 

general, places greater weight on the 

EPA derived health benchmarks than 

those from other agencies (see http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/

healtheffectsinfo.pdf). This approach 

has been endorsed by the SAB. The SAB 

further recommended that the EPA 

scrutinize values that emerge as drivers 

of risk assessment results and the 

Agency has incorporated this 

recommendation into the risk 

assessment process. This may result in 

the EPA determining that it is more 

appropriate to use a peer-reviewed doseresponse value from another agency 

even if an IRIS value exists. 

We generally draw no bright lines of 

acceptability regarding cancer or 

noncancer risks from source category 

HAP emissions. It is always important 

to consider the specific uncertainties of 

the emissions and health effects 

information regarding the source 

category in question when deciding 

exactly what level of cancer and 

noncancer risk should be considered 

acceptable. In addition, the source 

category-specific decision of what 

constitutes an acceptable level of risk 

should be a holistic one; that is, it 

should simultaneously consider all 

potential health impacts—chronic and 

acute, cancer and noncancer, and 

multipathway—along with their 

uncertainties, when determining the 

acceptable level of source category risk. 

The Benzene NESHAP decision 

framework of 1989 acknowledged this; 

such flexibility is imperative, because 

new information relevant to the 

question of risk acceptability is being 

developed all the time, and the accuracy 

and uncertainty of each piece of 

information must be considered in a 

weight-of-evidence approach for each 

decision. This relevant body of 

information is growing fast (and will 

continue to do so), necessitating a 

flexible weight-of-evidence approach 

that acknowledges both complexity and 

uncertainty in the simplest and most 

transparent way possible. While this 

challenge is formidable, it is 

nonetheless the goal of the EPA’s RTR 

decision-making, and it is the goal of the 

risk assessment to provide the 

information to support the decisionmaking process. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the EPA consider 

potential or allowable emissions, rather 

than actual emissions, as much as 

possible in evaluating residual risk. The 

commenter stated that because facility 

emissions could increase over time for 

a variety of reasons, and with them the 

associated impacts, the use of potential 

or allowable emissions is more 

appropriate; an analysis based on actual 

emissions from a single point in time 

could underestimate the risk. The 

commenter stated that the major source 

HAP thresholds are based on maximum 

potential-to-emit, as opposed to actual 

emissions, and air agencies issue 

permits based on potential emissions. 

The commenter stated that limiting the 

scope of a risk evaluation to actual 

emissions would be inconsistent with 

the applicability section of 40 CFR part 

63 rules. The commenter stated that 

they were pleased that the EPA used 

allowable emissions in parts of the 

rulemaking, but were concerned that the 

EPA continues to use actual emissions 

in other parts of its assessment. The 

commenter encouraged the agency to 

use allowable emissions in the future, 

including in assessing acute health 

risks. 

One commenter agreed that the EPA 

appropriately concluded that secondary 

aluminum production does not pose 

risks warranting standard revision 

under section 112(f) of the CAA. The 

commenter noted that under the 

proposal, the EPA would find that the 

risks from the emission of HAP from 

sources in the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category are 

acceptable and that the current MACT 

standards provide an AMOS to protect 

public health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. The commenter 

stated that to determine these findings, 

the EPA utilized both MACT-allowable 

and actual emissions data for its risk 

analysis. The commenter supported the 

findings of acceptable risk and an 

AMOS, but noted that the use of MACTallowable emissions in the risk 

assessment process is not required for 

such a finding. 

The commenter indicated that the use 

of actual emissions in risk assessments 

is more accurate than MACT-allowable 

emissions and is supported by the 

language of CAA section 112(f). The 

EPA is required to promulgate emission 

standards under CAA section 112(f) if 

‘‘excess cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed to emissions from a 

source’’ are 1 in 1 million or greater. 

The commenter states that the statute 

does not use words such as ‘‘maximum 

allowable,’’ or ‘‘potential.’’ Rather, the 

statute limits the risk review to consider 

the risks to the individual most exposed 

to the emissions from a particular 

source. The commenter concluded that 

it is clear from the wording of the 

statute that Congress intended the EPA 

to estimate risk based on the actual 

exposure. The commenter also stated 

that MACT-allowable emissions 

represent a hypothetical, worst-case, 

emissions level to which an individual 

is unlikely to ever be exposed, 

especially given the already 

conservative assumptions inherent in 

the risk models. The commenter 

claimed that basing emission standards 

on worst-case scenarios can lead to 

imposition of costly and unnecessary 

controls which do little to reduce actual 

risk. The commenter claimed that, given 

that the EPA has actual emissions data 

from secondary aluminum production 

facilities, it should base its risk 

assessments on this best available data. 

In contrast, another commenter stated 

that they support the findings of 

acceptable risk, AMOS; and they also 

support the EPA’s revisions to the 

allowable emissions calculation method 

that uses the actual amount of charge; 

however, the use of MACT-allowable 

emissions in the risk assessment process 

is not required for such a finding. The 

commenter stated that due to process 

variability, sources cannot emit HAP at 

MACT-allowable levels at all times and 

remain in compliance and it is likely 

that sources may reduce their emissions 

due to state or local rules, or for reasons 

other than compliance. The commenter 

stated that basing emission standards on 

worst-case scenarios can lead to 

imposition of costly and unnecessary 

controls, which do little to reduce actual 

risk. The commenter stated that the EPA 

points to two previous actions in which 

the EPA noted that the use of allowable 

emissions was reasonable; however, in 

both of these actions, the EPA used 

actual emissions because they were the 

most accurate data available. Because 

the EPA has actual emissions data from 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities, the commenter asserted that it 

should base its risk assessments on 

these data. The commenter further 

stated that, to the extent that the EPA 

continues to calculate allowable 

emissions, they support the EPA’s use of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

actual charge rates, which reflect real 

production rates and should result in 

more accurate allowable emissions 

totals than maximum production 

capacity. 

Response: Consistent with previous 

risk assessments, the EPA considers 

both allowable and actual emissions in 

assessing chronic exposure and risk 

under CAA section 112(f)(2). See, e.g., 

National Emission Standards for Coke 

Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998–19999, 

April 15, 2005); proposed and final 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, 

December 21, 2006). This approach is 

both reasonable and consistent with the 

flexibility inherent in the Benzene 

NESHAP framework for assessing 

acceptable risk and AMOS. As a general 

matter, modeling allowable emission 

levels is inherently reasonable since this 

reflects the maximum level sources 

could emit and still comply with 

national emission standards. But it is 

also reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in the acceptable risk and 

AMOS analyses. See National Emission 

Standards for Coke Oven Batteries, 70 

FR 19992, 19998 (April 15, 2005). The 

risk assessment for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category 

was conducted using actual and 

allowable emissions, and all of the 

results were considered in determining 

risk acceptability and AMOS. We agree 

with the commenter that it is 

appropriate to estimate allowable 

emissions using production rates that 

reflect current operations rather than 

using maximum production capacity. 

See Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category in Support of the 2015 

Risk and Technology Review Final Rule. 

One commenter claims that limiting 

our review to actual emissions would be 

inconsistent with the applicability 

section of 40 CFR part 63 rules. As 

explained above and in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, however, we 

did not limit our review to actual 

emissions, but rather considered actual 

emissions and allowable emissions, as 

appropriate, in particular portions of the 

risk assessment. The commenter also 

urges the Agency to rely on allowable 

emissions for the purpose of our acute 

screening assessment. We did not rely 

on allowable emissions for the acute 

screening assessment due to the 

conservative assumptions used to gauge 

worst-case potential acute health effects. 

The conservative assumptions built into 

the acute health risk screening analysis 

include: (1) Use of peak 1-hour 

emissions that are on average 10 times 

the annual average 1-hour emission 

rates; (2) that all emission points 

experience peak emissions 

concurrently; (3) worst-case 

meteorology (from 1 year of local 

meteorology); and (4) that a person is 

located downwind at the point of 

maximum impact during this same 

1hour period. Thus, performing an acute 

screen based on allowable emissions 

would be overly conservative and, at 

best, of questionable utility to decision 

makers. 

We also note that our use of allowable 

emission levels in the risk assessments 

in this rulemaking did not result in 

revising the previously established 

standards due to risk concerns. 

Therefore, our consideration of 

allowable emissions in the risk 

assessments did not result in regulatory 

decisions that affect any facilities. 

Comment: One commenter on the 

supplemental proposal stated that at 

least nine secondary aluminum facilities 

have co-located primary aluminum 

operations, and for both source 

categories the EPA found that the 

facility-wide MIR is 70-in-1 million, 

driven by arsenic, nickel, and 

hexavalent chromium, and that the 

TOSHI (chronic non-cancer risk) is 1, 

driven by cadmium. The commenter 

stated that both numbers appear to 

consider only inhalation risk and must 

be viewed in context, as scientists have 

directed the EPA to do. The commenter 

stated that, if considered in combination 

with the high secondary aluminum 

multipathway risk, and with the high 

inhalation and multipathway risks for 

primary aluminum, the facility-wide 

cancer risk provides additional evidence 

that risks from both source categories 

are unacceptable, because the mostexposed person’s full amount of risk is 

the combined amount from the colocated primary and secondary 

aluminum, not just each source category 

separately. The commenter stated that it 

would be unlawful and arbitrary to 

consider each type of risk separately, 

when people near both sources are 

exposed to both kinds of risk at the 

same time, and, thus, face a higher 

overall amount of risk. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

has offered and can offer no valid 

justification for not finding risk from 

both source categories (including 

primary aluminum prebake, and 

secondary aluminum) to be 

unacceptable based on the co-located 

and combined risks. The commenter 

stated that the EPA may not lawfully 

ignore the full picture of risk that its 

combined rulemakings show is present 

for people exposed simultaneously to 

both source categories at the same 

facility. 

The commenter further stated that, 

because the EPA only assessed facilitywide risks based on so-called ‘‘actual’’ 

emissions, the facility-wide risk number 

could be at least 1.5 to 3 times higher. 

The commenter bases this assertion on 

the EPA’s recognition that allowable 

emissions from primary aluminum are 

about 1.5 to 1.9 times higher than actual 

emissions and the fact that allowable 

emissions from secondary aluminum are 

at least 3 times higher than actual 

emissions. 

The commenter stated that it is 

important that EPA is evaluating 

facility-wide risk from sources in 

multiple categories that are co-located 

and that EPA needs to consider the 

results of such facility-wide analyses 

when determining if stronger standards 

should be established for these sources. 

The commenter stated that this 

rulemaking is an important opportunity 

for the EPA to recognize the need to act 

based on data showing significant 

combined and cumulative risks and 

impacts at the facility-wide level. The 

commenter stated that the EPA is also 

required to do so to meet its CAA 

section 7412(f)(2) duties. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

also should be evaluating the 

cumulative risks from all nearby toxics 

sources in multiple source categories, 

not looking only at multiple sources in 

the same category, and different sources 

at the same facility. The commenter 

stated that the EPA has said it 

recognizes the need to put risk in 

context, but still has not even attempted 

to evaluate the bigger picture of health 

risks by looking at all nearby sources 

(from various source categories, 

including those collocated and those not 

collocated). According to the 

commenter, in doing so would likely 

lead to recognizing that the individual 

most-exposed to each of these source 

categories is also experiencing 

significant risks from other sources, 

providing even more evidence as to why 

the EPA should reduce risks from the 

primary and secondary aluminum 

source categories. 

Response: With regard to facility-wide 

assessments, we conducted such 

assessments for all 52 major sources in 

the source category, including the nine 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities co-located with primary 

aluminum reduction plants. The 

methods and results of the facility-wide 

risk assessment, in addition to the 

inhalation and multipathway analyses 

for facilities in the source category, are 

discussed above and in the risk 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56715 

assessment document for the 2014 

supplemental proposal, as well as in the 

risk assessment document for the 2015 

final rule. Specifically, we modeled 

whole-facility inhalation risks for both 

chronic cancer and non-cancer impacts 

to understand the risk contribution of 

the sources within the secondary 

aluminum source category to facilitywide risks. The individual cancer risks 

for the source category were aggregated 

for all carcinogens. In assessing 

noncancer hazard from chronic 

exposures for pollutants that have 

similar modes of action or (where this 

information is absent) that affect the 

same target organ, we aggregated the 

HQ. This process creates, for each target 

organ, a TOSHI, defined as the sum of 

hazard quotients for individual HAP 

that affect the same organ or organ 

system. All TOSHI calculations 

presented here were based exclusively 

on effects occurring at the ‘‘critical 

dose’’ (i.e., the lowest dose that 

produces adverse health effects). Whole 

facility risks were estimated based on 

emissions data obtained from facilities. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

must find the risks unacceptable based 

on the whole-facility risks from colocated primary and secondary 

aluminum operations. The EPA does not 

typically include whole-facility 

assessments in the CAA section 112(f) 

acceptability determination for a source 

category. Reasons for this include the 

fact that emissions and source 

characterization data are usually not of 

the same vintage and quality for all 

source categories that are on the same 

site, and thus the results of the wholefacility assessment are generally not 

appropriate to include in the regulatory 

decisions regarding acceptability. 

However, in this rare case, we are 

developing the risk assessments for 

primary and secondary aluminum 

production at the same time. The data 

are generally of the same vintage and we 

have actual emissions data and source 

characterization data for both source 

categories. In response to the comment, 

we refer to the facility-wide risk 

assessment, which included the nine 

facilities with co-located primary and 

secondary aluminum operations. As 

discussed above and shown in Table 2, 

for the facility with the highest risk from 

inhalation, the facility-wide MIR for 

cancer from actual emissions is 70-in-1 

million. The facility-wide non-cancer 

hazard is 1. The highest facility-wide 

exceedance of the multipathway screen 

is 70. There was no facility-wide 

exceedance of a noncancer threshold in 

the multipathway screen. Considering 

these facility-wide results as part of the 

acceptability determination does not 

change our determination that the risks 

are acceptable for the secondary 

aluminum source category. We note that 

while the incorporation of additional 

background concentrations from the 

environment in our risk assessments 

(including those from mobile sources 

and other industrial and area sources) 

could be technically challenging, they 

are neither mandated nor barred from 

our analysis. In developing the decision 

framework in the Benzene NESHAP 

used for making residual risk decisions, 

the EPA rejected approaches that would 

have mandated consideration of 

background levels of pollution in 

assessing the acceptability of risk, 

concluding that comparison of 

acceptable risk should not be associated 

with levels in polluted urban air (54 FR 

38044, 38061, September 14, 1989). 

Background levels (including natural 

background) are not barred from the 

EPA’s AMOS analysis, and the EPA may 

consider them, as appropriate and as 

available, along with other factors, such 

as cost and technical feasibility, in the 

second step of its CAA section 112(f) 

analysis. As discussed in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, the risk 

assessment for this source category did 

not include background contributions 

(that may reflect emissions that are from 

outside the source category and from 

other than co-located sources) because 

the available data are of insufficient 

quality upon which to base a 

meaningful analysis. 

The commenter is correct that we 

based our facility-wide risk assessment 

on actual emission rather than on 

estimated allowable emissions. Because 

the facility-wide allowable emissions 

estimates have not been subjected to the 

same level of scrutiny, quality 

assurance, and technical evaluation as 

the actual emissions estimates from the 

source category, a facility-wide risk 

assessment based on allowable 

emissions estimates would be too 

uncertain to support a regulatory 

decision. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review? 

As discussed above and in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, after 

considering health risk information and 

other factors, including uncertainties, 

we determined that the risks from the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category are acceptable and the 

current standards provide an AMOS to 

protect public health. In summary, our 

revised risk assessment indicates cancer 

risks below the presumptive limit of 

acceptability and non-cancer results 

indicating minimal likelihood of 

adverse health effects, and we identified 

no control technologies or other 

measures that would be cost effective in 

further reducing risks (or potential 

risks). In particular, we did not identify 

any cost-effective approaches to further 

reduce D/F emissions and multipathway 

risk beyond what is already being 

achieved by the current NESHAP. 

B. Technology Review for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review to 

identify and evaluate developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category, 

as described in the 2012 proposal. 

Details of the technology review and its 

findings are available in the 

memoranda, Draft Technology Review 

for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production Source Category (Docket 

item EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544–0144) 

and Draft Technical Support Document 

for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production Source Category (Docket 

item EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544–0152). 

The typical controls used to minimize 

emissions at secondary aluminum 

facilities include fabric filters for control 

of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; 

afterburners for control of THC and 

D/F from thermal chip dryers; 

afterburners plus lime-injected fabric 

filters for control of PM, HCl, THC and 

D/F from scrap dryers/delacquering 

kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for 

control of D/F from sweat furnaces; 

fabric filters for control of PM from 

dross-only furnaces and rotary dross 

coolers; lime-injected fabric filters for 

control of PM and HCl from in-line 

fluxers; and lime-injected fabric filters 

for control of PM, HCl and D/F from 

group 1 furnaces. In our review of 

technology, we determined that there 

have been some developments in 

practices, processes or control 

technologies, but we did not identify 

any of the developments as costeffective. We stated in the 2012 proposal 

that the technology review did not 

warrant any amendments to Subpart 

RRR. 

Following the 2012 proposal, no 

public comments were received to alter 

the conclusions of our technology 

review for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category. In the 2014 

supplemental proposal, we proposed 

that the technology review findings 

from the 2012 proposal were still valid 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and that the EPA was not aware of any 

changes in technology development 

since the 2012 proposal. See 

Supplemental Proposal Technology 

Review for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production Source Category and 

Supplemental Proposal Technical 

Support Document for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category, 

both available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Based on our findings, no 

rule amendments based on the 

technology review were proposed. 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category? 

Following the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we received no comments and 

identified no information to alter our 

findings and conclusions in the 

technology review for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category. 

We did, however, update certain 

information on capture efficiency and 

costs. Updated information can be 

found in Technical Support Document 

for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production Source Category Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

Comment: In a comment on the 

supplemental proposal, commenter 

0301 stated that this source category is 

listed for regulation under 42 U.S.C. 

7412(c)(6) as a result of its dioxin/furan 

emissions and that EPA has proposed to 

rely on the Secondary Aluminum 

standards to meet its section 7412(c)(6) 

responsibility, in part, for dioxin 

{Commenter’s footnote: EPA, 

Completion of Requirement to 

Promulgate Emissions Standards, 79 FR 

74,656, 74,664 tbl.1 (Dec. 16, 2014)}. 

The commenter stated that in this 

rulemaking, EPA has proposed not to 

update these emission standards to 

strengthen protection from dioxins/

furans, even though it recognizes that 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies have occurred 

that could reduce HAP emissions, such 

as activated carbon injection. The 

commenter stated that as explained in 

their 2012 comments on primary 

aluminum, when there are 

‘‘developments’’ under section 

7412(d)(6), EPA must promulgate 

revised standards. The commenter 

stated that revised emission standards— 

like any other section 7412(d) 

standards—must satisfy the floor and 

beyond-the-floor requirements of 

section 7412(d)(2)–(3), which state that 

they apply explicitly to ‘‘emissions 

standards promulgated under this 

subsection,’’ i.e., under section 7412(d). 

The commenter stated that EPA must set 

revised standards that are at least as 

stringent as the emission limitation 

achieved by the relevant bestperforming sources under section 

7412(d)(3), and must assure the 

maximum achievable degree of emission 

reduction at the beyond-the-floor stage, 

as required by section 7412(d)(2). 

Response: The original MACT 

standards for dioxins/furans for the 

secondary aluminum industry helped to 

satisfy the EPA’s obligations under 42 

U.S.C. 7412(c)(6), and the subsequent 

technology reviews for the source 

category has no bearing on our 112(c)(6) 

finding. 

The commenter is incorrect in stating 

that there have been developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that would warrant 

revisions to the standards. As we stated 

in the preamble to the supplemental 

proposal (79 FR at 72901), there have 

been no developments in technology in 

this industry that warrant any changes 

to subpart RRR. The commenter’s 

identification of activated carbon as a 

new control technology for this industry 

is also not correct as it has been 

available to the industry since before the 

2000 final rule. Furthermore, as part of 

the technology review contained in the 

2014 supplemental proposal (see 79 FR 

at 72901), we performed an analysis to 

evaluate lowering the D/F emissions 

limit from 15 to 10 mg TEQ/Mg for group 

1 furnaces processing other than clean 

charge at all facilities. The analysis 

performed for the supplemental 

proposal assumed that furnaces above 

10 mg TEQ/mg added activated carbon 

injection to achieve exactly the 10 ug 

TEQ/Mg limit. That analysis has been 

updated and assumes that all furnaces 

with emissions above 10 mg TEQ/Mg 

that add activated carbon injection 

achieve an 85-percent reduction in D/F 

emissions. The updated analysis is 

available in Technical Support 

Document for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production Source Category Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

We disagree with the comments 

suggesting that the EPA must recalculate 

MACT floors and conduct beyond-the 

floor analyses under CAA section 

112(d)(2)–(3) as part of the section 

112(d)(6) review. As explained in a 

prior RTR rulemaking, the EPA does not 

read 112(d)(6) as requiring a reanalysis 

or recalculation of MACT floors. See 

National Emission Standards for Coke 

Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998–19999, 

April 15, 2005). We read section 

112(d)(6) as providing the EPA with 

substantial latitude in weighing a 

variety of factors and arriving at an 

appropriate balance in considering 

revisions to standards promulgated 

under section 112(d)(2) & (3). Nothing in 

section 112(d)(6) expressly or implicitly 

requires that EPA recalculate the MACT 

floor as part of the section 112(d)(6) 

review. This position has been upheld 

by the court. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We disagree 

with the commenters that the court’s 

decision hinged on the fact that for the 

rulemaking at issue we had not 

identified any developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies under CAA section 

112(d)(6). Rather, the court first states 

‘‘[w]e do not think the words ‘review 

and revise as necessary’ can be 

construed reasonably as imposing’’ an 

obligation to completely recalculate 

maximum achievable control 

technology. Id. 

In another comment on the 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated that they concur with the 

Agency’s determination that there have 

been no new developments in practices, 

processes or control technologies that 

are applicable to the secondary 

aluminum production source category 

that would warrant revisions to the 

NESHAP. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the technology review? 

As discussed above and in the 2012 

and 2014 proposals, we determined that 

there have been some developments in 

practices, processes or control 

technologies, but we concluded that the 

technology developments did not 

warrant any changes to Subpart RRR. 

C. Testing of Group 1 Furnaces That Do 

Not Have Add-On Pollution Control 

Devices 

1. What did we propose related to 

testing of uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces? 

In the 2012 proposal, to clarify how 

furnaces not equipped with an add-on 

air pollution control device and 

associated capture and collection 

system are to be tested for compliance, 

we proposed compliance alternatives 

addressing capture and collection of 

emissions for uncontrolled furnaces 

during performance testing. 

Specifically, we proposed that an owner 

or operator with an uncontrolled 

furnace could either temporarily install 

hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines 

for the duration of the testing or, for an 

existing uncontrolled furnace, assume 

67-percent capture efficiency for furnace 

exhaust (i.e., multiply measured 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56717 

emissions by 1.5 to account for the 

uncollected emissions) without 

installing temporary hooding. As 

proposed, if the source uses the 67- 

percent capture efficiency assumption 

but fails to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission standard, the source 

would have to retest using ACGIH 

hooding or may petition the appropriate 

authority (permitting authority for major 

sources or the Administrator for area 

sources) that such hoods are impractical 

for the source and propose alternative 

testing procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured emissions. We proposed 

that the retesting must occur within 90 

days. 

Based on comments received on the 

2012 proposal and our consideration of 

specific testing scenarios and types of 

uncontrolled furnaces, we proposed 

revised requirements for the testing of 

uncontrolled furnaces in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. We proposed 

that if a source uses the 67-percent 

capture efficiency assumption but fails 

to demonstrate compliance, then they 

must retest using ACGIH hooding 

within 180 days, or the source may 

petition the appropriate authority 

within 180 days that such hoods are 

impractical and propose alternative 

testing procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured emissions. In the 

supplemental proposal, we also 

proposed conditions that would be 

considered impractical to install 

temporary ACGIH hooding and 

alternative procedures to minimize 

unmeasured emissions during testing. 

Based on comments received on the 

2012 proposal, the 2014 supplemental 

proposal also contained a provision to 

exclude existing round top furnaces 

from the proposed requirement to install 

temporary ACGIH hooding or to use a 

67-percent capture efficiency 

assumption, as well as the proposed 

option to submit a petition of 

impracticality. Instead, we proposed 

that round top furnaces must be 

operated to minimize unmeasured 

emissions during testing. 

In response to commenters’ requests, 

we proposed example procedures to 

minimize unmeasured emissions during 

testing and amendments to clarify in 

what circumstances installation of 

temporary capture hoods for testing 

would be considered impractical. 

2. What changed since proposal related 

to testing of uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces? 

Based on our consideration of 

comments and additional information 

received following the 2014 

supplemental proposal, the following 

changes have been made in the final 

rule: 

• If a facility owner or operator 

knows in advance that installing ACGIH 

hoods for testing is not practical, the 

facility owner or operator may petition 

the appropriate authority at least 180 

days in advance for approval of plans to 

use alternative testing procedures that 

will minimize unmeasured emissions 

during testing. 

• Reconstructed round top furnaces 

are exempt from the testing 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(i) 

and (ii), and (iii). 

• Additional methods of minimizing 

unmeasured emissions during testing of 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces are added 

to 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(7) including the 

use of one or more fans positioned to 

direct air flow into an open furnace 

door, and the use of a smaller but 

representative charge added to the 

furnace at one time and conducting the 

test without additional charge. 

• We have revised the capture 

efficiency assumption to 80 percent. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

related to testing of uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces? 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA should not impose a 

requirement for group 1 furnaces 

without add-on air pollution control 

devices (APCD) to construct hoods for 

performance tests or be subject to a 33- 

percent reduction in allowed emissions. 

The commenter asserted that the EPA 

improperly characterizes this 

burdensome proposed requirement as a 

revision to the NESHAP to reportedly 

‘‘correct and clarify provisions in the 

rule.’’ 

One commenter stated that the EPA 

has provided no information to 

demonstrate that the proposed 

requirement for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces is warranted or is consistent 

with requirements for developing 

NESHAP. The commenter is concerned 

that the only support for the proposed 

hooding requirement that the EPA has 

provided in the docket is a summary of 

two stack tests conducted at a single 

facility. The commenter states that these 

tests show a large degree of variability 

between the two tests and for different 

chemical parameters within each test. 

The commenter argued that the EPA has 

provided no information to demonstrate 

that these tests are indicative of 

operations throughout the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category. 

According to the commenter, the 

information that the EPA provided in 

the Technical Support Document 

indicates that the EPA may not have 

analyzed an appropriate operation to 

establish regulatory requirements. The 

commenter observed that if, as indicated 

in the Technical Support Document, the 

canopy hood was sampled for over 3 

hours because there were emissions to 

be captured by it, the charge door must 

have been open for more than 3 hours 

during the melt cycle. The commenter 

stated that this scenario does not 

represent a conventional melting 

operation. 

The commenter presented further 

concerns that the Technical Support 

Document states that the test cycle time 

in the September 5, 2007, test report 

‘‘could be a mistake’’ and that the 

testing reported on September 5, 2007, 

may be ‘‘flawed.’’ The commenter noted 

a wide variation of capture efficiencies 

for D/F and questioned the EPA’s 

proposal to apply 67-percent capture 

efficiency across all parameters and all 

facilities. The commenter claimed that it 

is unreasonable to apply capture 

efficiency based on PM or HCl to area 

sources when area sources are regulated 

only for D/F. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

placed the test reports discussed in the 

RTI Technical Support Document in the 

docket a month after the proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register, 

which reduced the time reviewers had 

for comment. The commenter had the 

following concerns about the test 

reports: 

• There is not sufficient information 

to understand how the furnaces are 

configured or operated, including how 

the hood was constructed or placed, and 

when or for how long the door(s) were 

left open; 

• The hood draft volumes were large 

compared to furnace stack gas flow 

volumes, and the capture measured 

during the tests may not be a good 

measure of fugitive emissions that 

would occur in the absence of an 

induced draft hood; 

• The stack temperatures also appear 

to be low, possibly due to dilution air 

being drawn into the stack duct prior to 

the sampling point, which could mean 

that actual combustion gas flowing from 

the furnace are much lower than 

reported at the stack, and the ratio of 

hood flow volume is much higher than 

that calculated in the Technical Support 

Document; 

• No production numbers are 

provided so it is not possible to 

determine if the furnaces were operating 

in compliance with the NESHAP 

requirements; and 

• The EPA has provided no 

indication that they attempted to 

determine the representativeness of the 

tests. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

One commenter stated that fugitive 

emissions are minor from a well 

operated group 1 furnace without addon controls, as door openings and top 

removals are kept at a minimum to 

conserve energy and burners are 

generally kept at reduced firing rates 

when furnaces are opened. The 

commenter stated that the 67-percent 

capture assumption that the EPA drew 

does not seem reasonable based on the 

commenter’s observations. 

The commenter emphasized that 

emissions from round top furnaces are 

negligible during periods when the top 

is off and burners are on low fire. The 

commenter stated that these furnaces 

would be placed at a competitive 

disadvantage by reducing the allowable 

emission by 33 percent. Further, the 

commenter noted that new round top 

furnaces are not allowed the 33-percent 

emission limit reduction in the 

proposed rule, so operators installing 

new round top furnaces would be forced 

to petition on a case-by-case basis to 

demonstrate impracticability. The 

commenter recommended that if the 

EPA finalizes this provision, round top 

furnaces should be categorically exempt 

from any hooding requirements because 

it is impractical to install hoods and 

because the EPA should not burden 

state and local agencies with the need 

to make case-by-case determinations 

when they can be categorically exempt. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that the 

EPA offers no explanation for limiting 

the exemption to install ACGIHcompliant hoods for testing to existing 

round top furnaces only. The 

commenter stated that they own and 

operate several existing and new source 

round top furnaces for which the 

physical configuration and operation is 

very similar. The commenter stated that 

they will construct new or reconstruct 

existing round top furnaces in the future 

and that it would be impracticable to 

construct hoods of any type on any of 

these furnaces regardless of whether 

they are existing, new, or reconstructed 

sources. The commenter recommended 

that the EPA include new and 

reconstructed furnaces in its hooding 

exemption. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that, for 

a variety of design, technical, 

operational, and safety reasons, it is 

impractical to install temporary hooding 

on round top furnaces for performance 

testing and agreed with our proposed 

exemption from the performance test 

hooding requirements for existing round 

top furnaces. The commenter disagreed, 

however, with our not proposing an 

exemption for ‘‘new or reconstructed’’ 

sources (including round top furnaces), 

asserting that the same fundamental 

design factors that prohibit installation 

of temporary hooding on existing round 

top furnaces also prevent its installation 

on new round top furnaces. The 

commenter requested that the word 

‘‘existing’’ be removed from the round 

top furnace exemption language 

proposed in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(iii) 

and that the words ‘‘or reconstructed 

non-round top’’ be added to (5) such 

that it reads 

‘‘(5) When testing a new or 

reconstructed, non-round top 

uncontrolled furnace the owner or 

operator must . . .’’ 

One commenter maintained that 

allowing facilities to petition permitting 

authorities that such hoods are 

impractical is not an acceptable 

alternative to the proposed rule and 

suggested that the EPA allow sitespecific procedures in OM&M plans for 

group 1 uncontrolled furnaces to 

minimize fugitive emissions. 

One commenter asserted that the 

proposed ACGIH hooding requirement 

ignores the consideration that the EPA 

made for fugitive emissions in the 

original MACT floor determination and 

implements requirements for ACGIH 

hooding that go beyond the floor. The 

commenter stated that, in the 2000 

Secondary [Aluminum] MACT rule, 

performance testing of controlled 

sources was conducted to define the 

MACT floor. Although some fugitive 

emissions were visible near capture 

hoods, the EPA did not specify a 

numerical capture efficiency 

requirement, visible emissions limit, or 

specific limits or criteria for capture 

systems. Instead, the EPA included a 

provision to address hooding systems to 

capture and collect emissions by 

including guidelines published in 

Chapters 3 and 5 of ACGIH Industrial 

Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 

Practice, which is incorporated into the 

rule by reference. The commenter stated 

that owners/operators of sources with 

existing add-on control systems have 

been challenged with regard to the 

capture/collection system design 

guidelines in the ACGIH manual, and, 

according to the commenter, there have 

been instances when there has been a 

misuse of the ACGIH Industrial 

Ventilation Manual. The commenter 

asserted that the EPA and some 

permitting agencies are interpreting the 

manual and incorporating portions of 

various charts, tables and text as 

regulatory requirements. The 

commenter stated that the authors of the 

ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual 

did not intend, and specifically state in 

the Forward of the manual that ‘‘The 

manual is not intended, to be used as 

law, but rather as a guide.’’ 

One commenter contended that in the 

original MACT proposal and 

rulemaking, the EPA provided no 

supporting data to demonstrate that the 

MACT floor technology control systems 

tested for each Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category is actually 

capable of meeting the capture/

collection system design requirements 

in the ACGIH manual. The commenter 

asserted that the EPA and some permit 

authorities during implementation of 

the rule, without supporting 

documentation, imposed specific 

capture/collection system design 

requirements on all existing add-on 

control systems that effectively exceed 

the MACT floor determinations. The 

commenter further asserted that the EPA 

did not follow the regulatory procedures 

for going ‘‘above the floor’’ during the 

rulemaking process in imposing more 

stringent hooding requirements. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that, if 

the EPA retains the requirement that 

uncontrolled furnaces conduct 

performance testing using ACGIHcompliant hooding, the current 

emission limits for group 1 uncontrolled 

furnaces should be reevaluated. The 

commenter stated that the supplemental 

proposal sets new requirements for 

uncontrolled furnaces that go beyond 

the existing MACT floor and was based 

upon a 33-percent reduction developed 

from limited data. The commenter 

requested that the EPA collect more 

emissions data from uncontrolled 

furnaces tested with ACGIH capture 

hoods and make new MACT floor 

determinations and set new numerical 

emission limits that properly account 

for the higher total emissions caused by 

the collection of fugitive emissions 

collected by the ACGIH-compliant 

hoods. 

Several commenters maintained that 

the EPA is basing the proposed ACGIH 

hooding requirement on a limited, 

unrepresentative, and flawed dataset. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the dataset on which the EPA based 

their proposed action was made 

available only after publication of the 

proposal. The commenter stated that 

due to the limited information available 

to the industry, no additional testing has 

been performed to assess the impact of 

the proposed action, or its economic or 

engineering feasibility. 

Two commenters observed that the 

EPA has erroneously based the 67- 

percent hooding assumption on very 

limited test data from two furnaces 

operating with forced-draft fans, a 

scenario that is atypical of uncontrolled 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56719 

furnaces, which are normally operated 

under natural draft. The commenter 

believes that the ‘‘hooding efficiency’’ 

measured during these tests is not 

representative because of the extremely 

high design flow rate of the capture 

hoods. The commenters maintained that 

exhaust flow at the hood was three 

times the stack exhaust flow rate, 

causing furnace emissions to be drawn 

out of the furnace door rather than 

allowing these emissions to exhaust 

through the stack. 

One commenter cited an RTI 

memorandum to Rochelle Boyd, 

Environmental Engineer at the EPA, 

regarding the testing period reported for 

September 5, 2007, as a basis for the 

claim that errors were made during data 

collection, and that the EPA may be 

basing their decision and approach to 

regulating fugitive emissions on one 

dataset. The commenter emphasized 

that there are many furnace 

configurations that are used in the 

industry, so the EPA’s one limited 

dataset cannot be representative of the 

entire industry. The commenter 

provided a copy of a table provided to 

the EPA by the commenter on December 

21, 2011, outlining the inherent 

difference between several major 

furnace types. 

One commenter stated that this 

proposal, in regard to installing hooding 

that meets ACGIH guidelines, is 

inconsistent with the requirement for 

existing sources that the MACT floor 

must equal the average emissions 

limitations currently achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of sources in 

that source category if there are 30 or 

more existing sources or, if there are 

fewer than 30 existing sources, then the 

MACT floor must equal the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing five sources in the 

category. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that 

they are concerned that the hooding and 

capture efficiency provisions in the 

2014 supplemental proposal are 

unnecessary and actually reflect 

‘‘beyond the floor’’ provisions for the 

installation of specific capture/

collection systems that are not justified 

by the MACT floor determination 

calculations and evaluations. 

One commenter stated that given the 

lack of evidence supporting these 

provisions, the commenter believes 40 

CFR 63.1512 should be eliminated from 

the final rule. 

Several commenters stated that 

ACGIH-compliant hoods are impossible 

to install on many group 1 uncontrolled 

furnaces due to the engineering 

limitations and considerations of many 

furnace installations such as size, type 

and location of the furnace. One 

commenter provided three examples of 

existing furnace installations that are 

unable to meet the requirements for 

fugitive emissions testing. 

One commenter discussed round top 

furnace operations and how normal 

operations would not allow hooding for 

fugitive emissions. 

One commenter stated that 

installation of temporary hooding on 

round top charge melters of the type the 

commenter has at its plant located in 

Lewisport, Kentucky, is not possible, 

and due to installed furnace design it is 

not possible to install temporary hoods 

on some reverberatory furnaces. The 

commenter included as attachments 

background information about the 

Lewisport testing. 

One commenter stated that for group 

1 uncontrolled furnaces, the proposed 

33-percent emission reduction is a 

mandatory reduction for some 

operations, and also eliminates future 

operating flexibility for operations that 

are currently operating near the 

proposed 67-percent emission level. 

According to the commenter, the margin 

between operating levels and actual 

limits represents a margin of safety for 

furnaces that experience normal 

variations to be in continuous 

compliance. 

The commenter maintained that the 

EPA proposed the 33-percent reduction 

in emissions without proof or 

justification that there are in fact 

fugitive emissions being released at or 

near these levels or for durations seen 

in the limited data the EPA provides. 

The commenter recommended that the 

EPA promulgate a rule that maintains a 

level playing field for the companies 

affected by the rule. 

Two commenters recommended that 

the EPA allow the option to apply the 

assumed 67-percent capture efficiency 

for new furnaces to avoid the added cost 

of installing temporary hooding where a 

furnace can be operated in a manner 

that meets the 67-percent emission limit 

by changing the proposed requirement 

in 40 CFR 63.1512. The commenters 

argued that the proposed approach 

essentially forces the installation of a 

costly hood for new furnaces even when 

such hoods are not needed due to good 

pollution prevention practice and the 

resulting low HAP emission rates. The 

commenters opposed the HAP emission 

rate adjustment for new uncontrolled 

furnaces in instances where ACGIH 

hooding specifications are not possible, 

as the EPA proposed in 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4)(ii), and asked that it be 

removed. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that in 

the original 40 CFR 63.1500, 

Applicability, and 40 CFR 63.1501, 

Dates, there are references to equipment 

that is ‘‘new’’ and equipment that is 

‘‘existing’’ depending on installation 

date. The commenter suggested that 

EPA revise 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4) to read 

as follows: 

‘‘When testing an existing or new 

uncontrolled furnace, . . .’’ 

One commenter stated that issues 

addressed in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(ii), in 

terms of assuming a 67-percent capture 

efficiency for the furnace exhaust, were 

previously covered in the stack testing 

protocols that are part of the 

commenter’s Consent Decree (included 

as an attachment). The commenter 

requested that the EPA provide 

clarification that those protocols are not 

impacted by this rule making and 

remain fully acceptable. 

Response: As discussed in the 

preambles and technical support 

documents to the 2012 proposal and 

2014 supplementary proposal, the 

existing performance testing 

requirements in Subpart RRR that apply 

to group 1 furnaces without add-on 

APCD do not include specific 

requirements relating to capture and 

collection of emissions during 

performance tests conducted to ensure 

compliance with applicable emission 

standards. During performance testing 

of these sources, emissions may escape 

without being accounted for (i.e., 

captured, collected, and measured) in 

the emissions test. Thus, the 

performance tests done to ensure 

compliance may not provide an accurate 

measure of whether the furnace is, in 

fact, meeting the applicable emission 

standards. 

The ACGIH guidelines (as defined in 

40 CFR 63.1503) provide specifications 

for the proper design and installation of 

capture and collection systems to 

minimize unmeasured emissions and 

ensure that process emissions are being 

properly captured and conveyed to an 

air pollution control device, where one 

is in place, and also ensures that 

emissions testing results are 

representative of total emissions. The 

Subpart RRR standard as promulgated 

in 2000 includes a requirement that all 

controlled emission units include 

capture and collection systems designed 

consistent with the ACGIH guidelines. 

As stated in our response to comments 

in the 2000 Subpart RRR rule, a capture 

and collection system meeting ACGIH 

criteria is necessary for occupational 

safety, and for assuring compliance with 

the emission standards. See Summary of 

Public Comments and Responses on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, 

December 14, 1999, in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

The emission standards that apply to 

all group 1 furnaces were based on data 

from systems that effectively capture 

and contain emissions at the source 

(minimizing unmeasured emissions) 

and convey the emissions to the control 

device for destruction or removal. In 

addition, a capture and collection 

system meeting ACGIH guidelines with 

good hooding design will result in a 

lower volume of exhaust air to be 

treated, and, in many cases, a smaller, 

lower-cost control device. The EPA 

considered an ACGIH-compliant 

capture and collection system to be part 

of MACT floor technology for affected 

sources with add-on controls (see 64 FR 

6960, February 11, 1999). 

The subpart RRR rule generally 

applied the same emission standards to 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces as it did 

to controlled group 1 furnaces and 

thereby allowed secondary aluminum 

facilities to continue to have 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces so long as 

they met similar emission standards as 

controlled group 1 furnaces. The lack of 

clarity on the level of unmeasured 

emissions that may be emitted from an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace during 

performance testing has led to confusion 

in rule implementation, as well as 

significant concerns about the accuracy 

and appropriateness of the compliance 

determination protocol. 

Because performance tests for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces may not 

accurately measure whether the furnace 

is in compliance with the applicable 

emission standards, the EPA concluded 

that a testing protocol for uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces that allows a 

potentially significant portion of HAP 

emissions to be unmeasured and 

unaccounted for in determining 

compliance with emission standards is 

inadequate. 

A testing procedure for uncontrolled 

furnaces that permits an unknown 

degree of variance in the amount of 

emissions that may escape measurement 

during performance testing could call 

into question whether the rule is 

adequately ensures that the furnaces are 

meeting applicable emission standards. 

The commenters’ suggest that a 

compliance demonstration that does not 

account for unmeasured emissions is a 

necessary result of the development of 

the Subpart RRR emission standards. 

The commenters are, in effect, 

questioning whether the existing 

standards for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces are consistent with the MACT 

floor analysis, which was primarily 

based on the performance of controlled 

furnaces. Moreover, if the level of 

unmeasured emissions during 

performance testing cannot be 

quantified for purposes of determining 

compliance with Subpart RRR emission 

standards, there could be an issue 

regarding the extent to which such 

emissions are subject to any MACT 

standard. 

We note that one commenter stated 

that if EPA finalizes the testing 

requirements for uncontrolled furnaces, 

the EPA should reevaluate group 1 

uncontrolled furnace emission limits. 

The commenter suggested that EPA 

collect emissions test data from 

uncontrolled furnaces using ACGIH 

hooding, make new MACT floor 

determinations, and set new numerical 

MACT emission limits. The EPA 

believes requiring additional furnace 

testing and conducting further MACT 

rulemaking is not necessary to address 

unmeasured emissions during 

performance testing of uncontrolled 

furnaces. The EPA believes that the 

actions taken in this rulemaking are 

sufficient to address the issue. 

Further, the EPA is not mandating 

ACGIH hooding during performance 

testing in all instances, but rather 

providing alternative compliance 

options for facilities to account for 

unmeasured emissions from 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces during 

performance testing. Specifically, for 

existing uncontrolled furnaces we are 

requiring either the installation of 

temporary ACGIH hooding or an 

assumption of a specified capture 

efficiency for furnace exhaust. 

Requirements for new uncontrolled 

furnaces are discussed below. Although 

we proposed using a 67-percent capture 

efficiency in lieu of the installation of 

temporary ACGIH hooding, in light of 

comments, we have re-examined the 

testing data on which the proposed 67- 

percent capture efficiency assumption 

was based, and revised the assumed 

capture efficiency to 80 percent. This 

80-percent capture efficiency is based 

on the highest average capture of the 

three HAP tested. See Draft Technical 

Support Document for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category, 

Supplemental Proposal Technical 

Support Document for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category, 

and Technical Support Document for 

the Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category Final Rule, all available 

in this rulemaking docket. We believe 

this revised percent capture efficiency 

assumption of 80 percent provides the 

best estimate of the capture efficiency of 

uncontrolled furnaces for the several 

pollutants being measured, based on the 

limited data available. Under these 

provisions, if the source fails to 

demonstrate compliance using the 80- 

percent capture efficiency assumption, 

the source must retest using hooding 

that meets ACGIH guidelines or petition 

the appropriate authority that such 

hoods are impractical and propose 

testing procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured emissions. The retesting or 

petition must occur within 180 days. 

The commenters have not demonstrated 

that these alternatives are inappropriate 

or inconsistent with the 2000 MACT 

floor. 

Applying the same emission limits to 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces as 

controlled group 1 furnaces necessarily 

depends on emissions from 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces being 

adequately captured and collected or 

being reasonably accounted for when a 

performance test is conducted. The 

MACT floor analysis, and the emission 

standards established by that analysis, 

for all group 1 furnaces (including 

controlled and uncontrolled furnaces) 

incorporated well-designed and 

maintained capture and collection 

systems, such as those prescribed by 

ACGIH guidelines. The rule revisions 

being promulgated in this action 

address this need by allowing facilities 

to choose from the compliance options 

described above. 

In addition, CAA section 63.7(d)(5) of 

the General Provisions, which applies to 

this rule, requires that the owner or 

operator provide the facilities necessary 

for safe and adequate testing of a source. 

Adequate testing includes the 

responsibility to either provide a means 

of directing emissions to the sampling 

train, or to measure the capture 

efficiency of the equipment used to 

direct the emissions to the sampling 

train so that the overall emissions from 

the source can be determined. The rule 

changes described above assist in 

implementing this requirement for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. 

In response to the commenter’s 

concerns regarding the test results cited 

by the EPA, the EPA obtained additional 

information from personnel at the 

facility at which the tests were 

performed. This information, which is 

available in the docket, indicates: 

• Although sampling was conducted 

for approximately 3 hours using the 

canopy hoods at the two furnaces, the 

charging doors were only open for 

approximately 15 minutes on one 

furnace, and approximately 30 minutes 

on the other furnace; 

• The testing times at the furnace 

stacks for both furnaces were equal to 

the entire cycle time for the furnace (so 

there was no flaw in the testing periods, 

such that the furnace stack emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56721 

were not measured over the entire 

cycle); 

• There was no introduction of 

dilution air between the furnace and the 

furnace stack sampling point; and 

• The furnaces were operating in 

compliance with the NESHAP 

requirements. 

Therefore, although the test data are 

limited, we have identified no flaws in 

the testing procedures that render the 

results invalid, and we believe it is 

reasonable to rely on the test data to 

support our rule revision. In addition, it 

is undisputed that the test data are from 

a Subpart RRR-affected facility, and the 

commenter did not provide specific 

reasons to support its assertion that the 

tested furnaces are not ‘‘indicative’’ of 

the source category nor did commenters 

submit testing data to contradict, alter, 

or draw into question the EPA’s 

conclusions. The commenter also did 

not explain why, or at what level, 

different capture efficiencies should be 

used based on differences in pollutants. 

We are certain that at least some 

unmeasured emissions escape from all 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces during 

testing. Therefore, the only question is 

what fraction of the total emissions is 

directed to the furnace stack for 

measurement, and what fraction escapes 

as emissions that are not measured. Our 

estimate, based on the limited dataset, is 

that 80 percent of emissions at 

uncontrolled furnaces are captured and 

directed to the stack for measurement, 

while 20 percent are emitted as 

unmeasured emissions. The revised 

testing procedures for uncontrolled 

furnaces were proposed in February 

2012, with one comment period in 2012 

and a second comment period after the 

2014 supplemental proposal, giving 

commenters ample time to collect and 

submit to EPA additional emissions test 

data, although none were submitted. In 

the absence of additional data, we relied 

on the only data available, although, 

upon further analysis of the data, we 

revised the capture efficiency from 67 

percent to 80 percent. 

As noted by commenters, and 

supported by information they 

provided, the tops of round top furnaces 

must be removed for charging by cranes 

operating above the furnaces. 

Commenters stated that for a variety of 

design, technical, operational, and 

safety reasons, it was not feasible to 

install temporary hooding on existing 

round top furnaces. Based on our review 

of the information submitted by the 

commenters, we agree that ACGIHcompliant hoods are not possible to 

install on existing round top furnaces 

because the top of the furnace must be 

removed by a crane operating from 

above the furnace. We also agree that 

state and local agencies should not be 

burdened with the need for case-by-case 

impracticability determinations for 

existing round top furnaces. 

Consequently, we are excluding existing 

round top furnaces from the 

requirement either to install temporary 

ACGIH hooding or to use an 80-percent 

capture efficiency assumption as well as 

the requirement for a petition of 

impracticality, but instead round top 

furnaces must be operated to minimize 

unmeasured emissions during testing. 

The commenters have not provided 

documentation to support an exclusion 

for other types of furnaces, such as box 

reverberatory furnaces and box 

reverberatory furnaces with a side door. 

For these furnaces, issues related to 

hooding during performance tests may 

or may not arise depending on the 

specific site installation, including 

factors such as the presence of 

surrounding equipment and other 

physical obstructions, limited access 

and overhead cranes that may make it 

impractical to install hooding. 

Therefore, the exclusion in the final rule 

applies only to existing round top 

furnaces. 

We note that, as discussed above, the 

final rule also provides flexibility for 

furnaces other than round top furnaces. 

Where an ACGIH-compliant hood 

cannot be installed on a furnace for 

testing and an 80-percent capture 

efficiency is not used, the source can 

petition the appropriate authority that 

temporary ACGIH hooding is 

impractical for the source and propose 

alternative testing procedures that will 

minimize unmeasured emissions. In 

some instances, furnace emissions can 

be captured and measured without 

ACGIH hooding. For example, the 

building may be operated as an 

enclosure, and emissions from the 

building can be measured (e.g., by 

installing a temporary fan and 

associated ductwork or a stack, and 

measuring emissions in that ductwork 

or stack). In addition, there is an 

alternate performance testing methods 

provision available in 63.1511(d). 

We disagree that new furnaces should 

be allowed the option to assume 80 

percent of emissions are directed to the 

stack for measurement. We are allowing 

existing uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

to use the 80-percent capture efficiency 

assumption, since the physical 

limitations of an existing furnace are 

already established. However, this is not 

the case for a new furnace; for a new 

furnace, adequate testing of the source 

can be achieved through the design of 

the furnace. This need not involve 

installation of a hood, since, for 

example, the building, or portion of the 

building in which the new furnace is 

located, could be used as an enclosure 

for the purpose of testing. As we stated 

earlier, adequate testing includes the 

responsibility to either provide a means 

of directing emissions to the sampling 

train, or to measure the capture 

efficiency of the equipment used to 

direct the emissions to the sampling 

train so that the overall emissions from 

the source can be determined. 

As discussed above, we have different 

requirements for new uncontrolled 

furnaces, including new uncontrolled 

round top furnaces, than for existing 

uncontrolled furnaces because we have 

concluded that proper conditions for 

testing are readily achieved in the 

design of a new furnace. However, in 

the specific case of reconstructed round 

top furnaces, we agree that they are 

likely to have the same physical 

constraints as existing round top 

furnaces that make it difficult or 

impossible to construct the temporary 

hooding needed for emissions testing. 

Therefore, the final rule provides 

reconstructed round top furnaces the 

same exemption from the provisions 

requiring the installation of temporary 

ACGIH hooding or the assumption of 

80-percent capture efficiency as allowed 

for existing round top furnaces. 

Regarding the commenter’s reference 

to the conditions of their Consent 

Decree, the decree at paragraph 122 

states clearly that each company is 

responsible for achieving and 

maintaining complete compliance with 

all applicable federal laws and 

regulations, and compliance with the 

Consent Decree does not necessarily 

mean compliance with the Clean Air 

Act or implementing regulations. 

Further, the Consent Decree does not 

limit the EPA’s authority to revise 

Subpart RRR. Also note that the 

compliance date for the rule revisions 

concerning testing of uncontrolled 

furnaces is 2 years after promulgation. 

While it is not necessary to review the 

specific protocols of the Consent Decree 

for purposes of this rulemaking, the 

commenter can follow up with their 

EPA Regional Office regarding any 

concerns. 

Comment: In a comment on the 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated it should not be a prerequisite 

that facilities or emission sources must 

first conduct a failed compliance test 

using the 67-percent capture efficiency 

assumption prior to petitioning 

permitting authorities that ACGIH 

equivalent hooding is impractical under 

the provisions of paragraph (e)(6). 

According to the commenter, some 

facilities know upfront that installing a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

capture hood is impractical and that 

they cannot comply with a stack test 

assuming a 67-percent capture 

efficiency. The commenter 

recommended that the final rule provide 

owners and operators a third option to 

petition permitting authorities (prior to 

performance testing) that installation of 

hooding is impractical; this alternative 

would avoid costs associated with 

multiple performance tests, labor and 

administrative burdens and potential 

enforcement liability that would be 

associated a failed performance test. 

A commenter on the supplemental 

proposal stated that many of the 

hooding provisions are unworkable in 

actual practice, and the commenter 

therefore supports the petition process 

proposed for alternate capture/

collection systems, coupled with testing 

procedures designed to minimize 

fugitive emissions. The commenter 

stated that it is inefficient and a 

significant waste of resources to require 

initial testing under the assumption of 

a 67-percent capture efficiency for a 

facility where installing an ACGIHcompliant hood is impractical and the 

facility knows or expects that it cannot 

comply using the 67-percent capture 

efficiency assumption. The commenter 

suggests it would be more efficient to 

allow facilities the option to submit a 

petition regarding the impracticality of 

hooding coupled with proposed testing 

procedures that will minimize fugitive 

emissions during the testing before the 

next required performance test occurs 

rather than after; this will minimize the 

likelihood of retesting and result in 

significant monetary, labor and 

efficiency savings. 

The commenter stated they assume 

that, in the event of testing/retesting 

following the approval of a petition 

demonstrating the impracticability of 

hooding requirements, the 67-percent 

capture efficiency provisions would not 

be applicable to the results of the 

testing/retesting. However, because it is 

not specifically stated, the commenter 

seeks a clear statement to that effect in 

the final rule. 

The commenter requested that the 

language in 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4) be 

revised as follows: 

‘‘When testing an existing 

uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 

operator must comply with the 

requirements of either paragraphs 

(e)(4)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this section 

at or prior to the next required 

performance test required by 63.1511(e). 

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH 

Guidelines, or 

(ii) At least 180 days prior to testing, 

petition the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, that such hoods are 

impractical under the provisions of 

paragraph (e)(6) of this section and 

propose testing procedures that will 

minimize fugitive emissions during the 

performance test according to the 

paragraph (e)(7) of this section, or 

(iii) Assume a 67-percent capture 

efficiency for the furnace exhaust (i.e., 

multiply emissions measured at the 

furnace exhaust outlet by 1.5). If the 

source fails to demonstrate compliance 

using the 67-percent capture efficiency 

assumption, the owner or operator must 

re-test with a hood that meets the 

ACGIH Guidelines within 180 days, or 

petition the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, within 180 days that such 

hoods are impractical under the 

provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this 

section and propose testing procedures 

that will minimize fugitive emissions 

during the performance test according to 

paragraph (e)(7) of this section. 

(iv) The 67-percent capture efficiency 

assumption is not applicable in the 

event of testing conducted under an 

approved petition submitted pursuant to 

(ii) or (iii) above.’’ 

The commenter stated that making 

these changes will also require that the 

existing proposed paragraph (iii) be redesignated as (v). 

Response: Based on the comments 

received, the EPA reevaluated the 

proposed requirements for testing 

uncontrolled furnaces. Based on our 

analysis of available data (described in 

the Technical Support Document for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket), we believe that 

the vast majority of furnaces will be able 

to comply based on the 80 percent 

assumption. However, we agree that 

there might be cases where a facility 

owner or operator may know in advance 

that they cannot comply based on the 

80-percent capture efficiency 

assumption and that installing ACGIH 

hoods for testing is not practical, so to 

require them to conduct tests that they 

know in advance will fail is 

unreasonable and unnecessary. 

Therefore, the final rule provides an 

alternative for such cases whereby the 

facility owner or operator can petition 

their permitting authority at least 180 

days in advance that ACGIH hooding is 

impractical and request approval of 

alternative testing procedures including 

measures they will take that will 

minimize unmeasured emissions during 

testing. The EPA has also clarified in the 

final rule that in testing or retesting 

following approval of a petition 

demonstrating impracticability of 

temporary ACGIH hooding, the 80- 

percent capture efficiency assumption 

does not apply to the results of the 

testing or retesting. 

Comment: In a comment on the 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

requested that instead of the 

requirement for uncontrolled furnaces 

to conduct performance testing using 

ACGIH hooding, the EPA should allow, 

as they do for round top furnaces, the 

use of alternative procedures for the 

minimization of fugitive emissions 

during performance testing for 

consistency and cost considerations. 

The commenter stated that allowing all 

uncontrolled furnaces to use the work 

practices for the minimization of 

fugitive emissions, rather than install 

ACGIH hooding, would achieve the 

same capture efficiency during the 

performance test as it would for round 

top furnaces. The commenter further 

stated that the installation and use of an 

ACGIH hood is not cost effective and 

would create unnecessary costs simply 

to comply with testing requirements. A 

commenter on the supplemental 

proposal stated that the EPA should 

delete the ACGIH capture hood 

requirements for uncontrolled furnace 

testing and instead specify work 

practice alternatives for minimizing 

fugitive emissions during testing. 

Response: The commenters have not 

provided documentation to support an 

exclusion from ACGIH hooding and 

associated requirements for furnaces 

other than round top furnaces. Based on 

the limited information available to the 

EPA, we believe that, for these furnaces, 

issues related to hooding during 

performance tests may or may not arise 

depending on the specific site 

installation, including factors such as 

the presence of surrounding equipment 

and other physical obstructions, limited 

access, and overhead cranes that may 

make it impractical to install temporary 

hooding. Therefore, the exclusion in the 

final rule applies only to existing or 

reconstructed round top furnaces. As 

noted above, even if ACGIH-compliant 

hoods cannot be installed on a furnace, 

in some instances, furnace emissions 

can be captured and measured without 

ACGIH hooding. For example, the 

building may be able to be operated as 

an enclosure, and emissions from the 

building can be measured (e.g., by 

installing a temporary fan and 

associated ductwork or a stack, and 

measuring emissions in that ductwork 

or stack) if there are no other furnaces 

or other significant sources in the 

building of the pollutant to be 

measured. In addition, an owner or 

operator of an existing uncontrolled 

group 1 furnace other than a round top 

furnace has the choice of assuming an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56723 

80-percent capture efficiency for the 

furnace exhaust, or, if the source does 

not wish or fails to demonstrate 

compliance using the 80-percent 

capture efficiency assumption, the 

owner or operator may petition the 

permitting authority that such 

temporary hoods are impractical. 

Comment: Three commenters cited 

safety concerns regarding the feasibility 

of fugitive emissions testing for group 1 

uncontrolled furnaces. 

One commenter asserted that because 

of the broad spectrum of furnace designs 

and safe operating practices for the 

group 1 uncontrolled furnace category, 

it is impossible to fully characterize the 

potential impacts on operator safety 

from EPA’s proposed action. The 

commenter observed that to conduct an 

EPA Method 5 test at a hood requires an 

operator to be present for the duration 

of the emissions test in a location that 

industry standard safe operating 

practices prohibit. The commenter 

asserted that this proposed requirement 

would violate the industry standard 

operation procedure of the vast majority 

of group 1 uncontrolled furnaces, which 

require the removal of the operator from 

unsafe locations during normal furnace 

operation. The commenter stated that 

group 1 uncontrolled furnaces fall into 

two broad categories, those designed for 

operator presence on the furnace 

structure and those that do not have any 

infrastructure for operator presence 

above the furnace. 

One commenter stated that safe 

operation of furnaces that charge 

aluminum scrap only allows for 

operators to access the area above the 

furnace when the door is closed, and the 

cycle is in a steady state (i.e., not 

immediately following scrap charging), 

entirely precluding the operator from 

entering during operation. The 

commenter emphasizes that the 

operation of the proposed testing 

apparatus, in accordance with EPA 

Methods 1 and 2, would violate 

industry best practices for the safe 

operation of remelt furnaces. 

Response: We disagree that the 

Method 5 emissions tests must be 

conducted ‘‘at a hood,’’ and therefore 

have potential impacts on the safety of 

the testing equipment operators or 

furnace operators. The ductwork from 

the hood can lead to the same stack as 

the furnace. Therefore, fugitive 

emissions captured by the hood can be 

combined with emissions from the 

furnace, and testing can be conducted at 

the same stack location as the facility 

has historically tested. Furthermore, 

existing uncontrolled furnaces have the 

additional option of assuming an 80- 

percent capture efficiency and all 

uncontrolled furnaces may petition the 

appropriate authority that such hoods 

are impractical and propose testing 

procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured emissions during testing. 

Comment: Three commenters asserted 

that design and installation costs for 

hooding are far higher when testing for 

group 1 uncontrolled furnaces than 

those provided by the EPA. One 

commenter estimated a cost of $120,000 

to $500,000 per hood. 

One commenter noted that because 

these hoods and ductwork would have 

to be retrofitted to existing equipment, 

there is little or no economy of scale. 

Response: The commenters did not 

provide supporting calculations or a 

breakdown for their cost estimates. The 

EPA contacted the commenter that 

provided the higher estimated costs and 

requested additional information on 

their cost estimate. The commenter 

provided cost estimates for an 

installation of hooding that meets 

ACGIH guidelines on a Reverb Melter 

($208,146) and a Tilting Holder 

($238,012). The EPA used these cost 

estimates in a supplementary cost 

analysis to provide further information 

concerning the rule amendments being 

adopted in this final rule Cost Estimate 

for Rule Changes to Secondary 

Aluminum NESHAP, which is available 

in the docket for this action. Based on 

the commenter’s estimates, the average 

capital cost for the two installations is 

approximately $223,000. The 2012 cost 

can be scaled to 2011 cost by applying 

the ratio of the Chemical Engineering 

Plant Cost Index for March 2011 (final— 

575.9) to March 2012 (preliminary— 

596.1), or a ratio of 0.966. Using this 

factor, the capital cost is estimated to be 

$215,400 per furnace. If this value is 

used in lieu of the original estimate 

(contained in supporting documentation 

for the proposed rule) of $76,000 for a 

single hood, all costs would increase by 

a factor of 2.83 (i.e., $215,400 divided 

by $76,000). Assuming temporary 

hooding will be installed on 107 

furnaces, the total capital cost using this 

value would therefore conservatively be 

estimated to be $17,300,000 (i.e., 

$6,099,000 multiplied by 2.83). Note 

that the $6,099,000 cost estimate is 

based on an average cost per furnace of 

$57,000, based on the assumption that 

a hood for a second installation at a 

facility would cost half as much (i.e., 

($76,000 + $38,000)/2 = $57,000). 

Similarly, using these higher cost 

estimates per furnace, the total 

annualized cost for the source category 

would be conservatively estimated at 

$3.46 million per year, and the total 

annualized cost per furnace would be 

approximately $32,300 per year. 

Therefore, conservatively assuming 107 

furnaces install temporary hooding, 

total estimated annualized costs would 

range from $1.2 million per year to 

$3.46 million per year or an average of 

$2.3 million per year. Total annualized 

cost per furnace would range from 

$11,000 per year to $32,300 per year, or 

an average of $21,650 per year. We 

believe that these total cost estimates are 

conservative (more likely to be 

overestimates rather than 

underestimates) because these costs are 

based on the assumption that all of the 

estimated uncontrolled furnaces will 

choose to install temporary hooding 

rather than use the other options 

provided in the rule for addressing 

unmeasured emissions during 

performance testing. 

Comment: Two commenters, in 

response to the 2012 proposed rule, 

requested that the EPA revise proposed 

40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(ii) to list example 

work practices that the Agency 

considers acceptable for minimizing 

furnace fugitive emissions during a 

performance test. The commenters 

stated that the list of examples would 

provide permitting authorities some 

basis for evaluating proposed work 

practices and approving test procedures. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that, 

with the approval of the applicable 

permitting authority, when testing an 

uncontrolled reverberatory furnace, they 

have used a test plan that includes 

positioning one or more fans to direct 

flow into a furnace when the door is 

opened in order to minimize fugitive 

emissions escaping the furnace door. 

The commenter recommended 

paragraph 63.1512(e)(7)(x) be added to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(x) Use of fans or other device to 

direct flow into a furnace when door is 

open.’’ 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that 

most of the ‘‘testing procedures’’ 

presented in sections 63.1512(e)(7)(i) 

through (ix) of the proposed rule are 

reasonable suggestions for minimizing 

fugitive emissions. However, the 

commenter stated that, the installation 

of temporary baffles would have no 

practical effect on reducing fugitive 

emissions for the types of emission 

units regulated under this source 

category. The commenter stated that, 

additionally, increasing the exhaust rate 

will require additional fuels to be 

combusted and will cause an increase in 

dross production; both will result in 

particulate and HCl emission increases 

that would otherwise not be created. 

According to the commenter, the 

creation of additional dross will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

produce a cascade of collateral 

environmental impacts: More dross 

must be processed, more dross 

processing HAP will be created, and 

there will be more residuals to be 

handled, transported and disposed. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that the 

language the EPA uses to introduce the 

procedures that can be used to minimize 

fugitive emissions in the preamble is 

better than that used in the original 

proposed rule at 63.1512(e)(7). The 

commenter stated that the preamble 

introduces alternatives for minimizing 

fugitive emissions with the words, 

‘‘[t]hese procedures may include, if 

practical, one or more of the following, 

but are not limited to . . . .’’ The 

commenter stated that, in contrast, the 

proposed rule at 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(7) 

simply states, ‘‘testing procedures that 

will minimize fugitive emissions may 

include, but are not limited to . . . .’’ 

The commenter recommended that the 

EPA should include the phrase ‘‘if 

practical, one or more of the following’’ 

in the language of the rule at 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(7), because this construction 

makes clear that not every alternative to 

minimize fugitive emissions may be 

practical and therefore not all the listed 

alternatives are required. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that 

they have conducted testing of round 

top melting furnaces after development 

of a test plan, with the EPA’s approval, 

as part of a Consent Decree and as 

approved by the applicable permitting 

authority. The commenter stated that 

this procedure involves removing the 

top once and placing a representative 

but lighter charge into the furnace and 

replacing the top. The commenter stated 

that the charge includes all materials 

normally charged into the furnace but a 

charge size of approximately 25 percent 

to 35 percent of normal; this procedure 

minimizes fugitive emissions from the 

furnace. The commenter stated that 

while they believe this procedure meets 

the intent of paragraph 63.1512(e)(7)(v), 

they request that the paragraph be 

revised as follows: 

(v) ‘‘In order to minimize time the 

furnace door or top is open, it is 

permissible to add a smaller but 

representative charge into the furnace at 

one time and conduct the test without 

additional charge.’’ 

Response: In response to the 

commenters’ requests, we have included 

in the final rule a list of example 

procedures for minimizing unmeasured 

emissions during testing. These 

procedures may include, if practical, but 

are not limited to, one or more of the 

following: 

• Installing a hood that does not meet 

ACGIH guidelines; 

• Using the building as an enclosure, 

and measuring emissions exhausted 

from the building if there are no other 

furnaces or other significant sources in 

the building of the pollutants to be 

measured; 

• Installing temporary baffles on the 

sides or top of the furnace opening, if 

it is practical to do so where they will 

not interfere with material handling or 

with the furnace door opening and 

closing; 

• Minimizing the time the furnace 

doors are open or the top is off; 

• Delaying gaseous reactive fluxing 

until charging doors are closed and the 

top is on; 

• Agitating or stirring molten metal as 

soon as practicable after salt flux 

addition and closing doors as soon as 

possible after solid fluxing operations, 

including mixing and dross removal; 

• Keeping building doors and other 

openings closed to the greatest extent 

possible to minimize drafts that would 

divert emissions from being drawn into 

the furnace; 

• Maintain burners on low-fire or 

pilot operation while the doors are open 

or the top is off; 

• Use of fans or other device to direct 

flow into a furnace when door is open; 

or 

• Removing the furnace cover once in 

order to add a smaller but representative 

charge and then replacing the cover. 

We disagree that baffles would be 

ineffective in reducing unmeasured 

emissions in all cases and note that they 

are just one of several options that can 

be used, as appropriate, to reduce 

unmeasured emissions during testing of 

uncontrolled furnaces. One way that 

baffles can reduce unmeasured 

emissions is to keep the smoke puff that 

escapes the furnace when the scrap is 

first put in from leaving the area around 

the furnace. Therefore, some of the 

smoke can be pulled back into the 

furnace after the seconds-long initial 

puff of smoke. Baffles also tend to 

produce a higher-velocity corridor 

leading to the furnace face, also making 

it more likely that the puff of smoke that 

escapes the furnace during charging will 

subsequently get pulled back into the 

furnace. Furthermore, their use would 

be temporary only for the time that the 

furnace doors are open to accept a 

charge. As proposed, the final rule 

includes the use of baffles as one testing 

procedure that can be used to minimize 

unmeasured emissions but does not 

require that they be used. 

We agree with the comment that 

increasing exhaust rate may tend to 

increase dross production, with a 

resultant increase in PM and HCl 

emissions. Therefore, even though 

increasing exhaust rate will improve 

capture, we are removing the example of 

raising flow rate from the list of 

methods to minimize fugitive emissions. 

We disagree with the comment that 40 

CFR 63.1512(e)(7) does not adequately 

introduce the procedures that can be 

used to minimize unmeasured 

emissions. We believe that the wording 

at 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(7) clearly conveys 

that any one of the listed procedures, or 

others that are not listed, may be used 

to minimize unmeasured emissions 

during testing. The regulatory wording 

does not require their use. Therefore, 

the final rule has not been revised as 

requested by the commenter. 

We agree that, as the commenter 

recommended, using a smaller but 

representative charge, could reduce the 

amount of time that furnace doors are 

open, and could therefore reduce the 

amount of emissions that are not 

captured and measured during testing of 

uncontrolled furnaces. Because 

emission limits for group 1 furnaces are 

in units of mass of pollutant per unit of 

mass of feed, the mass of the charge by 

itself does not affect the validity of test 

results. The final rule includes the use 

of smaller but representative charges as 

another alternative to minimizing 

unmeasured emissions during testing of 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. If a 

single test condition is not expected to 

produce the highest level of emissions 

for all HAP, testing under two or more 

sets of conditions (for example high 

contamination at low feed/charge rate 

and low contamination at high feed/

charge rate) may be required. 

Comment: Two commenters on the 

2012 proposal requested that the EPA 

extend the timeline proposed for 

retesting under 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(ii) 

to 240 days. The commenter asserted 

that the requirement proposed in 40 

CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(ii) to ‘‘retest with a 

hood that meets ACGIH Guidelines 

within 90 days’’ is not practicable. For 

the proposed provision to be workable, 

the commenter argued, the EPA needs to 

allow at least 240 days for retesting with 

an ACGIH hood if a source fails to 

demonstrate compliance using the 67- 

percent capture efficiency assumption. 

Response: The EPA agrees with 

commenters that the 90-day period for 

retesting in the 2012 proposal was 

insufficient. Based on further review 

and comments received, in the 

supplemental proposal, the EPA 

proposed a 180-day period for the 

retesting provisions in section 

63.1512(e)(4). We received no comments 

on the 2014 supplemental proposal 

objecting to the 180-day retesting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56725 

period. Therefore, instead of the 

initially proposed 90-day retesting 

period, we are adopting in the final rule 

a 180-day period for a source that fails 

to demonstrate compliance using the 

capture efficiency assumption either to: 

(1) Retest with an ACGIH-compliant 

hood; or (2) petition the permitting 

authority that such hoods are 

impractical for the furnace and propose 

testing procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured emissions during testing. 

Comment: In a comment on the 

supplemental proposal regarding 40 

CFR 63.1512(e)(4)(iii), one commenter 

stated that it is not clear if the EPA 

intends to exempt all round top 

furnaces in operation on the publication 

date of the proposal, or if round top 

furnaces that commenced construction 

or reconstruction after February 11, 

1999, (new) are purposely being 

excluded. The commenter suggested the 

language be revised to the following: 

‘‘Existing and new round top furnaces 

are exempt . . . .’’ 

Response: As proposed in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, the final rule 

exempts existing round top furnaces 

from the testing requirements for 

uncontrolled furnaces in 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii). In 

response to a comment on the 

supplemental proposal, we have 

expanded the exemption to also apply 

to reconstructed round top furnaces. 

The intent of the EPA is that existing 

and reconstructed round top furnaces 

that commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before February 12, 

2012, are exempt, and new round top 

furnaces that commence construction 

after February 12, 2012, are not exempt, 

from the testing requirements for 

uncontrolled furnaces in 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4)(i), (ii), and (iii). Therefore, 

we are not adopting the revised 

language suggested by the commenter. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the EPA clarify in 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4)(ii) what constitutes 

‘‘impractical’’ with respect to installing 

temporary capture hoods. 

Response: In response to the 

commenter, 40 CFR 63.1512(e)(6) of the 

final rule clarifies in what 

circumstances installation of temporary 

capture hoods would be considered 

impractical. 

Temporary capture hooding 

installation is considered impractical if: 

• Building or equipment obstructions 

(for example, wall, ceiling, roof, 

structural beams, utilities, overhead 

crane, or other) are present such that the 

temporary hood cannot be located 

consistent with acceptable hood design 

and installation practices; 

• Space limitations or work area 

constraints exist such that the 

temporary hood cannot be supported or 

located to prevent interference with 

normal furnace operations or avoid 

unsafe working conditions for the 

furnace operator; and/or 

• Other obstructions and limitations 

subject to agreement of the permitting 

authority. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for testing of uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces? 

As discussed above and in the 2012 

and 2014 proposals, we are finalizing 

compliance alternatives addressing 

capture and collection of emissions for 

uncontrolled furnaces during 

performance testing. Owners and 

operators of uncontrolled furnaces have 

the options of installing temporary 

ACGIH-compliant hooding for testing or 

assuming that the capture efficiency of 

the furnace exhaust is 80 percent 

without installing hooding. Further 

options are provided if a source fails to 

comply using the 80-percent capture 

efficiency assumption or decides not to 

use the 80-percent assumption and 

instead petitions at least 180 days in 

advance that ACGIH hooding is 

impractical for the furnace and for 

approval of alternative testing 

procedures, including measures that 

will minimize unmeasured emissions 

during testing. The final rule exempts 

existing and reconstructed round top 

furnaces from these requirements due to 

the infeasibility of installing hooding. 

The final rule clarifies the 

circumstances under which the 

installation of temporary ACGIH 

hooding is considered impractical and 

specifies work practices that can be 

used to minimize unmeasured 

emissions during testing of uncontrolled 

furnaces. 

D. Changing Furnace Classification 

1. What did we propose regarding 

changing furnace classification? 

In the 2012 proposal, we proposed to 

address an area of uncertainty under 

Subpart RRR by specifying in 40 CFR 

63.1514 rule provisions expressly 

allowing changes in furnace 

classification, subject to procedural and 

testing requirements, operating 

requirements and recordkeeping 

requirements. We proposed a frequency 

limit of no more than one change in 

classification (and associated reversion) 

every six months, with an exception for 

planned control device maintenance 

activities requiring shutdown. We 

received comments on the 2012 

proposal requesting additional or 

unlimited changes in furnace 

classification. Based on the information 

received, we reevaluated the 

appropriate limit on frequency of 

furnace classification changes. The EPA 

received from one commenter an 

inventory of the number of classification 

changes that occurred each year at a 

specific Subpart RRR furnace over a 

nearly 10-year period (available in the 

docket for this rulemaking). The highest 

number of furnace classification 

changes in one year, including both 

planned and unplanned changes, was 

nine. 

Based on the comments and 

information received, we proposed in 

our 2014 supplemental proposal a 

revised limit on the frequency of 

changes in furnace classification of four 

in any 6-month period, with a provision 

allowing additional changes by 

petitioning the appropriate authority. 

2. What changed since proposal 

regarding changing furnace 

classification? 

Based on our consideration of the 

comments and additional information 

received following the 2012 proposal 

and the supplemental proposal, the 

following changes are incorporated into 

the final rule: 

• Added a provision that if 

compliance has already been 

demonstrated for a given operating 

mode, performance testing is not 

required, provided the testing was in 

compliance with the provisions in 40 

CFR 63.1511; 

• Added clarification in 

§§ 63.1514(a)(2)(iii) and (4)(iii), 

(b)(2)(iii) (b)(4)(iii), and (c) on 

establishing the number of tap-to-tap 

cycles elapsed (or time elapsed for 

continuously operated units) during 

performance testing as a parameter to be 

met before changing to uncontrolled 

mode, and provisions for continuous 

operations; 

• Removed the proposed requirement 

to complete one or more charge-to-tap 

cycles or 24 hours of operation prior to 

changing furnace operating mode in 

§§ 63.1514(2)(i) and (4)(i), (b)(2)(i), 

(b)(4)(i), (c)(2)(i), (c)(4)(i); 

• Added 40 CFR 63.1514(b)(4)(iv) that 

requires that D/F emissions determined 

at performance test must not exceed 1.5 

ug D/F TEQ/Mg of feed/charge to 

demonstrate that it qualifies as a group 

2 furnace. This section was added for 

consistency with § 63.1514(b)(2)(iv); 

• Clarified §§ 63.1514(c)(5) and (6) 

with respect to requirements for 

changing operating modes between a 

group 1 and a group 2 furnace; and 

• Removed the proposed requirement 

for area sources to conduct performance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

tests every 5 years in 40 CFR 

63.1514(d)(2). 

3. What key comments did we receive 

regarding changing furnace 

classification? 

Comment: Several comments were 

received objecting to the proposed 

limits on the frequency of changing 

furnace classification. Four commenters 

on the 2012 proposal asked that the EPA 

allow controlled furnaces to change 

operating modes more frequently than 

once every 6 months. The commenters 

particularly noted the need for 

flexibility for unplanned baghouse 

maintenance and repair. Although the 

2012 proposed rule allows a change of 

operating mode for planned 

maintenance of air pollution control 

devices, the commenters stated that a 

restriction to ‘‘once every 6 months’’ for 

unplanned maintenance is ill-advised 

because such a restriction may result in 

shutdown of the entire casting operation 

or encourage an owner or operator to 

delay baghouse shutdown and repairs 

that could be initiated immediately by 

changing to a ‘‘cleaner’’ operating mode 

that has already been demonstrated to 

comply with the applicable emission 

limits. One commenter stated that the 

proposed limit (of once every 6 months) 

on the frequency of changes other than 

for ‘‘planned’’ maintenance would 

severely limit facility flexibility. One of 

the commenters requested the EPA to 

revise 40 CFR 63.1514(e) to allow 

controlled furnaces to change operating 

modes (and revert to prechange 

operating mode) without restriction on 

frequency, when the air pollution 

control device must be shutdown for 

both planned and unplanned 

maintenance. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

noted that in the proposed 40 CFR 

63.1514(e), the proposed requirements 

for operating in different modes include 

testing to demonstrate compliance 

under each mode, revising the OM&M 

plan to reflect all planned operating 

modes and revising labels to display 

compliant operating parameters for each 

operating mode. The commenter 

observed that the EPA has listed 

recordkeeping requirements when 

changing furnace classifications, but the 

EPA has not listed any barriers to 

implementation or enforcement once a 

stack test has been performed 

demonstrating compliance and an 

OM&M plan submitted. The commenter 

concludes that if tests prove compliance 

while operating in each mode, there is 

no justification for restricting the 

frequency of changes. 

One commenter noted interactions 

over several years between the 

commenter and the EPA regarding the 

use of alternative operating scenarios. 

The commenter stated that those 

communications (and litigation) 

resulted in a February 16, 2012, 

Applicability Determination (which was 

attached to their comment). The 

commenter noted that the commenter 

had explained the need for flexibility to 

change operating modes in this 

proposed rule to EPA in a letter dated 

January 18, 2012, (also attached to their 

comment). The commenter 

recommended that the EPA use the 

approach in the February 16, 2012, 

Applicability Determination in Subpart 

RRR. 

In a comment on the 2014 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated that the EPA has not adequately 

explained why it is proposing to allow 

4 changes in furnace operating mode, or 

provided any reasoned explanation for 

why these changes are lawful and 

reasonable, in view of the requirement 

that standards apply at all times. The 

commenter stated that before allowing 

such changes to be made by a facility, 

the EPA must ensure that this is not 

equivalent to an exemption from the 

standards, which a facility may take 

advantage of under the EPA’s proposal 

four times a year. 

Response: As discussed in the 

preamble to the 2012 proposed rule, the 

EPA proposed to address an area of 

uncertainty under Subpart RRR by 

allowing changes in furnace 

classification, or furnace operating 

mode, subject to procedural and testing 

requirements and a limit on frequency 

of no more than one change (and 

associated reversion) every 6 months. 

As summarized above, the EPA received 

comments on the 2012 proposal 

requesting additional or unlimited 

furnace classification changes. Based on 

the comments received, the EPA 

reevaluated the limit on frequency of 

furnace classification changes. The EPA 

received from a commenter an inventory 

of the number of classification changes 

that occurred each year at a specific 

furnace over a nearly 10-year period 

(available in the docket for this 

rulemaking). The highest number of 

furnace classification changes for this 

furnace in one year, including both 

planned and unplanned changes, was 

nine. 

In response to the comments and 

information received and because of the 

potential difficulty in distinguishing 

between a planned and unplanned 

change, in the 2014 supplemental 

proposal we proposed a revised 

frequency limit of four (including the 

four associated reversions) in any 6- 

month period, including both planned 

and unplanned events, with a provision 

allowing additional changes by 

petitioning the appropriate authority. 

The EPA explained that the revised 

limit balances the interest in allowing 

furnace classification changes while 

preserving the EPA’s and delegated 

authorities’ practical and effective 

enforcement of the emission limitations, 

work practice standards, and other 

requirements of Subpart RRR. 

Based on the EPA’s experience in 

overseeing facilities’ compliance with 

the Subpart RRR NESHAP, the EPA 

believes it will be challenging in many 

circumstances for a regulatory 

compliance inspector to retroactively 

confirm which of two scrap inventories 

(i.e., one clean charge and the other nonclean charge) was processed in a furnace 

at a given time in the past, and whether 

the allowed type of feed/charge was 

used for the furnace classification that 

was applicable for that time period. 

Similarly, it may be difficult to 

determine if the flux type and flux rate 

applied during that time period were 

compliant with the then-applicable 

furnace classification. The difficulty of 

verifying the inputs to the calculations 

used to determine SAPU emission 

limits, and daily and rolling average 

SAPU emission rates when furnace 

control device status and feed/charge 

type are frequently changed for one or 

more emission units within a SAPU 

may lead to further uncertainty in 

verifying compliance. On-site 

inspections may be difficult to conduct 

properly if the selected provisions of the 

OM&M plan applicable to furnace 

operation on the day and time of the 

inspection are subject to frequent 

change. For all of these reasons, 

increased frequency of allowed furnace 

classification changes places greater 

burdens on regulatory oversight 

agencies and personnel and creates the 

potential for impaired regulatory 

oversight. 

In recognition of the issues raised by 

allowing repeated changes in furnace 

classification and applicable emission 

standards, the EPA is finalizing a limit 

of four on the number of times in a 6- 

month period a Subpart RRR facility 

may change classification of a furnace 

(e.g., changing furnace classification 

from a controlled group 1 furnace to an 

uncontrolled group 2 furnace, and 

back). The EPA appreciates the value in 

providing operational flexibility for 

regulated sources, but believes the limit 

is necessary to ensure effective 

implementation and regulatory 

oversight of the rule. Facilities are 

allowed to change furnace classification 

up to four times during a 6-month 

period. The final rule clarifies that a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56727 

change from one operating mode to 

another and back is considered one 

change in operating mode. The EPA 

believes allowing unlimited changes of 

furnace classification would be 

impractical, as the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling 

requirement changes associated with 

changing furnace classifications would 

be difficult for the regulated community 

to follow and for the regulatory agencies 

to determine and verify continuous 

compliance. Furthermore, the EPA and 

state agency experience has shown that 

some facilities have difficulty 

preventing excess emissions from 

entering the flue gas from group 1 

furnaces, and, therefore, changing from 

a group 1 furnace to a group 2 or 

uncontrolled group 1 status using 

cleaner charge may not necessarily 

result in a reduction of emissions. More 

frequent changes in furnace 

classifications could result in a greater 

potential for excess emissions in some 

instances. The EPA selected the number 

of allowable changes in furnace 

classifications based on information and 

data received from industry on the 

number of changes in furnace 

classification over an annual period. 

The EPA believes that four changes per 

6-month period will allow industry the 

flexibility it needs while maintaining 

confidence in the level of 

implementation, compliance and 

enforcement that can be achieved in 

changing from one classification to 

another. If a source needs additional 

classification changes in a 6-month 

period, the rule allows the source to 

petition the appropriate authority for 

approval. 

Following the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we received two positive 

comments from industry on the revised 

frequency limit and the option to 

request additional changes if needed. 

Only one comment was received 

opposing the revised frequency limit. It 

does not appear to the EPA that the 

ability to change furnace modes has 

been an issue for most of the secondary 

aluminum production industry. 

Furthermore, the commenter opposing 

the revised limit did not provide 

additional data to support a greater 

frequency or the need for an unlimited 

frequency. We note that in the 

supplemental proposal, we specifically 

requested ‘‘any commenter who would 

like the EPA to consider a different limit 

on frequency to include a specific 

rationale and factual basis for why a 

different frequency would be 

appropriate as well as any data on 

historical frequencies of furnace 

classification changes under subpart 

RRR.’’ 79 FR at 72902. In addition, the 

EPA is finalizing a rule provision to 

allow the industry to request approval 

for a greater frequency of furnace 

classification changes if needed for their 

particular operation. Based on data from 

industry and the comments received on 

the supplemental proposal, we do not 

believe that it is necessary to further 

revise the limit on the frequency of 

furnace changes. In this final rule, we 

allow four changes in furnace 

classification per 6-month period with 

the option of requesting in advance 

additional changes from the appropriate 

authority. 

In response to the same commenter’s 

suggestion that EPA ‘‘adopt the 

approach’’ in a 2012 EPA letter allowing 

changes in classification for a furnace 

owned by the commenter, the EPA notes 

the letter addressed only a single, 

relatively unusual ‘‘tilt type’’ 

reverberatory furnace ‘‘in contrast to 

most reverberatory furnaces’’ and was 

located at an area source subject only to 

D/F limits and not the other limits 

applicable to major sources under 

Subpart RRR. The letter also expressly 

provided that it did not limit the EPA’s 

authority to revise Subpart RRR 

requirements through rulemaking. 

We believe the February 16, 2012, 

applicability determination is 

conceptually consistent with the rule 

changes, particularly for the specific 

type of furnace at issue in that 

determination. The Subpart RRR rule 

changes build upon several elements of 

the February 16, 2012, determination to 

address concerns that switching 

operating modes for any furnace subject 

to Subpart RRR be done in a manner 

that is fully compliant with Subpart 

RRR for each operating mode, while at 

the same time avoiding overly 

burdensome requirements for industry. 

In response to the commenter on the 

2014 supplemental proposal who 

asserted that EPA has not adequately 

explained how it is lawful and 

reasonable to allow four furnace 

classification changes per year in view 

of the requirement that standards apply 

at all times and must ensure this is not 

an exemption from standards, we 

provided such an explanation in the 

2012 proposed rule preamble, and the 

commenter did not submit any 

comments in response to the 2012 

proposed rule. In the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we proposed a revised limit 

on frequency of classification changes, 

but we proposed no other revision and 

stated we ‘‘are not requesting comments 

on any other aspect of the proposed 

provisions for furnace classification 

changes.’’ 79 FR at 72902. The comment 

refers to the revised proposed limit of 

four changes (per 6-month period, not 

per year as described by the 

commenter), but the substance of the 

comment concerns continuity of 

emission standards and potential 

exemption from standards, which are 

not specific to the frequency limit and 

were addressed previously in the 2012 

proposal. 

We note that the rule ensures this is 

not an exemption from standards. As 

discussed above, there was uncertainty 

about whether Subpart RRR allowed 

changes in furnace classification, but, at 

least in some specific circumstances and 

conditions, furnace classification 

changes were allowed under the 

existing rule. The EPA addressed the 

issue in the 2012 and 2014 proposals 

and is finalizing rule provisions 

clarifying the procedural, testing, 

operating, and recordkeeping 

requirements when changing furnace 

operating modes, so as to ensure 

continuous compliance with Subpart 

RRR standards. The final rule specifies 

how a furnace can lawfully change from 

one operating mode under the rule to 

another and does not at any time 

exempt a furnace from meeting 

applicable standards. 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to the EPA’s addition to 

Subpart RRR of any provisions 

regulating the changing of furnace 

classification. A commenter on the 2012 

proposal stated that the proposed rule 

will severely restrict flexibility, while 

the EPA is taking credit for saving the 

industry $600,000 by ‘‘allowing’’ actions 

that were previously unrestricted. The 

commenter proposes that all language 

pertaining to furnace change 

classification be removed from the 

proposed rule. 

In a comment on the 2014 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated that any restrictions on changing 

furnace classification are unnecessarily 

burdensome and do not provide any 

additional environmental benefit. The 

commenter stated that Subpart RRR as 

promulgated in 2000 provides sufficient 

basis for facilities to change furnace 

classification while maintaining 

compliance with the emission limits 

and other requirements. The commenter 

attached a 2012 letter from Edward J. 

Messina, in which the EPA 

acknowledges that a facility ‘‘may 

change operating modes consistent with 

Subpart RRR’’ and ‘‘can comply with 

Subpart RRR when it operates within 

one (and only one) of three proposed 

operating modes for the entirety of any 

given melt cycle.’’ The commenter 

provided a copy of the 2012 letter as 

part of their submittal. The commenter 

stated that they revised their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Kalamazoo, Michigan, facility’s Permit 

to Install, to include the ability to 

change furnace classification consistent 

with the EPA’s 2012 letter and have 

successfully changed from group 1 to 

group 2 operation in response to 

unexpected baghouse system 

malfunctions while maintaining 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits and other requirements 

of Subpart RRR. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, the same commenter stated 

that the EPA attempts to justify the 

restrictions on changing furnace 

classification as necessary for practical 

and effective enforcement of Subpart 

RRR; however, the EPA does not 

mention any occasion in the 14 year 

history of the MACT rule when a 

facility’s use of these provisions has 

resulted in any problem related to 

enforcement or compliance. The 

commenter stated that facilities have 

been using the ability to change furnace 

classification while maintaining 

compliance with all of the requirements 

of Subpart RRR for some time without 

creating any enforcement or compliance 

problems. The EPA has provided no 

rational basis for imposing this 

additional regulatory burden. The 

commenter recommended the EPA 

adopt the approach to changing furnace 

classification provided in the 2012 EPA 

determination (the commenter attached 

the 2012 letter to their comments), 

which does not restrict frequency of 

changes and does not require testing 

with a number of cycles of clean charge 

prior to unplanned changes, which is 

unnecessary and impracticable. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that 

changes in furnace classification were 

unrestricted prior to this rulemaking. As 

explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the existing Subpart RRR 

regulatory text did not explicitly 

address whether and under what 

conditions a furnace may change its 

classification from one operating mode 

to another. This led to uncertainty for 

facilities and permitting authorities 

when considering and evaluating 

compliance options. The rule provisions 

governing changes in furnace 

classification are intended to provide 

clarity and add flexibility for the 

industry when, for example, normal 

feed materials are temporarily 

unavailable and there is a desire by the 

facility to operate the furnace in a 

different mode. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

assertion that there have been no 

problems related to enforcement or 

compliance for facilities changing 

furnace classification in the 14-year 

history of the MACT rule. Although we 

have very limited data on the practice 

of changing furnace classification in the 

industry, in part because we received 

data from only two companies following 

the 2012 proposal, we know that some 

facilities have submitted requests to 

authorities that they be allowed to 

change furnace classification and some 

of these requests were denied. In such 

cases, the absence of national 

regulations clearly stating whether and 

under what conditions the practice is 

allowed under Subpart RRR served to 

limit compliance flexibility and was 

potentially costly to facilities that 

sought to change their furnace operating 

mode. Therefore, the addition of these 

provisions provide clear instructions to 

regulatory agencies and the industry on 

the criteria and procedures necessary to 

change from one furnace classification 

to a different one. 

Comment: Two commenters on the 

2012 proposal disagreed with the EPA’s 

proposal to allow secondary aluminum 

producers to switch furnace 

classification only after having one or 

more cycles of operation with clean 

charge before a control device can be 

turned off. The commenters stated that 

data from tests on two Alcoa furnaces 

show that there is no carryover of 

emissions from one charge to the next, 

and, by requiring operators to wait more 

than one cycle of operation before 

turning off the control device, the rule 

restricts a facility’s ability to take timely 

action to repair an air pollution control 

device in the event of an unexpected 

equipment breakdown. 

One of the commenters on the 2012 

proposal described multiple instances of 

performance tests for two melting 

furnaces regarding emissions of batches 

operated with clean charge immediately 

after using dirty charge. The commenter 

provided summaries of the performance 

tests, and the tests show that emissions 

measured during the very next furnace 

cycle after using dirty charge were 

below the group 1 furnace emission 

limits. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that the 

requirement in the 2012 proposal to 

wait one or more operational cycles 

before turning off the control device 

when switching to clean charge in a 

furnace classification change is not 

supported by available data indicating 

that there is not ‘‘carry-over’’ of 

emissions from one batch to the next. 

The commenter cited furnace testing 

data from testing at Alcoa’s Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania, facility. 

One commenter stated that the 

preamble to the supplemental proposal 

does not state whether the EPA is 

proposing to remove the requirement in 

40 CFR 63.1514 of the 2012 proposal to 

wait one or more charge-to-tap cycles 

using clean charge and without reactive 

flux addition before the performance 

test can be performed for a change from 

group 1 to group 2 operation. The 

commenter stated that, based on the 

proposed requirements, because the 

change of classification to a furnace 

without add-on control cannot be made 

until waiting the number of cycles 

operated during the performance test 

with clean charge (and without adding 

reactive flux), a classification change in 

this scenario could not be made in 

response to an unplanned event such as 

an unexpected baghouse malfunction. 

The commenter stated that facilities 

would be prevented from responding to 

unexpected baghouse system 

malfunctions by changing to group 2 

operation. The commenter stated that 

similar restrictions are contained in 

2012 proposed 40 CFR 63.1514 for 

changing from group 1 with add-on 

controls to group 1 without add-on 

controls. The commenter stated that the 

EPA provides no justification for 

requiring a facility to wait one or more 

charge-to-tap cycles before testing 

without add-on controls; therefore, the 

provision contained in the 

supplemental proposal cannot provide 

for reclassification during unplanned 

changes such as baghouse malfunction. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

asserted that if the EPA retains a flush 

cycle requirement in order to reclassify 

furnaces, each scenario should provide 

a time-based option for determining 

when the furnace can be reclassified. 

The commenter observed that the 

proposed sections 63.1514(a)(2)(i), 

(a)(4)(i), (c)(2)(i) and (c)(4)(i) allow 

either a number of charge-to-tap cycles 

or an operating time of 24 hours to 

elapse prior to furnace reclassification, 

and sections 63.1514(b)(2)(i) and 

(b)(4)(i) only provide a number of 

charge-to-tap cycles, and do not provide 

a time-based alternative. The 

commenter also suggested that instead 

of requiring ‘‘1 or more charge to tap 

cycles, or 24 operating hours,’’ the rule 

should require ‘‘1 or more operating 

cycles or time period used in the 

performance test.’’ The commenter 

explained that this language is more 

consistent with the description of 

‘‘furnace cycle’’ used throughout 

Subpart RRR, and is more appropriate 

because a process cycle for some 

continuous operations is less than 24 

hours. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

asked that the text for 40 CFR 

63.1514(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 

63.1514(b)(4)(i), ‘‘Testing under this 

paragraph may be conducted at any time 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56729 

after the furnace has completed 1 or 

more charge to tap cycles with clean 

charge,’’ be changed to ‘‘Testing under 

this paragraph may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has been tapped 

and has completed at least one (1) more 

additional cycle with clean charge.’’ 

A commenter on the 2012 proposal 

observed that the proposed rule 

inconsistently uses the phrase 

‘‘additional tests,’’ which appears to 

apply to operating modes for which the 

facility has already demonstrated 

compliance by conducting a valid 

performance test. The commenter noted 

that the February 16, 2012, 

Applicability Determination already 

specifies that testing is required to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

limits for each operating mode, and 

requiring additional tests would add 

expense without any added 

environmental benefit. 

Another commenter on the 2012 

proposal observed that this proposed 

provision would require ‘‘additional 

tests’’ to demonstrate compliance with 

operating modes that already have valid 

performance tests. The commenter 

objected to the EPA requiring area 

sources to retest every 5 years. The 

commenter also objected to the EPA 

requiring that tilting melters at area 

sources in group 2 operating mode 

perform stack testing. 

Response: In response to the 

comments and information provided by 

the commenters, the EPA agrees that it 

is not necessary to require one or more 

cycles with clean charge before a control 

device can be shut off under the change 

of classification procedures. As such, 

we have modified the final rule, 

accordingly. 

The EPA has also removed the 

requirement that furnaces at area 

sources using group 2 as any alternative 

operating mode repeat the performance 

test every 5 years. Our use of the phrase 

‘‘additional performance tests’’ in 40 

CFR 63.1514 was not intended to apply 

to operating modes for which the 

facility has already demonstrated 

compliance by conducting a valid and 

relevant performance test. Accordingly, 

we have modified the final rule 

language in 40 CFR 63.1514 to make it 

clear that performance tests must be 

performed only if compliance for the 

operating mode has not already been 

demonstrated by a valid performance 

test and have clarified 40 CFR 63.1514 

to indicate that ‘‘additional tests’’ are 

not required for operating modes for 

which the facility has already 

demonstrated compliance by 

conducting a valid performance test. In 

response to the commenter’s objection 

to requiring a tilting melter to test when 

in group 2 mode, neither the proposed 

rule nor the final rule contains such a 

requirement for any tilting reverberatory 

furnace capable of completely removing 

furnace contents between batches. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for changing furnace 

classification? 

The final rule addresses an area of 

uncertainty under Subpart RRR by 

specifying rule provisions expressly 

allowing changes in furnace 

classification from one authorized 

operating mode to another, including 

from a controlled furnace operating 

mode to an uncontrolled furnace 

operating mode, subject to procedural 

and testing requirements, operating 

requirements and recordkeeping 

requirements. The final rule allows 

changes in furnace operating modes up 

to four times (including the four 

associated reversions) in a 6-month 

period. This frequency of changes in 

furnace operating modes is based on 

limited information submitted by 

industry on the number of furnaces 

changes that occur, taking into account 

the increased burden on the EPA and 

delegated states to oversee compliance 

for furnaces that repeatedly change their 

classification and associated emission 

standards and compliance requirements 

under Subpart RRR. The final rule 

allows sources to request additional 

changes in furnace operating mode by 

petitioning the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources. 

E. Flow Rate Measurements and Annual 

Inspections of Capture/Collection 

Systems 

1. What did we propose regarding flow 

rate measurements and annual 

inspections of capture/collection 

systems? 

In the 2012 proposal, we proposed 

codifying in Subpart RRR our existing 

interpretation that annual hood 

inspections include flow rate 

measurements using EPA Reference 

Methods 1 and 2 in Appendix A to 40 

CFR part 60. These flow rate 

measurements supplement the 

effectiveness of the required visual 

inspection for leaks, to reveal the 

presence of obstructions in the 

ductwork, confirm that fan efficiency 

has not declined and provide a 

measured value for air flow. 

Commenters on the 2012 proposal 

requested that the EPA allow flexibility 

in the methods used to complete the 

annual inspections of capture/collection 

systems stating that the use of 

volumetric flow measurement was often 

not necessary and Method 1 and 2 tests 

could be a cost burden for some 

facilities. Comments also indicated that 

routine, but less frequent, flow rate 

measurements could ensure that 

capture/collection systems are operated 

properly and suggested alternative 

methods of ensuring the efficiency of 

capture/collection systems. 

Based on the comments received and 

our consideration of inspection needs, 

in the 2014 supplemental proposal we 

proposed additional options that 

provide more flexibility in how affected 

sources can verify the efficiency of their 

capture/collection system. Instead of 

annual Methods 1 and 2 testing, we 

proposed that sources may choose to 

perform flow rate measurements using 

EPA Methods 1 and 2 once every 5 

years, provided that a flow rate 

indicator consisting of a pitot tube and 

differential pressure gauge is installed 

and used to record daily the differential 

pressure and to ensure that the 

differential pressure is maintained at or 

above 90 percent of the average pressure 

differential measured during the most 

recent Method 2 performance test series, 

and that the flow rate indicator is 

inspected annually. As another option 

to annual flow rate measurements using 

Methods 1 and 2, the EPA proposed to 

allow Methods 1 and 2 testing to be 

performed every 5 years provided that 

daily measurements of the revolutions 

per minute (RPM) of the capture and 

collection system’s fan pr a fan motor 

amperage (amps) are taken, the readings 

are recorded daily, and the fan RPM or 

amps are maintained at or above 90 

percent of the average RPM or amps 

measured during the most recent 

Method 2 performance test. 

Furthermore, we proposed that as an 

alternative to the flow rate 

measurements using Methods 1 and 2, 

the annual hood inspection 

requirements can be satisfied by 

conducting annual verification of a 

permanent total enclosure using EPA 

Method 204. We further proposed that 

as an alternative to the annual 

verification of a permanent total 

enclosure using EPA Method 204, 

verification can be performed once 

every 5 years if negative pressure in the 

enclosure is directly monitored by a 

pressure indicator and readings are 

recorded daily or the system is 

interlocked to halt material feed should 

the system not operate under negative 

pressure. We also proposed that 

readings outside a specified range 

would need to be investigated and steps 

taken to restore normal operation, and 

that pressure indicators would need to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

be inspected annually for damage and 

operability. 

2. What changed since proposal 

regarding flow rate measurements and 

annual inspections of capture/collection 

systems? 

The final rule contains modified 

monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 

63.1510(d) to allow the use of non-pitot 

based flow rate measuring equipment 

(i.e., hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic 

flow meter, cross-duct pressure 

differential sensor, venturi pressure 

differential monitoring or orifice plate) 

equipped with an associated 

thermocouple and automated data 

logging software and associated 

hardware. These monitoring provisions 

provide the secondary aluminum 

production source category with 

flexibility and less costly alternatives to 

annual inspections using Methods 1 and 

2 and Method 204 while also ensuring 

the proper operation of capture and 

collection systems. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

regarding flow rate measurements and 

annual inspections of capture/collection 

systems? 

Comment: One commenter on the 

2012 proposal contended that the EPA 

should continue to allow affected 

sources flexibility in methods used to 

complete annual inspections of capture/ 

collection and closed vent systems. The 

commenter stated that the proposed rule 

would add a volumetric flow 

measurement requirement, which is 

unnecessary in many cases, to 

demonstrate proper operation of the 

capture/collection and closed vent 

system. The commenter contended that 

current rule flexibility allows sources to 

utilize monitoring methods that are 

appropriate and cost effective for their 

operations and equipment; this choice 

of monitoring method is included in an 

approved OM&M plan certified by the 

owner or operator. The commenter also 

noted that the additional cost burden on 

facilities to perform a Method 1 and 

Method 2 measurement was not 

considered by the EPA in the 

rulemaking process. The commenter 

estimated that EPA Methods 1 and 2 

will require the facility to hire an 

outside contractor and incur costs of 

more than $3,000 per unit. The 

commenter recommended that the 

Agency should continue to allow 

affected sources the ability to determine 

the best inspection methods to verify 

that capture/collection and closed vent 

systems meet operating requirements. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

discussed 40 CFR 63.1510(d)(2), stating 

that while in agreement with the need 

to routinely perform volumetric flow 

rate measurements, after negotiation 

with the EPA, a determination was 

made that a frequency of every 30 

months was sufficient, as documented 

in a 2009 consent decree resolving a 

federal enforcement action against the 

company. The commenter asserted that 

volumetric flow rate measurement is a 

costly procedure, performed by outside 

contractors costing about $2,000 a day, 

and cost per inspection will vary by the 

number of systems to be checked. The 

commenter noted that for the 

commenter’s facilities, approximately 

fifty rechecks have been performed to 

comply with the requirements of the 

consent decree or due to new stack 

testing. The commenter stated that all 

have demonstrated that each system is 

operating in accordance with the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1506(c). 

According to the commenter, this shows 

that there is no need to conduct this 

flow measurement more than once every 

30 months. The commenter objected to 

the requirement to perform volumetric 

flow measurements on each hood. The 

commenter stated that when multiple 

hoods are manifolded together, it is not 

always possible to meet Method 1 

requirements on all hoods to be 

measured, and at times it is necessary to 

measure the main trunk and arrive at 

the volumetric flow rate for an 

individual hood by calculation. 

According to the commenter, this 

method has been used repeatedly and 

submitted to the EPA and state agencies 

with stack test reports, and has been 

accepted. The commenter requested that 

the EPA clarify that the proposed 

language does not preclude this 

approach, or modify the proposed 

language to include such clarification. 

Response: Verification of the flow rate 

of the exhaust stream that is directed to 

the control device is necessary to assure 

the efficiency of the control system and 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the emission standards between 

performance tests. In addition, owners 

or operators of area source facilities are 

not required to conduct periodic 

performance tests and this requirement 

may help detect leaks and defects in the 

duct work sooner than they otherwise 

would be found. The EPA is adopting 

the requirements as proposed in the 

2012 and 2014 proposals, including 

options that provide flexibility in how 

affected sources can verify their flow 

rates. 

Instead of annual Methods 1 and 2 

testing, flow rate measurements using 

EPA Methods 1 and 2 can be performed 

once every 5 years, provided that a flow 

rate indicator consisting of a pitot tube 

and differential pressure gauge is 

installed and used to record daily the 

differential pressure, that the 

differential pressure is maintained at or 

above 90 percent of the pressure 

differential measured during the most 

recent Method 2 performance test series, 

and that the flow rate indicator is 

inspected annually. As another option 

to annual flow rate measurements using 

Methods 1 and 2, the EPA is allowing 

Methods 1 and 2 to be performed every 

5 years provided that daily 

measurements of the capture and 

collection system’s fan RPM are made, 

that the readings are recorded daily, and 

that the RPM are maintained at or above 

90 percent of the RPM measured during 

the most recent Method 2 performance 

test series. Other options for annual 

flow rate measurements using Methods 

1 and 2 that we are allowing are annual 

measurements of the face velocity of 

booth-type hoods, or installation of 

static pressure measurement in the duct 

at the hood exit, provided that the 

values obtained for these measurements 

are at or above 90 percent of the values 

measured during the most recent 

Method 2 performance test series. 

Further, we are allowing that as an 

alternative to the flow rate 

measurements using Methods 1 and 2, 

the annual hood inspection 

requirements can be satisfied by 

conducting annual verification of a 

permanent total enclosure using EPA 

Method 204. 

We are further allowing that, as an 

alternative to the annual verification of 

a permanent total enclosure using EPA 

Method 204, verification can be 

performed once every 5 years if negative 

pressure in the enclosure is directly 

monitored by a pressure indicator and 

readings are recorded daily or the 

system is interlocked to halt material 

feed should the system not operate 

under negative pressure. We are also 

requiring that readings outside a 

specified range be investigated and 

steps taken to restore normal operation, 

and that pressure indicators would need 

to be inspected annually for damage and 

operability. We are also allowing nonpitot based flow rate measuring 

equipment (i.e., hotwire anemometer, 

ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 

pressure differential sensor, venturi 

pressure differential monitoring or 

orifice plate) equipped with an 

associated thermocouple and automated 

data logging software and associated 

hardware as a sufficient monitoring 

system for compliance with this rule. 

The 2009 Consent Decree at paragraph 

122 states clearly that each company is 

responsible for achieving and 

maintaining complete compliance with 

all applicable federal laws and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56731 

regulations, and compliance with the 

Consent Decree does not necessarily 

mean compliance with the Clean Air 

Act or implementing regulations. 

Further, the Consent Decree does not 

limit the EPA’s authority to revise 

subpart RRR. 

The commenters assert that annual 

measurements of flow rates will result 

in additional costs to conduct EPA 

Methods 1 and 2 testing. Because in 

EPA’s view the existing requirements 

prior to this rulemaking required annual 

testing, we disagree that these costs 

represent a new burden. See 

Memorandum, Michael Alushin, EPA 

Office of Compliance Enforcement 

Assurance, to EPA Regional Air 

Directors, ‘‘Compliance with ACGIH 

Ventilation Manual,’’ August 16, 2006, 

which is in this rulemaking docket. 

Comment: In a comment on the 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated that in the supplemental 

proposal, the EPA would allow several 

alternatives to an annual Methods 1 and 

2 flow rate measurement including the 

option to verify a permanent total 

enclosure every five years and directly 

monitor negative pressure, which they 

support. The commenter stated that 

there appears to be an inconsistency in 

proposed sections 63.1506(c) and 

63.1510(d). The commenter stated that 

40 CFR 63.1506(c)(1) requires capture 

and collection systems to meet 

‘‘engineering standards for minimum 

exhaust rates’’ from the ACGIH 

Manuals, but the supplemental proposal 

allows an operator to ensure compliance 

with 40 CFR 63.1506(c) by verifying a 

permanent total enclosure by Method 

204, which verifies the facial velocity 

and that an inward flow is maintained 

at all openings, but does not include a 

measurement of exhaust rates. The 

commenter stated that the ACGIH 

Manuals do not provide minimum 

exhaust rates for all types of capture and 

collection systems used by the 

secondary aluminum industry; for 

example, some capture and collection 

systems are not typical ventilation 

hoods and are more appropriately 

described in the ACGIH Manuals as 

‘‘Moderate Control Total Enclosures’’ 

and, for these systems, the manual does 

not provide minimum exhaust rates, but 

rather describes appropriate velocities 

to maintain through openings in the 

enclosure. The commenter stated that to 

the extent the manuals are referenced in 

the final rule, the EPA should revise 40 

CFR 63.1506 to remove the reference to 

‘‘minimum exhaust rates’’ and require 

the system to be designed and 

monitored to meet ‘‘applicable 

engineering standards’’ as follows: 

‘‘Design and install a system for the 

capture and collection of emissions to 

meet the applicable engineering 

standards for minimum exhaust rates as 

published by the American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

in Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice 23rd or 27th 

edition (ACGIH Guidelines) 

(incorporated by reference in § 63.1502 

of this subpart).’’ 

Response: Because the ACGIH 

guidelines also contain inlet velocities 

as pointed out by the commenter, 40 

CFR 63.1506(c)(1) of the final rule now 

reads ‘‘Design and install a system for 

the capture and collection of emissions 

to meet the engineering standards for 

minimum exhaust rates or inlet facial 

velocities as contained in the ACGIH 

Guidelines.’’ 

Comment: In a comment on the 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated that they concur with the 

flexibility that the EPA provides in 40 

CFR 63.1510(d)(2)(ii) and (iii) to allow 

5-year flow rate testing measurements to 

supplant the annual testing 

requirement, if a pitot tube and 

differential pressure gauge are installed 

and monitored in the hooding (ii), or if 

fan RPM’s are tracked and recorded (iii). 

The commenter stated that, however, 

based on real world experience with the 

flow verification of permanently 

installed hooding devices, there are 

other options that should also be 

included that would provide the same 

level of protectiveness; two options are: 

Option 1. Install a pressure tap in the 

duct just above the hood exit point, and 

monitor pressure similar to the pitot 

tube. The commenter stated that this is 

simpler than a pitot tube installation, 

less prone to clogging, and has been 

effectively used at an existing location. 

According to the commenter, the signal 

will equal pressure loss in the hood 

entrance plus velocity pressure in the 

duct, and generally be proportional to 

the velocity in the duct squared. The 

commenter stated that at 3,000 ft/min 

duct velocity it will be similar to the 

pitot tube at approximately 0.70 inches 

water gauge, that calibration of 

differential pressure readings can be 

done by EPA Methods 1 and 2 flow 

testing, and that it is easier to install in 

a duct since no straight run is required. 

Option 2. If the hood has a straight 

face (i.e., booth type), face velocity 

measurements could be made over the 

face of the hood and averaged to 

determine velocity. Measured face 

velocity could be compared to 

calculated data vs. EPA Methods 1 and 

2 on a 5-year frequency. The commenter 

provided the following comments on 

this option: 

• No negative flow points should be 

observed, since this will allow smoke to 

escape the hood. 

• This will not work for canopy or 

irregularly shaped hoods. 

• Low velocities require an 

appropriate measurement device. 

• Cannot be done while material is 

being loaded into hood. 

The commenter requested that new 

paragraphs (iv) and (v) be added to 40 

CFR 63.1510(d)(2) for the inclusion of 

options 1 and 2 above. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter objected to the 

EPA’s supplemental proposal to the 

extent that it only provides two methods 

to measure flow to avoid annual 

inspection for permanently installed 

capture, collection, and transport 

systems (i.e., hoods). The commenter 

stated that Table 3 of the supplemental 

proposal allows a source to delay 

annual inspections for capture devices 

to once every 5 years, if the source 

monitors flow through daily pressure 

differential measurements or fan RPM 

measurements. The commenter stated 

that they support the recommendations 

and rationale of the Aluminum 

Association (TAA) to include additional 

flow monitoring alternatives to avoid 

annual inspections, including 

installation of a pressure tube above 

hood exit points, face velocity 

measurements (for straight face (booth 

type) hoods) and by direct observation 

of smoke in the hood by a method 22 

or similar test. The commenter stated 

that by including additional flowmonitoring alternatives, the EPA would 

allow sources the option to pick the 

most reliable and least burdensome flow 

monitoring method that fits the type of 

hood used to capture emissions at the 

source. 

In a comment on the supplemental 

proposal, one commenter stated that the 

alternative to the annual capture/

collection and closed vent system 

inspection requirements at 40 CFR 

63.1510(d)(2)(ii) is unreasonably 

restrictive and should not be limited to 

using conventional pitot tube and a 

differential pressure gauge equipment to 

qualify for the once in 5 year alternative. 

The commenter recommended that the 

EPA further amend 63.1510(d)(2) to 

permit the use of non-pitot based flow 

measuring equipment and to permit 

volumetric flow measurements to be 

automated using available software and 

hardware. 

Response: The proposed alternatives 

of annual measurements of face velocity 

for straight face (booth-type) hoods 

using a hot-wire anemometer, or 

installation of a pressure tap in the duct 

just downstream of the hood exit point, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and monitoring pressure, as suggested 

by the commenters, are acceptable. We 

also agree that non-pitot based flow rate 

measuring equipment (i.e., hotwire 

anemometer, ultrasonic flow meter, 

cross-duct pressure differential sensor, 

venturi pressure differential monitoring 

or orifice plate) equipped with an 

associated thermocouple and automated 

data logging software and associated 

hardware is a sufficient monitoring 

system for compliance with this rule. 

We are modifying the rule language to 

accommodate these monitoring options. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for flow rate measurements 

and annual inspections of capture/

collection systems? 

Based on the rationale presented in 

the preamble to the 2012 proposed rule, 

the final rule codifies in subpart RRR 

our interpretation that annual 

inspections of capture and collection 

systems include flow rate measurements 

using EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2 

in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. 

However, based on the public comments 

regarding additional flow measurement 

technologies and our responses to those 

comments presented in the previous 

section of this preamble, the final rule 

also includes additional options that 

provide more flexibility in how affected 

sources can verify the efficiency of their 

capture/collection system. 

F. Compliance Dates 

1. What compliance dates did we 

propose? 

In the 2012 proposal, the EPA 

proposed that owners or operators of 

existing affected sources comply with 

the proposed amendments within 90 

days of the publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. Commenters 

stated that the proposed 90-day 

compliance deadline was insufficient 

for sources to comply with certain 

provisions. They maintained that the 

rule changes would require operational 

planning, maintenance planning, 

reprogramming of data acquisition 

systems, design and installation of 

hooding equipment and/or negotiations 

with permitting authorities to gain 

performance test plan approvals (with 

provisions to minimize fugitive 

emissions during testing in place of 

capture hoods). They pointed out that 

facilities that choose to design and 

install capture hoods for performance 

testing will need time to design and 

complete these installations, conduct 

initial performance testing and modify 

their operations, charge materials and/or 

products to ensure compliance. Some 

rule changes, furnace classification 

changes, HF testing and testing 

uncontrolled furnaces for example, 

would require revisions to OM&M plans 

as well as to permits to include newly 

established operating parameters in 

cases where changes to furnace 

classifications are made. Commenters 

stated that compliance with HF 

emission standards that may affect 

choice of flux materials, daily 

calculation of HF emissions and 

compliance with SAPU limit that will 

require reprogramming of data systems 

to include HF and/or fluoride 

containing flux composition data would 

also require time to be researched, 

selected, purchased, financed and 

installed. Commenters suggested 

compliance deadlines ranging from 2 to 

3 years. 

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, 

the EPA agreed with commenters that 

the proposed 90-day compliance 

deadline was insufficient for sources to 

comply with certain proposed 

provisions and proposed extended 

compliance periods. The EPA proposed 

a 180-day compliance period for the 

revisions listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(d). 

For the amendments to include HF 

emissions (in 40 CFR 63.1505(i)(4) and 

(k)(2)), the testing of existing 

uncontrolled furnaces (§§ 63.1512(e)(4), 

(e)(5), (e)(6) and (e)(7)), and changing 

furnace classification (40 CFR 63.1514), 

the EPA proposed a compliance date of 

2 years after promulgation. 

2. What compliance dates changed since 

proposal? 

As noted above, we adjusted some 

compliance dates in our supplemental 

proposal. We received no comments or 

information following the supplemental 

proposal that warranted any changes to 

the compliance dates proposed in the 

supplemental proposal. As proposed, 

compliance with the provisions listed in 

40 CFR 63.1501(d) is required 180 days 

following publication of the final rule 

while compliance with the provisions 

listed in 40 CFR 63.1501(e) is required 

2 years following publication of the 

final rule. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

related to compliance dates? 

Comment: One commenter on the 

2012 proposal agreed with the 180 day 

time period for startup for new sources’ 

initial performance tests. However, the 

commenter stated that due to the 

integration of modern facilities, running 

a regulated unit at full capacity may be 

affected or constrained by downstream 

equipment, market constraints or other 

technical issues beyond the control of 

the facility. The commenter stated that 

the current provisions provide relief 

only through the administrative order 

process, which is costly and arduous. 

The commenter requested that the EPA 

include a provision to petition for an 

extension of the deadline if a test is not 

feasible within the allowed time period 

to allow time for the facility to reach full 

capacity. 

Response: As proposed in the 

supplemental proposal, the final 

amendments increase the time period 

for initial compliance testing for a new 

source from 90 days to 180 days. The 

commenter did not provide data or 

other specific documentation to support 

a conclusion that an affected source 

cannot reach full capacity within 180 

days of startup. 

Comment: Two commenters on the 

2012 proposal asked the EPA to clarify 

in the rule that the new HF 

requirements are not effective until ‘‘the 

next scheduled performance test after 

the effective date of the final rule.’’ The 

commenters observed that in the 

proposal preamble the HF testing 

requirement, and presumably the HF 

limit, was said to become effective ‘‘at 

the next scheduled performance test 

after the effective date of the final rule.’’ 

The commenters noted that the 

regulatory language does not make this 

clear, as 40 CFR 63.1501 states that 

owners or operators must comply with 

the HF limit and the HF testing 

requirement within 90 days after 

promulgation. 

In comments on the supplemental 

proposal, two commenters requested 

that the EPA clarify that the intent of the 

proposed language is to not require 

testing for HF on existing major source 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces within 2 

years of the final rule publication date 

but at the next scheduled 5 year 

required stack test following publication 

of the final rule. 

One commenter on the 2014 

supplemental proposal stated that they 

interpret the proposed language of 40 

CFR 63.1501(e) to indicate that the 

effective date of the new HF standard 

and the new requirements for testing 

existing uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

is 2 years from final rule promulgation 

and that they further understand that 

testing to demonstrate compliance with 

the newly effective provisions can be 

done on a timeline consistent with the 

existing 5-year performance testing 

cycle established using the existing 40 

CFR 63.1511(e) provision such that the 

compliance demonstration is made at 

the next scheduled performance test 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

The commenter stated that this is true 

even if the next scheduled performance 

test on the normal 5-year testing cycle 

is outside the 2-year compliance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56733 

window. The commenter provided an 

example to illustrate their interpretation 

of the compliance date requirements. 

Two commenters suggested the 

following revision to 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4): 

‘‘When testing an existing 

uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 

operator must comply with the 

requirements of either paragraph 

(e)(4)(i) or paragraph (ii) of this section 

at the next performance test required by 

40 CFR 63.1511(e).’’ 

The commenters also requested 

clarification of when HF emissions must 

be included in SAPU calculations. 

According to the commenters, furnaces 

at some facilities are on different testing 

schedules, which mean that some 

furnaces will become subject to the HF 

limit and HF SAPU calculation before 

others. The commenters assumed each 

furnace would be added to the HF 

SAPU calculation when tested, but the 

commenters requested that the EPA 

clarify this in the final rule. 

Response: Although the final rule is 

effective upon promulgation pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(10), the commenters 

are correct that the final rule requires 

HF testing at the next scheduled 

performance test if the test occurs 2 

years or more after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. We 

clarified in the final rule that the HF 

requirements apply to the next 

scheduled performance test if the next 

scheduled performance test occurs 2 

years or more after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. The 

final rule also clearly provides that each 

furnace will be added to the HF SAPU 

calculation following the initial 

performance test for HF for the furnace, 

or for a representative furnace tested, to 

determine HF emissions from the 

furnace. 

Comment: Several commenters on the 

2012 proposal disagreed with the 

proposed ninety-day compliance date. 

Two commenters stated that requiring 

compliance only 90 days after 

promulgation is unnecessary and does 

not provide sufficient time. One 

commenter suggested that due to 

engineering and management 

constraints, the period be extended to 

180 days, which would allow the 

industry to make necessary changes. 

The commenter noted potential 

component lead-times and permitting 

procedures outside of the control of 

operators. Another commenter 

recommended 2 to 3 years for 

compliance, assuming the EPA 

promulgates corrections and 

clarifications that require a compliance 

window. 

Two commenters on the 2012 

proposal maintained the rule changes 

will require operational planning, 

maintenance planning, reprogramming 

of data acquisition systems, design and 

installation of hooding equipment and/ 

or negotiations with permitting 

authorities to gain performance test plan 

approvals (with provisions to minimize 

fugitive emissions during testing in 

place of capture hoods). One commenter 

stated that facilities that choose to 

design and install capture hoods for 

performance testing will need time to 

design and complete these installations, 

conduct initial performance testing and 

modify their operations, charge 

materials and/or products to ensure 

compliance. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

stated that some facilities will also need 

to prepare and submit revised OM&M 

plans that incorporate changes related to 

bag leak detector maintenance, lime 

feeder calibrations, metal liquid depth 

monitoring and/or procedures for 

changing furnace classifications. The 

commenter noted that under the 

proposed rule, these revised OM&M 

plans could not be implemented until 

60 days after submittal to the permitting 

authority, meaning that companies 

would effectively have only 30 days to 

define their compliance approach and 

submit revised OM&M plans. The 

commenter concluded that this 90-day 

compliance timeline is neither 

practicable nor reasonable. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

recommended a minimum of one year to 

implement the controls and reporting 

requirements. The commenter stated 

that any new technology requirements 

or installation of new or modification of 

existing emission controls would 

impose added costs, and 90 days did not 

provide an adequate opportunity for 

additions to be researched, selected, 

purchased, financed, and installed. The 

commenter also stated that the Subpart 

ZZZZZZ rule allowed two years and 

that would be preferable, but a period of 

no less than twelve months would be 

fair and acceptable. The commenter also 

suggested the same delay should apply 

to the development and filing of a 

written OM&M plan. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

stated that the following provisions 

cannot be met within 90 days due to the 

possible need for ductwork revisions 

and further stack testing: §§ 63.1505(a), 

63.1505(i)(4), 63.1505(k), 63.1510(b), 

63.1510(d)(2), 63.1510(o)(l)(ii), 

63.1512(e)(l), 63.1512(e)(2), and 

63.1512(e)(4). The commenter stated it 

is not reasonable to begin work on these 

provisions immediately since they will 

be subject to further comment and 

hopefully significant revision in the 

final rule. 

Two commenters on the 2012 

proposal requested a 3-year compliance 

timeline for the provisions that result in 

changes in operations and/or operation 

practices, or impact control technology 

and monitoring requirements at existing 

sources. One commenter stated that a 3- 

year compliance date would allow 

smaller producers opportunity to budget 

for large capital and resource costs. The 

commenters suggested a 3-year 

compliance date for the following 

provisions: 

• § 63.1505(a)(1), emission limits 

applicable to SSM periods; 

• § 63.1505(i)(4), compliance with HF 

emission standards that may affect 

choice of flux materials; 

• § 63.1505(k)(2), daily calculation of 

HF emissions and compliance with 

SAPU limit that will require 

reprogramming of data systems to 

include HF and/or fluoride containing 

flux composition data; 

• § 63.1510(b)(5), procedures in 

OM&M plan for process and control 

device parameters that require addition 

of lime injection rates that may require 

new or modified equipment to 

determine rates or calibrate lime mass 

feed rate and will require lime injection 

rate to be established during next 

scheduled performance test; 

63.1510(b)(5), requirements and scope 

for capture/collection system 

inspections on controlled emission 

units; 

• § 63.1510(i)(4), monthly lime 

injection rate verification that may 

require new or modified equipment to 

allow verification of lime mass feed rate; 

• § 63.1510(j)(4), recordkeeping (and 

associated training of operating 

personnel) for solid flux added 

intermittently; 

• § 63.1510(n)(1), monitoring molten 

metal level of sidewell furnaces that 

will require selection, purchase, 

installation, testing and maintenance 

procedures for new equipment; 

• § 63.1512(e)(1) and (e)(4), deletes 

‘‘furnace exhaust outlet’’ as compliance 

basis and imposes new compliance 

demonstration requirements for 

uncontrolled furnaces based on 

temporary capture hoods, reduced 

emission limit equal to 67 percent of the 

existing standard or procedures to 

minimize fugitive emissions during 

testing negotiated with permitting 

authority; 

• § 63.1512(p)(2), record lime 

injection rates during the three test runs 

that will require lime injection rate to be 

established during next scheduled 

performance test; some existing systems 

do not have a viable means for weighing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

mass rate of lime being injected and 

new or modified equipment will be 

required; 

• § 63.1513(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3), cocontrolled units added to SAPU 

calculation that may require revision of 

OM&M plan and reprogramming of data 

systems used to track and record SAPU 

calculations; and 

• § 63.1514, requirements for 

changing furnace classifications which 

differ from those in current Title V 

permits, and will need revision after 

owners and operators establish 

compliance conditions and gather 

performance data. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

suggested that the effective date for the 

revised 40 CFR 63.1511(b)(1) language 

would need to be ‘‘at the next required 

performance test.’’ The commenter 

asserted that the proposed provision 

changes the required test conditions for 

some operations and could not be met 

by the proposed effective date of 90 

days. 

One commenter on the 2012 proposal 

asserted that the EPA is not required to 

impose the 90-day compliance period 

on area sources because promulgation of 

section 112(f) standards is not required 

based on the EPA’s findings that the 

MIR for secondary aluminum area 

sources, based on actual emissions, was 

0.4-in-1 million. The commenter stated 

that the EPA may grant up to a 3-year 

compliance deadline for area sources. 

The commenter contended that, as a 

practical matter, the EPA should 

provide a compliance period for area 

sources commensurate with the several 

new administrative requirements for 

which more than 90 days are required 

to achieve implementation. The 

commenter stated that, due to the 

revisions required for facility operations 

and the time constraints for revision and 

approval of an OM&M plan, the EPA 

should grant at least a 1-year 

compliance period. The commenter 

described potential time constraints. 

In a comment on the 2014 

supplemental proposal, one commenter 

stated that compliance deadlines for 

new standards developed under the 

section 112 program must be set for a 

date that is as expeditious as 

practicable, but no later than 3 years 

after rule implementation. The 

commenter stated that the EPA is not 

required to impose the 180-day 

compliance period on area sources 

because promulgation of section 112(f) 

standards is not required when the 

residual cancer risk under the existing 

MACT standards are not equal to or 

greater than 1-in-1 million. The 

commenter stated that because of the 

low MIR from area sources (0.6-in-1 

million), the EPA was not required to 

promulgate standards under 112(f); 

accordingly, the EPA may grant up to a 

three-year compliance deadline for area 

sources. The commenter stated that the 

EPA should provide a compliance 

period for area sources that is 

commensurate with the several new 

administrative and monitoring 

requirements for which more than 180 

days are required to achieve full 

implementation. The commenter 

provided the following example to 

illustrate the need for a longer 

compliance period: Additional 

monitoring requirements for capture 

and collection systems proposed in 40 

CFR 63.1510(d)(2) may require 

installation of flow rate or pressure 

monitoring equipment; these changes, 

and others proposed in the 2012 

proposal, may require submittal of a 

revised OM&M plan to the permitting 

authority; among the revisions to the 

OM&M plan under the 2012 proposal 

are new requirements for the inspection 

of capture and collection systems and 

additional performance testing 

requirements; the owner or operator 

may not begin operating under this 

revised OM&M plan until approval is 

received from the permitting authority, 

or 60 days, whichever is sooner. The 

commenter stated that, even to the 

extent that the 2012 proposal provides 

for default approval of OM&M plans 

after 60 days, this only leaves the source 

with 120 days to install monitoring 

equipment and implement the plan; this 

time frame is inappropriate. The 

commenter stated that, due to the 

revisions required for facility operations 

and the time restraints for revision and 

approval of an OM&M plan, the EPA 

should grant at least a 1-year 

compliance period. 

Response: As discussed in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, the EPA agrees 

with the commenters on the 2012 

proposal that the proposed 90-day 

compliance deadline is insufficient for 

sources to comply with certain 

provisions of the final rule and is 

finalizing extended compliance periods. 

The final compliance dates are the same 

as those proposed in the 2014 

supplemental proposal, on which we 

received only one comment. As these 

amendments clarify existing 

requirements, and based on the lack of 

supporting information for the 

commenter’s conclusory assertion that 2 

years is insufficient, we do not agree 

that any of the revisions warrant an 

extension beyond 2 years to a 3-year 

compliance period. Regarding the 

commenter’s concern that small 

producers would need 2 to 3 years to 

budget for large capital and resource 

costs, we determined in our economic 

and small business analysis (see section 

VI.C of this action) that 28 entities will 

incur costs associated with this rule 

and, of the 28 entities, nine of them are 

small based on the definition of the 

Small Business Administration. Of these 

nine small businesses, all are estimated 

to experience a negative cost (i.e., a cost 

savings) as a result of the final rule. 

Therefore, we do not agree that more 

than a 2-year compliance period is 

necessary. 

As a result of comments on the 2012 

proposal, the final rule does not contain 

the 60-day approval period for OM&M 

plans. Therefore, the industry will have 

the full 180 days for compliance rather 

than a 120-day compliance period as 

was a concern of one commenter. The 

final rule retains the 2-year compliance 

period for those requirements listed in 

40 CFR 63.1501(e). The final rule does 

not change the requirement that existing 

major sources conduct performance 

tests every 5 years. 

The EPA disagrees that additional 

time is needed to comply with the 

changes related to SSM. The Court 

issued a decision on December 19, 2008, 

to vacate SSM provisions in the General 

Provisions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The EPA issued 

a letter on July 22, 2009, addressing the 

impact of the decision. The court 

mandate implementing the Sierra Club 

decision was issued on October 16, 

2009, at which time the SSM provisions 

were clearly no longer in effect. As 

explained in the July 2009 memo, SSM 

provisions in specific subparts, such as 

those in Subpart RRR, were directly 

affected by the court decision. In 

addition, amendments to Subpart RRR 

were proposed on February 14, 2012, at 

which time secondary aluminum 

facilities were put on notice of the 

specific amendments to Subpart RRR in 

response to the Court’s vacatur of the 

SSM provisions. Thus, facilities have 

had ample notice that the EPA would 

make the SSM rule changes. As a result, 

the SSM-related rule changes are 

effective upon promulgation of the final 

rule. See also discussion in section III.C 

of this preamble. 

Comment: Two commenters on the 

2012 proposal requested changes to the 

new hooding requirement in 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4), requiring compliance ‘‘at 

the next required performance test’’ 

even if the test must be performed ‘‘90 

days from promulgation of the final 

rule’’ [§ 63.1501(d)]. The commenters 

explained that this compliance deadline 

may be acceptable for facilities that are 

not required to conduct performance 

testing in the first few years following 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56735 

promulgation of the final rule, but other 

facilities are on a testing cycle that 

would require testing soon after 

promulgation and these facilities may 

not have time to install hoods and/or 

modify operating practices within the 

allotted 90 days. The commenters stated 

that according to the NESHAP General 

Provisions, test protocols must be 

submitted 60 days before a compliance 

test, so facilities required to test early in 

2013 would have as little as 30 days 

after the final rule to address the new 

hooding requirements and other 

requirements of the final rule before 

submitting a test plan. The commenters 

did not believe that this timeline is 

practicable or reasonable. The 

commenters requested the EPA to revise 

the compliance date for capture hoods 

on uncontrolled furnaces (in § 63.1512 

(e)(4)) to say: ‘‘three years after the final 

promulgation date or at the next 

required performance test, whichever 

date is later.’’ 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the time available for 

owners or operators of facilities with 

performance testing required under 40 

CFR 63.1512(e)(4) and occurring near 

the proposed 90-day compliance 

deadline would be insufficient. As 

described above, in the final rule the 

requirement to account for unmeasured 

emissions during uncontrolled group 1 

furnace performance testing applies to 

testing beginning 2 years after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a source 

with their next required performance 

test of an uncontrolled group 1 furnace 

occurring at least 2 years after 

promulgation would have to comply 

with the testing provisions in 40 CFR 

63.1512(e)(4). A source with their next 

required performance test of an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace occurring 

1 year (or any period less than 2 years) 

after promulgation would not be 

required to do so until the subsequent 

performance test. As these amendments 

clarify existing requirements, and based 

on the lack of supporting information 

for the commenter’s conclusory 

assertion that 2 years is insufficient, we 

do not agree that any of the revisions 

warrant an extension beyond 2 years to 

a 3-year compliance period. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach related to compliance dates? 

The rationale for the compliance dates 

is provided in the preamble to the 

supplemental proposal and is re-iterated 

in the responses to comments in the 

previous section of this preamble. The 

final rule specifies the compliance dates 

for the new requirements. Compliance 

with the provisions listed in 40 CFR 

63.1501(d) is required 180 days 

following publication of the final rule. 

Rule changes specified in § 63.1501(e)— 

furnace classification changes, HF 

testing and testing uncontrolled 

furnaces—require more time, and the 

final rule provides 2 years following 

publication of the final rule for 

compliance. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We estimate that there are 161 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities that will be affected by this 

final rule. We performed risk modeling 

for 155 of these sources (52 of the 53 

major sources and 103 of the 108 area 

sources). Six facilities that are subject to 

the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP 

were not included in the risk 

assessment input modeling files. The 

facilities that were not included in the 

risk assessment input files included one 

major HAP source and five area HAP 

sources. The major HAP source was not 

included because the secondary 

aluminum equipment at the source 

consists of group 2 furnaces, for which 

the EPA did not have HAP emissions 

estimates. The five area sources were 

not included because they had no 

equipment subject to D/F emission 

standards, which are the only standards 

in the NESHAP applicable to area 

sources. We estimate that nine 

secondary aluminum facilities have colocated primary aluminum operations. 

The affected sources at secondary 

aluminum production facilities include 

new and existing scrap shredders, 

thermal chip dryers, scrap dryer/

delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, group 

2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross-only 

furnaces, rotary dross cooler and 

secondary aluminum processing units 

containing group 1 furnaces and in-line 

fluxers. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

The RTR analysis conducted for this 

rule does not support increasing the 

stringency of the numerical emissions 

limits. This final rule clarifies how 

uncontrolled furnaces are to conduct 

emissions testing, revises the 

monitoring requirements for annual 

inspection of capture/collection systems 

and makes other changes that correct 

and clarify rule requirements and 

provisions. These final amendments are 

not expected to achieve appreciable 

reductions in emissions, although the 

final requirements for testing 

uncontrolled furnaces could result in 

some unquantifiable emission 

reduction. Therefore, no quantifiable air 

quality impacts are expected. However, 

these final amendments will help to 

improve compliance, monitoring and 

implementation of the rule. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

The total cost of the final amendments 

are the same as we described in the 

supplemental proposal. We 

conservatively estimate the total cost of 

the final amendments to be $1,711,000 

per year (in 2011 dollars). However, 

depending on assumptions used for the 

costs for installing temporary hooding 

for uncontrolled furnaces, the estimate 

of total annualized costs could range 

from $611,000 to $2,871,000 per year. 

Our estimate for the source category 

includes an annualized cost of 

$1,200,000 to $3,460,000 for installing 

hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines 

for testing uncontrolled furnaces, 

assuming that 107 furnaces choose that 

option (rather than assuming an 80- 

percent capture efficiency for their 

existing furnace exhaust system). We 

believe that a number of these 107 

furnaces will choose to apply the 80- 

percent assumption rather than install 

temporary hooding. Our estimates do 

not include deductions for the exclusion 

of existing round top furnaces as 

provided in the final rule. Therefore, 

these total cost estimates are considered 

conservative (more likely to be 

overestimates rather than 

underestimates) of the total costs to the 

industry. Our estimates of total costs 

also include an annualized cost of 

$11,000 for testing for HF on 

uncontrolled furnaces that are already 

testing for HCl. Finally, we estimate cost 

savings of $600,000 per year for 

furnaces that change furnace operating 

modes and turn off their control 

devices. Our estimate of savings is based 

on 50 furnaces turning off their controls 

for approximately 6 months every year. 

This savings reflects the cost of testing 

(to demonstrate these furnaces remain 

in compliance with emission limits) 

minus the savings realized from 

operating with the control devices 

turned off. 

We estimate that 57 facilities will be 

affected and that the cost per facility 

ranges from negative $36,000 (a cost 

savings) per year for a facility changing 

furnace operating modes to $216,500 

per year for a facility installing hooding 

for testing. 

The estimated costs are explained 

further in the document titled, Cost 

Estimate for Rule Changes to Secondary 

Aluminum NESHAP, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for the amendments in this 

final rule. This analysis estimates 

impacts based on using annualized costto-sales ratios for affected firms. For the 

28 parent firms affected by this final 

rule, the cost-to-sales estimate for each 

parent firm is less than 0.1 percent. For 

more information, please refer to the 

document titled, Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Secondary Aluminum 

Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket. 

E. What are the benefits? 

We do not anticipate any significant 

reductions in HAP emissions as a result 

of these final amendments. However, we 

think that they will help to improve the 

clarity of the rule, which can improve 

compliance and minimize emissions. 

Certain provisions also provide 

operational flexibility with no increase 

in HAP emissions. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

We did not conduct an assessment of 

risks to individual demographic groups 

for this rulemaking. However, we did 

conduct a proximity analysis for both 

area and major sources, which identifies 

any overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations near 

facilities in the source category. The 

results of the proximity analyses 

suggested there are a higher percentage 

of minorities, people with low income, 

and people without a high school 

diploma living near these facilities (i.e., 

within 3 miles) compared to the 

national averages for these 

subpopulations. However, the risks due 

to HAP emissions from this source 

category are low for all populations 

(e.g., inhalation cancer risks are less 

than 1-in-1 million for all populations 

and non-cancer HIs are less than 1). We 

note that we do not expect this final rule 

to achieve reductions in HAP emissions. 

We conclude that this rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. However, the final 

rule will provide additional benefits to 

these and all demographic groups by 

improving the compliance, monitoring 

and implementation of the NESHAP. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health risks or safety risks addressed by 

this action present a disproportionate 

risk to children. The risk assessment 

report, Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category in Support of the 2015 

Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket, 

estimated that no one is exposed to an 

inhalation cancer risk at or above 1-in1 million or a chronic noncancer TOSHI 

greater than one due to emissions from 

the source category. The 2015 

Environmental Justice Screening Report 

for Secondary Aluminum Major Sources 

and the 2015 Environmental Justice 

Screening Report for Secondary 

Aluminum Area Sources, also available 

in the docket, indicate the percentages 

for all demographic groups exposed to 

various risk levels, including children, 

are similar to their respective 

nationwide percentages. All groups are 

exposed to cancer risks below 1-in-1 

million and HIs less than 1 due to 

inhalation exposure to HAP emissions 

from this source category. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

We are establishing new paperwork 

requirements for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category 

to improve enforcement of and 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR. The new requirements are 

in the form of recordkeeping and 

reporting for furnace classification 

changes and recordkeeping with regard 

to verification of lime injection rates. 

New monitoring requirements include 

testing for HF, and testing related to 

furnace classification changes. The 

information requirements are based on 

notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which generally apply to all 

operators subject to Part 63 national 

emissions standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

We estimate 161 regulated entities are 

currently subject to Subpart RRR. The 

annual monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the rule) for these 

amendments to Subpart RRR is 

estimated to be $2,990,000 per year. 

This includes 1,694 labor hours per year 

at a total labor cost of $162,000 per year, 

and total non-labor capital and 

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs 

of $2,828,000 per year. The total burden 

for the federal government (averaged 

over the first 3 years after the effective 

date of the rule) is estimated to be 271 

labor hours per year at an annual cost 

of $12,231. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small businesses. We 

determined in the economic and small 

business analysis that, using the results 

from the cost memorandum, 28 entities 

will incur costs associated with the final 

rule. Of these 28 entities, nine of them 

are small. Of these nine, all of them are 

estimated to experience a negative cost 

(i.e., a cost savings) as a result of the 

final rule according to our analysis. For 

more information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Secondary Aluminum Supplemental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56737 

Proposal, which is available in the 

docket. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. There are no secondary 

aluminum production facilities owned 

or operated by tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category in Support of the 2015 

Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action, and are discussed in section V.G 

of this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This final action involves technical 

standards. The EPA decided to allow 

the use of ASTM D7520–13, Standard 

Test Method for Determining the 

Opacity of a Plume in an Outdoor 

Ambient Atmosphere, approved 

December 1, 2013, as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 9 to meet 

opacity measurement requirements and 

is incorporated by reference. The 

alternative ASTM method determines 

the opacity of a plume using digital 

imagery and associated hardware and 

software. The standard is available from 

the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, Post Office Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 or at 

their Web site, http://www.astm.org. 

Under the original 2000 subpart RRR, 

the EPA already allows the use of EPA 

Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 23, 25A and 26A 

of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. As a 

result of comments received on the 2012 

proposal, EPA Method 26 was identified 

as a reasonable alternative to EPA 

Method 26A and EPA Method 204 was 

identified as a reasonable alternative 

method for EPA Methods 1 and 2. 

Method 26A is applicable for 

determining emissions of hydrogen 

halides and halogens from stationary 

sources. This method collects the 

emission sample isokinetically and is 

therefore particularly suited for 

sampling at sources, such as those 

controlled by wet scrubbers, emitting 

acid particulate matter. Method 204 is 

used to determine whether a permanent 

or temporary enclosure meets the 

criteria for a total enclosure. In this 

method, an enclosure is evaluated 

against a set of criteria, which, if met 

and all the exhaust gases from the 

enclosure are ducted to a control device, 

the capture efficiency is assumed to be 

100 percent. The EPA agrees that EPA 

Methods 26 and 204 are acceptable 

alternatives for use in this rule. These 

methods are existing EPA test methods 

and are not voluntary consensus 

standards under NTTAA. 

EPA–625/3–89–016, Interim 

Procedures for Estimating Risks 

Associated with Exposures to Mixtures 

of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and 

-Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 

1989 Update, March 1989, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, is a 

procedure for assessing the risks 

associated with exposures to complex 

mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurnas and relates 

the toxicity of the 210 structurally 

related chemical pollutants and is based 

on a limited data base of in vivo and in 

vitro toxicity testing. This method is 

incorporated by reference. The method 

is available from the National Technical 

Information Service, 5301 Shawnee 

Road, Alexandria, VA 22312, or at their 

Web site, http://www.ntis.gov. 

For the design and installation of 

capture and collection systems, the EPA 

decided to allow the use of American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH) Industrial 

Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 

Practice for Design, 27th Edition, 2010 

as an alternative to Industrial 

Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 

Practice, 23rd Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, 

‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’ and Chapter 5, 

‘‘Exhaust System Design Procedure.’’ 

The manuals present information on 

design, maintenance and evaluation of 

industrial exhaust ventilation systems. 

The manuals are available from ACGIH, 

Customer Service Department, 1330 

Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, 

Ohio 45240, telephone number (513) 

742–2020. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in this 

final rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income, or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. This 

final rule will not relax the emission 

limits on regulated sources and will not 

result in emissions increases. The 

results of this evaluation are contained 

in sections III.A, IV.A and V.F and V.G 

of this preamble. 

Because our residual risk assessment 

determined that there was minimal 

residual risk associated with the 

emissions from facilities in this source 

category, a demographic risk analysis 

was not necessary for this category. 

However, the EPA did conduct a 

proximity analysis for both area and 

major sources. The results of these 

analyses are summarized in section IV.A 

of this preamble and in more detail in 

the EJ Screening Report for Area 

Sources and the EJ Screening Report for 

Major Sources, which are available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 14, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, 

part 63 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 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. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) 

through (r) as (c) through (s); 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (b); 

■ c. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (h)(87); 

■ d. Redesignating newly redesignated 

paragraphs (m)(3) through (m)(20) as 

(m)(4) through (m)(21); and 

■ e. Adding new paragraph (m)(3). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH), Customer Service Department, 

1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45240, telephone 

number (513) 742–2020. 

(1) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual 

of Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition, 

1998, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’ 

and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design 

Procedure.’’ IBR approved for 

§§ 63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 

2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart 

RRR, and Appendix A to Subpart RRR. 

(2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual 

of Recommended Practice for Design, 

27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for 

§§ 63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 

2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart 

RRR, and Appendix A to Subpart RRR. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(87) ASTM D7520–13, Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere, approved December 1, 

2013. IBR approved for §§ 63.1510(f), 

63.1511(d), 63.1512(a), 63.1517(b) and 

63.1625(b). 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) EPA–625/3–89–016, Interim 

Procedures for Estimating Risks 

Associated with Exposures to Mixtures 

of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and 

–Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 

1989 Update, March 1989. IBR approved 

for § 63.1513(d). 

* * * * * 

Subpart RRR—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Secondary Aluminum Production 

■ 3. Revise § 63.1501 to read as follows: 

§ 63.1501 Dates. 

(a) An affected source constructed 

before February 11, 1999, must comply 

with the requirements of this subpart by 

March 24, 2003, except as provided in 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

(b) The owner or operator of an 

affected source constructed before 

February 14, 2012, must comply with 

the following requirements of this 

subpart by March 16, 2016: § 63.1505(k) 

introductory text, (k)(1) through (k)(5), 

other than the emission standards for 

HF in (k)(2); § 63.1506 (a)(1), (c)(1), 

(g)(5), (k)(3), (m)(4), (m)(7), (n)(1); 

§ 63.1510 (b)(5), (b)(9), (d)(2), 

(d)(3),(f)(1)(ii), (i)(4), (j)(4), (n)(1), (o)(1), 

(o)(1)(ii), (s)(2)(iv), (t) introductory text, 

(t)(2)(i), (t)(2)(ii), (t)(4), (t)(5); 

§ 63.1511(a) introductory text, (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(6), 

(c)(9), (g)(5); § 63.1512(e)(1), (e)(2), 

(e)(3), (h)(2), (j), (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(i), (o) 

introductory text, (o)(1), (o)(3), (p)(2); 

§ 63.1513 (b)(1), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f); 

§ 63.1516 (b) introductory text, 

(b)(2)(vii), (b)(3)(i); § 63.1517(b)(1)(iii), 

(b)(4)(ii), (b)(14), (b)(19). 

(c) The owner or operator of an 

affected source constructed before 

February 14, 2012, must comply with 

the following requirements of this 

subpart by September 18, 2017: 

§ 63.1505(i)(4) and (k)(2) emission 

standards for HF; § 63.1512(e)(4) 

through (7) requirements for testing 

existing uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

(that is, group 1 furnaces without addon air pollution control devices); and 

§ 63.1514 requirements for change of 

furnace classification. 

(d) An affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after February 11, 1999 

but before February 14, 2012 must 

comply with the requirements of this 

subpart by March 24, 2000 or upon 

startup, whichever is later, except as 

provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and 

(f) of this section. 

(e) The owner or operator of an 

affected source that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

February 14, 2012, must comply with all 

the requirements of this subpart by 

September 18, 2015 or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

(f) The owner or operator of any 

affected source which is constructed or 

reconstructed after February 11, 1999, 

but before February 14, 2012 at any 

existing aluminum die casting facility, 

aluminum foundry, or aluminum 

extrusion facility which otherwise 

meets the applicability criteria set forth 

in § 63.1500 must comply with the 

requirements of this subpart by March 

24, 2003 or upon startup, whichever is 

later, except as provided in paragraphs 

(b) and (c) of this section. The owner or 

operator of any affected source which is 

constructed or reconstructed after 

February 14, 2012, at any existing 

aluminum die casting facility, 

aluminum foundry, or aluminum 

extrusion facility which otherwise 

meets the applicability criteria set forth 

in § 63.1500 must comply with the 

requirements by September 18, 2015 or 

upon startup, whichever is later. 

§ 63.1502 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 63.1502. 

■ 5. Section 63.1503 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition of ‘‘ACGIH Guidelines’’; 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘aluminum scrap shredder’’; 

■ c. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions of ‘‘bale breaker’’ and 

‘‘capture and collection system’’; 

■ d. Revising the definitions of ‘‘clean 

charge,’’ ‘‘cover flux,’’ ‘‘Group 2 

furnace,’’ and ‘‘HCl’’; 

■ e. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition of ‘‘HF’’; 

■ f. Revising the definition of 

‘‘residence time’’; 

■ g. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition of ‘‘round top furnace’’; 

■ h. Revising the definitions of ‘‘scrap 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln’’ 

and ‘‘secondary aluminum processing 

unit (SAPU)’’; and 

■ i. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions of ‘‘shutdown,’’ ‘‘startup,’’ 

‘‘tap,’’ and ‘‘total reactive fluorine flux 

injection rate’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1503 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

ACGIH Guidelines means chapters 3 

and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A 

Manual of Recommended Practice 23rd 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56739 

edition or appropriate chapters of 

Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice for Design 27th 

edition (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14). 

* * * * * 

Aluminum scrap shredder means a 

high speed or low speed unit that 

crushes, grinds, granulates, shears or 

breaks aluminum scrap into a more 

uniform size prior to processing or 

charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. A bale 

breaker is not an aluminum scrap 

shredder. Shearing and cutting 

operations performed at rolling mills 

and aluminum finishing operations 

(such as slitters) are not aluminum scrap 

shredders. 

* * * * * 

Bale breaker means a device used to 

break apart a bale of aluminum scrap for 

further processing. Bale breakers are not 

used to crush, grind, granulate, shear or 

break aluminum scrap into more 

uniform size pieces. 

* * * * * 

Capture and collection system means 

the system, including duct systems and 

fans, and, in some cases, hoods, used to 

collect a contaminant at or near its 

source, and for affected sources 

equipped with an air pollution control 

device, transport the contaminated air to 

the air cleaning device. 

* * * * * 

Clean charge means furnace charge 

materials, including molten aluminum; 

T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying 

elements; aluminum scrap known by 

the owner or operator to be entirely free 

of paints, coatings, and lubricants; 

uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips 

that have been thermally dried or 

treated by a centrifugal cleaner; 

aluminum scrap dried at 343 °C (650 °F) 

or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/ 

decoated at 482 °C (900 °F) or higher; 

and runaround scrap. Anodized 

aluminum that contains dyes or sealants 

containing organic compounds is not 

clean charge. 

Cover flux means salt added to the 

surface of molten aluminum in a group 

1 or group 2 furnace, without surface 

agitation of the molten aluminum, for 

the purpose of preventing oxidation. 

Any flux added to a rotary furnace is not 

a cover flux. 

* * * * * 

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, non-HAPcontaining/non-HAP-generating gases or 

agents. Unheated pots, to which no flux 

is added and that are used to transport 

metal, are not furnaces. 

HCl means hydrogen chloride. 

HF means hydrogen fluoride. 

* * * * * 

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. The combustion zone volume 

includes the reaction chamber of the 

afterburner in which the waste gas 

stream is exposed to the direct 

combustion flame and the complete 

refractory lined portion of the furnace 

stack up to the measurement 

thermocouple. 

* * * * * 

Round top furnace means a 

cylindrically-shaped reverberatory 

furnace that has a top that is removed 

for charging and other furnace 

operations. 

* * * * * 

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/

decoating kiln means a unit used 

primarily to remove various organic 

contaminants such as oil, paint, lacquer, 

ink, plastic, and/or rubber from 

aluminum scrap (including used 

beverage containers) prior to melting, or 

that separates aluminum foil from paper 

and plastic in scrap. 

Secondary aluminum processing unit 

(SAPU). An existing SAPU 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. A new 

SAPU means any combination of 

individual group 1 furnaces and in-line 

fluxers within a secondary aluminum 

processing facility which either were 

constructed or reconstructed after 

February 11, 1999, or have been 

permanently redesignated as new 

emission units pursuant to 

§ 63.1505(k)(6). Each of the group 1 

furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new 

SAPU is considered an emission unit 

within that secondary aluminum 

processing unit. A secondary aluminum 

production facility may have more than 

one new SAPU. 

* * * * * 

Shutdown means the period of 

operation for thermal chip dryers, scrap 

dryers/delacquering kilns, decoating 

kilns, dross-only furnaces, group 1 

furnaces, in-line fluxers, sweat furnaces 

and group 2 furnaces that begins when 

the introduction of feed/charge is 

intentionally halted, the source of heat 

to the emissions unit is turned off, and 

product has been removed from the 

emission unit to the greatest extent 

practicable (e.g., by tapping a furnace). 

Shutdown ends when the emission unit 

is near ambient temperature. 

* * * * * 

Startup means the period of operation 

for thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/

delacquering kilns, decoating kilns, 

dross-only furnaces, group 1 furnaces, 

in-line fluxers, sweat furnaces and 

group 2 furnaces that begins with 

equipment warming from a shutdown, 

that is, the equipment is at or near 

ambient temperature. Startup ends at 

the point that flux or feed/charge is 

introduced. 

* * * * * 

Tap means the end of an operating 

cycle of any individual furnace when 

processed molten aluminum is poured 

from that furnace. 

* * * * * 

Total reactive fluorine flux injection 

rate means the sum of the total weight 

of fluorine in the gaseous or liquid 

reactive flux added to an uncontrolled 

group 1 furnace, and the total weight of 

fluorine in the solid reactive flux added 

to an uncontrolled group 1 furnace, 

divided by the total weight of feed/

charge, as determined by the procedure 

in § 63.1512(o). 

■ 6. Section 63.1505 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (i)(4), (k) 

introductory text, (k)(1) through (3), and 

(k)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1505 Emission standards for affected 

sources and emission units. 

(a) Summary. The owner or operator 

of a new or existing affected source 

must comply at all times with each 

applicable limit in this section, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown. Table 1 to this subpart 

summarizes the emission standards for 

each type of source. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(4) 0.20 kg of HF per Mg (0.40 lb of 

HF per ton) of feed/charge from an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace and 0.20 

kg of HCl per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl per ton) 

of feed/charge or, if the furnace is 

equipped with an add-on air pollution 

control device, 10 percent of the 

uncontrolled HCl emissions, by weight, 

for a group 1 furnace at a secondary 

aluminum production facility that is a 

major source. 

* * * * * 

(k) Secondary aluminum processing 

unit. The owner or operator must 

comply with the emission limits 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

calculated using the equations for PM, 

HCl and HF in paragraphs (k)(1) and (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: 

Where: 

LtiPM = The PM emission limit for individual 

emission unit i in paragraph (i)(1) and (2) 

of this section for a group 1 furnace or 

in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for an 

in-line fluxer; 

Tti = The mass of feed/charge for 24 hours for 

individual emission unit i; and 

LcPM = The daily PM emission limit for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit 

which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24- 

hour PM emission limit applicable to the 

SAPU. 

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 or HF 

in excess of: 

Where: 

LtiHCl/HF = The HCl emission limit for 

individual emission unit i in paragraph 

(i)(4) of this section for a group 1 furnace 

or in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for 

an in-line fluxer; or the HF emission 

limit for individual emission unit i in 

paragraph (i)(4) of this section for an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace; and 

LcHCl/HF = The daily HCl or HF emission limit 

for the secondary aluminum processing 

unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 

24-hour HCl or HF emission limit 

applicable to the SAPU. 

Note: Only uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

are included in this HF limit calculation. Inline fluxers using no reactive flux materials 

cannot be included in this calculation since 

they are not subject to the HCl or HF 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: 

Where: 

LtiD/F = The D/F emission limit for individual 

emission unit i in paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section for a group 1 furnace; and 

LcD/F = The daily D/F emission limit for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit 

which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24- 

hour D/F emission limit applicable to the 

SAPU. 

Note: Clean charge furnaces cannot be 

included in this calculation since they are 

not subject to the D/F limit. 

* * * * * 

(6) With the prior approval of the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources, an 

owner or operator may redesignate any 

existing group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer 

at a secondary aluminum production 

facility as a new emission unit. Any 

emission unit so redesignated may 

thereafter be included in a new SAPU 

at that facility. Any such redesignation 

will be solely for the purpose of this 

NESHAP and will be irreversible. 

■ 7. Section 63.1506 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (c)(4); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (g)(5), (k)(3), 

and (m)(4); 

■ f. Adding paragraph (m)(7); and 

■ g. Revising paragraph (n)(1). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1506 Operating requirements. 

(a) Summary. (1) The owner or 

operator must operate all new and 

existing affected sources and control 

equipment according to the 

requirements in this section. The 

affected sources, and their associated 

control equipment, listed in 

§ 63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of this 

subpart that are located at a secondary 

aluminum production facility that is an 

area source are subject to the operating 

requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18SE15.007</GPH> ER18SE15.008</GPH> ER18SE15.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56741 

(f), (g), (h), (m), (n), and (p) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(5) At all times, the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Design and install a system for the 

capture and collection of emissions to 

meet the engineering standards for 

minimum exhaust rates or facial inlet 

velocities as contained in the ACGIH 

Guidelines (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14); 

* * * * * 

(4) In lieu of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operator of a sweat 

furnace may design, install and operate 

each sweat furnace in accordance with 

paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) As demonstrated by an annual 

negative air flow test conducted in 

accordance with § 63.1510(d)(3), air 

flow must be into the sweat furnace or 

towards the plane of the sweat furnace 

opening. 

(ii) The owner or operator must 

maintain and operate the sweat furnace 

in a manner consistent with the good 

practices requirements for minimizing 

emissions, including unmeasured 

emissions, in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. Procedures that will minimize 

unmeasured emissions may include, but 

are not limited to the following: 

(A) Increasing the exhaust rate from 

the furnace with draft fans, so as to 

capture emissions that might otherwise 

escape from the sweat furnace opening; 

(B) Minimizing the time the sweat 

furnace doors are open; 

(C) Keeping building doors and other 

openings closed to the greatest extent 

possible to minimize drafts that would 

divert emissions from being drawn into 

the sweat furnace; 

(D) Maintaining burners on low-fire or 

pilot operation while the doors are 

open; 

(E) Conducting periodic inspections 

and maintenance of sweat furnace 

components to ensure their proper 

operation and performance including 

but not limited to, door assemblies, 

seals, combustion chamber refractory 

material, afterburner and stack 

refractory, blowers, fans, dampers, 

burner tubes, door raise cables, pilot 

light assemblies, baffles, sweat furnace 

and afterburner shells and other internal 

structures. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

document in their operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) 

plan the procedures to be used to 

minimize emissions, including 

unmeasured emissions, in addition to 

the procedures to ensure the proper 

operation and maintenance of the sweat 

furnace. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(5) For a continuous injection device, 

maintain free-flowing lime in the 

hopper to the feed device at all times 

and maintain the lime feeder setting at 

or above the level established during the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) For a continuous injection system, 

maintain free-flowing lime in the 

hopper to the feed device at all times 

and maintain the lime feeder setting at 

or above the level established during the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(4) For a continuous lime injection 

system, maintain free-flowing lime in 

the hopper to the feed device at all 

times and maintain the lime feeder 

setting at or above the level established 

during the performance test. 

* * * * * 

(7) The operation of capture/

collection systems and control devices 

associated with natural gas-fired, 

propane-fired or electrically heated 

group 1 furnaces that will be idled for 

at least 24 hours after the furnace cycle 

has been completed may be temporarily 

stopped. Operation of these capture/

collection systems and control devices 

must be restarted before feed/charge, 

flux or alloying materials are added to 

the furnace. 

(n) * * * 

(1) Maintain the total reactive 

chlorine flux injection rate and fluorine 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1510 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) 

introductory text, and (b)(5); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(9); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through 

(iv) and (d)(3); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (e) and 

(f)(1)(ii); 

■ f. Adding paragraph (f)(4); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (i)(3); 

■ h. Adding paragraph (i)(4); 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (j)(4), 

(n)(1) and (2), (o)(1), (s)(2)(iv), (s)(3), and 

(t) introductory text; 

■ j. Adding paragraphs (t)(2)(i) through 

(iii); and 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (t)(4) and (5). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1510 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) Summary. 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 3 to this subpart. 

Area sources are subject to monitoring 

requirements for those affected sources 

listed in § 63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of 

this subpart, and associated control 

equipment as required by paragraphs (b) 

through (k), (n) through (q), and (s) 

through (w) of this section, including 

but not limited to: 

(1) The OM&M plan required in 

paragraph (b) of this section pertaining 

to each affected source listed in 

§ 63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of this 

subpart, 

(2) The labeling requirements 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section pertaining to group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, and 

scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns, 

(3) The requirements for capture and 

collection described in paragraph (d) of 

this section for each controlled affected 

source (i.e., affected sources with an 

add-on air pollution control device), 

listed in § 63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of 

this subpart, 

(4) The feed/charge weight monitoring 

requirements described in paragraph (e) 

of this section applicable to group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean 

charge, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/

decoating kilns and thermal chip dryers, 

(5) The bag leak detection system 

requirements described in paragraph (f) 

of this section applicable to all bag leak 

detection systems installed on fabric 

filters and lime injected fabric filters 

used to control each affected source 

listed in § 63.1500(c)(1)–(4) of this 

subpart, 

(6) The requirements for afterburners 

described in paragraph (g) of this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

section applicable to sweat furnaces, 

thermal chip dryers, and scrap dryer/

delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, 

(7) The requirements for monitoring 

fabric filter inlet temperature described 

in paragraph (h) of this section for all 

lime injected fabric filters used to 

control group 1 furnaces processing 

other than clean charge, sweat furnaces 

and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/

decoating kilns, 

(8) The requirements for monitoring 

lime injection described in paragraph (i) 

of this section applicable to all lime 

injected fabric filters used to control 

emissions from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and 

scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns, 

(9) The requirements for monitoring 

total reactive flux injection described in 

paragraph (j) of this section for all group 

1 furnaces processing other than clean 

charge, 

(10) The requirements described in 

paragraph (k) of this section for thermal 

chip dryers, 

(11) The requirements described in 

paragraph (n) of this section for 

controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(12) The requirements described in 

paragraph (o) of this section for 

uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(13) The requirements described in 

paragraph (p) of this section for scrap 

inspection programs for uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces, 

(14) The requirements described in 

paragraph (q) of this section for 

monitoring scrap contamination level 

for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, 

(15) The requirements described in 

paragraph (s) of this section for 

secondary aluminum processing units, 

limited to compliance with limits for 

emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(16) The requirements described in 

paragraph (t) of this section for 

secondary aluminum processing units 

limited to compliance with limits for 

emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(17) The requirements described in 

paragraph (u) of this section for 

secondary aluminum processing units 

limited to compliance with limits for 

emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(18) The requirements described in 

paragraph (v) of this section for 

alternative lime addition monitoring 

methods applicable to lime-injected 

fabric filters used to control emissions 

from group 1 furnaces processing other 

than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, 

sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/

delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, and 

(19) The requirements described in 

paragraph (w) of this section for 

approval of alternate methods for 

monitoring group 1 furnaces processing 

other than clean charge, thermal chip 

dryers, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/

decoating kilns and sweat furnaces and 

associated control devices for the 

control of D/F emissions. 

(b) Operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or 

operator must prepare and implement 

for each new or existing affected source 

and emission unit, a written OM&M 

plan. The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source must submit the 

OM&M plan to the permitting authority 

for major sources, or the Administrator 

for area sources no later than the 

compliance date established by 

§ 63.1501(a). The owner or operator of 

any new affected source must submit 

the OM&M plan to the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources within 90 

days after a successful initial 

performance test under § 63.1511(b), or 

within 90 days after the compliance 

date established by § 63.1501(b) if no 

initial performance test is required. The 

plan must be accompanied by a written 

certification by the owner or operator 

that the OM&M plan satisfies all 

requirements of this section and is 

otherwise consistent with the 

requirements of this subpart. The owner 

or operator must comply with all of the 

provisions of the OM&M plan as 

submitted to the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, unless and until the plan 

is revised in accordance with the 

following procedures. If the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources 

determines at any time after receipt of 

the OM&M plan that any revisions of 

the plan are necessary to satisfy the 

requirements of this section or this 

subpart, the owner or operator must 

promptly make all necessary revisions 

and resubmit the revised plan. If the 

owner or operator determines that any 

other revisions of the OM&M plan are 

necessary, such revisions will not 

become effective until the owner or 

operator submits a description of the 

changes and a revised plan 

incorporating them to the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources. Each 

plan must contain the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(5) Procedures for monitoring process 

and control device parameters, 

including lime injection rates, 

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. 

* * * * * 

(9) Procedures to be followed when 

changing furnace classifications under 

the provisions of § 63.1514. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(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 operating requirements in 

§ 63.1506(c) and record the results of 

each inspection. This inspection shall 

include a volumetric flow rate 

measurement taken at a location in the 

ductwork downstream of the hoods that 

is representative of the actual 

volumetric flow rate without 

interference due to leaks, ambient air 

added for cooling or ducts from other 

hoods. The flow rate measurement must 

be performed in accordance with 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section. As an alternative to the flow 

rate measurement specified in this 

paragraph, the inspection may satisfy 

the requirements of this paragraph, 

including the operating requirements in 

§ 63.1506(c), by including permanent 

total enclosure verification in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(i) or 

(iv) of this section. Inspections that fail 

to successfully demonstrate that the 

requirements of § 63.1506(c) are met, 

must be followed by repair or 

adjustment to the system operating 

conditions and a follow up inspection 

within 45 days to demonstrate that 

§ 63.1506(c) requirements are fully met. 

(i) Conduct annual flow rate 

measurements using EPA Methods 1 

and 2 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, 

or conduct annual verification of a 

permanent total enclosure using EPA 

Method 204; or you may follow one of 

the three alternate procedures described 

in paragraphs (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this 

section to maintain system operations in 

accordance with an operating limit 

established during the performance test. 

The operating limit is determined as the 

average reading of a parametric 

monitoring instrument (Magnehelic®, 

manometer, anemometer, or other 

parametric monitoring instrument) and 

technique as described in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section. A 

deviation, as defined in paragraphs (ii), 

(iii), and (iv) of this section, from the 

parametric monitoring operating limit 

requires the owner or operator to make 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56743 

repairs or adjustments to restore normal 

operation within 45 days. 

(ii) As an alternative to annual flow 

rate measurements using EPA Methods 

1 and 2, measurement with EPA 

Methods 1 and 2 can be performed once 

every 5 years, provided that: 

(A) A flow rate indicator consisting of 

a pitot tube and differential pressure 

gauge (Magnehelic®, manometer or 

other differential pressure gauge) is 

installed with the pitot tube tip located 

at a representative point of the duct 

proximate to the location of the 

Methods 1 and 2 measurement site; and 

(B) The flow rate indicator is installed 

and operated in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications; and 

(C) The differential pressure is 

recorded during the Method 2 

performance test series; and 

(D) Daily differential pressure 

readings are made by taking three 

measurements with at least 5 minutes 

between each measurement and 

averaging the three measurements; and 

readings are recorded daily and 

maintained at or above 90 percent of the 

average pressure differential indicated 

by the flow rate indicator during the 

most recent Method 2 performance test 

series; and 

(E) An inspection of the pitot tube and 

associated lines for damage, plugging, 

leakage and operational integrity is 

conducted at least once per year; or 

(iii) As an alternative to annual flow 

rate measurements using EPA Methods 

1 and 2, measurement with EPA 

Methods 1 and 2 can be performed once 

every 5 years, provided that: 

(A) Daily measurements of the capture 

and collection system’s fan revolutions 

per minute (RPM) or fan motor 

amperage (amps) are made by taking 

three measurements with at least 5 

minutes between each measurement, 

and averaging the three measurements; 

and readings are recorded daily and 

maintained at or above 90 percent of the 

average RPM or amps measured during 

the most recent Method 2 performance 

test series; or 

(B) A static pressure measurement 

device is installed in the duct 

immediately downstream of the hood 

exit, and daily pressure readings are 

made by taking three measurements 

with at least 5 minutes between each 

measurement, and averaging the three 

measurements; and readings are 

recorded daily and maintained at 90 

percent or better of the average vacuum 

recorded during the most recent Method 

2 performance test series; or 

(C) A hotwire anemometer, ultrasonic 

flow meter, cross-duct pressure 

differential sensor, venturi pressure 

differential monitoring or orifice plate 

equipped with an associated 

thermocouple and automated data 

logging software and associated 

hardware is installed; and daily 

readings are made by taking three 

measurements with at least 5 minutes 

between each measurement, and 

averaging the three measurements; and 

readings are recorded daily and 

maintained at 90 percent or greater of 

the average readings during the most 

recent Method 2 performance test series; 

or 

(D) For booth-type hoods, hotwire 

anemometer measurements of hood face 

velocity are performed simultaneously 

with EPA Method 1 and 2 

measurements, and the annual hood 

face velocity measurements confirm that 

the enclosure draft is maintained at 90 

percent or greater of the average 

readings during the most recent Method 

2 performance test series. Daily readings 

are made by taking three measurements 

with at least 5 minutes between each 

measurement, and averaging the three 

measurements; and readings are 

recorded daily and maintained at 90 

percent or greater of the average 

readings during the most recent Method 

1 and 2 performance test series. 

(iv) As an alternative to the annual 

verification of a permanent total 

enclosure using EPA Method 204, 

verification can be performed once 

every 5 years, provided that: 

(A) Negative pressure in the enclosure 

is directly monitored by a pressure 

indicator installed at a representative 

location; 

(B) Pressure readings are recorded 

daily or the system is interlocked to halt 

material feed should the system not 

operate under negative pressure; 

(C) An inspection of the pressure 

indicator for damage and operational 

integrity is conducted at least once per 

calendar year. 

(3) For sweat furnaces, in lieu of 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the 

owner or operator of a sweat furnace 

may inspect each sweat furnace at least 

once each calendar year to ensure that 

they are being operated in accordance 

with the negative air flow requirements 

in § 63.1506(c)(4). The owner or 

operator of a sweat furnace must 

demonstrate negative air flow into the 

sweat furnace in accordance with 

paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Perform an annual visual smoke 

test to demonstrate airflow into the 

sweat furnace or towards the plane of 

the sweat furnace opening; 

(ii) Perform the smoke test using a 

smoke source, such as a smoke tube, 

smoke stick, smoke cartridge, smoke 

candle or other smoke source that 

produces a persistent and neutral 

buoyancy aerosol; and 

(iii) Perform the visual smoke test at 

a safe distance from and near the center 

of the sweat furnace opening. 

(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 mg/Mg (gr/ton) 

of feed/charge must install, calibrate, 

operate, and maintain a device to 

measure and record the total weight of 

feed/charge to, or the aluminum 

production from, the affected source or 

emission unit over the same operating 

cycle or time period used in the 

performance test. Feed/charge or 

aluminum production within SAPUs 

must be measured and recorded on an 

emission unit-by-emission unit basis. As 

an alternative to a measurement device, 

the owner or operator may use a 

procedure acceptable to the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources to 

determine the total weight of feed/

charge or aluminum production to the 

affected source or emission unit. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each bag leak detection system 

must be installed, calibrated, operated, 

and maintained according to the 

manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

* * * * * 

(4) As an alternative to the 

requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section, the owner or operator of a new 

or existing aluminum scrap shredder 

may measure the opacity of the 

emissions discharged through a stack or 

stacks using ASTM Method D7520–13 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) 

subject to the requirements of 

paragraphs § 63.1510(f)(4)(i) through (iv) 

of this section. Each test must consist of 

five 6-minute observations in a 30- 

minute period. 

(i) During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification 

procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of 

ASTM D7520–13, the owner or operator 

or the DCOT vendor must present the 

plumes in front of various backgrounds 

of color and contrast representing 

conditions anticipated during field use 

such as blue sky, trees, and mixed 

backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse 

tree stand). 

(ii) The owner or operator must also 

have standard operating procedures in 

place including daily or other frequency 

quality checks to ensure that equipment 

is within manufacturing specifications 

as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM 

D7520–13. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

follow the recordkeeping procedures 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

outlined in § 63.10(b)(1) for DCOT 

certification, compliance report, data 

sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity and certification 

determination. 

(iv) The owner or operator or the 

DCOT vendor must have a minimum of 

four (4) independent technology users 

apply the software to determine the 

visible opacity of the 300 certification 

plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the 

user may not exceed 15 percent opacity 

on any one reading and the average 

error must not exceed 7.5 percent 

opacity. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(3) An owner or operator who 

intermittently adds lime to a limeinjected fabric filter must obtain 

approval from the permitting authority 

for major sources, or the Administrator 

for area sources for a lime addition 

monitoring procedure. The permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources will not 

approve a monitoring procedure unless 

data and information are submitted 

establishing that the procedure is 

adequate to ensure that relevant 

emission standards will be met on a 

continuous basis. 

(4) At least once per month, verify 

that the lime injection rate in pounds 

per hour (lb/hr) is no less than 90 

percent of the lime injection rate used 

to demonstrate compliance during your 

most recent performance test. If the 

monthly check of the lime injection rate 

is below the 90 percent, the owner or 

operator must repair or adjust the lime 

injection system to restore normal 

operation within 45 days. The owner or 

operator may request from the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources, an 

extension of up to an additional 45 days 

to demonstrate that the lime injection 

rate is no less than 90 percent of the 

lime injection rate used to demonstrate 

compliance during the most recent 

performance test. In the event that a 

lime feeder is repaired or replaced, the 

feeder must be calibrated, and the feed 

rate must be restored to the lb/hr feed 

rate operating limit established during 

the most recent performance test within 

45 days. The owner or operator may 

request from the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, an extension of up to an 

additional 45 days to complete the 

repair or replacement and establishing a 

new setting. The repair or replacement, 

and the establishment of the new feeder 

setting(s) must be documented in 

accordance with the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517. 

(j) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The accuracy of the weight 

measurement device must be ±1 percent 

of the weight of the reactive component 

of the flux being measured. The owner 

or operator may apply to the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources for 

permission to use a weight 

measurement device of alternative 

accuracy in cases where the reactive 

flux flow rates are so low as to make the 

use of a weight measurement device of 

±1 percent impracticable. A device of 

alternative accuracy will not be 

approved unless the owner or operator 

provides assurance through data and 

information that the affected source will 

meet the relevant emission standards. 

* * * * * 

(4) Calculate and record the total 

reactive flux injection rate for each 

operating cycle or time period used in 

the performance test using the 

procedure in § 63.1512(o). For solid flux 

that is added intermittently, record the 

amount added for each operating cycle 

or time period used in the performance 

test using the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(o). 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) Record in an operating log for each 

tap of a sidewell furnace whether the 

level of molten metal was above the top 

of the passage between the sidewell and 

hearth during reactive flux injection, 

unless the furnace hearth was also 

equipped with an add-on control 

device. If visual inspection of the 

molten metal level is not possible, the 

molten metal level must be determined 

using physical measurement methods. 

(2) Submit a certification of 

compliance with the operational 

standards in § 63.1506(m)(6) for each 

6-month reporting period. Each 

certification must contain the 

information in § 63.1516(b)(2)(iii). 

(o) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator must 

develop, in consultation with the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources, a 

written site-specific monitoring plan. 

The site-specific monitoring plan must 

be submitted to the permitting authority 

for major sources, or the Administrator 

for area sources as part of the OM&M 

plan. The site-specific monitoring plan 

must contain sufficient procedures to 

ensure continuing compliance with all 

applicable emission limits and must 

demonstrate, based on documented test 

results, the relationship between 

emissions of PM, HCl, and D/F (and HF 

for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces), and 

the proposed monitoring parameters for 

each pollutant. Test data must establish 

the highest level of PM, HCl, and D/F 

(and HF for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces) that will be emitted from the 

furnace in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1). If the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources 

determines that any revisions of the sitespecific monitoring plan are necessary 

to meet the requirements of this section 

or this subpart, the owner or operator 

must promptly make all necessary 

revisions and resubmit the revised plan. 

(i) The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source must submit the 

site-specific monitoring plan to the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources for 

review at least 6 months prior to the 

compliance date. 

(ii) The permitting authority for major 

sources, or the Administrator for area 

sources 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 HF 

for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) and 

the proposed monitoring parameters for 

each pollutant. Test data must establish 

the highest level of PM, HCl, and D/F 

(and HF for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces) that will be emitted from the 

furnace. Subject to approval of the 

OM&M plan, the highest levels may be 

determined by conducting performance 

tests and monitoring operating 

parameters in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The inclusion of any periods of 

startup or shutdown in emission 

calculations. 

(3) To revise the SAPU compliance 

provisions within the OM&M plan prior 

to the end of the permit term, the owner 

or operator must submit a request to the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources 

containing the information required by 

paragraph (s)(1) of this section and 

obtain approval of the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources prior to 

implementing any revisions. 

(t) Secondary aluminum processing 

unit. Except as provided in paragraph 

(u) of this section, the owner or operator 

must calculate and record the 3-day, 24- 

hour rolling average emissions of PM, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56745 

HCl, and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces) for each secondary 

aluminum processing unit on a daily 

basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour 

rolling average, the owner or operator 

must: 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Where no performance test has 

been conducted, for a particular 

emission unit, because the owner of 

operator has, with the approval of the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources, 

chosen to determine the emission rate of 

an emission unit by testing a 

representative unit, in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(f), the owner or operator shall 

use the emission rate determined from 

the representative unit in the SAPU 

emission rate calculation required in 

§ 63.1510(t)(4). 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph 

(t)(2)(iii) of this section, if the owner or 

operator has not conducted performance 

tests for HCl (and HF for an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace) or for HCl 

for an in-line fluxer, in accordance with 

the provisions of § 63.1512(d)(3), (e)(3), 

or (h)(2), the calculation required in 

§ 63.1510(t)(4) to determine SAPU-wide 

HCl and HF emissions shall be made 

under the assumption that all chlorine 

contained in reactive flux added to the 

emission unit is emitted as HCl and all 

fluorine contained in reactive flux 

added to the emission unit is emitted as 

HF. 

(iii) Prior to the date by which the 

initial performance test for HF 

emissions from uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces is conducted, or is required to 

be conducted, the calculation required 

in § 63.1505(k) to determine the SAPUwide HF emission limit and the 

calculation required in § 63.1510(t)(4) to 

determine the SAPU-wide HF emission 

rate must exclude HF emissions from 

untested uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

and feed/charge processed in untested 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. 

* * * * * 

(4) Compute the 24-hour daily 

emission rate using Equation 4: 

Where: 

Eday = The daily PM, HCl, and D/F (and HF 

for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces) 

emission rate for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit for the 24- 

hour period; 

Ti = The total amount of feed, or aluminum 

produced, for emission unit i for the 24- 

hour period (tons or Mg); 

ERi = The measured emission rate for 

emission unit i as determined in the 

performance test (lb/ton or mg/Mg of 

feed/charge); 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 3 most recent consecutive days and 

dividing by 3. The SAPU is in 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit if the 3-day, 24-hour rolling 

average for each pollutant is no greater 

than the applicable SAPU emission 

limit determined in accordance with 

§ 63.1505(k)(1)–(3). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.1511 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b) 

introductory text, and (b)(1) and (3); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (7); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(9), (d), and 

(f) introductory text; 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f)(6); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (g) introductory 

text; 

■ f. Adding paragraph (g)(5); and 

■ g. Revising paragraph (i) introductory 

text. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1511 Performance test/compliance 

demonstration general requirements. 

(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to 

conducting any performance test 

required by this subpart, the owner or 

operator must prepare a site-specific test 

plan which satisfies all of the rule 

requirements, and must obtain approval 

of the plan pursuant to the procedures 

set forth in § 63.7. Performance tests 

shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, the owner or 

operator shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(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 

§ 63.1515(b). The owner or operator of 

any affected source constructed before 

February 14, 2012, for which an initial 

performance test is required to 

demonstrate compliance must conduct 

this initial performance test no later 

than the date for compliance established 

by § 63.1501(a), (b), or (c). The owner or 

operator of any affected source 

constructed after February 14, 2012, for 

which an initial performance test is 

required must conduct this initial 

performance test within 180 days after 

the date for compliance established by 

§ 63.1501(e) or (f). Except for the date by 

which the performance test must be 

conducted, the owner or operator must 

conduct each performance test in 

accordance with the requirements and 

procedures set forth in § 63.7(c). Owners 

or operators of affected sources located 

at facilities which are area sources are 

subject only to those performance 

testing requirements pertaining to D/F. 

Owners or operators of sweat furnaces 

meeting the specifications of 

§ 63.1505(f)(1) are not required to 

conduct a performance test. 

(1) The performance tests must be 

conducted under representative 

conditions expected to produce the 

highest level of HAP emissions 

expressed in the units of the emission 

standards for the HAP (considering the 

extent of feed/charge contamination, 

reactive flux addition rate and feed/

charge rate). If a single test condition is 

not expected to produce the highest 

level of emissions for all HAP, testing 

under two or more sets of conditions 

(for example high contamination at low 

feed/charge rate, and low contamination 

at high feed/charge rate) may be 

required. Any subsequent performance 

tests for the purposes of establishing 

new or revised parametric limits shall 

be allowed upon pre-approval from the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources. 

These new parametric settings shall be 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18SE15.010</GPH>
56746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

used to demonstrate compliance for the 

period being tested. 

* * * * * 

(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. Additionally, 

for batch processes where the length of 

the process operating cycle is not 

known in advance, and where isokinetic 

sampling must be conducted based on 

the procedures in Method 5 in appendix 

A to part 60, use the following 

procedure to ensure that sampling is 

conducted over the entire process 

operating cycle: 

(i) Choose a minimum operating cycle 

length and begin sampling assuming 

this minimum length will be the run 

time (e.g., if the process operating cycle 

is known to last from four to six hours, 

then assume a sampling time of four 

hours and divide the sampling time 

evenly between the required number of 

traverse points); 

(ii) After each traverse point has been 

sampled once, begin sampling each 

point again for the same time per point, 

in the reverse order, until the operating 

cycle is complete. All traverse points as 

required by Method 1 of appendix A to 

part 60, must be sampled at least once 

during each test run; 

(iii) In order to distribute the 

sampling time most evenly over all the 

traverse points, do not perform all runs 

using the same sampling point order 

(e.g., if there are four ports and sampling 

for run 1 began in port 1, then sampling 

for run 2 could begin in port 4 and 

continue in reverse order.) 

* * * * * 

(6) Apply paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(5) of this section for each pollutant 

separately if a different production rate, 

charge material or, if applicable, 

reactive fluxing rate would apply and 

thereby result in a higher expected 

emissions rate for that pollutant. 

(7) The owner or operator may not 

conduct performance tests during 

periods of malfunction. 

(c) * * * 

(9) Method 26A for the concentration 

of HCl and HF. Method 26 may also be 

used, except at sources where entrained 

water droplets are present in the 

emission stream. 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 alternative test 

methods as provided in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator may use 

test method ASTM D7520–13 as an 

alternative to EPA Method 9 subject to 

conditions described in § 63.1510(f)(4). 

(2) In lieu of conducting the annual 

flow rate measurements using Methods 

1 and 2, the owner or operator may use 

Method 204 in Appendix M to 40 CFR 

part 51 to conduct annual verification of 

a permanent total enclosure for the 

affected source/emission unit. 

(3) The owner or operator may use an 

alternative test method approved by the 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

(f) Testing of representative emission 

units. With the prior approval of the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources, an 

owner or operator may utilize emission 

rates obtained by testing a particular 

type of group 1 furnace that does not 

have an add-on air pollution control 

device, or by testing an in-line flux box 

that does not have an add-on air 

pollution control device, to determine 

the emission rate for other units of the 

same type at the same facility. Such 

emission test results may only be 

considered to be representative of other 

units if all of the following criteria are 

satisfied: 

* * * * * 

(6) All 3 separate runs of a 

performance test must be conducted on 

the same emission unit. 

(g) 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 § 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 

§ 63.1515(b)(4) in the notification of 

compliance status report. The owner or 

operator may use existing data in 

addition to 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 permitting authority for major 

sources, or the Administrator for area 

sources: 

* * * * * 

(5) If the owner or operator wants to 

conduct a new performance test and 

establish different operating parameter 

values, they must submit a revised site 

specific test plan and receive approval 

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section. In addition, if an owner or 

operator wants to use existing data in 

addition to the results of the new 

performance test to establish operating 

parameter values, they must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(i) Testing of commonly-ducted units 

not within a secondary aluminum 

processing unit. With the prior approval 

of the permitting authority for major 

sources, or the Administrator for area 

sources, an owner or operator may do 

combined performance testing of two or 

more individual affected sources or 

emission units which are not included 

in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, 

but whose emissions are manifolded to 

a single control device. Any such 

performance testing of commonlyducted units must satisfy the following 

basic requirements: 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.1512 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (e)(1) 

through (3); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) through 

(7); and 

■ c. Revising paragrpahs (h)(2), (j) 

introductory text, (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(i), (o) 

introductory text, (o)(1), (o)(3) through 

(5), and (p)(2). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1512 Performance test/compliance 

demonstration requirements and 

procedures. 

(a) Aluminum scrap shredder. The 

owner or operator must conduct 

performance tests to measure PM 

emissions at the outlet of the control 

system. If visible emission observation 

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 40 CFR part 

60. If emissions observations by ASTM 

Method D7520–13 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) is the selected 

monitoring option, the owner or 

operator must record opacity 

observations from each exhaust stack for 

all consecutive 6-minute periods during 

the PM emission test. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(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, HF, and D/F at the furnace 

exhaust outlet. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56747 

(2) If the group 1 furnace processes 

only clean charge, the owner or operator 

must conduct emission tests to 

simultaneously measure emissions of 

PM, HCl and HF. A D/F test is not 

required. Each test must be conducted 

while the group 1 furnace (including a 

melting/holding furnace) processes only 

clean charge. 

(3) The owner or operator may choose 

to determine the rate of reactive flux 

addition to the group 1 furnace and 

assume, for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

SAPU emission limit, that all chlorine 

and fluorine contained in reactive flux 

added to the group 1 furnace is emitted 

as HCl and HF. Under these 

circumstances, the owner or operator is 

not required to conduct an emission test 

for HCl or HF. 

(4) When testing an existing 

uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 

operator must comply with the 

requirements of either paragraphs 

(e)(4)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section at the 

next required performance test required 

by § 63.1511(e). 

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH 

Guidelines (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14), or 

(ii) At least 180 days prior to testing 

petition the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, that such hoods are 

impractical under the provisions of 

paragraph (e)(6) of this section and 

propose testing procedures that will 

minimize unmeasured emissions during 

the performance test according to the 

paragraph (e)(7) of this section, or 

(iii) Assume an 80-percent capture 

efficiency for the furnace exhaust (i.e., 

multiply emissions measured at the 

furnace exhaust outlet by 1.25). If the 

source fails to demonstrate compliance 

using the 80-percent capture efficiency 

assumption, the owner or operator must 

re-test with a hood that meets the 

ACGIH Guidelines within 180 days, or 

petition the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, within 180 days that such 

hoods are impractical under the 

provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this 

section and propose testing procedures 

that will minimize unmeasured 

emissions during the performance test 

according to paragraph (e)(7) of this 

section. 

(iv) The 80-percent capture efficiency 

assumption is not applicable in the 

event of testing conducted under an 

approved petition submitted pursuant to 

paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this 

section. 

(v) Round top furnaces constructed 

before February 14, 2012, and 

reconstructed round top furnaces are 

exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. Round top furnaces must be 

operated to minimize unmeasured 

emissions according to paragraph (e)(7) 

of this section. 

(5) When testing a new uncontrolled 

furnace constructed after February 14, 

2012, the owner or operator must install 

hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) 

or petition the permitting authority for 

major sources, or the Administrator for 

area sources, that such hoods are 

impracticable under the provisions of 

paragraph (e)(6) of this section and 

propose testing procedures that will 

minimize unmeasured emissions during 

the performance test according to the 

provisions of paragraph (e)(7). 

(6) The installation of hooding that 

meets ACGIH Guidelines (incorporated 

by reference, see § 63.14) is considered 

impractical if any of the following 

conditions exist: 

(i) Building or equipment obstructions 

(for example, wall, ceiling, roof, 

structural beams, utilities, overhead 

crane or other obstructions) are present 

such that the temporary hood cannot be 

located consistent with acceptable hood 

design and installation practices; 

(ii) Space limitations or work area 

constraints exist such that the 

temporary hood cannot be supported or 

located to prevent interference with 

normal furnace operations or avoid 

unsafe working conditions for the 

furnace operator; or 

(iii) Other obstructions and 

limitations subject to agreement of the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources. 

(7) Testing procedures that will 

minimize unmeasured emissions may 

include, but are not limited to the 

following: 

(i) Installing a hood that does not 

entirely meet ACGIH guidelines; 

(ii) Using the building as an 

enclosure, and measuring emissions 

exhausted from the building if there are 

no other furnaces or other significant 

sources in the building of the pollutants 

to be measured; 

(iii) Installing temporary baffles on 

those sides or top of furnace opening if 

it is practical to do so where they will 

not interfere with material handling or 

with the furnace door opening and 

closing; 

(iv) Minimizing the time the furnace 

doors are open or the top is off; 

(v) Delaying gaseous reactive fluxing 

until charging doors are closed and, for 

round top furnaces, until the top is on; 

(vi) Agitating or stirring molten metal 

as soon as practicable after salt flux 

addition and closing doors as soon as 

possible after solid fluxing operations, 

including mixing and dross removal; 

(vii) Keeping building doors and other 

openings closed to the greatest extent 

possible to minimize drafts that would 

divert emissions from being drawn into 

the furnace; 

(viii) Maintaining burners on low-fire 

or pilot operation while the doors are 

open or the top is off; 

(ix) Use of fans or other device to 

direct flow into a furnace when door is 

open; or 

(x) Removing the furnace cover one 

time in order to add a smaller but 

representative charge and then replacing 

the cover. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) The owner or operator may choose 

to limit the rate at which reactive flux 

is added to an in-line fluxer and 

assume, for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

SAPU emission limit, that all chlorine 

in the reactive flux added to the in-line 

fluxer is emitted as HCl. Under these 

circumstances, the owner or operator is 

not required to conduct an emission test 

for HCl. If the owner or operator of any 

in-line flux box that has no ventilation 

ductwork manifolded to any outlet or 

emission control device chooses to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits for HCl by limiting use 

of reactive flux and assuming that all 

chlorine in the flux is emitted as HCl, 

compliance with the HCl limit shall also 

constitute compliance with the emission 

limit for PM and no separate emission 

test for PM is required. In this case, the 

owner or operator of the unvented inline flux box must use the maximum 

permissible PM emission rate for the inline flux boxes when determining the 

total emissions for any SAPU which 

includes the flux box. 

* * * * * 

(j) Secondary aluminum processing 

unit. The owner or operator must 

conduct performance tests as described 

in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this 

section. The results of the performance 

tests are used to establish emission rates 

in lb/ton of feed/charge for PM, HCl and 

HF and mg TEQ/Mg of feed/charge for D/ 

F emissions from each emission unit. 

These emission rates are used for 

compliance monitoring in the 

calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling 

average emission rates using the 

equation in § 63.1510(t). A performance 

test is required for: 

(1) * * * 

(i) Emissions of HF and HCl (for 

determining the emission limit); or 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) Emissions of HF and HCl (for 

determining the emission limit); or 

* * * * * 

(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 and, for uncontrolled 

furnaces, the total reactive fluorine 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, HF and D/F tests, 

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 3 

test runs; 

* * * * * 

(3) Determine the total reactive 

chlorine flux injection rate and, for 

uncontrolled furnaces, the total reactive 

fluorine flux injection rate by adding the 

recorded measurement of the total 

weight of chlorine and, for uncontrolled 

furnaces, fluorine in the gaseous or 

liquid reactive flux injected and the 

total weight of chlorine and, for 

uncontrolled furnaces, fluorine in the 

solid reactive flux using Equation 5: 

Where: 

Wt = Total chlorine or fluorine usage, by 

weight; 

F1 = Fraction of gaseous or liquid flux that 

is chlorine or fluorine; 

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) or fraction of solid 

reactive fluoride flux that is fluorine 

(e.g., F = 0.33 for potassium fluoride); 

and 

W2 = Weight of solid reactive flux; 

(4) Divide the weight of total chlorine 

or fluorine usage (Wt) for the 3 test runs 

by the recorded measurement of the 

total weight of feed for the 3 test runs; 

and 

(5) If a solid reactive flux other than 

magnesium chloride or potassium 

fluoride is used, the owner or operator 

must derive the appropriate proportion 

factor subject to approval by the 

permitting authority for major sources, 

or the Administrator for area sources. 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(2) Record the feeder setting and lime 

injection rate for the 3 test runs. If the 

feed rate setting and lime injection rates 

vary between the runs, determine and 

record the average feed rate and lime 

injection rate from the 3 runs. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1513 is amended by 

revising the paragraph (b) heading and 

paragraphs (b)(1), (d), and (e)(1) through 

(3), and adding paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1513 Equations for determining 

compliance. 

* * * * * 

(b) PM, HCl, HF and D/F emission 

limits. (1) Use Equation 7 of this section 

to determine compliance with an 

emission limit for PM, HCl or HF: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of PM, HCl or HF, in kg/ 

Mg (lb/ton) of feed; 

C = Concentration of PM, HCl or HF, in g/ 

dscm (gr/dscf); 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, in 

dscm/hr (dscf/hr); 

K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/

7,000 gr); and 

P = Production rate, in Mg/hr (ton/hr). 

* * * * * 

(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, 

incorporated by reference see § 63.14. 

(e) * * * 

(1) Use Equation 9 to compute the 

mass-weighted PM emissions for a 

secondary aluminum processing unit. 

Compliance is achieved if the massweighted 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 § 63.1505(k). 

Where: 

EcPM = The mass-weighted PM emissions for 

the secondary aluminum processing 

unit; 

EtiPM = Measured PM emissions for 

individual emission unit, or group of cocontrolled emission units, i; 

Tti = The average feed rate for individual 

emission unit i during the operating 

cycle or performance test period, or the 

sum of the average feed rates for all 

emission units in the group of cocontrolled emission units i; and 

n = The number of emission units, and 

groups of co-controlled emission units in 

the secondary aluminum processing 

unit. 

(2) Use Equation 10 to compute the 

aluminum mass-weighted HCl or HF 

emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit. Compliance is achieved 

if the mass-weighted emissions for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit 

(EcHCl/HF) is less than or equal to the 

emission limit for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit (LcHCl/HF) 

calculated using Equation 2 in 

§ 63.1505(k). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18SE15.011</GPH> ER18SE15.012</GPH> ER18SE15.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56749 

Where: 

EcHCl/HF = The mass-weighted HCl or HF 

emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit; and 

EtiHCl/HF = Measured HCl or HF emissions for 

individual emission unit, or group of cocontrolled emission units 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 § 63.1505(k). 

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, or group of cocontrolled emission units i. 

* * * * * 

(f) Periods of startup and shutdown. 

For a new or existing affected source, or 

a new or existing emission unit subject 

to an emissions limit in paragraphs 

§ 63.1505(b) through (j) expressed in 

units of pounds per ton of feed/charge, 

or mg TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed/ 

charge, demonstrate compliance during 

periods of startup and shutdown in 

accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section or determine your emissions per 

unit of feed/charge during periods of 

startup and shutdown in accordance 

with paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

Startup and shutdown emissions for 

group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers 

must be calculated individually, and not 

on the basis of a SAPU. Periods of 

startup and shutdown are excluded 

from the calculation of SAPU emission 

limits in § 63.1505(k), the SAPU 

monitoring requirements in § 63.1510(t) 

and the SAPU emissions calculations in 

§ 63.1513(e). 

(1) For periods of startup and 

shutdown, records establishing a feed/

charge rate of zero, a flux rate of zero, 

and that the affected source or emission 

unit was either heated with electricity, 

propane or natural gas as the sole 

sources of heat or was not heated, may 

be used to demonstrate compliance with 

the emission limit, or 

(2) For periods of startup and 

shutdown, divide your measured 

emissions in lb/hr or mg/hr or ng/hr by 

the feed/charge rate in tons/hr or Mg/hr 

from your most recent performance test 

associated with a production rate greater 

than zero, or the rated capacity of the 

affected source if no prior performance 

test data is available. 

■ 12. Section 63.1514 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1514 Change of Furnace 

Classification. 

The requirements of this section are 

in addition to the other requirements of 

this subpart that apply to group 1 and 

group 2 furnaces. 

(a) Changing from a group 1 

controlled furnace processing other than 

clean charge to group 1 uncontrolled 

furnace processing other than clean 

charge. An owner or operator wishing to 

change operating modes must conduct 

performance tests in accordance with 

§§ 63.1511 and 63.1512 to demonstrate 

to the permitting authority for major 

sources, or the Administrator for area 

sources that compliance can be 

achieved under both modes. Operating 

parameters relevant to each mode of 

operation must be established during 

the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl 

and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally if 

compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated in this operating mode. 

Performance tests must be repeated at 

least once every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) in the controlled mode. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(2) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl, 

HF and D/F, according to the 

procedures in § 63.1512(e) without 

operating a control device if compliance 

has not been previously demonstrated 

for this operating mode. Performance 

tests must be repeated at least once 

every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) in the uncontrolled 

mode. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Operating parameters 

representing uncontrolled operation 

must be established during these tests, 

as required by § 63.1511(g). For furnaces 

in batch (cyclic) operation, the number 

of tap-to-tap cycles (including zero, if 

none) elapsed using the feed/charge 

type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must 

be established as a parameter to be met 

before changing to uncontrolled mode. 

For furnaces in continuous (non-cyclic) 

operation, the time period elapsed 

(including no time, if none) using the 

feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and 

flux rate must be established as a 

parameter to be met before changing to 

uncontrolled mode. 

(iv) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18SE15.014</GPH> ER18SE15.015</GPH>
56750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(3) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally, 

if compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated for this operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) in the controlled mode. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(4) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device, if compliance has not been 

previously demonstrated for this 

operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1). 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Operating parameters 

representing uncontrolled operation 

must be established during these tests, 

as required by § 63.1511(g). For furnaces 

in batch (cyclic) operation, the number 

of tap-to-tap cycles (including zero, if 

none) elapsed using the feed/charge 

type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must 

be established as a parameter to be met 

before changing to uncontrolled mode. 

For furnaces in continuous (non-cyclic) 

operation, the time period elapsed 

(including no time, if none) using the 

feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and 

flux rate must be established as a 

parameter to be met before changing to 

uncontrolled mode. 

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(5) To change modes of operation 

from uncontrolled to controlled, the 

owner or operator must perform the 

following, before charging scrap to the 

furnace that exceeds the contaminant 

level established for uncontrolled mode: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect controlled operation; 

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the 

control device; 

(iii) Turn on the control device and 

begin lime addition to the control 

device at the rate established for 

controlled mode; and 

(iv) Ensure the control device is 

operating properly. 

(6) To change modes of operation 

from controlled to uncontrolled, the 

owner or operator must perform the 

following, before turning off or 

bypassing the control device: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect uncontrolled operation; 

(ii) Charge scrap with a level of 

contamination no greater than that used 

in the performance test for uncontrolled 

furnaces for the number of tap-to-tap 

cycles that elapsed (or, for continuously 

operated furnaces, the time elapsed) 

before the uncontrolled mode 

performance test was conducted; and 

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to 

no higher than the flux addition rate 

used in the uncontrolled mode 

performance test. 

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode change (controlled 

to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to 

controlled), the time the change is 

initiated, and the time the exhaust gas 

is diverted from control device to 

bypass or bypass to control device. 

(b) Changing from a group 1 

controlled furnace processing other than 

clean charge to a group 1 uncontrolled 

furnace processing clean charge. An 

owner or operator wishing to change 

operating modes must conduct 

performance tests in accordance with 

§§ 63.1511 and 63.1512 to demonstrate 

to the permitting authority for major 

sources, or the Administrator for area 

sources that compliance can be 

achieved in both modes. Operating 

parameters relevant to each mode of 

operation must be established during 

the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl 

and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally if 

compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated in this operating mode. 

Performance tests must be repeated at 

least once every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) in the controlled mode. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(2) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl, 

HF and D/F, according to the 

procedures in § 63.1512(e) without 

operating a control device if compliance 

has not been previously demonstrated 

for this operating mode. Performance 

tests must be repeated at least once 

every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after operation 

with clean charge has commenced. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Operating parameters 

representing uncontrolled operation 

must be established during these tests, 

as required by § 63.1511(g). For furnaces 

in batch (cyclic) operation, the number 

of tap-to-tap cycles (including zero, if 

none) elapsed using the feed/charge 

type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must 

be established as a parameter to be met 

before changing to uncontrolled mode. 

For furnaces in continuous (non-cyclic) 

operation, the time period elapsed 

(including no time if none) using the 

feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and 

flux rate must be established as a 

parameter to be met before changing to 

uncontrolled mode. 

(iv) Emissions of D/F during this test 

must not exceed 1.5 mg TEQ/Mg of feed/ 

charge. 

(v) The emission factors for this mode 

of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k), must be determined. 

(3) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally, 

if compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated for this operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1). 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(4) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device if compliance has not been 

previously demonstrated for this 

operating mode. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56751 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted at any time after operation 

with clean charge has commenced and 

must be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) and under representative 

conditions expected to produce the 

highest level of D/F in the uncontrolled 

mode. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Operating parameters 

representing uncontrolled operation 

must be established during these tests, 

as required by § 63.1511(g). For furnaces 

in batch (cyclic) operation, the number 

of tap-to-tap cycles elapsed (including 

zero, if none) using the feed/charge 

type, feed/charge rate and flux rate must 

be established as a parameter to be met 

before changing to uncontrolled mode. 

For furnaces in continuous (non-cyclic) 

operation, the time period elapsed 

(including no time, if none) using the 

feed/charge type, feed/charge rate and 

flux rate must be established as a 

parameter to be met before changing to 

uncontrolled mode. 

(iv) Emissions of D/F during this test 

must not exceed 1.5 mg TEQ/Mg of feed/ 

charge. 

(5) To change modes of operation 

from uncontrolled to controlled, the 

owner or operator must perform the 

following, before charging scrap to the 

furnace that exceeds the contaminant 

level established for uncontrolled mode: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect controlled operation; 

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the 

control device; 

(iii) Turn on the control device and 

begin lime addition to the control 

device at the rate established for 

controlled mode; and 

(iv) Ensure the control device is 

operating properly. 

(6) To change modes of operation 

from controlled to uncontrolled, the 

owner or operator must perform the 

following, before turning off or 

bypassing the control device: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect uncontrolled operation; 

(ii) Charge clean charge for the 

number of tap-to-tap cycles that elapsed 

(or, for continuously operated furnaces, 

the time elapsed) before the 

uncontrolled mode performance test 

was conducted; and 

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to 

no higher than the flux addition rate 

used in the uncontrolled mode 

performance test. 

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode change (controlled 

to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to 

controlled), the time the furnace 

operating mode change is initiated, and 

the time the exhaust gas is diverted from 

control device to bypass or from bypass 

to control device. 

(c) Changing from a group 1 

controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a 

group 2 furnace. An owner or operator 

wishing to change operating modes 

must conduct performance tests in 

accordance with §§ 63.1511 and 63.1512 

to demonstrate to the permitting 

authority for major sources, or the 

Administrator for area sources that 

compliance can be achieved under both 

modes and establish the number of 

cycles (or time) of operation with clean 

charge and no reactive flux addition 

necessary before changing to group 2 

mode. Operating parameters relevant to 

group 1 operation must be established 

during the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl 

and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces) according to the procedures 

in § 63.1512 if compliance has not been 

previously demonstrated for the 

operating mode. Controlled group 1 

furnaces must conduct performance 

tests according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally. 

Uncontrolled group 1 furnaces must 

conduct performance tests according to 

the procedures in § 63.1512(e) without 

operating a control device. Performance 

tests must be repeated at least once 

every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) in both modes. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(2) While in compliance with the 

operating requirements of § 63.1506(o) 

for group 2 furnaces, operators of major 

sources must conduct performance tests 

for PM, HCl, HF and D/F, according to 

the procedures in § 63.1512(e) without 

operating a control device if compliance 

has not been previously demonstrated 

for this operating mode. Performance 

tests must be repeated at least once 

every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has commenced operation with 

clean charge and without reactive flux 

addition. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Owners or operators must 

demonstrate that emissions are no 

greater than: 

(A) 1.5 mg D/F (TEQ) per Mg of feed/ 

charge; 

(B) 0.040 lb HCl or HF per ton of feed/ 

charge; and 

(C) 0.040 lb PM per ton of feed/

charge. 

(iv) The number of tap-to-tap cycles, 

or time elapsed between starting 

operation with clean charge and no 

reactive flux addition and the group 2 

furnace performance test must be 

established as an operating parameter to 

be met before changing to group 2 mode. 

(3) Operators of area sources must 

conduct a performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in § 63.1512 

if compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated for the operating mode. 

Controlled group 1 furnaces must 

conduct performance tests according to 

the procedures in § 63.1512(d) with the 

capture system and control device 

operating normally. Uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces must conduct performance 

tests according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device. 

(i) The performance tests must be 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) under representative 

conditions expected to produce the 

highest expected level of D/F in the 

group 1 mode. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(4) While in compliance with the 

operating requirements of § 63.1506(o) 

for group 2 furnaces, operators of area 

sources must conduct performance tests 

for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device if compliance has not been 

previously demonstrated for this 

operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has commenced operation with 

clean charge, and without reactive flux 

addition. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Owners or operators must 

demonstrate that emissions are no 

greater than 1.5 mg D/F (TEQ) per Mg of 

feed/charge. 

(iv) The number of tap-to-tap cycles, 

or time elapsed between starting 

operation with clean charge and no 

reactive flux and the group 2 furnace 

performance tests must be established as 

an operating parameter to be met before 

changing to group 2 mode. 

(5) To change modes of operation 

from a group 2 furnace to a group 1 

furnace, the owner or operator must 

perform the following before adding 

other than clean charge and before 

adding reactive flux to the furnace: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect group 1 operation; 

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the 

control device, if it is equipped with a 

control device; 

(iii) If the furnace is equipped with a 

control device, turn on the control 

device and begin lime addition to the 

control device at the rate established for 

group 1 mode; and 

(iv) Ensure the control device is 

operating properly. 

(6) To change mode of operation from 

a group 1 furnace to group 2 furnace, the 

owner or operator must perform the 

following, before turning off or 

bypassing the control device: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect group 2 operation; 

(ii) Charge clean charge for the 

number of tap-to-tap cycles that elapsed 

(or, for continuously operated furnaces, 

the time elapsed) before the group 2 

performance test was conducted; and, 

(iii) Use no reactive flux. 

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode change (controlled 

or uncontrolled to group 2), the time the 

change is initiated, and the time the 

exhaust gas is diverted from control 

device to bypass or from bypass to 

control device. 

(d) Changing from a group 1 

controlled or uncontrolled furnace to 

group 2 furnace, for tilting reverberatory 

furnaces capable of completely 

removing furnace contents between 

batches. An owner or operator of a 

tilting reverberatory furnace capable of 

completely removing furnace contents 

between batches who wishes to change 

operating modes must conduct 

performance tests in accordance with 

§§ 63.1511 and 63.1512 to demonstrate 

to the permitting authority for major 

sources, or the Administrator for area 

sources that compliance can be 

achieved under group 1 modes. 

Operating parameters relevant to group 

1 operation must be established during 

the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl, 

and D/F (and HF for uncontrolled 

furnaces) according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512 if compliance has not been 

previously demonstrated for this 

operating mode. Controlled group 1 

furnaces must conduct performance 

tests with the capture system and 

control device operating normally if 

compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated for the operating mode. 

Controlled group 1 furnaces must 

conduct performance tests according to 

the procedures in § 63.1512(d) with the 

capture system and control device 

operating normally. Uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces must conduct performance 

tests according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device. Performance tests must be 

repeated at least once every 5 years to 

demonstrate compliance for each 

operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) in both modes. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k), must be determined. 

(2) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F 

according to the procedures in § 63.1512 

if compliance has not been previously 

demonstrated for this operating mode. 

Controlled group 1 furnaces must 

conduct performance tests according to 

the procedures in § 63.1512(d) with the 

capture system and control device 

operating normally. Uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces must conduct performance 

tests according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device. 

(i) The performance test must be 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.1511(b)(1) under representative 

conditions expected to produce the 

highest expected level of D/F in the 

group 1 mode. 

(ii) Operating parameters must be 

established during these tests, as 

required by § 63.1511(g). 

(iii) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(3) To change modes of operation 

from a group 1 furnace to a group 2 

furnace, the owner or operator must 

perform the following before turning off 

or bypassing the control device: 

(i) Completely remove all aluminum 

from the furnace; 

(ii) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect group 2 operation; 

(iii) Use only clean charge; and 

(iv) Use no reactive flux. 

(4) To change modes of operation 

from a group 2 furnace to a group 1 

furnace, the owner or operator must 

perform the following before adding 

other than clean charge and before 

adding reactive flux to the furnace: 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect group 1 operation; 

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the 

control device, if it is equipped with a 

control device;, 

(iii) If the furnace is equipped with a 

control device, turn on the control 

device and begin lime addition to the 

control device at the rate established for 

group 1 mode; and 

(iv) Ensure the control device is 

operating properly. 

(5) In addition to the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode change (group 1 to 

group 2, or group 2 to group 1), the time 

the furnace operating mode change is 

initiated, and, if the furnace is equipped 

with a control device, the time the 

exhaust gas is diverted from control 

device to bypass or from bypass to 

control device. 

(e) Limit on Frequency of changing 

furnace operating mode. (1) Changing 

furnace operating mode including 

reversion to the previous mode, as 

provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) 

of this section, may not be done more 

frequently than 4 times in any 6-month 

period unless you receive approval from 

the permitting authority or 

Administrator for additional changes 

pursuant to paragraph (e)(2). 

(2) If additional changes are needed, 

the owner or operator must apply in 

advance to the permitting authority, for 

major sources, or the Administrator, for 

area sources, for approval of the 

additional changes in operating mode. 

■ 13. Section 63.1515 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text, and (b)(4); and 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(10). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1515 Notifications. 

(a) Initial notifications. The owner or 

operator must submit initial 

notifications to the permitting authority 

for major sources, or the Administrator 

for area sources as described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56753 

(b) * * * 

(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, total reactive chlorine flux 

injection rate, total reactive fluorine flux 

injection rate for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces, afterburner operating 

temperature, fabric filter inlet 

temperature), including the operating 

cycle or time period used in the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.1516 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

and (b)(1)(v); 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(vii) and 

(b)(3)(i); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; and 

■ f. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1516 Reports. 

* * * * * 

(b) Excess emissions/summary report. 

The owner or operator of a major or area 

source must submit semiannual reports 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(e)(3). Except, the owner or 

operator must submit the semiannual 

reports within 60 days after the end of 

each 6-month period instead of within 

30 days after the calendar half as 

specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(v). When no 

deviations of parameters have occurred, 

the owner or operator must submit a 

report stating that no excess emissions 

occurred during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) For each affected source choosing 

to demonstrate compliance during 

periods of startup and shutdown in 

accordance with § 63.1513(f)(1): ‘‘During 

each startup and shutdown, no flux and 

no feed/charge were added to the 

emission unit, and electricity, propane 

or natural gas were used as the sole 

source of heat or the emission unit was 

not heated.’’ 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section. 

(A) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http:// 

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you 

may submit performance test data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(B) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must submit the results of 

the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

* * * * * 

(c) Annual compliance certifications. 

For the purpose of annual certifications 

of compliance required by 40 CFR part 

70 or 71, the owner or operator of a 

major source subject to this subpart 

must certify continuing compliance 

based upon, but not limited to, the 

following conditions: 

* * * * * 

(d) If there was a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the owner or 

operator must submit a report that 

includes the emission unit ID, monitor 

ID, pollutant or parameter monitored, 

beginning date and time of the event, 

end date and time of the event, cause of 

the deviation or exceedance and 

corrective action taken for each 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must include a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions, including, but 

not limited to, product-loss calculations, 

mass balance calculations, 

measurements when available, or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters. The report must 

also include a description of actions 

taken by an owner or operator during a 

malfunction of an affected source to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§§ 63.1506(a)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8). 

(e) All reports required by this subpart 

not subject to the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section must be 

sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If 

acceptable to both the Administrator 

and the owner or operator of a source, 

these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator 

retains the right to require submittal of 

reports subject to paragraph (b) of this 

section in paper format. 

■ 15. Section 63.1517 is amended by: 

■ a. By revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), 

(b)(4)(ii), (b)(14); 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(16)(i); and 

■ c. By adding paragraphs (b)(18) 

through (20). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1517 Records. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) If an aluminum 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 or records of all ASTM 

D7520–13 observations (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14), including data 

sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity determination, 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. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) If lime feeder setting is monitored, 

records of daily and monthly 

inspections of feeder setting, including 

records of any deviation of the feeder 

setting from the setting used in the 

performance test, with a brief 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

explanation of the cause of the deviation 

and the corrective action taken. If a lime 

feeder has been repaired or replaced, 

this action must be documented along 

with records of the new feeder 

calibration and the feed mechanism set 

points necessary to maintain the lb/hr 

feed rate operating limit. These records 

must be maintained on site and 

available upon request. 

* * * * * 

(14) Records of annual inspections of 

emission capture/collection and closed 

vent systems or, if the alternative to the 

annual flow rate measurements is used, 

records of differential pressure; fan RPM 

or fan motor amperage; static pressure 

measurements; or duct centerline 

velocity using a hotwire anemometer, 

ultrasonic flow meter, cross-duct 

pressure differential sensor, venturi 

pressure differential monitoring or 

orifice plate equipped with an 

associated thermocouple, as 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(18) For any failure to meet an 

applicable standard, the owner or 

operator must maintain the following 

records; 

(i) Records of the emission unit ID, 

monitor ID, pollutant or parameter 

monitored, beginning date and time of 

the event, end date and time of the 

event, cause of the deviation or 

exceedance and corrective action taken. 

(ii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§§ 63.1506(a)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(19) For each period of startup or 

shutdown for which the owner or 

operator chooses to demonstrate 

compliance for an affected source, the 

owner or operator must comply with 

(b)(19)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(i) To demonstrate compliance based 

on a feed/charge rate of zero, a flux rate 

of zero and the use of electricity, 

propane or natural gas as the sole 

sources of heating or the lack of heating, 

the owner or operator must submit a 

semiannual report in accordance with 

§ 63.1516(b)(2)(vii) or maintain the 

following records: 

(A) The date and time of each startup 

and shutdown; 

(B) The quantities of feed/charge and 

flux introduced during each startup and 

shutdown; and 

(C) The types of fuel used to heat the 

unit, or that no fuel was used, during 

startup and shutdown; or 

(ii) To demonstrate compliance based 

on performance tests, the owner or 

operator must maintain the following 

records: 

(A) The date and time of each startup 

and shutdown; 

(B) The measured emissions in lb/hr 

or mg/hr or ng/hr; 

(C) The measured feed/charge rate in 

tons/hr or Mg/hr from your most recent 

performance test associated with a 

production rate greater than zero, or the 

rated capacity of the affected source if 

no prior performance test data is 

available; and 

(D) An explanation to support that 

such conditions are considered 

representative startup and shutdown 

operations. 

(20) For owners or operators that 

choose to change furnace operating 

modes, the following records must be 

maintained: 

(i) The date and time of each change 

in furnace operating mode, and 

(ii)The nature of the change in 

operating mode (for example, group 1 

controlled furnace processing other than 

clean charge to group 2). 

* * * * * 

16. Table 1 to Subpart RRR of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56755 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18SE15.016</GPH>

Table 1 to Subpart RRR of Part 63-Emission Standards for New and 

Existing Affected Sources 

Affected source/ Emission unit Polltuant Limit Units 

All new and existing affected Opacity 10 percent 

sources and emission units that are 

controlled with a PM add-on control 

device and that choose to monitor 

with a continuous opacity monitor 

(COM); and all new and existing 

aluminum scrap shredders that choose 

to monitor with a COM or to monitor 

visible emissions 

New and existing aluminum scrap PM 0.01 gr/dscf 

shredder 

New and existing thermal chip dryer THC 0.80 lb/ton of feed 

0/Fa 2.50 j.lg TEQ/Mg of feed 

New and existing scrap PM 0.08 lb/ton of feed 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating HCl 0.80 lb/ton of feed 

kiln THC 0.06 lb/ton of feed 

0/Fa 0.25 j.lg TEQ/Mg of feed 

Or 

Alternative limits if afterburner PM 0.30 lb/ton of feed 

has a design residence time of at HCl 1. 50 lb/ton of feed 

least 1 second and operates at a THC 0.20 lb/ton of feed 

temperature of at least 1400°F 0/Fa 5.0 j.lg TEQ/Mg of feed 

New and existing sweat furnace 0/Fa 0.80 ng TEQ/dscm 

11% 02b 

New and existing dross-only furnace PM 0.30 lb/ton of feed 

New and existing in-line fluxerc HCl 0.04 lb/ton of feed 

PM 0.01 lb/ton of feed 

New and existing in-line fluxer with No Work practice: no 

no reactive fluxing Limit reactive fluxing 

New and existing rotary dross cooler PM 0.04 gr/dscf 

New and existing clean furnace No Work practices: 

(Group 2) Limit clean charge only 

and no reactive 

fluxing 

New and existing group 1 PM 0.80 lb/ton of feed 

melting/holding furnace (processing HFh 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

only clean charge)c HCl 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

or 

10 percent of the HCl 

upstream of the 

add-on control 

device 

New and existing group 1 furnacec PM 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

HFh 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

HCl 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

or 

10 percent of the HCl 

upstream of the 

add-on control 

device 

0/Fa 15.0 j.lg TEQ/Mg of feed 
56756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18SE15.017</GPH>

Affected source/ Emission unit Polltuant Limit Units 

New and existing group 1 furnace PM 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

with clean charge on lye HCl 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

HFh 0.40 lb/ton of feed 

or 

10 percent of the HCl 

upstream of an addon control device 

0/Fa No Clean charge only 

Limit 

New and existing secondary aluminum PMe 

processing unita,ct (consists of all i:(L xT) IPM l 

existing group 1 furnaces and L - i~l 

- (Eq. 1) 

existing in-line flux boxes at the t PM n 

facility, or any combination of new L(I:) 

group 1 furnaces and new in-line i~l 

fluxers) HCl and 

f(LiHCl!HF HFf, h X T;) 

L - i=l - (Eq. 2) t HCl/HF n 

L(T;) 

i=l 

0/Fg I(L xT) l D/F l 

L - i=l - (Eq. t D/F n 

I(I:) 

i~l 

a 0/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area source. 

b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the specifications of 

§ 63.1505(f) (1) are not required to conduct a performance test. 

c These limits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to secondary 

aluminum processing units. 

3) 

ct Equation definitions: 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/HF = the HCl or HF 

emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum 

processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; LtHcl/HF = the overall HCl or HF 

emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of 

feed]; LiD/F = the 0/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [pg 

(TEQ) /Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; LtD/F = the overall 0/F emission limit for 

the secondary aluminum processing unit [pg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; n 

the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit. 

e In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this 

calculation since they are not subject to the PM limit. 

f In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this 

calculation since they are not subject to the HCl and HF limit. Controlled 

group 1 furnaces cannot be included in the HF emissions calculation because 

they are not subject to HF limits. 

g Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are 

not subject to the 0/F limit. 

h HF limits apply only to uncontrolled group 1 furnaces. 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56757 

■ 17. Table 2 to Subpart RRR of part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry ‘‘All affected 

sources and emission units with an addon air pollution control device;’’ 

■ b. Revising the entry ‘‘Scrap dryer/

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with 

afterburner and lime-injected fabric 

filter;’’ 

■ c. Revising the entry ‘‘In-line fluxer 

with lime-injected fabric filter 

(including those that are part of a 

secondary aluminum processing unit);’’ 

■ d. Revising entry ‘‘Group 1 furnace 

with lime-injected fabric filter 

(including those that are part of a 

secondary of aluminum processing 

unit);’’ 

■ e. Revising the entry Group 1 furnace 

without add-on air pollution controls 

(including those that are part of a 

secondary aluminum processing unit); 

■ f. Revising footnote c to Table 2; and 

■ g. Adding footnotes d and e to Table 

2. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS

Affected source/emission unit Monitor type/operation/process Operating requirements 

All affected sources and emission 

units with an add-on air pollution 

control device.

Emission capture and collection 

system.

Design and install in accordance with ACGIH Guidelines; e operate in 

accordance with OM&M plan (sweat furnaces may be operated according to 63.1506(c)(4)).b

* * * * * * * 

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kiln with afterburner 

and lime-injected fabric filter.

Afterburner operating temperature Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr period at or above average operating temperature during the performance test. 

Afterburner operation ..................... Operate in accordance with OM&M plan.b

Bag leak detector or ...................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of alarm and complete in accordance with the OM&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-minute average opacity 

reading of 5% or more and complete in accordance with the OM&M 

plan.b

Fabric filter inlet temperature ......... Maintain average fabric filter inlet temperature for each 3-hr period at 

or below average temperature during the performance test +14 °C 

(+25 °F). 

Lime injection rate ......................... Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times for 

continuous injection systems; maintain feeder setting at or above 

the level established during the performance test for continuous injection systems. 

*******

In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric filter (including those that are 

part of a secondary aluminum 

processing unit).

Bag leak detector or ...................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of alarm and complete in accordance with the OM&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-minute average opacity 

reading of 5% or more and complete in accordance with the OM&M 

plan.b

Lime injection rate ......................... Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times for 

continuous injection systems; maintain feeder setting at or above 

the level established during performance test for continuous injection systems. 

Reactive flux injection rate ............ Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or below rate used during the 

performance test for each operating cycle or time period used in 

the performance test. 

* * * * * * * 

Group 1 furnace with lime-injected 

fabric filter (including those that 

are part of a secondary of aluminum processing unit).

Bag leak detector or ...................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of alarm; operate such that alarm 

does not sound more than 5% of operating time in 6-month period; 

complete corrective action in accordance with the OM&M plan.b

COM ............................................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of a 6-minute average opacity 

reading of 5% or more; complete corrective action in accordance 

with the OM&M plan.b

Fabric filter inlet temperature ......... Maintain average fabric filter inlet temperature for each 3-hour period 

at or below average temperature during the performance test +14° 

C (+25° F). 

Natural gas-fired, propane-fired or 

electrically heated group 1 furnaces that will be idled for at 

least 24 hours.

Operation of associated capture/collection systems and APCD b may 

be temporarily stopped. Operation of these capture/collection systems and control devices must be restarted before feed/charge, flux 

or alloying materials are added to the furnace. 

Reactive flux injection rate ............ Maintain reactive flux injection rate (kg/Mg) (lb/ton) at or below rate 

used during the performance test for each furnace cycle. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

Affected source/emission unit Monitor type/operation/process Operating requirements 

Lime injection rate ......................... Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times for 

continuous injection systems; maintain feeder setting at or above 

the level established at performance test for continuous injection 

systems. 

Maintain molten aluminum level .... Operate sidewell furnaces such that the level of molten metal is 

above the top of the passage between sidewell and hearth during 

reactive flux injection, unless the hearth is also controlled. 

Fluxing in sidewell furnace hearth Add reactive flux only to the sidewell of the furnace unless the hearth 

is also controlled. 

Group 1 furnace without add-on air 

pollution controls (including 

those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing 

unit).

Reactive flux injection rate ............ Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and total reactive 

fluorine 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. 

Site-specific monitoring plan.c Operate each furnace in accordance with the work practice/pollution 

prevention measures documented in the OM&M plan and within the 

parameter values or ranges established in the OM&M plan. 

Feed material(melting/holding furnace).Use only clean charge. 

******

****** cSite-specific monitoring plan. Owner/operators of group 1 furnaces without add-on APCD must include a section in their OM&M plan that documents work practice and pollution prevention measures, including procedures for scrap inspection, 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 must be developed in coordination with and approved by the permitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources. dAPCD—Air pollution control device. 

e Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14. 

■ 18. Table 3 to Subpart RRR of part 63 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry ‘‘All affected 

sources and emission units with an addon air pollution control device;’’ 

■ b. Revising the entry ‘‘All affected 

sources and emission units subject to 

production-based (lb/ton of feed/charge) 

emission limits;’’ 

■ c. Revising the entry ‘‘Aluminum 

scrap shredder with fabric filter;’’ 

■ d. Revising the entry ‘‘Scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with 

afterburner and lime-injected fabric 

filter;’’ 

■ e. Revising entry ‘‘Dross-only furnace 

with fabric filter;’’ 

■ f. Revising the entry ‘‘Rotary dross 

cooler with fabric filter;’’ 

■ g. Revising the entry ‘‘In-line fluxer 

with lime-injected fabric filter;’’ 

■ h. Revising the entry ‘‘Group 1 

furnace with lime-injected fabric filter;’’ 

■ i. Revise entry ‘‘Group 1 furnace 

without add-on controls;’’ 

■ j. Revise footnote c to Table 3; 

■ k. Revising footnote d to Table 3; and 

■ l. Adding footnote e to Table 3. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS

Affected source/ 

emission unit 

Monitor type/ 

operation/process Monitoring requirements 

All affected sources and emission 

units with an add-on air pollution 

control device.

Emission capture and collection 

system.

Annual inspection of all emission capture, collection, and transport 

systems to ensure that systems continue to operate in accordance 

with ACGIH Guidelines.e Inspection includes volumetric flow rate 

measurements or verification of a permanent total enclosure using 

EPA Method 204.d

All affected sources and emission 

units subject to production-based 

(lb/ton or gr/ton of feed/charge) 

emission limits.a.

Feed/charge weight ....................... Record weight of each feed/charge, weight measurement device or 

other procedure accuracy of ± 1%; b calibrate according to manufacturer’s specifications, or at least once every 6 months. 

* * * * * * * 

Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric filter.Bag leak detector or ...................... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

COM or .......................................... Design and install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6- 

minute block averages. 

VE .................................................. Conduct and record results of 30-minute daily test in accordance with 

Method 9 or ASTM D7520–13.e

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56759 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

Affected source/ 

emission unit 

Monitor type/ 

operation/process Monitoring requirements 

*******

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kiln with afterburner 

and lime-injected fabric filter.

Afterburner operating temperature Continuous measurement device to meet specifications in 

§ 63.1510(g)(1); record temperature for each 15-minute block; determine and record 3-hr block averages. 

Afterburner operation ..................... Annual inspection of afterburner internal parts; complete repairs in accordance with the OM&M plan. 

Bag leak detector or ...................... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

COM ............................................... Design and Install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6- 

minute block averages. 

Lime injection rate ......................... For continuous injection systems, inspect each feed hopper or silo 

every 8 hours to 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, record feeder setting daily. 

Verify monthly that lime injection rate is no less than 90 percent of 

the rate used during the compliance demonstration test. 

Fabric filter inlet temperature ......... Continuous measurement device to meet specifications in 

§ 63.1510(h)(2); record temperatures in 15-minute block averages; 

determine and record 3-hr block averages. 

* * * * * * * 

Dross-only furnace with fabric filter Bag leak detector or ...................... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

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

minute block averages. 

Feed/charge material ..................... Record identity of each feed/charge; certify charge materials every 6 

months. 

Rotary dross cooler with fabric filter.Bag leak detector or ...................... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

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

minute block averages. 

In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric filter.Bag leak detector or ...................... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

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

minute block averages. 

Reactive flux injection rate ............ Weight measurement device accuracy of ±1%; b calibrate according to 

manufacturer’s specifications or at least once every 6 months; 

record time, weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for 

each 15-minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate 

and record total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and the total reactive fluorine flux injection rate flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time period used in performance test; or Alternative 

flux injection rate determination procedure per § 63.1510(j)(5). For 

solid flux added intermittently, record the amount added for each 

operating cycle or time period used in the performance test. 

Lime injection rate ......................... For continuous injection systems, record feeder setting daily and inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hrs 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-hour inspections if corrective action results in no further blockage during 3-day period.c

Verify monthly that the lime injection rate is no less than 90 percent 

of the rate used during the compliance demonstration test. 

* * * * * * * 

Group 1 furnace with lime-injected 

fabric filter.

Bag leak detector or ...................... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

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

minute block averages. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

Affected source/ 

emission unit 

Monitor type/ 

operation/process Monitoring requirements 

Lime injection rate ......................... For continuous injection systems, record feeder setting daily and inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hours to 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.c

Verify monthly that the lime injection rate is no less than 90 percent 

of the rate used during the compliance demonstration test. 

Reactive flux injection rate ............ Weight measurement device accuracy of ±1%; b calibrate every 3 

months; record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected 

for each 15-minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and record total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and the 

total reactive fluorine flux injection rate flux injection rate for each 

operating cycle or time period used in performance test; or Alternative flux injection rate determination procedure per 

§ 63.1510(j)(5). For solid flux added intermittently, record the 

amount added for each operating cycle or time period used in the 

performance test. 

Fabric filter inlet temperature ......... Continuous measurement device to meet specifications in 

§ 63.1510(h)(2); record temperatures in 15-minute block averages; 

determine and record 3-hour block averages. 

Maintain molten aluminum level in 

sidewell furnace.

Maintain aluminum level operating log; certify every 6 months. If visual inspection of molten metal level is not possible, use physical 

measurement methods. 

Group 1 furnace without add-on 

controls.

Fluxing in sidewell furnace hearth Maintain flux addition operating log; certify every 6 months. 

Reactive flux injection rate ............ Weight measurement device accuracy of +1%; b calibrate according to 

manufacturer’s specifications or at least once every six months; 

record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 

15-minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and 

record total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or 

time period used in performance test. For solid flux added intermittently, record the amount added for each operating cycle or time 

period used in the performance test. 

OM&M plan (approved by permitting agency).Demonstration of site-specific monitoring procedures to provide data 

and show correlation of emissions across the range of charge and 

flux materials and furnace operating parameters. 

Feed material (melting/holding furnace).Record type of permissible feed/charge material; certify charge materials every 6 months. 

*******

* * * * * 

cPermitting authority for major sources, or the Administrator for area sources may approve other alternatives including load cells for lime hopper weight, sensors for carrier gas pressure, or HCl monitoring devices at fabric filter outlet. dThe frequency of volumetric flow rate measurements may be decreased to once every 5 years if daily differential pressure measures, daily 

fan RPM, or daily fan motor amp measurements are made in accordance with § 63.1510(d)(2)(ii–iii). The frequency of annual verification of a 

permanent total enclosure may be decreased to once every 5 years if negative pressure measurements in the enclosure are made daily in accordance with § 63.1510(d)(2)(iv). In lieu of volumetric flow rate measurements or verification of permanent total enclosure, sweat furnaces may 

demonstrate annually negative air flow into the sweat furnace opening in accordance with § 63.1510(d)(3). e Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14. 

■ 19. Appendix A to Subpart RRR of 

part 63 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising entry §§ 63.1(a)6)–(8); 

■ b. Revising entry § 63.1 (a)(9); 

■ c. Revising entry § 63.1(a)(10)–(14); 

■ d. Revising entry § 63.1(c)(3); 

■ e. Revising entry § 63.1(c)(4)–(5); 

■ f. Revising entry § 63.4(a)(1)–(3); 

■ g. Revising entry § 63.4(a)(4); 

■ h. Removing entry § 63.4(a)(5); 

■ i. Revising entry § 63.5(b)(3)–(6); 

■ j. Adding entry § 63.5(b)(5); 

■ k. Adding entry § 63.5(b)(6); 

■ l. Revising entry § 63.6(b)(1)–(5); 

■ m. Removing entry § 63.6(e)(1)–(2); 

■ n. Adding entry § 63.6(e)(1)(i); 

■ o. Adding entry § 63.6(e)(1)ii) 

■ p. Adding entry § 63.6(e)(2); 

■ q. Revising entry § 63.6(e)(3); 

■ r. Removing entry § 63.6(f); 

■ s. Adding entry § 63.6(f)(1); 

■ t. Adding entries § 63.6(f)(2); 

■ u. Removing entries § 63.6(h); 

■ v. Adding entries § 63.6(h)(1), 

§ 63.6(h)(2) and § 63.6(h)(3); 

■ w. Adding entry § 63.6(h)(4)–(9); 

■ x. Revising entry § 63.7(a)–(h); 

■ y. Adding entries § 63.7(b), § 63.7(c) 

and § 63.7(d); 

■ z. Removing entry § 63.7((e); 

■ aa. Adding entries § 63.7(e)(1) and 

§ 63.7(e)(2); 

■ bb. Revising entry § 63.7(g); 

■ cc. Revising entry § 63.7(h); 

■ dd. Removing entry § 63.8((c)(1)–(3); 

■ ee. Adding entries § 63.8(c)(1)(i), 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and § 63.8(c)(1)(iii); 

■ ff. Revising entry § 63.8 (c)(4)–(8); 

■ gg. Revising entry § 63.8(d); 

■ hh. Adding entry § 63.8(d)(3); 

■ ii. Revising entry § 63.9(b); 

■ jj. Removing entry § 63.10(b); 

■ kk. Adding entry § 63.10(b)(1); 

■ ll. Adding entry § 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), 

(iv), (v); 

■ mm. Adding entry § 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 

(vi) to (xiv); 

■ nn. Adding entry § 63.10(b)(3); 

■ oo. Adding entry § 63.10(c)(15); 

■ pp. Revising entry § 63.10(d)(4)–(5); 

■ qq. Revising entry § 63.11(a)–(b); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56761 

■ rr. Revising entry § 63.14; and 

■ ss. Adding entry § 63.16. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART RRR 

Citation Applies to RRR Comment 

*******

§ 63.1(a)(6) ........................................................ Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ................................................. No ..................................................................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ............................................. Yes.

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) .................................................. No ..................................................................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5) ........................................................ Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ................................................. Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ................................................. No ..................................................................... [Reserved]. 

*******

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ................................................. Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(5) ........................................................ No ..................................................................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(6) ........................................................ Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(b)(1)–(5) ................................................. Yes .................................................................... § 63.1501 specifies dates. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ..................................................... No ..................................................................... See § 63.1506(a)(5) for general duty requirement. Any other cross reference to 

§ 63.6(3)(1)(i) in any other general provision 

referenced shall be treated as a cross reference to § 63.1506(a)(5). 

§ 63.6(e)(1)–(ii) .................................................. No.

§ 63.6(e)(2) ........................................................ No ..................................................................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ........................................................ No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ......................................................... No.

§ 63.6(f)(2) ......................................................... Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(h)(1) ........................................................ No.

§ 63.6(h)(2) ........................................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(3) ........................................................ No ..................................................................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(h)(4)–(9) ................................................. Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(a) ............................................................ Yes .................................................................... Except § 63.1511 establishes dates for initial 

performance tests. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ........................................................ No.

§ 63.7(e)(2) ........................................................ Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(g)(1)–(3) ................................................. Yes .................................................................... Except for § 63.7(g)(2), which is reserved. 

§ 63.7(h)(1)–(5) ................................................. Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .....................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ....................................................

No .....................................................................

Yes. 

See § 63.1506(a)(5) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................................... No.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(8) .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ................................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(d)(3) ........................................................ Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to 

an SSM plan. SSM plans are not required.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ................................................. Yes .................................................................... Except § 63.9(b)(3) is reserved. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ...................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv), (v) ............................... No.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

56762 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART RRR—Continued 

Citation Applies to RRR Comment 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi)–(xiv) ................................. Yes .................................................................... § 63.1517 includes additional requirements. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ...................................................... Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(c)(15) .................................................... No.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(d)(4)–(5) ............................................... No ..................................................................... See § 63.1516(d). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.11(a)–(d) .................................................... No ..................................................................... Flares not applicable. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.14 ............................................................... Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.16 ............................................................... No.

[FR Doc. 2015–21031 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2