49052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL–64–2–5807; FRL–5887–8]

RIN 2060–AE41

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories; National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Steel Pickling Facilities—HCl

Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and

existing hydrochloric acid (HCl) process

steel pickling lines and HCl

regeneration plants pursuant to section

112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) as

amended in November 1990. Steel

pickling lines that employ the HCl

process and associated HCl acid

regeneration plants have been identified

by the EPA as potentially significant

emitters of hydrochloric acid, a

chemical identified in the Act as a

hazardous air pollutant (HAP). Chronic

exposure to HCl has been reported to

cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis,

dermatitis, and photosensitization.

Acute inhalation exposure may cause

coughing, hoarseness, inflammation and

ulceration of the respiratory tract, chest

pain, and pulmonary edema.

Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants

have been identified as significant

emitters of HCl and chlorine (CL2), the

latter of which is also identified in the

Act as a HAP. Acute exposure to high

levels of CL2 in humans results in chest

pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis,

pulmonary edema, and death. At lower

levels CL2 is a potent irritant to the eyes,

the upper respiratory tract, and lungs.

This rulemaking will affect steel

pickling lines that use HCl as the

primary acid, acid regeneration plants,

and acid storage tanks. The purpose of

the proposed rule is to reduce emissions

of HCl by about 8,360 megagrams per

year (Mg/yr) and CL2 by about 19 Mg/

yr. The NESHAP provides protection to

the public by requiring all HCl pickling

lines, acid regeneration plants, and acid

storage tanks to meet emission

standards that reflect the application of

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the

proposed rule must be received on or

before November 17, 1997.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by October 9, 1997, a public

hearing will be held on October 20,

1997, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate, if possible) to: Docket No. A–

95–43 at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests that a separate copy of the

comments also be sent to the contact

person listed below. The docket is

located at the above address in Room

M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor).

A copy of today’s notice, technical

background information document, and

other materials related to this

rulemaking are available for review in

the docket. Copies of this information

may be obtained by request from the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center by calling (202) 260–7548. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

Background Information Document.

The background information document

(BID) for the proposed standard may be

obtained from the docket or the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency by

contacting Mary Hinson, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), Research

Triangle Park, NC 27511, telephone

number (919) 541–5601.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting a public hearing by the

required date (see DATES), the public

hearing will be held at the EPA Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, NC. Persons interested in

presenting oral testimony or inquiring

as to whether a hearing is to be held

should notify the contact person listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Maysilles, Metals Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–3265,

facsimile number (919) 541–5600,

electronic mail address

‘‘maysilles.jim@epamail.epa.gov.’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those industrial facilities that

perform steel pickling using the HCl

process. Regulated categories and

entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ..................... Steel pickling plants

(SIC 3312, 3315,

3317) using HCl

process.

Federal Government:

Not affected.

State/local/tribal governments:

Not affected.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by final action on this

proposal. This table lists the types of

entities that the EPA is now aware could

potentially be regulated by final action

on this proposal. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by final action

on this proposal, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

section V.A of this document, and in

§ 63.1155 of the proposed rule. If you

have any questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technology Transfer Network

The text of today’s notice also is

available on the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN), one of EPA’s electronic

bulletin boards. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control.

The service is free, except for the cost

of a phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for

up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN

also is accessible through the Internet at

‘‘TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov.’’ If more

information on the TTN is needed, call

the HELP line at (919) 541–5348. The

HELP desk is staffed from 11 a.m. to 5

p.m.; a voice menu system is available

at other times.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established under

Docket No. A–95–43 (including

comments and data submitted

electronically). A public version of this

record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI), is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The official rulemaking record

is located at the address in ADDRESSES

at the beginning of this document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ‘‘A-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49053

and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.’’

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number (A–95–43). No CBI

should be submitted through electronic

mail. Electronic comments on this

proposed rule may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Outline

The information in this preamble is

organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area

Sources

III. Background

A. Description of Steel Pickling Source

Category

B. Emissions

C. Summary of Considerations Made in

Developing This Rule

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

C. Determining the MACT Floor

V. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Sources to be Regulated

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

C. Compliance Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by This NESHAP

B. Air Quality Impacts

C. Water Quality Impacts

D. Solid Waste Impacts

E. Energy Impacts

F. Cost Impacts

G. Economic Impacts

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. Selection of Source Category and

Pollutants

B. Selection of Affected Sources

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards for Existing and

New Sources

1. Background

2. Selection of MACT

D. Selection of Format

1. Pickling Lines and Acid Regeneration

Plants

2. Acid Storage Tanks

E. Selection of Emission Limits

1. Continuous Pickling Lines

2. Batch Pickling Lines

3. Acid Regeneration Plants

F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

1. Pickling Lines

2. Acid Regeneration Plants

G. Selection of Test Methods

H. Selection of Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

I. Solicitation of Comments

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Public Hearing

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

proposal is provided by sections 101,

112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412,

7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Initial List of Categories of Major

and Area Sources

Section 112 of the Act requires that

the EPA promulgate regulations

requiring the control of HAP emissions

from major and area sources. The

control of HAP emissions is achieved

through promulgation of emission

standards under sections 112(d) and

112(f) and operational and work

practice standards under section 112(h)

for categories of sources that emit HAP.

An initial list of categories of major

and area sources of HAP selected for

regulation in accordance with section

112(c) of the Act was published in the

Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576). ‘‘Steel Pickling—HCl Process’’ is

one of the 174 categories of sources

listed. The category consists of facilities

engaged in the pickling of steel using

HCl as the pickling acid. This category

does not include facilities that pickle

steel with other acids. The listing was

based on the Administrator’s

determination that HCl steel pickling

facilities may reasonably be anticipated

to emit hydrochloric acid, one of the

listed HAP, in quantities sufficient to

designate them as major sources.

Information subsequently collected by

the EPA as part of this rulemaking

confirms that more than three-fourths of

HCl pickling facilities emit or have the

potential to emit HCl at levels greater

than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10

standard tons per year (tpy)) and

therefore are major sources.

III. Background

A. Description of Steel Pickling Source

Category

The ‘‘Steel Pickling—HCl Process’’

source category includes any facility

engaged in the pickling of steel using

hydrochloric acid as the pickling acid.

Steel pickling is the process in which

the heavy oxide crust or mill scale that

develops on the surface of steel during

hot forming or heat treating is removed

chemically in a bath of aqueous acid

solution. Removal of the oxide layer is

necessary to prepare the surface for

subsequent shaping or finishing. The

source category does not include

facilities which pickle steel using acids

other than HCl.

The category includes both

continuous and batch pickling

operations. In the continuous pickling

process the steel is fed through a

sequence of tanks in a countercurrent

direction to the flow of the acid

solution; next, the steel is passed

through a series of rinse tanks or a

rinsing section. In the batch pickling

process, the steel is immersed in an acid

solution until the scale or oxide film is

removed, lifted from the bath, allowed

to drain, and then rinsed by spraying or

immersion in rinse tanks.

To obtain current data on the

industry, the EPA compiled data

supplied by the industry in response to

an information collection request (ICR)

issued in May 1992. Facilities on the

mailing list were identified from trade

publications and other generally

available information. Information

reported included capacity and annual

production or processing rate as well as

design information for existing air

pollution control systems. Some data

were reported for acid storage tanks.

Data were also reported on HCl

regeneration plants, which are operated

at several facilities that conduct HCl

pickling. Regeneration plants are an

integral part of the pickling operation at

those facilities.

Based on the sources of information

used to develop the mailing list and the

completeness of responses, the EPA

believes that the reported information

comprises a data base that adequately

describes the industry and its air

pollution control equipment for

development of the MACT standards.

According to the data base, one

Federal agency and 77 privately owned

companies operated 101 steel pickling

facilities and 10 acid regeneration

facilities during 1991. Operations were

located in 20 States in seven EPA

Regions. Eight of the facilities operating

acid regeneration plants are collocated

with pickling facilities, while two are

stand-alone custom or toll facilities.

Therefore, a total of 103 facilities in this

source category were operating in 1991.

Many of the facilities are located

adjacent to integrated iron and steel

manufacturing plants or mini-mills that

produce electric-furnace steel from

scrap.

Five types of pickling processes have

been identified. Table 1 summarizes the

number of facilities and production for

each process type.
49054 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Hydrochloric Acid. Hazardous Substance Data

Bank. National Library of Medicine. National

Institute of Health. Printouts dated August 13, 1992

and November 12, 1993. See also: Hydrogen

Chloride. Integrated Risk Information System. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Printout dated

July 10, 1995.

2Chlorine. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.

National Library of Medicine. National Institute of

Health. Printout dated August 18, 1993. See also:

Chlorine. Integrated Risk Information System. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Printout dated

September 1, 1995.

TABLE 1.—HCL STEEL PICKLING AND ACID REGENERATION PROCESSES

Process Number of

plants

Number of

lines or units

1991 Production (10 6)

Continuous Pickling:

Continuous Strip .............................................................................................................................. 36 64 (lines) ...... 33.3 tons.

Push-Pull Strip ................................................................................................................................. 19 22 (lines) ...... 4.5 tons.

Rod/Wire .......................................................................................................................................... 20 55 (lines) ...... 0.6 tons.

Tube ................................................................................................................................................. 4 11 (lines) ...... 0.5 tons.

Batch Pickling ...................................................................................................................................... 26 59 (lines) ...... 0.9 tons.

Pickling Total* .......................................................................................................................... 101 211 (lines) .... 39.8 tons.

Acid Regeneration ............................................................................................................................... 10 13 (units) ...... 98.0 gal.

* Four facilities perform batch and continuous rod/wire pickling processes. Eight facilities have acid regeneration plants on site. The total number of facilities is 103.

Steel pickling operations are

characterized by the form of metal

processed and the type of pickling

equipment used. The principal forms of

steel pickled include coils of sheet or

strip, rod, wire, pipe, and various

discreet shapes. Pickling operations may

be continuous, semicontinuous, and

batch.

A reported 39.8 million tons of steel,

valued at about $18 billion based on the

price of hot-rolled strip, were pickled in

1991, representing 65 percent of the

industry capacity.

Hydrochloric acid used in the

pickling bath can be recovered as

regenerated acid, typically 16 to 20

percent HCl, from the spent pickle

liquor. A marketable iron oxide product

is also produced as a byproduct of the

spray roasting or fluidized bed roasting

processes used in the acid plants. Waste

liquor conversion and acid recovery are

complete in both of these processes.

Annual facility capacities range from

3.15 to 38.9 million gallons of acid.

In 1991, actual production of

regenerated acid from the ten facilities

was 98 million gallons, which is

estimated to be more than 40 percent of

pickling acid requirements for the

industry for that year. Without the

savings provided by use of the

regenerated acid, additional costs would

be incurred for treatment or disposal of

the waste pickle liquor (K062) that are

otherwise avoided.

B. Emissions

Pickling lines of all types employ

processing tanks that contain HCl

solution. Emissions of HCl in the forms

of HCl gas and mist of HCl in water are

formed at the surface of the acid bath.

The EPA estimates that pickling

facilities emit approximately 8,920 Mg/

yr of HCl at the current level of control.

Acid regeneration plants produce

emissions containing HCl that is not

recovered as acid solution and also Cl2,

which is formed as an unwanted

byproduct of the process. The EPA

estimates that acid regeneration

facilities emit about 390 Mg/yr of HCl

and 35 Mg/yr of Cl2. Emissions in the

forms of HCl gas and acid mist from

tanks used to store virgin or regenerated

acid are released from uncontrolled tank

vents. An estimated 24 Mg/yr of HCl is

emitted from tanks nationwide.

C. Summary of Considerations Made in

Developing This Rule

The Clean Air Act was created in part

to protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population.

(See section 101(b)(1)). Section 112(b) of

the Act lists HAP believed to cause

adverse health or environmental effects.

Section 112(d) of the Act requires that

emission standards be promulgated for

all categories and subcategories of major

sources of these HAP and for many

smaller ‘‘area’’ sources listed for

regulation under section 112(c) in

accordance with the schedules listed

under section 112(e). On December 3,

1993, the EPA published a schedule for

promulgating these standards (58 FR

63941).

In the 1993 Amendments to the Act,

Congress specified that each standard

for major sources must require the

maximum reduction in emissions of

HAP that the EPA determines is

achievable considering cost, health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements. In essence, these MACT

standards would ensure that all major

sources of air toxic emissions achieve

the level of control already being

achieved by the better controlled and

lower emitting sources in each category.

This approach provides assurance to

citizens that each major source of toxic

air pollution will be required to

effectively control its emissions. At the

same time, this approach provides a

level economic playing field, ensuring

that facilities that employ cleaner

processes and good emission controls

are not disadvantaged relative to

competitors with poorer controls.

Emission data collected during the

development of this rule show that

pollutants that are listed in section

112(b)(1) and are emitted by HCl steel

pickling processes include hydrochloric

acid and chlorine. Hydrochloric acid

and chlorine emissions would be

reduced by implementation of the

proposed emission limits and

equipment and operating standards.

Adverse health effects from exposure

to HCl and Cl2 have been documented.1

Chronic occupational exposure to HCl

has been reported to cause gastritis,

chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and

photosensitization in workers.

Prolonged exposure to low

concentrations may also cause dental

discoloration and erosion. Acute

inhalation exposure may cause

coughing, hoarseness, inflammation and

ulceration of the respiratory tract, chest

pain, and pulmonary edema in humans.

No information is available on the

reproductive, developmental, or

carcinogenic effects of HCl in humans.

The EPA has not classified HCl with

respect to potential carcinogenicity.

Acute exposure to high levels (>30

parts per million (ppm) of Cl2 in

humans results in chest pain, vomiting,

toxic pneumonitis, pulmonary edema,

and death.2 At lower levels (<3 ppm) Cl2

is a potent irritant to the eyes, the upper

respiratory tract, and lungs. Limited

information is available on the chronic

effects in humans. A recent

epidemiologic study reported no
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49055

adverse effects in workers exposed to

Cl2 at 0 to 64 ppm over an average of

20 years. No information is available on

the developmental, reproductive, or

carcinogenic effects in humans via

inhalation exposure. The EPA has not

classified Cl2 for carcinogenicity.

The EPA does recognize that the

degree of adverse effects to health can

range from mild to severe. The extent

and degree to which the health effects

may be experienced is dependent upon:

(1) The ambient concentrations

observed in the area (e. g., as influenced

by emission rates, meteorological

conditions, and terrain), (2) the

frequency and duration of exposure, (3)

characteristics of exposed individuals

(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health

conditions, and lifestyle) that vary

significantly with the population, and

(4) pollutant-specific characteristics

(e.g., toxicity, half-life in the

environment, bioaccumulation, and

persistence).

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

Section 112 specifically directs the

EPA to develop a list of all categories of

all major and such area sources as

appropriate emitting one or more of the

HAP listed in section 112(b). (See

section 112(c)). Section 112 of the Act

replaces the previous system of

pollutant-by-pollutant health-based

regulation that proved ineffective at

controlling the high volumes and

concentrations of HAP in air emissions.

The provision directs that this

deficiency be redressed by imposing

technology-based controls on sources

emitting HAP, and that these

technology-based standards may later be

reduced further to address residual risk

that may remain even after imposition

of technology-based controls. A major

source is any source that emits or has

the potential to emit considering

controls 10 tpy or more of any one HAP

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of

HAP. The EPA published an initial list

of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57

FR 31576), and may amend the list at

any time.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to

control HAP emissions from both new

and existing sources according to the

statutory directives set out in section

112, as amended. The statute requires

the standard to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction of HAP emissions

that is achievable taking into

consideration the cost of achieving the

emission reduction, any nonair quality

health and environmental impacts, and

energy requirements.

Emission reductions may be

accomplished through application of

measures, processes, methods, systems,

or techniques, including, but not limited

to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or

eliminating emissions of, such

pollutants through process changes,

substitution of materials, or other

modifications, (2) enclosing systems or

processes to eliminate emissions, (3)

collecting, capturing, or treating such

pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive

emissions point, (4) design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standards

(including requirements for operator

training or certification) as provided in

subsection (h), or (5) a combination of

the above. (See section 112(d)(2)).

To develop a NESHAP, the EPA

collects information about the industry,

including information on emission

source characteristics, control

technologies, data from HAP emissions

tests at well-controlled facilities, and

information on the costs and other

energy and environmental impacts of

emission control techniques. The EPA

uses this information to analyze

possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP are normally

structured in terms of numerical

emission limits, alternative approaches

are sometimes necessary. In some cases,

for example, physically measuring

emissions from a source may be

impossible, or at least impractical,

because of technological and economic

limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes

the Administrator to promulgate a

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard, or a combination

thereof, in those cases where it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an

emissions standard.

If sources in the source category are

major sources, then a MACT standard is

required for those major sources. The

regulation of the area sources in a

source category is discretionary. If there

is a finding of a threat of adverse effects

on human health or the environment,

then the source category can be added

to the list of area sources to be

regulated.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

After the EPA has identified the

specific source categories or

subcategories of major sources to

regulate under section 112, it must set

MACT standards for each category or

subcategory. Section 112 limits the

EPA’s discretion by establishing a

minimum baseline or ‘‘floor’’ for

standards. For new sources, the

standards for a source category or

subcategory cannot be less stringent

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, as determined

by the Administrator. (See section

112(d)(3)).

The standards for existing sources can

be less stringent than standards for new

sources, but they cannot be less

stringent that the average emission

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing

sources (excluding certain sources) for

categories and subcategories with 30 or

more sources, or the best-performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources. (See section

112(d)(3)).

After the floor has been determined

for a new or existing source in a source

category or subcategory, the

Administrator must set MACT standards

that are no less stringent than the floor.

Such standards must then be met by all

sources within the category or

subcategory.

Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the

EPA shall establish standards that

require the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of hazardous air

pollutants

* * * that the Administrator, taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts and

energy requirements, determines is

achievable * * *

In establishing standards, the

Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources

within a category or subcategory. (See

section 112(d)(1)). For example, the

Administrator could establish two

classes of sources within a category or

subcategory based on size and establish

a different emissions standard for each

class, provided both standards are at

least as stringent as the MACT floor for

that class of sources.

The next step in establishing MACT

standards is the investigation of

regulatory alternatives. With MACT

standards, only alternatives at least as

stringent as the floor may be selected.

Information about the industry is

analyzed to develop model plant

populations for projecting national

impacts, including HAP emission

reduction levels, costs, energy, and

secondary impacts. Several regulatory

alternative levels (which may be

different levels of emissions control or

different levels of applicability or both)

are then evaluated to select the

regulatory alternative that best reflects

the appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more

stringent than the MACT floor, but the
49056 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

control level selected must be

technically achievable. In selecting a

regulatory alternative that represents

MACT, the EPA considers the

achievable emission reductions of HAP

(and possibly other pollutants that are

co-controlled), cost, and economic

impacts, energy impacts, and other

environmental impacts. The objective is

to achieve the maximum degree of

emissions reduction without

unreasonable economic or other

impacts. (See section 112(d)(2)). The

regulatory alternatives selected for new

and existing sources may be different

because of different MACT floors, and

separate regulatory decisions may be

made for new and existing sources.

The selected regulatory alternative is

then translated into a proposed

regulation. The regulation implementing

the MACT decision typically includes

sections on applicability, standards, test

methods and compliance

demonstration, monitoring, reporting,

and recordkeeping. The preamble to the

proposed regulation provides an

explanation of the rationale for the

decision. The public is invited to

comment on the proposed regulation

during the public comment period.

Based on an evaluation of these

comments, the EPA reaches a final

decision and promulgates the standard.

V. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Sources To Be Regulated

The proposed NESHAP would apply

to new and existing pickling lines that

use an acid solution in which 50

percent or more by weight of the acid

in solution is HCl, HCl regeneration

plants, and adjunct tanks used to store

virgin or regenerated HCl at steel

pickling facilities or acid regeneration

plants that are major sources or are part

of a major source. A steel pickling line

employing a pickling solution in which

less than 50 percent by weight of the

acid in solution is HCl would not be

subject to the proposed NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

Emission limits are being proposed

for HCl and Cl2. For existing continuous

and batch pickling lines, HCl emissions

would be limited to either: (1)

Emissions from an air pollution control

device (APCD) with a minimum HCl

collection efficiency of 97.5 percent; or

(2) an HCl concentration no greater than

10 parts per million by volume (ppmv)

in the APCD or process exhaust gas. For

new or reconstructed continuous and

batch pickling lines, HCl emissions

would be limited to either: (1)

Emissions from an APCD with a

minimum HCl collection efficiency of

99 percent; or (2) a maximum HCl

concentration of 3 ppmv in the exhaust

gas.

Emissions of HCl from existing acid

regeneration plants would be limited to

a maximum concentration of 8 ppmv

HCl in the exhaust gas. A limit of a

maximum concentration of 3 ppmv HCl

in the exhaust gas is proposed for new

or reconstructed acid regeneration

plants.

Emissions of Cl2 from existing and

new acid regeneration plants would be

limited to either a maximum

concentration of 4 ppmv Cl2 in the

exhaust gas or an optional source

specific maximum concentration

limitation to be established for each

source. The way in which the optional

limitation is established is described in

section VII.E of this document,

‘‘Selection of Emission Limits’’.

Under the proposed rule, the owner or

operator of an existing or new tank used

to store virgin or regenerated acid would

be required to cover and seal all

openings on the tank and route

emissions from the atmospheric vent to

an APCD. Acid loading and unloading

would be conducted either through

enclosed lines or with a local fume

capture system, ventilated through an

APCD, at each point where the acid is

exposed to the atmosphere.

C. Compliance Provisions

Compliance with the standards would

need to be achieved within 24 months

of promulgation for existing sources,

and upon startup or the promulgation

date, whichever is later, for new or

reconstructed sources. As provided by

section 112(i), an owner or operator may

request the Administrator or applicable

permitting authority in a State with an

approved permit program to grant 1

additional year if necessary to install

controls.

For pickling lines and acid

regeneration plants, an initial

performance test would be required to

demonstrate compliance. Sampling

locations for all compliance tests would

be determined by EPA Method 1 in

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Stack gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate would

be determined by EPA Method 2; gas

analysis would be conducted according

to EPA Reference Methods 3 and 4 in

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Testing

of HCl and Cl2 emissions would be

performed using EPA Method 26A,

‘‘Determination of Hydrogen Halide and

Halogen Emissions from Stationary

Sources—Isokinetic Method’’, in 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A. If testing is

conducted to demonstrate compliance

with a collection efficiency limitation,

sampling at the APCD inlet and at the

outlet must be simultaneous. An average

of three runs of sufficient duration to

provide adequate samples for the

expected concentration would be used

to determine compliance. The owner or

operator also would establish limiting

values for control device operating

parameters and regeneration process

operating conditions based on the

values measured during this test.

The installation of the required

ventilation systems for acid storage

tanks would be confirmed to the

satisfaction of the Administrator by

means of a visual inspection.

D. Monitoring Requirements

The proposed NESHAP allows two

monitoring options for HCl, one option

for Cl2. For HCl, the owner or operator

must either: (1) Monitor and record

control device operating parameters and

perform annual emission tests; or (2)

operate a continuous emission

monitoring system (CEMS) for the

measurement and recording of HCl

emissions. If a wet scrubber is used, the

control device operating parameters

monitored would be the pressure drop

across the scrubber and the acidity of

the scrubber effluent. The allowable

range of values for pressure drop would

be either the range of values recorded

during multiple performance tests or a

value within 1-inch of water column of

the average value measured during the

three test runs of one compliance test.

Acidity would be monitored either by

the use of instruments that measure

acidity continuously or manual tests

made once each shift for each operating

day. If a device other than a wet

scrubber is used, the owner or operator

must monitor parameters appropriate

for that device.

Each owner or operator also must

develop and implement a written

program to ensure the proper operation

and maintenance of each emission

control device and submit the written

program to the applicable permitting

authority as part of the operating permit.

If a wet scrubber is used, the plan must

include the minimum elements

contained in the operating manual, e.g.,

it must: Require the manufacturer’s

recommended maintenance at the

recommended intervals for pumps,

scrubber fans and motors, and the

exhaust system; require cleaning of the

scrubber internals and mist eliminators

at sufficient intervals to prevent fouling;

and require periodic inspections of each

scrubber to identify, repair, or replace

specified elements as needed. If another

type of control device is used, the owner

or operator must develop and submit a

similar written plan appropriate for the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49057

device for approval by the applicable

permitting authority.

If a defect is found during an

inspection, the owner or operator must

initiate corrective action procedures to

remedy the defect within 1 working day

of detection. Failure to perform the

inspection as stated in the written

maintenance plan or to initiate

corrective actions would be a violation

of the maintenance requirement.

Operation of the control device with

excursions of operating parameters

outside the ranges established during

the initial performance test requires

initiation of corrective action as

specified by the maintenance

requirement. Failure to initiate the

required action is a violation of the

maintenance requirements.

If excursions of control device

operating parameters occur more often

than six times during any 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

is required to install a CEMS and

comply with all the requirements

applicable to a continuous monitoring

system (CMS) that are specified in § 63.8

in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. For

compliance with the exhaust gas

concentration requirement, the CEMS

shall be employed to monitor the

process or control device exhaust gas.

For compliance with the collection

efficiency requirement, the CEMS shall

be employed to monitor the APCD inlet

and outlet gas streams. For compliance

with the collection efficiency

requirement, a single analyzer may be

used to monitor both streams, with each

stream being monitored 50 percent of

the time during each 24-hour period.

For Cl2, the owner or operator must

perform annual emission tests and

monitor and record roaster operating

conditions. Operating conditions would

include process offgas temperature and

a measure of excess air fed to the

process, the latter of which would

consist of a measure of air feed rate,

combustion fuel feed rate, and feed rate

of iron in the spent liquor or any other

acceptable combination of parameters.

The operator could establish new

allowable operating parameter values by

conducting another performance test.

The owner or operator of a pickling

facility would be found in violation of

the emission limit if an annual

performance test or reduced data from

the CEMS show that the HCl emission

limitation is being exceeded. The owner

or operator of an acid regeneration plant

would be found in violation of the

emission limit if an annual emission test

shows that the HCl and/or Cl2 emission

limitation is being exceeded, if reduced

data from the CEMS show that the HCl

emission limitation is being exceeded,

or if the acid plant roaster is operated

under conditions outside the values

established during the initial

performance test.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

The owner or operator would be

required to submit notifications

described in the general provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A), which include

initial notification of applicability,

notifications of performance tests, and

notification of compliance status.

As required by the general provisions,

the owner or operator would be required

to submit a report of performance test

results; develop and implement a

written startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan and report

semiannually any events where the plan

was not followed; and submit

semiannual reports of excess emissions

if any measured emissions are greater

than the limits, or if any monitored

parameters fall outside the range of

values established during the

performance test. If excess emissions are

reported, a quarterly report would be

required until there have been no excess

emissions for one year; the owner or

operator could then report semiannually

unless excess emissions reoccur.

The owner or operator also would be

required to maintain records required by

the general provisions and records

needed to document compliance with

the standard. These records would

mainly include operating parameter

measurements, a copy of the written

maintenance plan, and APCD inspection

records.

All records must be retained for at

least 5 years following the date of each

occurrence, measurement, maintenance,

corrective action, report, or record. The

records for the most recent 2 years must

be retained on site; records for the

remaining 3 years may be retained off

site but still must be readily available

for review. The files may be retained on

microfilm, microfiche, on a computer,

or on computer or magnetic disks. The

owner or operator may report required

information on paper or a labeled

computer disk using commonly

available and compatible computer

software.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by This NESHAP

The proposed standards would apply

to all HCl steel pickling facilities and

HCl regeneration facilities that are major

sources or are part of a major source.

The EPA estimates that approximately

80 pickling facilities and all 10

regeneration facilities emit HCl in

amounts that are greater than major

source levels (i. e., greater than 10 tpy).

At least one regeneration facility is a

major source for Cl2.

Sixty-nine pickling facilities control

emissions from all lines (119). In the

remaining 32 facilities, 90 of 92 lines are

uncontrolled. Twelve of the 13 acid

regeneration processes are equipped

with control systems. Of an estimated

369 storage tanks, about one-third, at 40

pickling and 4 acid regeneration

facilities, are equipped with control

equipment.

Many of the 69 controlled pickling

facilities not already meeting the

requirements of the proposed rule could

possibly achieve compliance with minor

equipment modifications or changes in

operating conditions. Of the 32 facilities

that would require additional control

systems, 17 are batch picklers and 12

are continuous rod and wire picklers.

Many acid regeneration facilities may

be able to comply with the proposed

NESHAP using existing control

equipment and operating procedures.

Three plants are known to already meet

the proposed standard for HCl, three

plants are known to meet the standard

for Cl2. Other plants may already be in

compliance or able to comply using

only improved operating or

maintenance procedures.

All impacts were estimated by

determining the effect of the proposed

regulation on model plants that were

developed to represent the industry

rather than estimating the impact on

each facility on a case-by-case basis,

which was considered impractical.

Seventeen model plants were developed

to represent the five types of pickling

operations and one acid regeneration

process. The model plants include

small, medium, and large plant size

variations (except for continuous tubing

pickling, for which only small and large

size variations were used) with

associated emission control systems.

B. Air Quality Impacts

At current levels of control,

nationwide HCl emissions from this

source category are estimated to be

9,330 Mg/yr; 6,980 Mg/yr for continuous

pickling lines, 1,940 Mg/yr for batch

pickling lines, 390 Mg/yr for acid

regeneration plants, and 24 Mg/yr from

acid storage tanks. Nationwide Cl2

emissions from acid regeneration plants

are estimated to be 35 Mg/yr.

Application of the proposed standards

would reduce HCl emissions by

approximately 8,360 Mg/yr to about 970

Mg/yr from all regulated sources, or

about 90 percent, and Cl2 emissions by
49058 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

approximately 19 Mg/yr to about 16 Mg/

yr, or about 54 percent.

C. Water Quality Impacts

The additional amount of water

discharged from wet scrubbers would

increase by approximately 460,000

cubic meters per year (m3/yr) over

current levels: 320,000 m3/yr from

continuous pickling processes, 130,000

m3/yr from batch pickling processes,

and 6,000 m3/yr from acid regeneration

plants. The portion of this water that

would need to be treated on site prior

to discharge is projected to be small

because the scrubber discharge water

can be, and is in many cases, recycled

to the pickling process to provide

makeup water and recover the acid

values collected by the scrubber. The

additional wastewater to be treated

would be insignificant compared with

the amount of waste pickle liquor

generated by pickling operations.

Treatment of both waste products can be

accomplished by the same procedures.

D. Solid Waste Impacts

The volume of sludge generated by

additional control could increase by up

to 1,680 Mg/yr: 1,370 Mg/yr from

continuous pickling processes, 280 Mg/

yr from batch pickling processes, and 30

Mg/yr from acid regeneration plants.

The sludge is produced by the treatment

of scrubber discharge water. This

amount of sludge is insignificant

compared with the amount of sludge

generated by treatment of waste pickle

liquor. Also, the amount of sludge

generated would be reduced

proportionally by the amount of

scrubber discharge water that is

recycled to the pickling process, as

described above in paragraph C, Water

Quality Impacts.

E. Energy Impacts

Additional energy use is expected to

result from implementation of the

proposed standards. Increases would

result from operation of additional

ventilation systems and emission

control devices. Energy use is expected

to increase by about 10.2 million

kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) over

current levels. About 7.1 million

additional kWh/yr would be needed for

continuous pickling lines, 3.0 million

kWh/yr for batch lines, and 140,000

kWh/yr for acid regeneration plants.

F. Cost Impacts

Nationwide capital costs of the

proposed standards are estimated at $20

million with annual costs for operation

and maintenance of about $7.1 million.

Capital cost estimates include costs for

purchasing new emission control

devices (assumed to be scrubbers) for

uncontrolled lines, upgrading existing

scrubbers (assumed to be 40 percent of

the cost of a new unit), and installing

vent piping from acid storage tanks to

the pickling line control device. Annual

costs for these facilities are based on

costs calculated for the model plants.

Estimates of annual costs for facilities

with existing controls include improved

maintenance consisting of operating

labor, shift supervision, materials, and

overhead for each emission source

based on the type and size of model

plant. Annual costs were also added for

upgrading existing scrubbers and for

new control devices (assuming

scrubbers), the costs for increased

pressure drop, solids (sludge) disposal,

wastewater treatment costs, and

additional energy requirements.

Cost-to-sales ratios and percent

increase in the cost of production

statistics were estimated in order to

determine the level of impact this

regulation will have on steel pickling

facilities and steel producers that

conduct pickling activities. The analysis

was completed on a national basis and

for all 17 model plants. In addition, the

ratios were evaluated on two alternative

bases. The first utilizes all facilities in

the industry to estimate the control cost

per ton of steel produced. The second

estimates the cost of control using only

those facilities that will be required to

install controls. The control costs were

compared to the market price per ton of

the relevant type of steel for each model

plant to compute cost-to-sales ratios for

each model plant. An average market

price for steel was used to compute the

national average ratio. Cost of

production was estimated to be 93

percent of market price.

Nationally, the control costs for the

steel pickling industry are 0.033 percent

of sales revenues and represent a 0.035

percent increase in the cost of

production. For those facilities that will

be required to install controls to meet

the MACT standard, the costs represent

0.052 percent of revenues and an

increase in the cost of production of

0.056 percent. The costs for individual

model plants vary from a low of 0.011

to a high of 0.79 percent increase in the

cost of production and from 0.010 to

0.73 percent of revenues for all facilities

in the industry. The costs range from

0.023 to 1.15 percent increase in the

cost of production and from 0.021 to

1.07 percent of sales for the individual

facilities required to install emission

controls and incur costs.

The cost-to-sales ratios and percent

increase in the cost of production are

well below 1 percent for the industry as

a whole and for the portion of the

industry required to incur control costs

as a result of this regulation. The costs

on a model plant basis approximate or

are less than a 1 percent increase in the

cost of production and are an equivalent

percent of sales for all model plants.

The magnitude of the costs relative to

production cost of the industry and

sales revenues leads to a conclusion that

this standard will not significantly

adversely impact firms in the steel

pickling industry. The results also

indicate that a more sophisticated

economic impact analysis is not

required. No plant closures are

anticipated nor are significant

employment losses. Significant regional

impacts are also not expected.

Costs for model pickling and acid

regeneration facilities and acid storage

tanks are given in the background

information document, along with

additional information on the model

plant parameters.

G. Economic Impacts

Estimated annual costs of emission

control for pickling steel would range

from approximately $0.10 per ton of

steel processed for large operations to

$8.00 per ton of steel for facilities with

low production rates. For producers of

hot-rolled products, the estimated

contribution of pickling and coiling to

total steel production costs in 1992 was

$7.27 per ton, or 2.3 percent of the total

production cost. Based on these values,

the cost of adding emission control

systems can be proportionally higher for

small producers and of comparable

magnitude to the cost of pickling, but

would still be small compared with the

total cost of the steel product. The

economic impact of the proposed rule

on the industry as a whole is projected

to be minor.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the

Proposed Standards

This section describes the rationale

for the decision made by the

Administrator in selecting the proposed

standards.

A. Selection of Source Category and

Pollutants

Steel pickling facilities emit HCl, and

acid regeneration facilities emit HCl and

Cl2. Both HCl and Cl2 are among the

HAP listed in section 112(b) of the Act.

In the most common type of

continuous coil process used for steel

strip, individual coils are welded endto-end and continuously run through a

series of, typically, three to four

horizontal pickling tanks. Virgin or

regenerated acid is added near the end

where the strip exits; the pickling

solution then cascades over weirs
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49059

toward the strip entry, countercurrent to

the motion of the strip. The pickling

liquor is typically maintained at 170 to

200°F by live steam injection or by

internal or external heat exchange. The

pickling section of a line may be up to

400 feet long. Following pickling, the

material is rinsed with fresh water in

another series of tanks to remove

residual acid liquor. The rinsed material

is then dried with heated air.

Hydrochloric acid is emitted as HCl

gas by evaporation from the surface of

the acid bath in the pickling tanks.

Emissions may be substantial because of

the high vapor pressure of HCl at high

concentrations and temperatures. Also,

mist of HCl in water can be produced

by mechanical action such as agitation

of the bath by steam sparging and

movement of the steel through the bath.

A second, less common, type of

continuous operation uses a vertical

spray tower in which pickle liquor is

sprayed onto moving strip in multiple

vertical passes in an enclosed tower.

Spray rinsing with fresh water follows.

Currently, a total of three units are in

operation in the country. Emissions are

of a form similar to those from

horizontal tanks, and emission control

requirements are virtually the same.

Push-pull lines are physically similar

to continuous lines. In this process,

each coil is threaded through the

pickling tanks separately. Push-pull

lines are generally shorter than

continuous lines because the speed is

usually slower. The pickle liquor

usually is maintained at 180°F or higher

by external heat exchangers. Emissions

are the same as those produced by

continuous coil lines.

Continuous rod/wire and tubing lines

are similar to but smaller than

continuous strip lines. Emissions are of

the same form as those from continuous

coil and push-pull lines.

In batch lines, rod or wire in coils,

pipe, and metal parts are dipped into

the pickling tank until the scale is

dissolved. When pickling is completed,

the material is lifted from the bath,

allowed to drain, and rinsed by spraying

or by immersion in one or more rinse

tanks. To reduce emissions, particularly

from draining, batch pickling

temperatures are usually lower,

typically 100 to 105°F, than for

continuous operations. Emissions from

batch lines are produced in the same

way as those from continuous lines and

also from acid that is entrained in the

steel removed from the bath, most of

which subsequently flows or drips back

into the bath.

Of the 13 acid regeneration plants

identified at ten facilities, twelve are

spray roaster designs; the other plant is

a fluidized bed roaster. In the spray

roasting process, waste pickle liquor is

fed into a venturi evaporator where it is

mixed with hot gas from the spray

roaster. The liquor cools and cleans the

gas of carryover iron oxide particles,

while the gas evaporates some of the

water and HCl in the liquor.

Concentrated pickle liquor from the

evaporator is fed to the roaster, in which

the liquor is evaporated by hot gas fed

to the chamber at about 1,200°C. The

ferrous chloride reacts with oxygen and

water vapor to form ferric oxide and

HCl. The gases are drawn into the

absorber, where the contained water and

acid are condensed and combined with

blowdown from the wet scrubber to

form an acid solution containing 16 to

20 percent HCl. Exhaust from the

absorber is usually drawn through a wet

scrubber, which also acts as a final

recovery system for HCl, provided that

water without chemical additives is

used as the scrubbing medium.

Equipment for the fluidized bed

roasting process is similar, and emission

control requirements are virtually the

same as those for the spray roasting

process.

Emissions of HCl that are not

collected by the absorber or the wet

scrubber are released from both types of

regeneration plants.

Acid regeneration plants also emit

Cl2. Formation of Cl2 increases as the

operating temperature in the roaster

decreases and as excess air increases.

These processes are normally operated

with sufficient excess air to insure that

conversion to ferric iron is complete.

Acid storage tanks are present at

nearly all facilities to contain the acid

needed for pickling operations and the

acid solution produced by the

regeneration plants. These storage tanks

are typically totally enclosed, except for

loading and unloading of acid, with

emissions from the atmospheric vent

commonly routed to the pickling or acid

plant emission control device or to a

dedicated control device. Emissions

from tanks in the form of HCl gas and

acid mist are released from uncontrolled

vents, especially during filling.

Emission tests at six continuous

horizontal, one continuous vertical, and

two push-pull steel pickling facilities

and one acid regeneration facility

showed that without controls, all of

these facilities were major sources for

HCl and the acid plant was a major

source for Cl2. With existing controls,

one of the continuous horizontal

pickling facilities was still a major

source for HCl and the acid plant was

still a major source for both HCl and Cl2.

In order to assess emissions from

other types of pickling operations, the

EPA used an air emissions model for

predicting HCl emission rates from open

surface baths. This model, submitted to

the EPA by a private engineering

company that is experienced in the

design and evaluation of emission

control systems for steel pickling

operations, takes into account the

essential factors that affect emissions,

including temperature, HCl

concentration, concentration of

dissolved ferrous chlorine, and air

velocity across the tank surface.

Application of this model showed that

without controls, pickling operations of

all five types can emit more than 10 tpy

of HCl.

In view of the above findings, the EPA

has determined that the source category

includes all five types of pickling

operations and also acid regeneration

plants and that pickling operations are

subject to regulation for emissions of

HCl and acid plants for emissions of

HCl and Cl2, two of the HAP listed in

section 112 of the Act. The standards

being proposed would apply to all new

and existing steel pickling lines that use

the HCl process and all new and

existing HCl regeneration plants.

The emission, equipment, and work

practice standards being proposed

would substantially limit emissions of

HCl from the above sources. Lesser

reductions of Cl2 emissions from acid

regeneration facilities would be

achieved. The standards address HCl

and Cl2 directly rather than surrogates.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

The proposed standards apply to

three types of emission sources at steel

pickling and acid regeneration facilities:

(1) Continuous and batch pickling

lines using HCl as the pickling acid, (2)

HCl regeneration plants, and (3) acid

storage tank sources.

Affected process sources include all

acid tanks employed in HCl pickling

lines and all acid regeneration plants. In

order to prevent acid fumes from

invading the working environment,

most pickling tanks are equipped with

close fitting, overhead, push-pull, or

side draft hoods exhausted through

induced draft fans. Emissions from

these tanks are found in the process

exhaust gases that are discharged to the

atmosphere. Standards are therefore

being proposed to limit emissions of

HCl from pickling tank exhaust gas

vents.

Acid regeneration plant emissions are

contained in the gases exhausted from

the acid recovery or absorber unit. The

proposed standards would limit HCl

and Cl2 emissions from absorber exhaust

gases.
49060 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

3Perry, R.H., D.W. Green, and J.O. Maloney, eds.

Chemical Engineers’ Manual. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill.

New York. 1984. p. 3–64.

4World-Wide Limits for Toxic and Hazardous

Chemicals in Air, Water, and Soil. M. Sittig. Noyes

Publications. Park Ridge, NJ. 1994. pp. 425–426.

5Reference 4. pp. 178–179.

Fumes from the vents of acid storage

tanks that are open to the atmosphere

contain emissions of HCl. Acid storage

tank vents were therefore selected for

regulation. The proposed regulation

would limit emissions of HCl from

storage tanks by requiring that the tank

atmospheric vents be equipped with

APCDs and that any lines or vents used

for transport of acid into or out of the

tanks be enclosed or equipped with a

local ventilation system exhausted

through an APCD.

A fourth source considered for

regulation was waste and wastewater

treatment operations. The spent pickle

liquor is typically managed by on site

pretreatment and discharge to a publicly

owned treatment works (POTW) or

removal by waste disposal contractors.

Available data indicate that wastewater

treatment emissions are not significant

because the low vapor pressure of HCl

inhibits volatilization. For example, at

86°F the vapor pressure of HCl over a

solution containing 4 percent HCl in

water is below 0.0008 millimeters of

mercury.3

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards for Existing and

New Sources

1. Background

As described previously in the

NESHAP decision process discussion,

section 112 establishes a minimum

baseline, or ‘‘floor’’, for standards. For

new sources, the standards cannot be

less stringent than the emission control

achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source. The standards

for existing sources can be less stringent

than standards for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the best

performing 12 percent of existing

sources for categories and subcategories

with 30 or more sources or the best

performing five sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30

sources.

When setting standards above the

floor, the EPA may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources

within a category or subcategory.

Furthermore, consideration must be

given to the incremental impacts on

emission reduction, cost, economics,

energy, and other environmental

concerns. The objective is to achieve the

maximum degree of emissions reduction

without unreasonable adverse impacts.

Subcategorization within a source

category is considered only when there

is enough evidence to demonstrate

clearly that sources contained in the

source category are significantly

dissimilar. The criteria to consider

include process operations (including

differences between continuous and

batch operations), emission

characteristics, control device

applicability and costs, safety, and

opportunities for pollution prevention.

Steel pickling processes are

differentiated by the form of metal

treated and the configuration and

operating cycle of the process. The

different types of continuous processes

vary little except in size and ancillary

equipment. Batch operations differ

significantly from continuous

operations in three ways: (1) The

physical arrangement of the unit must

allow the steel to be placed into and

withdrawn from the top instead of the

ends of the tank, (2) emissions may vary

substantially between the immersion

and draining phases of the operation,

and (3) emission capture requirements

are different for the two types of

operations.

Pickling tanks for all types of

continuous lines are typically equipped

with lids or close fitting hoods.

Emission capture systems for batch

pickling tanks may consist of two

separate units: A push-pull ventilation

system to capture fumes from the tank

surface, and a side draft hood to capture

fumes from steel that is suspended

above the tank to drain. Although some

batch picklers use canopy hoods, at

least 15 of the 26 batch facilities employ

side draft hoods. Emissions ventilated

through these hoods vary substantially

because the drain phase occurs for only

a portion of the pickling cycle. Because

of the different emission characteristics,

the EPA proposes to regulate

continuous/semicontinuous pickling

lines and batch pickling lines as

separate subcategories.

The EPA also examined the processes,

the process operations, and other factors

to determine if separate classes of units,

operations, or other criteria have an

effect on air emissions. Acid emission

rates are affected by tank size, acid

concentration and temperature, iron

concentration, ventilation system, gas

flow rate, bath temperature control

method, and degree of agitation in the

tank. The performance requirements for

an emission control system may be

affected by these process variables. A

qualitative review of the data revealed

that processes that employ steam

sparging for bath temperature control

tended to produce more HCl emissions

than processes employing heat

exchange, but no differences in control

device requirements or control

efficiencies could be attributed to

differences in temperature control

method. No effect of other process

variables on control device

requirements or control efficiency could

be identified. The EPA therefore did not

identify separate subcategories of

sources based on process variables.

2. Selection of MACT

The EPA has taken alternative

approaches to establishing MACT floor

conditions for new and existing sources

depending on the type, quality, and

applicability of available data. The three

approaches most commonly examined

include reliance on: (1) Information on

State regulations and/or permit

limitations, (2) source test data that

characterize actual emissions

discharged by sources, and (3) use of a

technology floor and an accompanying

demonstrated achievable emission level

that accounts for process and air

pollution control device variability.

No Federal air emission standards

currently apply to steel pickling or acid

regeneration sources. Four states have

established emission limits for HCl,

which range from 0.73 to 3 pounds per

hour of HCl. At least 18 states and

territories have established ambient air

limits for HCl; these limits are values for

allowable concentrations of HCl outside

the facility boundaries or in adjacent

neighborhoods downwind from the

source.4 These limits vary widely. For

example, one-hour exposure limits

range from 75 to 2,000 μg/m3, and 24-

hour limits range from 2.03 to 700 μg/

m3. Similarly, at least 18 states and

territories have established ambient air

limits for Cl2.5 One-hour exposure limits

range from 29 to 69 μg/m3, and 24-hour

limits range from 3.6 to 75 μg/m3. These

standards cannot be directly related to

the requirements of this rule.

Applicable test data to characterize

actual emissions from pickling lines are

available for only 10 of the 152

continuous pickling lines and none of

the 59 batch pickling lines. These data

points are too few to establish 12

percent MACT floors for pickling lines;

18 points would be required for

continuous lines and seven points for

batch lines.

By comparison with the limited

utility of state regulations and source

test data, a substantial body of

information is available on the types,

configurations, and operating conditions

of air pollution control devices applied

across the industry. This information

was collected through the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49061

6Laboratory and Field Evaluation of a

Methodology of Determination of Hydrogen

Chloride Emissions from Municipal and Hazardous

Waste Incinerators. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Office of Research and Development.

Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment

Laboratory. EPA–600/3–89–064. 1989.

comprehensive survey by the EPA of

known HCl steel pickling facilities that

was conducted in 1992 through the

information collection request (ICR),

which was approved by the Office of

Management and Budget for NESHAP

information gathering. This survey

produced substantial information on the

design and operation of emission

control equipment but little information

on actual emissions. The EPA therefore

used the technology floor approach to

establishing MACT for pickling lines.

For acid regeneration plants,

sufficient source test data are available

to pursue an actual emissions approach

for determining MACT floors. Only five

data points would be required to

establish the floor for acid regeneration

plants because there are fewer than 30

plants in this subcategory. Enough data

were available to construct average or

median emission values for both HCl

and Cl2.

Continuous pickling lines. Wet

scrubbers are the only kind of device

known to control HCl emissions from

pickling lines of all types. MACT for

continuous pickling lines is therefore

wet scrubbing. The two variations of

scrubbers employed are packed bed and

sieve tray.

Data from the ICR responses show

that emissions from 107 of 152

continuous pickling lines are controlled,

including 60 of 64 continuous coil, all

22 push-pull coil, 19 of 55 rod/wire, and

five of 11 tubing picklers. Twenty-five

lines are controlled with sieve tray

scrubbers, 41 with vertical packed bed

scrubbers, 16 with horizontal packed

bed scrubbers, 14 with packed bed

scrubbers of unidentified configuration,

eight with scrubbers in series, and three

with unidentified types of systems.

The use of a droplet eliminator (DE)

in conjunction with a wet scrubber is

considered standard practice, and mesh

pad or chevron (vane) type DEs were

identified in 13 control systems; they

are assumed to be employed in the

majority of systems. Data were available

to determine the effectiveness of vertical

packed bed and sieve tray scrubbers in

combination with both types of DEs. No

distinction could be made in the

effectiveness of the mesh pad and

chevron devices. Both types are

therefore considered to be equally

effective.

The effectiveness of a scrubber may

depend on the collection medium used.

The medium used in pickling line

scrubbers is either unneutralized water

from plant or public sources or water to

which an alkaline substance has been

added. Most of the wet scrubbers

employed to control pickling emissions

use water as the collection medium, but

alkaline solution is used in some units.

In principle, the use of alkaline solution

could result in increases of HCl removal

efficiency by reducing the vapor

pressure of HCl in equilibrium with the

scrubbing solution. In practice,

however, increased efficiencies were not

observed for pickling process scrubbing

systems that could be attributed solely

to the use of alkaline medium. Also, the

equilibrium vapor pressure of HCl for

weak hydrochloric acid solutions is

inherently very low. The EPA concludes

that use of an alkaline collection

medium does not constitute a more

effective level of control than the use of

water for this application.

The characteristics of the scrubbers

constituting the existing source and new

source levels of control were

determined by evaluating the results of

emission tests conducted on units

currently employed in the industry. Ten

valid sets of emission test data on

scrubbers applied to representative

continuous strip and push-pull strip

pickling lines were collected. All tests

were conducted on sieve tray and

vertical packed bed scrubbers.

Fundamental design measures of

performance for units of these types

include the number of trays in sieve tray

scrubbers and the depth of the packing

in packed bed scrubbers.

The data from these tests are

presented and discussed in detail in the

background information document. The

data are from four source tests

conducted by the EPA and six tests

conducted by industry. All data sets

consist of results from sampling runs

conducted under conditions

representing normal scrubber and

pickling line operations, and all data

sets include simultaneous inlet and

outlet measurements.

Six tests include a minimum of three

sampling runs each, three tests include

two runs each, and one test consists of

one run. Of the six tests that include

three or more sampling runs each, two

were conducted on sieve tray scrubbers

with six and three plates, respectively,

and four were conducted on vertical

packed bed scrubbers that contained

packing ranging from 5 to 10 feet in

depth. One sieve tray unit was equipped

with a mesh pad DE, the other with a

chevron DE. Two packed bed units were

equipped with mesh pad DEs, two with

chevron or vane DEs. Thus, all four

combinations of scrubber and DE type

are represented in these six tests. Of the

three tests that included two sampling

runs each, all were conducted on

vertical packed bed scrubbers with

mesh pad DEs. The test with one

sampling run was conducted on a fiveplate sieve tray scrubber equipped with

a chevron DE.

Of the remaining lines using the same

types of devices, at least 10 employ

sieve tray scrubbers with a number of

trays in the range of those tested (3 to

6) and 15 employ vertical packed bed

units with packing depth in the same

range as those tested (5 to 10 feet). Thus,

on these design criteria, the control

devices tested represent those employed

by at least 35 lines. No scrubber designs

employed in this source category have

been demonstrated to be more effective

than these. The EPA therefore assumes

that the best controlled 12 percent (18

lines) are found in this group of 35.

All tests were conducted using either

EPA Method 26A in appendix A to 40

CFR part 60 or a method equally valid

for this application. Field evaluations

indicate that Method 26A is an

acceptable procedure for measuring HCl

from municipal waste combustors at

levels as low as 3 ppmv.6 The EPA

considers the method to be equally valid

for measuring emissions from pickling

and acid regeneration sources. Emission

reduction efficiency values on the above

tests were adjusted on the premise that

measured outlet HCl concentrations

below 3 ppmv may not be accurate

enough to determine numerical

emission standards. Reported outlet

concentrations of less than 3 ppmv were

assumed to be 3 ppmv for purposes of

calculating reduction efficiencies and

determining the numerical emission

limits.

Reduction efficiencies for HCl for the

ten scrubbers range from 99.9 to 92.7

percent; HCl outlet concentrations range

from 3.0 to 92 ppmv.

The best controlled lines are two lines

that achieve both 99 percent or greater

HCl collection efficiencies and 3 ppmv

or lower HCl outlet concentrations. One

line is served by a six-plate sieve tray

scrubber and one by a packed bed

scrubber. These control devices are the

most effective devices demonstrated in

this application and therefore constitute

the new source MACT floor for

continuous pickling operations.

For the remaining eight scrubbers,

neither sieve tray nor vertical packed

bed units as groups were superior to the

other type of device. The existing source

MACT floor therefore is sieve tray

scrubbers with 3 to 5 trays and vertical

packed bed scrubbers with 5 to 10 feet

of packing.
49062 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The EPA is required to consider levels

of control more stringent than the floor

level if such levels exist. No higher level

of control exists for new sources than

the level proposed. For existing sources,

the new source level of control is more

stringent and therefore was considered.

As discussed below in section VII.E of

this document, ‘‘Selection of Emission

Limits’’, the proposed emission limits

for existing source MACT are 97.5

percent minimum HCl reduction

efficiency or 10 ppmv maximum HCl

outlet concentration. According to a cost

analysis, the additional cost of controls

to reduce emission levels from either an

outlet concentration of 10 to 3 ppmv

HCl or increase reduction efficiencies

from 97.5 to 99 percent is estimated to

be $20.7 million for capital costs and

$3.0 million for annual costs. The

associated emission reduction is

estimated to be 450 Mg/yr. The cost

effectiveness is therefore $46,000 per

Mg of HCl reduction for capital cost,

$6,700 per Mg for annual cost. The EPA

considers this burden to be excessive

and therefore is not proposing the

higher level of control for existing

sources. By comparison, the cost

effectiveness of the proposed rule is

$2,400 per Mg of HCl reduction for

capital cost and $850 per Mg of

reduction for annual cost for pickling

lines and acid regeneration units

combined.

Batch pickling lines. According to

data from the ICR responses, only 14 of

the 59 batch pickling lines are

controlled, although 36 lines are

equipped with local ventilation. As with

continuous picklers, wet scrubbers are

the only type of control device

identified. MACT for batch pickling

lines is therefore wet scrubbing. Nine

lines employ vertical packed bed

scrubbers, two employ horizontal

packed bed units, and two employ wet

scrubbers of unknown types.

No valid test data are available for

batch operations. The MACT floor must

therefore be determined by an

assessment of scrubbers of these types

in similar applications, e. g., continuous

pickling lines. Of the vertical packed

bed systems employed, at least five

scrubbers have packing depths equal to

or greater than those found in

continuous pickling line scrubbers (5 to

10 feet) and would be expected to

perform as well as those units. The use

of DEs will be inferred by the fact that

they are standard equipment in similar

types of applications. The existing

source MACT floor technology therefore

includes packed bed scrubbers of the

same capability as the packed bed

scrubbers in the existing source MACT

floor technology for continuous pickling

lines. The expected level of performance

is assumed to be the same as that for

existing continuous lines. The EPA

therefore believes that selection of the

same existing source MACT floor for

batch pickling lines as for continuous

lines is justified.

Unlike continuous pickling, data are

not available on batch pickling to allow

differentiation in terms of scrubber

performance. No distinction could be

made among the scrubbers constituting

the existing source MACT floor.

Consequently, the new source MACT

floor is the same as the existing source

MACT floor for this subcategory of

sources.

The EPA considered one higher level

of control than the MACT floor, namely

the level of control for new continuous

pickling sources, for application to both

existing and new batch pickling sources.

According to a cost analysis, the

additional cost of controls for existing

batch pickling lines to reduce emission

levels of existing sources from either an

outlet concentration of 10 to 3 ppmv

HCl or increase reduction efficiencies

from 97.5 to 99 percent was estimated

to be $610,000 for capital costs and

$140,000 for annual costs. The

associated emission reduction is

estimated to be 61 Mg/yr. The cost

effectiveness is therefore $10,000 per

Mg of HCl reduction for capital cost,

$2,300 per Mg for annual cost. This

burden is considerably lower than the

additional burden required for existing

continuous lines to reduce emissions to

new source levels instead of existing

source levels. The emissions reduction

that would be achieved, however, is

very low; 61 Mg/yr is less than one

percent of the total of 8,360 Mg/yr that

would be achieved by implementation

of the proposed rule. In view of the

minimal gain to be achieved, the EPA

proposes that the more stringent level of

control not be required for existing

batch pickling sources.

The EPA proposes that the new

source level of control for continuous

pickling lines be required for new

source batch pickling lines because the

control technologies are virtually

identical for both subcategories of

sources.

Acid regeneration plants. Ten acid

regeneration facilities, eight of which

are collocated at pickling facilities,

operate 13 regeneration plants. Based on

information submitted in ICR responses

from all 10 facilities, the following

control devices are employed to reduce

emissions. Nine plants use single-stage

vertical packed bed scrubbers with

water as the collection medium. Each

scrubber is equipped with a DE and

packing that ranges from 6 to 25 feet in

depth. Two plants use two-stage vertical

packed towers, with water as the

collection medium in the first stage and

alkaline solution in the second stage.

One plant uses two-stage packed tower

absorption, which is similar to single

stage absorption followed by a stage of

scrubbing; the second absorber is

followed by a venturi scrubber that uses

alkaline solution. The thirteenth plant is

uncontrolled.

Similarly to EPA’s technical

judgement on the effectiveness of

scrubbing with alkaline media versus

unneutralized water for HCl control on

pickling lines, the EPA does not believe

that the use of alkaline media in

scrubbers necessarily enhances control

over the use of unneutralized water for

HCl control on acid regeneration plants,

even though the use of alkaline media

does enhance Cl2 control. Consequently,

any improvement in HCl control by the

control systems that employ dual stages

of absorption or scrubbing plus use of

an alkaline medium is due in EPA’s

opinion to the existence of multiple

stages rather than the use of alkaline

media.

Because the source category includes

fewer than 30 acid regeneration plants,

the MACT floor for existing sources is

determined by the average emission

limitation achieved by the best

controlled five plants.

HCl collection efficiency data were

available for only one plant. Collection

efficiency could therefore not be used as

a basis for determining MACT. By

comparison, scrubber outlet

concentration data were available for

five plants; this information was used to

determine the MACT floors for new and

existing sources.

Measured scrubber outlet

concentration values are 0.9, 1.0, 3.1,

16, and 137 ppmv HCl. The 137 ppmv

value is far out of line with the other

values and is considered to be the result

of a malfunction in the acid

regeneration plant, specifically

inefficient absorber operation. This

value is therefore not included in any

determinations.

Referring to the limitation of the test

method employed discussed previously

in this section, concentration values

below 3 ppmv cannot be measured with

assurance. Measured values of less than

3 ppmv are assumed to be 3 ppmv for

the purpose of determining MACT and

the numerical emission limit. The outlet

concentration values used were

therefore 3, 3, 3.1, and 16 ppmv HCl.

New source MACT for HCl control is

based on the lowest exhaust gas

concentration achieved in practice by

the best similar source or sources. Three

plants currently achieve measured HCl
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49063

7Chlorine Control of Pickling Acid Regeneration

Plants. E. Th. Herpers, B. Schweinsberg, N. Ozer,

and J. Bozcar. International Chemical Engineering

Symposium Series No. 57. pp. BB1–BB14. Available

from University of California, Los Angeles, PSTL/

Interlibrary Loans, 8251 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles,

CA 90024–1598.

concentrations of 3.1 ppmv or lower and

constitute MACT. These plants employ

two-stage scrubbing with vertical

packed bed scrubbers or two-stage

absorption followed by a venturi

scrubber. Consequently, the floor and

MACT for new sources is the level of

control demonstrated by two-stage

scrubbing or two-stage absorption.

If the MACT floor for existing sources

is to be determined by the median of the

concentrations achieved by the best 5

controlled plants, the value will be 3

ppmv (3.1 ppmv rounded off). If the

floor is to be determined by the average

of the concentrations achieved by the

best 5 controlled plants, a fifth value

will have to be assumed. The assumed

value would be 16 ppmv because it

cannot be determined that any of the

other 8 plants employing single-stage

scrubbing performs at either a higher or

lower level than the plant for which

information is available. The average of

3, 3, 3.1, 16, and 16 ppmv is 8 ppmv.

In choosing between using the average

or the median concentration to

determine the MACT floor, the EPA

considered the capabilities of the

control technology currently in use and

also the relative costs and benefits of the

two options. As described above, three

plants have been shown to achieve the

3 ppmv HCl median value. These

include two plants that employ twostage scrubbing with vertical packed bed

scrubbers and a third plant that employs

two-stage absorption and single-stage

scrubbing with a venturi scrubber. Nine

of the twelve plants that are controlled,

however, employ single-stage scrubbing,

which has not been demonstrated to be

capable of achieving the 3 ppmv level

of control. Also, according to a cost

analysis that is presented later in this

section, the incremental annual cost of

increasing control from 8 ppmv to 3

ppmv is $7,600 per Mg of HCl

reduction, which EPA considers to be

excessive. Based on these

considerations, the EPA is proposing to

use the average level of control, 8 ppmv

HCl outlet concentration, to determine

the existing source MACT floor.

Although no single-stage scrubber

employed in an acid regeneration plant

has been demonstrated to meet this

level of control, it would be more

achievable than 3 ppmv. Also, the

existing source level of control proposed

for pickling lines is a similar value, 10

ppmv, and the scrubbers used to control

pickling lines are mainly single-stage

units.

MACT for chlorine emission control

was determined from the best five

controlled plants for Cl2. Collection

efficiency data were too limited to be

used. Data were available from three

plants; two were the plants that use twostage scrubbing with alkaline media in

the second stages, and the third was a

plant that uses single-stage water

scrubbing. Chlorine reduction was

virtually nil from the latter plant

because water does not absorb Cl2

effectively. The secondary scrubbers

using alkaline solution reduce Cl2

emissions from 5.1 to 2.1 ppmv and

from 7.8 to 0.27 ppmv. Respective Cl2

collection efficiencies are 53 and 94

percent, a wide variation for two

identical units operated with the same

goal. The EPA consequently believes

that neither MACT nor a numerical

emission limit for Cl2 can be determined

from collection efficiency data.

Outlet Cl2 concentration data were

available from four plants. Measured

values are 0.3, 2.1, 3.3, and 60 ppmv. As

discussed previously in this section,

EPA Method 26A in appendix A to 40

CFR part 60 is considered acceptable for

HCl concentrations as low as 3 ppmv.

Although no lower limit is given for Cl2,

the EPA believes that the limit would be

similar to that for HCl considering the

details of the test method.

Consequently, the actual Cl2 outlet

concentrations are taken to be 3, 3, 3.3,

and 60 ppmv.

The 60 ppmv value appears to be high

enough compared with the other values

to be considered a result of inefficient

operation and therefore was not

included in the data used to determine

MACT or the numerical limit.

The existing source MACT floor for

Cl2 control was determined from the

median level of achievement of the best

five performing sources, i. e., the third

best controlled source. Because the best

performing three plants have virtually

identical performance, all three

technologies constitute MACT. Two of

these plants are those that employ twostage scrubbing with caustic media in

the second stages. The third plant uses

only single-stage scrubbing with water.

The latter facility, however, controls Cl2

emissions through control of process

operating conditions. The existing

source MACT floor for Cl2 control

therefore is scrubbing with an alkaline

medium or control of plant operating

conditions.

Wet scrubbing systems that do not use

alkaline solution as the collection

medium do not effectively control Cl2

emissions. Scrubbing with alkaline

solution, however, has a significant

disadvantage in that the scrubber

blowdown cannot be recycled to either

an acid plant or a pickling process but

must be disposed of; thus, alkaline

scrubbing creates an additional waste

product.

By comparison, control of process

conditions does not create a waste

product nor require a control device.

Formation of Cl2 in acid regeneration

can be reduced by increasing the

operating temperature and decreasing

the amount of the excess oxygen in the

roaster.7 These processes are normally

operated with sufficient excess air to

insure that conversion of ferrous iron to

ferric iron is complete. At least one

facility, however, operates under

conditions that are chosen to reduce Cl2

formation. The EPA therefore believes

that regeneration plants can be operated

to minimize Cl2 formation while

maintaining product quality. The

facility that operates with a specific goal

of reducing Cl2 formation has measured

a Cl2 concentration of 3.3 ppmv in the

process offgas. As discussed above, the

facility operating two regeneration

plants has measured Cl2 concentrations

in the process offgases prior to alkaline

scrubbing of 5.1 and 7.8 ppmv, which

are of the same order as 3.3 ppmv. The

EPA believes that controlling process

operating conditions can result in

reducing Cl2 formation to a

demonstrated concentration level and

therefore proposes that control of

process operating conditions be

included in the MACT floor for

reducing Cl2 emissions from acid

regeneration plants. Because of the

limited data available to support this

conclusion, the EPA solicits comment

on this selection of MACT.

New source MACT for Cl2 control is

determined by the single best

performing plant. The outlet

concentration values of 3, 3, and 3.3

ppmv are virtually identical, and

therefore the best performing plant

could be any one of the best three. The

new source MACT floor for Cl2 control

is therefore the technology used by all

three plants, i.e., the same as the

existing source MACT floor.

As in the case of the standard for

pickling lines, the EPA considered

levels of control more stringent than the

MACT floor. For HCl control, no higher

level of control exists for new sources

than the level proposed. For existing

sources, the new source level of control

is more stringent and therefore was

considered. The additional cost of

controls to reduce outlet concentrations

from 8 to 3 ppmv HCl is estimated to be

$2.9 million for capital costs and $1.0

for annual costs. The associated
49064 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

emission reduction is estimated to be

133 tpy. The cost effectiveness is

therefore $22,000 per Mg of HCl

reduction for capital cost, $7,600 per Mg

for annual cost. The EPA considers this

burden to be excessive and therefore is

not proposing the higher level of control

for existing sources.

For Cl2 control, no higher level of

control is known than that proposed,

and therefore no higher level could be

considered.

Acid storage tanks. Storage tanks

typically provide complete enclosure of

the acid. Based on data from ICR

responses, 40 pickling facilities and four

regeneration plants employ emission

control systems on tanks used for

storage of virgin and regenerated acid. A

total of 24 of the 40 pickling facilities

and all four regeneration plants vent

tank fumes to the scrubbers that service

the associated pickling process or acid

plant. The control systems at the

remaining 16 facilities were not

determined to be more or less effective

than the pickling process and acid plant

control systems at the 24 facilities. The

MACT floor for existing acid storage

tanks therefore includes covering and

sealing all openings on the tank, except

during loading and unloading of acid,

and routing emissions from the

atmospheric vent to a control device.

The EPA is not requiring that fumes be

vented to the same control device used

to service the associated pickling line or

acid plant because the tank may be in

a remote location; in this case, a

separate device may be used.

At least 15 facilities control acid

fumes during acid transfer to and from

the tanks by either conducting the

transfer through sealed lines and

connections or providing local

ventilation through a control device at

the point of transfer. The existing source

MACT floor therefore also includes acid

transfer fume control through either a

sealed connection or use of local

ventilation at the transfer point through

a control device.

The effectiveness in HCl control of

these systems could not be

differentiated, and thus no one system

that was more effective than the others

could be identified. The new source

MACT floor is therefore the same as the

existing source floor.

D. Selection of Format

Section 112 of the Act requires the

Administrator to prescribe emission

standards for HAP control unless, in the

Administrator’s judgement, it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce emission

standards. Section 112(h) defines two

conditions under which it is not feasible

to prescribe or enforce emission

standards: (1) If the HAP cannot be

emitted through a conveyance device

designed and constructed to emit or

capture the HAP; and (2) if the

application of measurement

methodology to a particular class of

sources is not practicable because of

technological or economic limitations. If

it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce

emission standards, then the

Administrator may instead promulgate

equipment, work practice, design, or

operational standards, or a combination

thereof.

Format options for numerical

emission standards or limits include

mass concentration (mass per unit

volume), volume concentration (volume

per unit volume), mass emission rate

(mass per unit time), process emission

rate (mass per unit of production or

other process parameter), and degree or

percentage of reduction.

1. Pickling Lines and Acid Regeneration

Plants

A mass emission rate for HCl is not

proposed for pickling lines because of

the large variation in the size of the

operations. The EPA did not propose a

process emission rate because no

correlation between HCl emissions and

the amount of steel processed or the

amount of acid used has been

established. For acid regeneration

plants, mass and process emission rates

are not proposed for HCl or Cl2 because

too little information is available to

establish any applicable relationship.

Wet scrubbers constitute MACT for

HCl for pickling lines and acid

regeneration plants. Control systems of

this type are normally designed for a

target emission reduction efficiency for

these applications. For these reasons,

EPA proposes that a minimum HCl

reduction efficiency be established for

subcategories where sufficient data are

available to establish a numerical limit.

Concentration of a soluble pollutant

in the scrubber outlet gas cannot be

reduced below the value that

corresponds to the equilibrium vapor

pressure of the pollutant in contact with

the inlet scrubbing medium.

Furthermore, depending on temperature

and humidity, some HCl may be present

as an aerosol or in water droplets as

well as a gas. The effect on control

efficiency of the presence of aerosol or

droplets is not known. High reduction

efficiencies for process gases that

contain low concentrations of HCl or

HCl in aerosol or droplet form may

therefore not be achievable. The EPA

therefore proposes that a maximum

exhaust gas concentration be established

as an alternative to reduction efficiency

in recognition of these limitations of

MACT.

As discussed previously in section

VII.C of this document, ‘‘Selection of

Basis and Level for the Proposed

Standards for Existing and New

Sources’’, technical information on acid

regeneration processes plus measured

Cl2 exhaust gas concentration values for

three plants suggest that these processes

can be operated under conditions that

achieve a target outlet gas concentration

of Cl2.

Based on the above considerations,

the EPA is proposing: (1) The options of

meeting either an HCl reduction

efficiency limit for APCD performance

or an HCl exhaust gas concentration

limit for pickling lines; and (2) meeting

an HCl exhaust gas concentration limit

for acid regeneration plants. The EPA is

also proposing a Cl2 exhaust gas

concentration limit for acid regeneration

plants.

2. Acid Storage Tanks

An equipment standard is proposed

for acid storage tanks because emission

measurements may be neither

practicable nor cost-effective. Also, if

the air pollution control system that

services the associated pickling process

or acid regeneration unit is used to

control tank emissions, the need for

making a separate measurement is

precluded.

E. Selection of Emission Limits

1. Continuous Pickling Lines

Several types of information were

available to determine the proposed

emission limits for HCl:

(1) Emission tests conducted by a

method valid for this source; (2)

emissions data derived by other means;

(3) emissions data reported by the

facility with no basis given; and (4)

information from vendors and designers

that would indicate an expected level of

performance. For purposes of this

discussion, the term ‘‘valid’’ means data

from tests conducted by EPA Method

26A, ‘‘Determination of Hydrogen

Halide and Halogen Emissions from

Stationary Sources—Isokinetic Method’’

in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, or an

applicable equivalent method. The EPA

decided to use only data from tests

conducted by valid methods.

In selecting the emission limits for

pickling line sources, the EPA decided

to select limits that could demonstrably

be met by a compliance test, i. e., a test

conducted using EPA Method 26A (40

CFR part 60, appendix A) with a

minimum of three sampling runs.

Referring to the discussion in section

VII.C above, the two scrubbers
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49065

constituting new source MACT are a

six-tray scrubber and a packed bed

scrubber. The six-tray scrubber was

tested with three sampling runs. The

average measured HCl outlet

concentration was 2.0 ppmv, and the

average measured HCl collection

efficiency was 99.96 percent. The

average scrubber inlet HCl loading for

the three runs was 5,150 ppmv, which

is the highest of all scrubbers tested.

The packed bed scrubber was tested

with 11 sampling runs. The average

measured HCl outlet concentration was

1.6 ppmv, and the average measured

HCl collection efficiency was 99.5

percent. The average scrubber inlet HCl

loading was 260 ppmv, which is near

the low end of the range for all

scrubbers tested (the lowest being 98

ppmv). For the three worst consecutive

runs of the eleven, the average measured

HCl outlet concentration was 2.6 ppmv,

and the average measured HCl

collection efficiency was 98.9 percent.

Except for one run, all collection

efficiencies were above 99 percent, and

all measured outlet concentrations were

below 2.0 ppmv.

In view of this information, the EPA

believes that the proposed numerical

limit options of 99 percent HCl

collection efficiency and 3 ppmv HCl

outlet concentration are reasonable and

can be met in compliance tests.

Although the measured collection

efficiency achieved by the best scrubber

is considerably better than 99 percent

(i.e., 99.96 percent), the EPA believes

that this level of efficiency is achieved

primarily because of the exceptionally

high inlet scrubber loading. This level of

efficiency may not be demonstrable for

scrubbers with lower inlet loading, even

at the middle of the expected range,

because the required outlet

concentration would be too low to

measure with accuracy.

Four lines currently achieve a 3 ppmv

or lower exhaust gas concentration limit

and/or a 99 percent or greater reduction

efficiency based on actual test results.

Twenty-one additional lines would

meet the standard based on reported

outlet concentrations or reduction

efficiencies.

Existing source MACT consists of the

level of control that is achieved by the

remainder of the scrubbers for which

test data are available. Data from three

or more runs are available for four of the

scrubbers constituting existing source

MACT. The averages of the runs were as

follows:

HCl collection efficiency

(percent)

HCl outlet

concentration

(ppmv)

98.1 ............................................. 62

97.5 ............................................. 42

97.0 ............................................. 12.7

94.7 ............................................. 8.0

In section VII.D of this document,

‘‘Selection of Format’’, EPA presented

its rationale for proposing options of

collection efficiency or outlet

concentration. Because each owner or

operator of a pickling facility has two

options for meeting the proposed

standard, the EPA decided to derive

each numerical limits from the best

performing scrubbers for that option.

For collection efficiency, three

scrubbers are clearly the best. The

average performance for these three is

97.5 percent efficiency. For outlet

concentration, two scrubbers are

superior. The average performance for

these two is 10 ppmv concentration.

The numerical standards proposed for

existing sources are therefore 97.5

percent minimum HCl reduction

efficiency and 10 ppmv maximum

outlet HCl concentration.

Seven continuous pickling lines meet

the maximum 10 ppmv exhaust gas

concentration standard and/or the

minimum 97.5 percent reduction

efficiency standard based on actual test

results. Fifty additional lines would

meet the standard based on reported

outlet concentrations of 10 ppmv or

lower or reduction efficiencies of 97.5

percent or higher.

2. Batch Pickling Lines

Referring to the discussion above in

section VII.C of this document, given

that MACT for existing batch lines is the

same as MACT for existing continuous

lines, the EPA believes that selection of

the same emission limits for existing

batch pickling lines as for existing

continuous lines is justified. The

numerical standards proposed for

existing sources are 97.5 percent

minimum HCl reduction efficiency and

10 ppmv maximum outlet HCl

concentration. New source MACT for

batch pickling lines is the same as

existing source MACT for batch lines.

However, as discussed in section VII.C

of this document, the EPA is proposing

the same level of control for new batch

lines as for new continuous lines

because the control technologies for the

two subcategories of sources are

indistinguishable from each other. The

numerical standards proposed for new

sources are therefore 99 percent

minimum HCl reduction efficiency and

3 ppmv maximum outlet concentration.

3. Acid Regeneration Plants

Referring again to the discussion in

section VII.C of this document, the

proposed HCl outlet concentrations

derived in determining the existing

source and new source MACT floors

were 8 ppmv and 3 ppmv, respectively.

Two plants currently meet the HCl

exhaust gas concentration limit of 3

ppmv based on test results. A third

plant achieves an outlet concentration

of 3.1 ppmv HCl. No additional plants

meet the 8 ppmv limit based on actual

test results available; one additional

plant meets the 8 ppmv limit based on

reported outlet concentration.

As discussed in section VII.C of this

document, the levels of control achieved

by the new and existing MACT floors

for Cl2 control are virtually the same.

The proposed maximum outlet

concentrations for new and existing

sources are therefore the same.

Because only one of the three plants

for which Cl2 emission data are

available was tested with three sampling

runs, the EPA considered results of

individual runs in establishing the Cl2

numerical limit. Measured values for Cl2

outlet concentrations from one plant

were 1.1, 1.9, and 3.4 ppmv; values

measured for the second plant were 0.16

and 0.38 ppmv; and values measured for

the third plant were 3.0 and 3.6 ppmv.

Because of the limited number of data

points, the EPA decided to propose an

emission limit of 4 ppmv Cl2 to

accommodate the uncertainty of

meeting a lower limit in a compliance

test.

Three plants are known to meet the 4

ppmv Cl2 maximum outlet gas

concentration limit based on test results.

The EPA notes that one plant that

achieves this limit employs single stage

scrubbing without the use of alkaline

solution; the limit is achieved through

process control. No additional plants

meet this limit based on reported

information.

The EPA is not aware that all existing

acid regeneration plants are designed to

operate at conditions under which this

limitation can be achieved and therefore

proposes that a plant can be operated at

a higher concentration provided that it

can demonstrate that a concentration of

4 ppmv cannot be achieved within the

design operating conditions of the unit.

Each facility will be allowed to conduct

a demonstration test at maximum design

operating temperature and minimum

excess air consistent with iron oxide

production of acceptable quality while

measuring Cl2 concentration in the

exhaust gas. The measured

concentration will become the standard

for that regeneration plant.
49066 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

As in the case of existing sources, a

new source would have the opportunity

to conduct a demonstration test at

maximum design temperature and

minimum excess air to establish a

higher concentration limitation.

However, a new source would also have

to provide a reason why the process

could not be designed to operate under

conditions that would allow it to meet

the 4 ppmv Cl2 limitation.

F. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

The EPA evaluated the hierarchy of

monitoring options available for the HCl

pickling process and proposed control

equipment. This hierarchy includes

measurement of HCl and C12 by a

CEMS, installation of measurement

devices for continuous monitoring of

process and control device operating

parameters, and periodic performance

tests. Each option was evaluated relative

to its technical feasibility, cost, ease of

implementation, and relevance to the

process or control device.

CEMSs provide a direct measurement

of emissions. Monitors for HCl and C12

emissions are commercially available.

Although these systems have not yet

been demonstrated for pickling and acid

regeneration operations, the EPA

believes that HCl monitors can be used

for these applications; the technical

feasibility of monitoring C12, however,

is in question. The nationwide capital

cost of this option (CEMSs for all

scrubbers) is estimated at $18 million,

with annual costs of $9.2 million for

operation and maintenance, quality

assurance and quality control

performance evaluation, and reporting/

recordkeeping requirements. Because of

the high cost of using CEMSs compared

with the cost of monitoring control

device and process parameters, the EPA

is not considering requiring the use of

CEMSs to demonstrate compliance.

Another option is monitoring process

and/or control device operating

parameters plus conducting annual

emission tests. Process parameters were

not selected as indicators for HCl

emissions because a good correlation

does not exist between production and

emission rates. Control device operating

parameters were selected instead

because measurements outside a range

of values established during an initial

performance test would indicate the

control device was not operating

properly. The estimated nationwide

capital costs of this option are $450

thousand; annual costs are $1.5 million.

Annual emission tests by Method 26A

in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 would

not require a capital investment. The

estimated cost assumes the use of a test

contractor and includes time for

participation by plant personnel.

The EPA believes that reasonable

assurance of compliance is achieved

through monitoring control device

operating parameters and annual

emission tests.

1. Pickling Lines

The proposed NESHAP offers the

owner or operator a choice of two

monitoring options for HCl. The owner

or operator would either install, operate,

and calibrate devices for the continuous

measurement and recording of scrubber

pressure drop and scrubbing medium

acidity and conduct annual performance

tests by Method 26A in appendix A to

40 CFR part 60 or install and operate a

CEMS and comply with all the

requirements in the general provisions

in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 that

apply to a CMS.

A number of facilities may be able to

meet the proposed HCl emission limits

if the existing control systems were

maintained in improved working order.

To ensure continued proper operation of

the wet scrubber control devices, the

proposed NESHAP includes a

requirement for the development and

implementation of a written

maintenance program. The elements

required to be included in the

maintenance plan are:

• Perform the manufacturer’s

recommended maintenance at the

recommended intervals on fresh solvent

pumps, recirculating pumps, discharge

pumps, and other liquid pumps, and

exhaust system and scrubber fans and

those motors associated with pumps

and fans;

• Clean the scrubber internals and

mist eliminators at intervals sufficient to

prevent buildup of solids or other

fouling that degrades performance

below emission limits or standards;

• Conduct a periodic inspection of

each scrubber and (1) clean or replace

any plugged spray nozzles or other

liquid delivery devices, (2) repair or

replace missing, damaged, or misaligned

baffles, trays, and other internal

components, (3) repair or replace

droplet eliminator elements as needed,

(4) repair or replace heat exchanger

elements used for temperature control of

fluids entering or leaving the scrubber,

and (5) check damper settings for

consistency with the air flow level used

to maintain compliance and adjust as

required;

• Initiate appropriate repair,

replacement, or other corrective action

within one working day of detection;

and

• Maintain a daily record (i. e.,

checklist), signed by a responsible plant

official, showing the date of each

inspection for each requirement, the

problem, a description of the repair,

replacement, or other action taken, and

the date of repair or replacement.

In addition to correcting defects

detected during inspections, the owner

or operator would be required to ensure

that the equipment is being operated at

an appropriate level of reliability, i.e.

without the need for continual or

unusually frequent repairs or alterations

that require down time. Excursions of

control device operating parameters that

occur with unacceptable frequency

would indicate that some aspect of the

maintenance program or procedures is

flawed. Occurrences more frequent than

an average of once per month over any

reporting period would be unacceptable,

and the owner or operator would be

required to install a CEMS and comply

with all requirements that apply to a

CMS, in order to provide assurance of

compliance. A frequency of once per

month would correspond to operation

out of compliance approximately five

percent of the operating time, assuming

one day of such operation for each

occurrence and also assuming that the

process will experience some down

time each month for routine

maintenance.

2. Acid Regeneration Plants

Monitoring requirements for HCl for

acid regeneration plants are the same as

those for pickling lines.

For Cl2 monitoring, process

parameters were selected to determine

compliance with the Cl2 emission limit

for acid regeneration plants because

process control is the means by which

Cl2 emissions are reduced. The cost of

would be insignificant because these

parameters are currently monitored

routinely as part of normal operation.

For Cl2 control, the owner or operator

would install (if necessary), operate, and

calibrate devices for the continuous

measurement and recording of roaster

temperature, rate of addition of iron in

the spent liquor process feed,

combustion gas feed rate, and air or

oxygen feed rate.

To ensure proper operation of the acid

regeneration plant, development and

implementation of a written

maintenance program is required.

Elements required to be included in the

plan are:

• Perform the manufacturer’s

recommended maintenance at the

recommended intervals on all required

systems and components;

• Initiate appropriate repair,

replacement, or other corrective action

within one working day of detection;

and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49067

• Maintain a daily record (i.e.,

checklist), signed by a responsible plant

official, showing the date of each

inspection for each requirement, the

problem, a description of the repair,

replacement, or other action taken, and

the date of repair or replacement.

In addition to continuously

monitoring process operating

parameters, the owner or operator

would conduct annual performance

tests by Method 26A in appendix A to

40 CFR part 60.

G. Selection of Test Methods

The proposed NESHAP would require

an initial performance test to determine

compliance. The initial test would

consist of emission testing of the

exhaust gases from the scrubbers used to

control HCl emissions from pickling

lines and acid regeneration plants.

Test Method 26A in appendix A to 40

CFR part 60 has been developed and

validated for the measurement of HCl

and Cl2 emissions. The following

methods, also from 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, would be used for

sampling and analysis. EPA Method 1

would be used to determine the number

and location of sampling points. Method

2 would be used to determine gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate.

Method 3 would be used for gas

analysis, and Method 4 would be used

to determine the volumetric moisture

content of the gas. The EPA selected

these methods for use in the proposed

rule because these methods and

equivalent procedures are those used by

EPA and other parties to collect the data

upon which the proposed emission

limits are based. Consistent with the

methods and standard practice, the

initial compliance test would consist of

three runs by Method 26A conducted

under conditions representative of

normal operation. Compliance would be

determined based on the average of the

three runs. Simultaneous measurements

and sampling must be done at the APCD

inlet and outlet if compliance with the

collection efficiency limitation is being

demonstrated.

H. Selection of Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

The proposed rule requires the owner

or operator to comply with the

notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the general

provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part

63.

Recordkeeping requirements for all

MACT standards are established in

§ 63.10(b) of the general provisions in

subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. In addition

to these requirements, for wet scrubber

operations the proposed NESHAP

would require the owner or operator to

maintain a copy of the scrubber

maintenance program with records of

inspections and repairs, records of pH

or acidity levels taken manually (if

applicable), and records of certification

for accuracy of monitoring devices (if

applicable). For acid regeneration

operations, the owner or operator would

maintain records of certification for

accuracy of monitoring devices. All

requirements that apply to a CMS would

apply if a CEMS is used.

I. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA seeks full public

participation in arriving at its final

decisions, and strongly encourages

comments on all aspects of this proposal

from all interested parties. Full

supporting data and detailed analyses

should be submitted with comments to

allow the EPA to make maximum use of

the comments. All comments should be

directed to the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, Docket No. A–

95–43 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on

this notice must be submitted on or

before the date specified in DATES.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments,

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI).

Submissions containing such

proprietary information should be sent

directly to the following address, and

not to the public docket, to ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Jim Maysilles, c/o Ms. Melva

Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential Business

Information Manager, OAQPS (MD–13);

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by the

EPA only to the extent allowed and by

the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part

2. If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by the EPA, the submission

may be made available to the public

without further notice to the

commenter.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The

docket is a dynamic file because

material is added throughout the

rulemaking development. The docketing

system is intended to allow members of

the public and industries involved to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process. Along with

the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, the

contents of the docket will serve as the

record in the case of judicial review.

(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Public Hearing

If a request to speak at a public

hearing is received, a public hearing on

the proposed standards will be held in

accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the

Act. Persons wishing to present oral

testimony or to inquire as to whether a

hearing is to be held should contact EPA

(see ADDRESSES). To provide an

opportunity for all who may wish to

speak, oral presentations will be limited

to 15 minutes each.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement on or before

November 17, 1997. Written statements

should be addressed to the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (see ADDRESSES) and refer to

Docket No. A–95–43. A verbatim

transcript of the hearing and written

statements will be placed in the docket

and be available for public inspection

and copying, or mailed upon request, at

the Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

state, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because none of the
49068 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

listed criteria apply to this action.

Consequently, this action was not

submitted to OMB for review under

Executive Order 12866.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, we have involved State

regulatory experts in the development of

this proposed rule. No tribal

governments are believed to be affected

by this proposed rule. Although not

directly impacted by the rule, State

governments will be required to

implement the rule by incorporating the

rule into permits and enforcing the rule

upon delegation. They will collect

permit fees that will be used to offset

the resources burden of implementing

the rule. Comments have been solicited

from state partners and have been

carefully considered in the rule

development process. In addition, all

states are encouraged to comment on

this proposed rule during the public

comment period, and the EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in the

development of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA

to identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before the EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because it contains no

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small government jurisdictions.

Only four companies in the steel

pickling industry are considered small

entities. Of these four, one company is

expected to meet the standard. Two

companies are projected to be nonmajor

sources based on calculations using an

emissions estimating model along with

information supplied by these firms. It

is not anticipated that these three firms

will be adversely impacted by the

regulation. The remaining small firm

employs a scrubber that may meet the

emission limitation. If this firm incurs

emission control costs, the costs would

likely relate to upgrading existing

equipment or improved maintenance

practices. Any regulatory impacts for

this firm are not expected to be

significant. Based on this information,

the EPA has concluded that this

proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB

under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An information collection

request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No.1821.01), and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

The proposed information

requirements are based on notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in the NESHAP general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),

which are mandatory for all owners or

operators subject to national emission

standards. These recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically

authorized by section 114 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted

to the EPA for which a claim of

confidentiality is made is safeguarded

according to Agency policies in 40 CFR

part 2, subpart B.

The proposed rule would require

maintenance inspections of the control

devices but would not require any

notifications or reports beyond those

required by the general provisions. The

proposed recordkeeping requirements

require only the specific information

needed to determine compliance.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping burden for this

collection, per respondent (averaged

over the first 3 years after the effective

date of the rule) is estimated to be 410

labor hours per year at a total annual

cost of $14,800.

This estimate includes a one-time

performance test and report (with repeat

tests where needed); one-time

submission of a startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan with semiannual

reports for any event when the

procedures in the plan were not

followed; semiannual excess emission

reports; maintenance inspections;

notifications; and recordkeeping. There

are no capital/startup costs associated

with these reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. Operational and

maintenance (O and M) cost burden is

estimated at $13,800/yr. per respondent.

These O and M costs are for

performance testing, which is

anticipated to be conducted by outside

contractors.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49069

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the EPA’s

need for this information, the accuracy

of the provided burden estimates, any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR

to the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Office for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Because OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

September 18, 1997, comment to OMB

is best assured of having its full effect

if OMB receives it by October 20, 1997.

The final rule will respond to any OMB

or public comments on the information

collection requirements contained in

this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. This

regulation will be reviewed 8 years from

the date of promulgation. This review

will include an assessment of such

factors as evaluation of the residual

health risks, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative

methods, enforceability, improvements

in emission control technology and

health data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

Pollution Control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Steel

pickling.

Dated: August 28, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I,

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart CCC to read as follows:

Subpart CCC—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Steel Pickling Facilities—HCl Process

Sec.

63.1155 Applicability.

63.1156 Definitions.

63.1157 Emission standards for existing

sources.

63.1158 Emission standards for new or

reconstructed sources.

63.1159 Compliance dates and maintenance

requirements.

63.1160 Performance testing and test

methods.

63.1161 Monitoring requirements.

63.1162 Notification requirements.

63.1163 Reporting requirements.

63.1164 Recordkeeping requirements.

63.1165 Delegation of authority.

63.1166–63.1174 [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart CCC of Part 63—

Applicability of General Provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A) to subpart CCC

Subpart CCC—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Steel Pickling Facilities—HCl

Process

§ 63.1155 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to all new and existing steel

pickling facilities that pickle steel using

an acid solution in which 50 percent or

more by weight of the acid in solution

is hydrochloric acid (HCl) and/or

regenerate spent HCl from steel pickling

operations that are major sources or are

parts of facilities that are major sources.

The provisions of this subpart do not

apply to facilities that pickle using other

acids or mixtures of acids in which the

acid in solution is less than 50 percent

HCl by weight or to facilities that

regenerate other acids.

(b) For the purposes of implementing

this subpart, the affected sources at a

steel pickling facility subject to this

subpart are as follows: batch and

continuous pickling lines, acid

regeneration plants, and virgin or

regenerated acid storage tanks.

(c) Appendix A to this subpart

specifies the provisions of subpart A

that apply and those that do not apply

to owners and operators of HCl steel

pickling facilities and acid regeneration

plants. The following sections of part 63

apply to this subpart as stated in subpart

A and appendix A to this subpart: § 63.1

(Applicability), § 63.2 (Definitions),

§ 63.3 (Units and abbreviations), § 63.4

(Prohibited activities and

circumvention), § 63.5 (Construction

and reconstruction), § 63.7 (Performance

testing requirements), § 63.12 (State

authority and delegations), § 63.13

(Addresses of State air pollution control

agencies and EPA Regional Offices),

§ 63.14 (Incorporations by reference),

and § 63.15 (Availability of information

and confidentiality). The following

sections of part 63 apply to the extent

specified in this subpart and appendix

A to this subpart: § 63.6 (Compliance

with standards and maintenance

requirements), § 63.8 (Monitoring

requirements), § 63.9 (Notification

requirements), and § 63.10

(Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements). Section 63.11 (Control

device requirements) does not apply to

this subpart.

§ 63.1156 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act, in subpart

A of this part, or in this section as

follows:

Acid regeneration plant means the

collection of equipment and processes

configured to reconstitute fresh

hydrochloric acid pickling solution

from spent pickle liquor using a thermal

treatment process.

Acid storage tank means a vessel used

for the bulk containment of virgin or

regenerated hydrochloric acid.

Batch pickling line means the

collection of equipment and vessels

configured for pickling metal in any

form but usually in discrete shapes

where the material is lowered in batches

into a bath of hydrochloric acid

solution, allowed to remain until the

scale is dissolved, then removed from

the solution, drained, and rinsed by

spraying or immersion in one or more

rinse tanks to remove residual acid.

Closed-vent system means a system

that is not open to the atmosphere and

that is composed of piping, ductwork,
49070 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

connections, and flow-inducing devices

that transport emissions from a process

unit or piece of equipment (e. g., pumps,

pressure relief devices, sampling

connections, open-ended valves or

lines, connectors, and instrumentation

systems) to a control device or back into

a closed system.

Continuous pickling line means the

collection of equipment and vessels

configured for pickling metal strip, rod,

wire, tube, or pipe that is passed

through an acid solution in a

continuous or nearly continuous

manner and rinsed in another vessel or

series of vessels to remove residual acid.

This definition includes continuous

spray towers.

Spray tower means an enclosed

vertical tower in which hydrochloric

acid pickling solution is sprayed onto

moving steel strip in multiple vertical

passes.

Steel pickling means the chemical

removal of iron oxides and scale that is

formed on steel surfaces during hot

rolling or forming of semi-finished steel

products through contact with an

aqueous solution of hydrochloric acid.

This definition does not include

operations for the removal of light rust

or for activation of the metal surface

prior to plating.

Steel pickling facility means any

facility that operates one or more batch

or continuous steel pickling lines or one

or more acid regeneration plants.

§ 63.1157 Emission standards for existing

sources.

(a) Pickling lines. (1) No owner or

operator of an existing affected pickling

line at a steel pickling facility shall

cause or allow to be discharged into the

atmosphere from the affected pickling

line a hydrochloric acid (HCl) emission

rate corresponding to a collection

efficiency of less than 97.5 percent.

(2) As an alternative to the

requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, no owner or operator of an

existing affected pickling line at a steel

pickling facility shall cause or allow to

be discharged into the atmosphere from

the affected pickling line any gases that

contain HCl in excess of 10 parts per

million by volume (ppmv).

(b) Acid regeneration plant. (1) No

owner or operator of an existing affected

acid regeneration plant shall cause or

allow to be discharged into the

atmosphere from the affected acid

regeneration plant any gases that

contain HCl in excess of 8 ppmv.

(2) In addition to the requirement of

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no

owner or operator shall cause or allow

to be discharged into the atmosphere

from the affected acid regeneration plant

any gases that contain chlorine (Cl2) in

excess of either 4 ppmv or an optional

maximum concentration limitation to be

established for each source. The

maximum concentration limitation shall

be established according to

§ 63.1160(c)(2) of this subpart.

(c) Acid storage tank. The owner or

operator of an existing affected acid

storage tank shall provide and operate,

except during loading and unloading of

acid, a closed-vent system for each tank.

Loading and unloading shall be

conducted either through enclosed lines

or each point where the acid is exposed

to the atmosphere shall be equipped

with a local fume capture system,

ventilated through an air pollution

control device.

§ 63.1158 Emission standards for new or

reconstructed sources.

(a) Pickling line. (1) No owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

affected pickling line at a steel pickling

facility shall cause or allow to be

discharged into the atmosphere from the

affected pickling line an HCl emission

rate corresponding to a collection

efficiency of less than 99 percent.

(2) As an alternative to the

requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, no owner or operator of a new

or reconstructed affected pickling line at

a steel pickling facility shall cause or

allow to be discharged into the

atmosphere from the affected pickling

line any gases that contain HCl in excess

of 3 ppmv.

(b) Acid regeneration plant. (1) No

owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed affected acid regeneration

plant shall cause or allow to be

discharged into the atmosphere from the

affected acid regeneration plant any

gases that contain HCl in excess of 3

ppmv.

(2) In addition to the requirement of

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no

owner or operator shall cause or allow

to be discharged into the atmosphere

from the affected acid regeneration plant

any gases that contain Cl2 in excess of

either 4 ppmv or an optional maximum

concentration limitation to be

established for each source. The

maximum concentration limitation shall

be established according to

§ 63.1160(c)(2) of this subpart. Also, the

owner or operator shall explain in

writing to the Administrator’s

satisfaction why the process could not

be designed to operate under conditions

that would allow it to meet the 4 ppmv

Cl2 limitation. The explanation shall be

submitted to the Administrator within

30 days after completion of the emission

test made according to § 63.1160(c) of

this subpart.

(c) Acid storage tank. The owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

affected acid storage tank shall provide

and operate, except during loading and

unloading of acid, a closed-vent system

for each tank. Loading and unloading

shall be conducted either through

enclosed lines or each point where the

acid is exposed to the atmosphere shall

be equipped with a local fume capture

system, ventilated through an air

pollution control device.

§ 63.1159 Compliance dates and

maintenance requirements.

(a) Compliance dates. (1) The owner

or operator of an affected existing steel

pickling facility and/or acid

regeneration plant subject to this

subpart shall achieve initial compliance

with the requirements of this subpart no

later than llllll [Insert date 2

years from publication of final rule in

the Federal Register].

(2) The owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed steel pickling facility and/

or acid regeneration plant subject to this

subpart that commences construction or

reconstruction after September 18, 1997

shall achieve compliance with the

requirements of this subpart

immediately upon startup of operations

or by llllll [Insert date of

publication of final rule in the Federal

Register], whichever is later.

(b) Operation and maintenance

requirements. (1) The owner or operator

of an affected source shall comply with

the requirements of § 63.6(e) of subpart

A of this part.

(2) In addition to the requirements

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, the owner or operator shall

develop and implement a written

maintenance plan for each emission

control device. The owner or operator

shall submit the plan no later than the

date of compliance to the applicable

permitting authority. For a scrubber

emission control device, the written

program must include the minimum

elements contained in the operating

manual provided by the manufacturer

and:

(i) Require the manufacturer’s

recommended maintenance at the

recommended intervals on fresh solvent

pumps, recirculating pumps, discharge

pumps, and other liquid pumps, in

addition to exhaust system and scrubber

fans and motors associated with those

pumps and fans;

(ii) Require cleaning of the scrubber

internals and mist eliminators at

intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of

solids or other fouling;

(iii) Require an inspection of each

scrubber at intervals of no less than 3

months with:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49071

(A) Cleaning or replacement of any

plugged spray nozzles or other liquid

delivery devices;

(B) Repair or replacement of missing,

misaligned, or damaged baffles, trays, or

other internal components;

(C) Repair or replacement of droplet

eliminator elements as needed;

(D) Repair or replacement of heat

exchanger elements used to control the

temperature of fluids entering or leaving

the scrubber; and

(E) Adjustment of damper settings for

consistency with the required air flow.

(iv) If the scrubber is not equipped

with a viewport or access hatch

allowing visual inspection, alternate

means of inspection approved by the

Administrator may be used.

(v) The owner or operator shall

initiate corrective action within one

working day of detection of an operating

problem and provide appropriate repair,

replacement, or other corrective action.

Failure to initiate or provide appropriate

repair, replacement, or other corrective

action is a violation of the maintenance

requirement.

(vi) The owner or operator shall

maintain a record of each inspection,

including each item identified in

paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, that

is signed by the responsible plant

official and that shows the date of each

inspection, the problem identified, a

description of the repair, replacement,

or other corrective action taken, and the

date of the repair, replacement, or other

corrective action taken.

(3) In addition to the requirements

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)

of this section, the owner or operator of

each acid regeneration plant shall

develop and implement a written

maintenance program. The program

shall require:

(i) Performance of the manufacturer’s

recommended maintenance at the

recommended intervals on all required

systems and components;

(ii) Initiation of appropriate repair,

replacement, or other corrective action

within one working day of detection;

and

(iii) Maintenance of a daily record,

signed by a responsible plant official,

showing the date of each inspection for

each requirement, the problems found,

a description of the repair, replacement,

or other action taken, and the date of

repair or replacement.

§ 63.1160 Performance testing and test

methods.

(a) The owner or operator shall

conduct an initial performance test for

each process or emission control device

to determine and demonstrate

compliance with the applicable

emission limit or performance standard

according to the requirements in § 63.7

of this part and in this section.

(1) Following approval of the sitespecific test plan, the owner or operator

shall conduct an emission test for each

process or control device to measure

either the mass flows of HCl at the inlet

and the outlet of the control device (to

determine compliance with the

applicable collection efficiency

standard) or the concentration of HCl

(and Cl2 for acid regeneration plants) in

gases exiting the process or the emission

control device (to determine compliance

with the applicable emission

concentration standard).

(2) Compliance with the applicable

emission concentration or collection

efficiency standard shall be determined

by the average of three runs. Each run

shall be conducted under conditions

representative of normal process

operations.

(3) Compliance is achieved if either

the average collection efficiency as

determined by the HCl mass flows at the

control device inlet and outlet is greater

than or equal to the applicable

collection efficiency requirement or the

average measured concentration of HCl

or Cl2 exiting the process or the

emission control device is less than or

equal to the applicable emission

concentration requirement.

(b) During the emission test for each

emission control device, the owner or

operator using a wet scrubber to achieve

compliance and electing to monitor

emission control device operating

parameters as described in

§ 63.1161(a)(2) of this subpart shall

establish as site-specific operating

parameters the pressure drop across the

scrubber and the maximum acidity of

the scrubber effluent.

(1) The owner or operator shall

determine the operating parameter

monitoring values as the average of the

values recorded during each of the three

runs constituting the test. An owner or

operator may conduct multiple

performance tests to establish a range of

compliant operating parameter values.

(2) As an alternative to the

requirement specified in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section, the owner or

operator may set as the compliant value

for pressure drop the average value

measured over the three test runs of one

compliance test and accept ±1 inch of

water column from the pressure drop

value as the compliant range.

(c)(1) During the emission test for Cl2

at an acid regeneration plant, the owner

or operator shall establish as sitespecific operating parameters the

minimum process offgas temperature

and the maximum proportion of excess

air fed to the process as described in

§ 63.1161(d)(2) of this subpart. The

owner or operator shall determine the

operating parameter monitoring values

as the average of the values recorded

during each of the three runs

constituting the test. An owner or

operator may conduct multiple

performance tests to establish a range of

compliant operating parameter values.

(2) During this emission test, the

owner or operator may establish an

optional maximum concentration

limitation for Cl2. If the owner or

operator can demonstrate to the

Administrator’s satisfaction that the

plant cannot meet the 4 ppmv

maximum concentration limitation by

operating the plant within its design

parameters, the plant shall be operated

at maximum design temperature and

with the minimum excess air that

allows production of iron oxide of

acceptable quality while measuring Cl2

concentration in the process exhaust

gas. The measured concentration shall

be the maximum concentration allowed

for that plant.

(d) The following test methods in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter

shall be used to determine compliance

under §§ 63.1157(a), 63.1157(b),

63.1158(a), and 63.1158(b) of this

subpart:

(1) Method 1, to determine the

number and location of sampling points;

(2) Method 2, to determine gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate;

(3) Method 3, to determine the

molecular weight of the stack gas;

(4) Method 4, to determine the

moisture content of the stack gas; and

(5) Method 26A, ‘‘Determination of

Hydrogen Halide and Halogen

Emissions from Stationary Sources—

Isokinetic Method’’, to determine the

HCl mass flows at the inlet and outlet

of a control device or the concentration

of HCl discharged to the atmosphere

and also to determine the concentration

of Cl2 discharged to the atmosphere

from acid regeneration plants. If

compliance with a collection efficiency

standard is being demonstrated, inlet

and outlet measurements shall be

performed simultaneously. The

minimum sampling time for each run

shall be 60 minutes and the minimum

sample volume 0.85 dry standard cubic

meters (dscm) [30 dry standard cubic

feet (dscf)]. The concentration of HCl

and Cl2 shall be calculated as follows:

CHCl (ppmv)=0.659 CHCl (mg/dscm),

CCl2 (ppmv)=0.339 CCl2 (mg/dscm),

where:

C (ppmv) is concentration in ppmv

and C(mg/dscm) is concentration in

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
49072 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

as calculated by the procedure given in

Method 26A in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter.

(e) The owner or operator may use

equivalent alternative measurement

methods approved by the

Administrator.

§ 63.1161 Monitoring requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of a new,

reconstructed, or existing steel pickling

facility or acid regeneration plant

subject to this subpart shall:

(1) Conduct annual performance tests

to measure the HCl mass flows at the

control device inlet and outlet or the

concentration of HCl exiting the control

device according to the procedures

described in § 63.1160 of this subpart. If

an annual performance test shows that

the HCl emission limit is being

exceeded, then the owner or operator is

in violation of the HCl emission limit.

(2) In addition to conducting annual

performance tests, if a wet scrubber is

used as the emission control device,

install, operate, and maintain systems

for the measurement and recording of

the:

(i) Pressure drop across the scrubber,

which shall be measured and recorded

at least once every 24-hour period, and

(ii) Acidity of the scrubber effluent,

which shall be measured and recorded

at least once every 8-hour period.

(3) If an emission control device other

than a wet scrubber is used, install,

operate, and maintain systems for the

appropriate measurement and recording

of the operating parameters.

(4) Each monitoring device shall be

certified by the manufacturer to be

accurate to within 5-percent and shall

be calibrated semiannually in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions.

(5)(i) Operation of the control device

with excursions of operating parameters

listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section

outside the ranges established during

the initial performance test will require

initiation of corrective action as

specified by the maintenance

requirement in § 63.1159(b)(2) of this

subpart. Failure to initiate the required

action is a violation of the maintenance

requirements.

(6) Failure to record each of the

operating parameters listed in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section is a violation of the

monitoring requirements.

(b) As an option to the requirements

of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this

section, the owner or operator of a new,

reconstructed, or existing steel pickling

facility or acid regeneration plant

subject to this subpart may do the

following:

(1) Install, calibrate, certify, operate,

and maintain according to the

manufacturer’s specifications a

continuous emission monitoring system

(CEMS) capable of measuring HCl

concentrations in the ranges required to

demonstrate compliance with this

standard. Any owner or operator

employing a CEMS shall be subject to

all the requirements applicable to a

continuous monitoring system (CMS)

specified in § 63.8 of subpart A of this

part and in this section.

(i) If the compliance option chosen is

collection efficiency (§§ 63.1157(a)(1) or

63.1158(a)(1) of this subpart, whichever

applies), then the air pollution control

device inlet and outlet gases shall both

be monitored. The owner or operator

may employ a single analyzer to

monitor both streams, with each stream

being monitored 50-percent of the time

during each 24-hour period.

(ii) If the compliance option chosen is

concentration (§§ 63.1157(a)(2),

63.1157(b)(1), 63.1158(a)(2), or

63.1158(b)(1) of this subpart, whichever

applies), then the air pollution control

device or process offgas shall be

monitored continuously.

(c) If excursions of the control device

operating parameters listed in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section outside the ranges

established during the initial

performance test occur more often than

six times during any 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator shall

install a CEMS and comply with the

requirements specified in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

(d) The owner or operator of a new or

existing acid regeneration facility

subject to this subpart shall also:

(1) Conduct annual performance tests

to measure the concentration of Cl2

exiting the process or the control device

according to the procedures described

in § 63.1160 of this subpart. If an annual

performance test shows that the Cl2

emission limit is being exceeded, then

the owner or operator is in violation of

the Cl2 emission limit.

(2) In addition to conducting annual

performance tests, install, operate, and

maintain systems for the measurement

and recording of the:

(i) Process offgas temperature, which

shall be monitored and recorded

continuously, and

(ii) Excess air feed rate, which shall be

measured and recorded at least once

every 8-hour period. Proportion of

excess air shall be determined by a

combination of total air flow rate, fuel

flow rate, spent pickle liquor addition

rate, and amount of iron in the spent

pickle liquor or by any other

combination of parameters approved by

the Administrator.

(3) Each monitoring device must be

certified by the manufacturer to be

accurate to within 5-percent and must

be calibrated semiannually in

accordance with the manufacturer’s

instructions.

(4) Operation of the process with

operating parameters listed in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section in exceedance of

the ranges established during the initial

performance test is a violation of the

emission limit specified in

§§ 63.1157(b)(2) or 63.1158(b)(2) of this

subpart, whichever applies. Failure to

record each of these parameters is a

violation of the monitoring

requirements.

(e) The owner or operator of an

affected acid storage tank shall inspect

each tank monthly to determine that the

closed-vent system and either the air

pollution control device or the enclosed

loading and unloading line, whichever

is applicable, are installed and operating

when required.

§ 63.1162 Notification requirements.

(a) Initial notifications. As required by

§ 63.9(b) of subpart A of this part, the

owner or operator shall submit the

following written notifications to the

Administrator:

(1) The owner or operator of an area

source that subsequently becomes

subject to the requirements of the

standard shall provide notification to

the applicable permitting authority as

required by § 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A of

this part.

(2) As required by § 63.9(b)(2) of

subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator of an affected source that has

an initial startup before the effective

date of the standard shall notify the

Administrator that the source is subject

to the requirements of the standard. The

notification shall be submitted not later

than 120 calendar days after the

effective date of this standard (or within

120 calendar days after the source

becomes subject to this standard) and

shall contain the information specified

in §§ 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v)

of subpart A of this part.

(3) As required by § 63.9(b)(3) of

subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

affected source, or a source that has

been reconstructed such that it is an

affected source, that has an initial

startup after the effective date and for

which an application for approval of

construction or reconstruction is not

required under § 63.5(d) of subpart A of

this part, shall notify the Administrator

in writing that the source is subject to

the standards no later than 120 days

after initial startup. The notification

shall contain the information specified
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49073

in §§ 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v)

of subpart A of this part, delivered or

postmarked with the notification

required in § 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of

this part.

(4) As required by § 63.9(b)(4) of

subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed major

affected source that has an initial

startup after the effective date of this

standard and for which an application

for approval of construction or

reconstruction is required under

§ 63.5(d) of subpart A of this part shall

provide the information specified in

§§ 63.9(b)(4)(i) through 63.9(b)(4)(v) of

subpart A of this part.

(5) As required by § 63.9(b)(5) of

subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator who, after the effective date of

this standard, intends to construct a

new affected source or reconstruct an

affected source subject to this standard,

or reconstruct a source such that it

becomes an affected source subject to

this standard, shall notify the

Administrator, in writing, of the

intended construction or reconstruction.

(b) Request for extension of

compliance. As required by § 63.9(c) of

subpart A of this part, if the owner or

operator of an affected source cannot

comply with this standard by the

applicable compliance date for that

source, or if the owner or operator has

installed BACT or technology to meet

LAER consistent with § 63.6(i)(5) of

subpart A of this part, he/she may

submit to the Administrator (or the State

with an approved permit program) a

request for an extension of compliance

as specified in §§ 63.6(i)(4) through

63.6(i)(6) of subpart A of this part.

(c) Notification that source is subject

to special compliance requirements. As

required by § 63.9(d) of subpart A of this

part, an owner or operator of a new

source that is subject to special

compliance requirements as specified in

§§ 63.6(b)(3) and 63.6(b)(4) of subpart A

of this part shall notify the

Administrator of his/her compliance

obligations not later than the

notification dates established in

§ 63.9(b) of subpart A of this part for

new sources that are not subject to the

special provisions.

(d) Notification of performance test.

As required by § 63.9(e) of subpart A of

this part, the owner or operator of an

affected source shall notify the

Administrator in writing of his or her

intention to conduct a performance test

at least 60 calendar days before the

performance test is scheduled to begin

to allow the Administrator to review

and approve the site-specific test plan

required under § 63.7(c) of subpart A of

this part, if requested by the

Administrator, and to have an observer

present during the test.

(e) Additional notification

requirements for sources with

continuous emission monitoring

systems. The owner or operator of an

affected source using a CEMS shall

furnish the Administrator written

notification that applies to a CMS as

specified in §§ 63.9(g)(1) through

63.9(g)(3) of subpart A of this part.

(f) Notification of compliance status.

The owner or operator of an affected

source shall submit a notification of

compliance status as required by

§ 63.9(h) of subpart A of this part when

the source becomes subject to this

standard.

§ 63.1163 Reporting requirements.

(a) Reporting results of performance

tests. As required by § 63.10(d)(2) of this

part, the owner or operator of an

affected source shall report the results of

the initial performance test as part of the

notification of compliance status

required in § 63.1162 of this subpart.

(b) Progress reports. The owner or

operator of an affected source who is

required to submit progress reports

under § 63.6(i) of subpart A shall submit

such reports to the Administrator (or the

State with an approved permit program)

by the dates specified in the written

extension of compliance.

(c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and

malfunction reports. Section 63.6(e) of

subpart A of this part requires the owner

or operator of an affected source to

operate and maintain each affected

emission source and associated air

pollution control equipment in a

manner consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions (at least to the

level required by the standard) at all

times, including during any period of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Malfunctions must be corrected as soon

as practicable after their occurrence in

accordance with the startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan.

(1) Plan. As required by § 63.6(e)(3) of

subpart A of this part, the owner or

operator shall develop and implement a

written startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan that provides a

detailed description of the procedures

for operating the emission source or

control system during a period of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction and a

program of corrective action for

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment. If

applicable, § 63.8(c)(1)(i) of subpart A

also requires that the plan shall identify

all routine or otherwise predictable

malfunctions for a CEMS used to

comply with the standard.

(2) Reports. As required by

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A of this part,

if actions taken by an owner or operator

during a startup, shutdown, or

malfunction of an affected source

(including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) are consistent with the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan, the

owner or operator shall state such

information in a semiannual report. The

report, to be certified by the owner or

operator or other responsible official,

shall be submitted semiannually and

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day

following the end of each calendar half;

and

(3) Any time an action taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction (including

actions taken to correct a malfunction)

is not consistent with the procedures in

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall

comply with all requirements of

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A of this part.

(d) CEMS performance evaluations. If

a CEMS is used, the owner or operator

is required to conduct an annual

performance evaluation of the CEMS

and submit a written report of the

results as described for a CMS under

§ 63.10(e)(2) of subpart A of this part.

The owner or operator shall submit the

report simultaneously with the results

of the initial performance test.

(e) Excess emissions and CEMS

performance report and summary

report. The owner or operator of an

affected source required to install a

CEMS shall comply with all

requirements of § 63.10(e)(3) of subpart

A of this part.

§ 63.1164 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping

requirements. As required by

§ 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A of this part,

the owner or operator shall maintain

records for 5 years from the date of each

record of:

(1) The occurrence and duration of

each startup, shutdown, or malfunction

of operation (i.e., process equipment

and control devices);

(2) The occurrence and duration of

each malfunction of the source or air

pollution control equipment;

(3) All maintenance performed on the

air pollution control equipment;

(4) Actions taken during periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(including corrective actions to restore

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment to its

normal or usual manner of operation)

when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan;
49074 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(5) All information necessary to

demonstrate conformance with the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan when all actions taken during

periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction (including corrective

actions) are consistent with the

procedures specified in such plan. This

information can be recorded in a

checklist or similar form. (See

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) of subpart A. of this

part.);

(6) All required measurements needed

to demonstrate compliance with the

standard and to support data that the

source is required to report, including,

but not limited to, performance test

measurements (including initial and any

subsequent performance tests) and

measurements as may be necessary to

determine the conditions of the initial

test or subsequent tests;

(7) All results of initial or subsequent

performance tests;

(8) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from recordkeeping or

reporting requirements under § 63.10(f)

of subpart A of this part, any

information demonstrating whether a

source is meeting the requirements for

a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting

requirements;

(9) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from the initial

performance test under § 63.7(h) of

subpart A of this part, a copy of the full

request and the Administrator’s

approval or disapproval;

(10) All documentation supporting

initial notifications and notifications of

compliance status required by § 63.9 of

subpart A of this part; and

(11) Records of any applicability

determination, including supporting

analyses.

(b) Subpart CCC records. (1) In

addition to the general records required

by paragraph (a) of this section, the

owner or operator shall maintain

records for 5 years from the date of each

record of:

(i) Records of pressure drop across the

scrubber and of pH levels or other

measures of acidity of the scrubber

effluent if a wet scrubber is used and

readings are taken manually;

(ii) Records of manufacturer

certification that monitoring devices are

accurate to within 5-percent and of

semiannual calibration;

(iii) Copy of the written maintenance

plan for each emission control device;

and

(iv) Records of each maintenance

inspection and repair, replacement, or

other corrective action.

(2) The owner or operator of an acid

regeneration plant shall also maintain

records for 5 years from the date of each

record of process offgas temperature and

excess air feed rate.

(c) General records and subpart CCC

records for the most recent 2 years of

operation must be maintained on site.

Records for the previous 3 years may be

maintained off site.

(d) CEMS recordkeeping

requirements. The owner or operator

using a CEMS shall also comply with

the recordkeeping requirements in

§§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through

63.10(b)(2)(xiv) and § 63.10(c) of subpart

A of this part that apply to a CMS,

including:

(1) Each period when a CEMS is

malfunctioning or inoperative

(including out of control periods);

(2) All required measurements needed

to indicate compliance with the

standard that support data that the

source is required to report including,

but not limited to, 15-minute averages of

continuous emission monitoring data

and raw performance evaluations;

(3) All results of CEMS performance

evaluations;

(4) All measurements necessary to

determine the conditions of

performance evaluations;

(5) All calibration checks on the

continuous emission monitor;

(6) All adjustments and maintenance

performed on a CEMS;

(7) All emission levels relative to

obtaining permission to use an

alternative to the relative accuracy test,

if the owner or operator has been

granted permission under § 63.8(f)(6) of

subpart A of this part;

(8) All required CEMS measurements

(including monitoring data recorded

during unavoidable breakdowns and out

of control periods);

(9) The date and time identifying each

period during which the CEMS was

inoperative (except for span checks) or

out of control periods. (See § 63.8(c)(7)

of subpart A of this part):

(10) The specific identification (i.e.,

the date and time of commencement

and termination) of each time period of

excess emissions and parameter

exceedances and excursions that occurs

during startups, shutdowns, and

malfunctions of the emission source;

(11) The specific identification of

each time period of excess emissions

and parameter exceedances and

excursions that occurs during periods

other than startups, shutdowns, and

malfunctions of the emission source;

(12) The nature and cause of any

malfunction (if known);

(13) The corrective action taken or

preventative measures adopted;

(14) The nature of the repairs or

adjustments to the CEMS that was

inoperative or out of control;

(15) The total process operating time

during the reporting period; and

(16) All procedures that are a part of

a quality control program developed

and implemented for the CEMS under

§ 63.8(d) of subpart A of this part.

§ 63.1165 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

Administrator and not transferred to a

State.

(b)(1) Section 63.1160(e) of this

subpart for approval of an alternative

measurement method; and

(2) Section 63.6(g) of subpart A of this

part for approval of an alternative

nonopacity emission standard.

§§ 63.1166 through 63.1174 [Reserved]

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART CCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A)

TO SUBPART CCC

Reference Applies to subpart

CCC Comment

63.1–63.5 ............................................................................... Yes ..........................

63.6(a)–63.6(f) ........................................................................ Yes ..........................

63.6(g) .................................................................................... Yes .......................... EPA reserves approval of alternative nonopacity emission

standard.

63.6(h) .................................................................................... No ........................... Subpart does not contain an opacity or visible emission

standard.

63.6(i)–63.6(j) ......................................................................... Yes ..........................

63.7 ........................................................................................ Yes ..........................

63.8 ........................................................................................ Yes .......................... Sections that apply to a CMS apply to a CEMS when used.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49075

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART CCC OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A)

TO SUBPART CCC—Continued

Reference Applies to subpart

CCC Comment

63.9(a)–63.9(f); 63.9(h)–63.9(j) .............................................. Yes ..........................

63.9(g) .................................................................................... Yes .......................... Applies only when a CEMS is used.

63.10(a) .................................................................................. Yes ..........................

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

63.10(b)(2)(i)–63.10(b)(2)(v); 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–63.10(b)(2)(ix);

63.10(b)(2)(xii)–63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

Yes ..........................

63.10(b)(2)(vi); 63.10(b)(2)(x)–63.10(b)(2)(xi) ........................ Yes .......................... Applies only when a CEMS is used.

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

63.10(c) .................................................................................. Yes .......................... Applies only when a CEMS is used.

63.10(d)(1)–63.10(d)(2) .......................................................... Yes ..........................

63.10(d)(3) .............................................................................. No ........................... Subpart does not contain an opacity or visible emission

standard.

63.10(d)(4)–63.10(d)(5) .......................................................... Yes ..........................

63.10(e) .................................................................................. Yes .......................... Applies only when a CEMS is used.

63.10(f) ................................................................................... Yes ..........................

63.11 ...................................................................................... No ........................... The use of flares is not required.

63.12–63.15 ........................................................................... Yes.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–23631 Filed 9–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P