2

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US To: Alexander Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mariana 

Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bruce Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Kime/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula 

VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Wanda Farrar/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Ruthw Morgan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Caryn Muellerleile/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/09/2012 05:36 PM Subject: APPROVED & TRANSMITTED to OMB - SAN 5468 - Residual Risk and Technology Review Amendments to the Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP: NPRM 

Today OP approved for OMB review the NPRM, Residual Risk and Technology Review Amendments to the Secondary 

Aluminum Production NESHAP. This significant action is attached below and was developed as a tier 2 action. RAPIDS 

has been updated. 
3

[attachment "eo 12866 secondary aluminum rtr-proposal 2060-aq40 01_09_12.doc" deleted by Rochelle 

Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US] 

Amy L. Cole 

Regulatory Management Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: 202.564.6535 

Office: 6440T ARN 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

E.O. 12866 Secondary Aluminum Proposal 2060-AQ40 12-30-11

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544; FRL-???]

RIN 2060-AQ40

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national 

emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for Secondary 

Aluminum Production to address the results of the residual risk 

and technology review that the EPA is required to conduct by the 

Clean Air Act. In addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to 

correct and clarify rule requirements and provisions. These 

proposed amendments would:

• Add work practice standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown for some processes;

• Add a definition of affirmative defense;

• Add a requirement to report performance testing through the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT);
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 2 of 234

• Add rule provisions allowing owners and operators to change 

furnaces designations;

• Add rule requirements regarding testing of uncontrolled 

furnaces;

• Add rule requirements for testing hydrogen fluoride in 

addition to hydrogen chloride in furnaces that use fluorinecontaining fluxes;

• Add operating requirements such as monitoring of lime 

injection rates; and 

• Make technical corrections and clarifications to the 

applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring, and 

performance testing requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT THE DATE 

45 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection provisions are best 

assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before

[INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing by [INSERT THE DATE 10 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public hearing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 3 of 234

will be held on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544, by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions 

for submitting comments.

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544.

• Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0544.

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20503.

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQOAR-2010-0544. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0544. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 4 of 234

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this 

rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. All 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 5 of 234

documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket 

Center is (202) 566-1742.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin 

at 10:00 a.m. on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and 

will be held at the EPA’s campus in Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to 

whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 

Virginia Hunt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243-02), U.S. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 6 of 234

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0832.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this 

proposed action, contact Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-1390; 

fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address:

boyd.rochelle@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Dr. Michael Stewart, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C504–06), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–7524; fax number: (919) 541–

0840; and email address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular 

entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble.

Table 1. List of EPA Contacts For The NESHAP Addressed In This 

Proposed Action

NESHAP for: OECA Contact1 OAQPS Contact2

Secondary 

Aluminum 

Production

Scott Throwe, 

(202)564-7013

throwe.scott@epa.gov

Rochelle Boyd,

(919) 541-1390, 

boyd.rochelle@epa.gov 1 EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 7 of 234

2 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial 

processes, data inventories, and risk modeling are included in 

this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, for 

ease of reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the 

following terms and acronyms are defined here:

ACGIH American Conference of Government Industrial 

Hygienists

ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model

AMOS ample margin of safety

ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BACT best available control technology

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI confidential business information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

D/F dioxins and furans

EJ environmental justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

HAP hazardous air pollutants

HCl hydrogen chloride

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3

HF hydrogen fluoride

HHRAP human health risk assessment protocols

HI hazard index

HQ hazard quotient

ICR information collection request
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 8 of 234

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

km kilometer

LAER lowest achievable emissions rate

lb/yr pounds per year

MACT maximum achievable control technology

MACT Code code within the NEI used to identify processes

included in a source category

MDL method detection level

mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

MIR maximum individual risk

MRL minimum risk level

NAC/AEGL

Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure

Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NOAEL no observed adverse effects level

NRC National Research Council

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

O&M operation and maintenance

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and 

bio-accumulative in the environment

PM particulate matter

ppmv parts per million by volume

RACT reasonably available control technology

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse

REL reference exposure level

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 9 of 234

RfC reference concentration

RfD reference dose

RIA regulatory impact analysis

RTR residual risk and technology review

SAB Science Advisory Board

SBA Small Business Administration

SCC source classification codes

SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary

SIP state implementation plan

SOP standard operating procedures

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction

TEF toxic equivalency factors

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient

THC total hydrocarbons

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index

tpy tons per year

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UBC used beverage containers

UF uncertainty factor

μg/m3 microgram per cubic meter

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

UPL upper predictive limit

URE unit risk estimate

VOC volatile organic compounds

VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air pollutants

WHO World Health Organization

WWW worldwide web

Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble 

is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

B. Does this action apply to me?

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

II. Background
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 10 of 234

A. What is this source category and how did the MACT standard 

regulate its HAP emissions?

B. What data collection activities were conducted to support 

this action?

III. Analyses Performed

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for 

this proposal?

C. How did we perform the technology review?

D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

A. What are the results of the risk assessments?

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety?

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 

technology review?

D. What other actions are we proposing?

E. Compliance dates

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

B. What are the air quality impacts?

C. What are the cost impacts?

D. What are the economic impacts?

E. What are the benefits?

VI. Request for Comments

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 11 of 234

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations.

I. General Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

from stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA 

calls for us to promulgate national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for those sources. “Major 

sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit (PTE)

10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more 

of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technologybased standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy 

requirements and non-air quality health and environmental 

impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards.

MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions 

reduction achievable through the application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems or techniques including, but not 

limited to, measures which (1) reduce the volume of or eliminate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 12 of 234

emissions of pollutants through process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications, (2) enclose systems or 

processes to eliminate emissions, (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or 

fugitive emissions point, (4) are design, equipment, work 

practice or operational standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification) or (5) are a combination of 

the above. CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standard may 

take the form of a design, equipment, work practice or 

operational standard where the EPA first determines that either 

(1) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed 

and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be 

inconsistent with law, or (2) the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable 

due to technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 

112(h)(1)-(2).

The MACT “floor” is the minimum control level allowed for 

MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may 

not be based on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT floors for existing sources can be less stringent than 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 13 of 234

floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider control options that are more 

stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor based on consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.

Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is then required to 

review these technology-based standards and to revise them “as 

necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than 

every 8 years. In conducting this review, the EPA is not obliged 

to completely recalculate the prior MACT determination. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing 

any remaining “residual” risk according to CAA section 112(f). 

This provision requires, first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating 

risk posed (or potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, the public health 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 14 of 234

significance of those risks, and the EPA’s recommendations as to 

legislation regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and 

submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA–

453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in response to 

the report, thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation under CAA 

section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine, for source 

categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether the 

emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. If the MACT standards for HAP “classified as a 

known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce 

lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less 

than one in one million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk 

standards for the source category (or subcategory), as 

necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. In doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that the existing 

standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). (“If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards provide an “ample margin of 

safety,” then the agency is free to readopt those standards 

during the residual risk rulemaking.”) The EPA must also adopt 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 15 of 234

more stringent standards, if necessary, to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect1 but must consider cost, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors in doing so.

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of 

a two-step process for developing standards to address any 

residual risk and our interpretation of “ample margin of safety” 

developed in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, 

Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The first step in 

this process is the determination of acceptable risk. The second 

step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect public 

health, which is the level at which the standards are set 

(unless a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, 

taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 

relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect).

The terms “individual most exposed,” “acceptable level,” 

and “ample margin of safety” are not specifically defined in the 

CAA. However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA’s 

 

1 “Adverse environmental effect” is defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may be reasonably 

anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life or natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities over broad areas.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 16 of 234

interpretation set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 

NRDC v. EPA, concluded that the EPA’s interpretation of 

subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 

F.3d 1077 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) 

expressly incorporates the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air 

Act from the Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the 

Federal Register”). see also A Legislative History of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on 

Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk 

Report to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP 

approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11).

In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 FR at 38044-38045, we stated as 

an overall objective: In protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety under section 112, EPA strives to 

provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health 

from hazardous air pollutants by, (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to an individual 

lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1 in 1 

million; and (2) limiting to no higher than approximately 1

in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million] the estimated risk 

that a person living near a plant would have if he or she 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 17 of 234

were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 

years.

The agency stated that, “[t]he EPA also considers incidence 

(the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other 

serious health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) 

to be an important measure of the health risk to the exposed 

population. Incidence measures the extent of health risk to the 

exposed population as a whole, by providing an estimate of the 

occurrence of cancer or other serious health effects in the 

exposed population.” 54 FR 38045. The agency went on to conclude 

that “estimated incidence would be weighed along with other 

health risk information in judging acceptability.” 54 FR at 

38046. As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to 

Congress, the EPA does not define “rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,” but considers rather broad objectives to be 

weighed with a series of other health measures and factors (EPA–

453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The determination of what represents an

“acceptable” risk is based on a judgment of “what risks are 

acceptable in the world in which we live” (Residual Risk Report 

to Congress, p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 

F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that “EPA will generally 

presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 18 of 234

no higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that risk level 

is considered acceptable.” 54 FR at 38045. We discussed the 

maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (or maximum individual 

risk (MIR)) as being “the estimated risk that a person living 

near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum 

pollutant concentrations for 70 years.” Id. We explained that 

this measure of risk “is an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure 

for 24 hours per day for 70 years.” Id. We acknowledge that 

maximum individual lifetime cancer risk “does not necessarily 

reflect the true risk, but displays a conservative risk level 

which is an upper bound that is unlikely to be exceeded.” Id.

Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations 

to using maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for 

determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP that “consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must 

take into account the strengths and weaknesses of this measure 

of risk.” Id. Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100 in

1 million (1 in 10 thousand) provides a benchmark for judging 

the acceptability of maximum individual lifetime cancer risk, 

but does not constitute a rigid line for making that 

determination.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 19 of 234

The agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP: “[i]n 

establishing a presumption for MIR, rather than a rigid line for 

acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These include the overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within each 

individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 km [kilometer] exposure radius around 

facilities, the science policy assumptions and estimation 

uncertainties associated with the risk measures, weight of the 

scientific evidence for human health effects, other quantified 

or unquantified health effects, effects due to co-location of 

facilities, and co-emission of pollutants.” Id.

In some cases, these health measures and factors taken 

together may provide a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed population than that provided 

by maximum individual lifetime cancer risk alone. As explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, “[e]ven though the risks judged 

’acceptable‘ by the EPA in the first step of the Vinyl Chloride

inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 

determining an ’ample margin of safety,’ again includes 

consideration of all of the health factors, and whether to 

reduce the risks even further * * *.” Beyond that information, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 20 of 234

additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control 

will also be considered, including costs and economic impacts of 

controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties and any other 

relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency 

will establish the standard at a level that provides an ample 

margin of safety to protect the public health, as required by 

CAA section 112.” 54 FR at 38046.

As discussed above, we apply a two-step process for 

developing standards to address residual risk. In the first 

step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This 

determination “considers all health information, including risk 

estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on 

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)2 of approximately 

1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million].” 54 FR at 38045. In 

the second step of the process, the EPA sets the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of safety “in consideration 

of all health information, including the number of persons at 

risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as 

other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each 

particular decision.” Id.

 

2 Although defined as “maximum individual risk,” MIR refers only to 

cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the 

estimated risk were an individual to be exposed to the maximum level 

of a pollutant for a lifetime.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 21 of 234

In past residual risk determinations, the EPA presented a 

number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions 

from the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers 

of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

noncancer hazard index (HI); and the maximum acute noncancer 

hazard. In estimating risks, the EPA considered source 

categories under review that are located near each other and 

that affect the same population. The EPA estimates risk based on

the actual emissions from the source category under review as 

well as based on the emissions allowed pursuant to the source 

category MACT standard. The EPA also discussed and considered 

risk estimation uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same 

type of information in support of these actions.

The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides 

flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in 

making our determinations and how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to comment on our policy under 

the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained that: “[t]he policy chosen 

by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures 

of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but 

also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and 

the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect 

on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 22 of 234

impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed 

in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable 

level of risk to the public by employing [her] expertise to 

assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional 

intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 

consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations and 

thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures 

of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, 

believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health.’” 54 FR at 38057.

For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be 

weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explains “an MIR of approximately 1 in 10 thousand should 

ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As 

risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively 

less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with 

the other health risk measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the agency may find, in a 

particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the 

presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of 

other health risk factors.” 54 FR at 38045. Similarly, with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 23 of 234

regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the Benzene 

NESHAP states that: “EPA believes the relative weight of the 

many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin 

of safety can only be determined for each specific source 

category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source 

category to source category.” 54 FR at 38061.

B. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated industrial source category that is the 

subject of this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble. 

Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities 

likely to be affected by this proposed action. These standards,

once finalized, will be directly applicable to affected sources. 

Federal, State, local, and tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. The EPA defined the Secondary 

Aluminum source category in 1992 as any establishment using 

clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum production, 

as the raw material and performing one or more of the following 

processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, 

thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, 

sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of aluminum 

from dross, in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 24 of 234

Table 2. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 

This Proposed Action

Source Category NESHAP NAICS 

code1

MACT 

code2

Secondary Aluminum Production

Primary aluminum production facilities

Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil 

manufacturing facilities

Aluminum extruded product manufacturing 

facilities

Other aluminum rolling and drawing 

facilities

Aluminum die casting facilities

Aluminum foundry facilities

Secondary 

Aluminum 

Production

331314

331312

331315

331316

331319

331521

331524

0044

1 North American Industry Classification System 2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide 

Web (WWW) through the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance

page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control including the residual risk and technology 

review (RTR) and includes source category descriptions and 

detailed emissions estimates and other data that were used as 

inputs to the risk assessments.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 25 of 234

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to 

the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to 

the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, 

a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain 

CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does 

not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included 

in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket 

without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only 

to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544.

II. Background
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 26 of 234

A. What is this source category and how did the MACT standard 

regulate its HAP emissions?

The Secondary Aluminum Production source category includes 

facilities that produce aluminum from scrap aluminum material 

and consists of the following operations: (1) Preprocessing of 

scrap aluminum, including size reduction and removal of oils, 

coatings, and other contaminants; (2) Furnace operations 

including melting, in-furnace refining, fluxing, and tapping;

(3) Additional refining, by means of in-line fluxing; and (4) 

Cooling of dross. The following sections include descriptions of 

the affected sources in the secondary aluminum production source 

category, the origin of HAP emissions from these affected 

sources, and factors affecting the emissions. 

Scrap aluminum is often preprocessed prior to melting. 

Preprocessing steps may include shredding to reduce the size of 

aluminum scrap; drying of oily scrap such as machine turnings 

and borings; and/or heating in a scrap dryer, delacquering kiln 

or decoating kiln to remove coatings or other contaminants that 

may be present on the scrap. Heating of high iron content scrap 

in a sweat furnace to reclaim the aluminum content is also a 

preprocessing operation.

Crushing, shredding and grinding operations are used to 

reduce the size of scrap aluminum. Particulate matter (PM) and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 27 of 234

HAP metals are generated as dust from coatings and other 

contaminants contained in the scrap aluminum as they are 

processed. 

A chip dryer is used to evaporate oil and/or moisture from 

uncoated aluminum chips and borings. Chip dryers typically 

operate at temperatures ranging between 150°C to 400°C (300°F to 

750°F). An uncontrolled chip dryer may emit dioxins and furans 

(D/F) and total hydrocarbons (THC), of which some fraction is 

organic HAP. 

Painted and/or coated materials are processed in a scrap 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln to remove coatings and 

other contaminants that may be present in the scrap prior to 

melting. Coatings, oils, grease, and lubricants represent up to 

20 percent of the total weight of these materials. Organic HAP, 

D/F, and inorganic HAPs including particulate metal HAP are

emitted during the drying/delacquering/decoating process.

Used beverage containers (UBC) comprise a major portion of 

the recycled aluminum scrap used as feedstock by the industry. 

In scrap drying/delacquering/decoating operations, UBC and other 

post-consumer, coated products (e.g., aluminum siding) are

heated to an exit temperature of up to 540°C (1,000°F) to 

volatilize and remove various organic contaminants such as

paints, oils, lacquers, rubber, and plastic laminates prior to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 28 of 234

melting. An uncontrolled scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kiln emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP), 

HCl, THC (of which some fraction is organic HAP), and D/F.

A sweat furnace is typically used to reclaim (or ‘‘sweat’’) 

the aluminum from scrap with high levels of iron. These furnaces 

operate in batch mode at a temperature that is high enough to 

melt the aluminum but not high enough to melt the iron. The 

aluminum melts and flows out of the furnace while the iron

remains in the furnace in solid form. The molten aluminum can be 

cast into sows, ingots, or T-bars that are used as feedstock for 

aluminum melting and refining furnaces. Alternately, molten

aluminum can be fed directly to a melting or refining furnace.

An uncontrolled sweat furnace emits D/F.

Process (i.e. melting, holding or refining) furnaces are 

refractory-lined metal vessels heated by an oil or gas burner to 

achieve a metal temperature of about 760°C (1,400°F). The 

melting process begins with the charging of scrap into the 

furnace. A gaseous (typically, chlorine) or salt flux may be

added to remove impurities and reduce aluminum oxidation. Once 

molten, the chemistry of the bath is adjusted by adding selected 

scrap or alloying agents, such as silicon. Salt and other fluxes

contain chloride and fluoride compounds that may be released 

when introduced to the bath. HCl may also be released when 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 29 of 234

chlorine-containing contaminants (such as polyvinyl chloride 

coatings) present in some types of scrap are introduced to the 

bath. Argon and nitrogen fluxes are not reactive and do not 

produce HAPs. In a sidewell melting furnace, fluxing is

performed in the sidewell and fluxing emissions from the 

sidewell are controlled. In this type of furnace, fluxing is not 

typically done in the hearth and hearth emissions (which include 

products of combustion from the oil and gas fired furnaces) are

typically uncontrolled.

Process furnaces may process contaminated scrap which can 

result in HAP emissions. In addition, fluxing agents may contain 

HAPs, some fraction of which is emitted from the furnace.

Process furnaces are significant sources of HAP emissions in the 

secondary aluminum industry. An uncontrolled melting furnace 

which processes contaminated scrap and uses reactive fluxes 

emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP), HCl, 

and D/F.

Process furnaces are divided into group 1 and group 2 

furnaces. Group 1 furnaces are unrestricted in the type of scrap

they process and the type of fluxes they can use. Group 2 

furnaces process only clean charge and conduct no reactive 

fluxing.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 30 of 234

Dross-only furnaces are furnaces dedicated to reclamation 

of aluminum from drosses formed during the melting/

holding/alloying operations carried out in other furnaces. 

Exposure to the atmosphere causes the molten aluminum to 

oxidize, and the flotation of the impurities to the surface 

along with any salt flux creates ‘‘dross.’’ Prior to tapping, 

the dross is periodically skimmed from the surface of the

aluminum bath and cooled. Dross-only furnaces are typically 

rotary barrel furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). A drossonly furnace without controls emits PM (of which some fraction 

is particulate metal HAP).

Rotary dross coolers are devices used to cool dross in a 

rotating, water-cooled drum. A rotary dross cooler without 

controls emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal 

HAP).

In-line fluxers are devices used for aluminum refining, 

including degassing, outside the furnace. The process involves 

the injection of chlorine, argon, nitrogen or other gases to 

achieve the desired metal purity. Argon and nitrogen are not 

reactive and do not produce HAPs. In-line fluxers are found

primarily at facilities that manufacture very high quality 

aluminum or in facilities with no other means of degassing. An 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 31 of 234

in-line fluxer operating without emission controls emits HCl and 

PM.

The Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP was promulgated on 

March 23, 2000, (65 FR 15690) and codified as 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR. The rule was amended at 67 FR 79807, December, 30, 

2002; 69 FR 53980, September 3, 2004; 70 FR 57513, October 3, 

2005 and 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005. The existing subpart 

RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary aluminum 

production facilities that are major sources of HAP that operate 

aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap 

dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces,

group 2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary 

dross coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs). 

The SAPUs include group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. The 

subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary 

aluminum production facilities that are area sources of HAP only 

with respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermal 

chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, 

group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs.

The secondary aluminum industry consists of approximately 

161 secondary aluminum production facilities, of which the EPA 

estimates 53 to be major sources of HAP. Several of the 

secondary aluminum facilities are co-located with primary 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 32 of 234

aluminum, coil coating, and possibly other source category 

facilities. Natural gas boilers or process heaters may also be 

co-located at a few secondary aluminum facilities.

The HAP emitted by these facilities are metals, organic 

HAP, D/F, hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF).

The standards promulgated in 2000 established emission limits 

for particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP, total 

hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP other than 

D/F, D/F expressed as toxicity equivalents, and HCl as a 

surrogate for acid gases including HF, chlorine and fluorine. 

HAP are emitted from the following affected sources: aluminum 

scrap shredders (subject to PM standards), thermal chip dryers 

(subject to standards for THC and D/F), scrap 

dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns (subject to standards 

for PM, D/F, HCl and THC), sweat furnaces (subject to D/F

standards), dross-only furnaces (subject to PM standards), 

rotary dross coolers (subject to PM standards), group 1 furnaces 

(subject to standards for PM, HCl and D/F), and in-line fluxers 

(subject to standards for PM and HCl). Group 2 furnaces and 

certain in-line fluxers are subject to work practice standards. 

Table 3 provides a summary of the current MACT emissions limits 

for existing and new sources under the 2000 NESAHP and the 2005 

amendments.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 33 of 234

Table 3. Emission Standards for New and Existing Affected 

Sources for the Secondary Aluminum Source Category

Affected source/ Emission unit Pollutant Limit Units

All new and existing affected 

sources and emission units that 

are controlled with a PM add-on 

control device and that choose 

to monitor with a Continuous

Opacity Monitor (COM) and all 

new and existing aluminum scrap 

shredders that choose to 

monitor with a COM or to 

monitor visible emissions

Opacity 10 Percent

New and existing aluminum scrap 

shredder

PM 0.01 gr/dscf

New and existing thermal chip 

dryer

THC

D/Fa

0.80

2.50

lb/ton of feed

μg TEQ/Mg of 

feed

New and existing scrap 

dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kiln

 Or

PM

HCl

THC

D/Fa

0.08

0.80

0.06

0.25

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

μg TEQ/Mg of 

feed

Alternative limits if 

afterburner has a design 

residence time of at least 1 

second and operates at a 

temperature of at least 1400 °F

PM

HCl

THC

D/Fa

0.30

1.50

0.20

5.0

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

μg TEQ/Mg of 

feed

New and existing sweat furnace D/Fa 0.80 ng TEQ/dscm @ 

11% O2

b

New and existing dross-only 

furnace

PM 0.30 lb/ton of feed

New and existing in-line 

fluxerc

HCl

PM

0.04

0.01

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

New and existing in-line fluxer 

with no reactive fluxing

No 

limit

Work practice: 

no reactive 

fluxing

New and existing rotary dross 

cooler

PM 0.04 gr/dscf

New and existing clean furnace 

(Group 2)

No 

limit

Work practices: 

clean charge 

only and no 

reactive fluxing
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 34 of 234

New and existing group 1 

melting/holding furnace 

(processing only clean charge)c

PM

HCl

0.80

0.40

or

10

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

percent of the 

HCl upstream of 

an add-on 

control device

New and existing group 1 

furnacec

PM

HCl

0.40

0.40

or

10

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

percent of the 

HCl upstream of 

an add-on 

control device

D/Fa 15.0 μg TEQ/Mg of 

feed

New and existing group 1 

furnacec with clean charge only

PM

HCl

0.40

0.40

or

lb/ton of feed

lb/ton of feed

10 percent of the 

HCl upstream of 

an add-on 

control device

D/Fa No 

Limit

Clean charge 

only

New and existing secondary 

aluminum processing unita,d

(consists of all existing group 

1 furnaces and existing in-line 

flux boxes at the facility, or 

all simultaneously constructed 

new group 1 furnaces and new 

in-line fluxers)

PMe

( )

∑( )

∑

=

=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i i

t

T

L T

L PM

PM

1

1

HClf

( )

∑( )

∑

=

=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i i

t

T

L T

L HCl

HCl

1

1

D/Fg

( )

∑( )

∑

=

=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i i

t

T

L T

L D F

D F

1

1 /

/

a D/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area source. b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the specifications of 

§63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a performance test.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 35 of 234

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

aluminum processing units. d Equation definitions: LiPM = the PM emission limit for individual emission 

unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; 

Ti = the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum 

processing unit; LtPM = the overall PM emission limit for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb-ton) of feed]; LiHCl = the HCl emission 

limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing 

unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; LtHCl = the overall HCl emission limit for 

the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; LiD/F = the 

D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) 

of feed]; LtD/F = the overall D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; n = the number of units 

in the secondary aluminum processing unit. e In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this 

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

calculation since they are not subject to the HCl limit. g Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are 

not subject to the D/F limit.

Control devices currently in use to reduce emissions from 

affected sources subject to the subpart RRR NESHAP include 

fabric filters for control of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; 

afterburners for control of THC and D/F from thermal chip 

dryers; afterburners plus lime-injected fabric filters for 

control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap dryers/delacquering 

kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of D/F from 

sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-only 

furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filters 

for control of PM and HCl from in-line fluxers; and limeinjected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from 

group 1 furnaces. All affected sources with add-on controls are 

also subject to design requirements and operating limits to 

limit fugitive emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 36 of 234

Compliance with the emission limits in the current rule is 

demonstrated by an initial performance test for each affected 

source. Repeat performance tests are required every 5 years. 

Area sources are only subject to one-time performance tests for 

D/F. After the compliance tests, facilities are required to 

monitor various control parameters or conduct other types of 

monitoring to ensure continuous compliance with the MACT 

standards. Owners or operators of sweat furnaces that operate an 

afterburner that meets temperature and residence time 

requirements are not required to conduct performance tests. 

B. What data collection activities were conducted to support 

this action?

For the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, we 

compiled a dataset from two primary sources: (1) an all-company 

information collection request (ICR) sent to companies in 

February 2011, and (2) a nine-company testing ICR, sent in May 

2010.

Responses to the all-company ICR contained data on stack 

release characteristics such as height, volumetric flow rate, 

temperature, and location (latitude/longitude) coordinates. 

Responses to the all-company ICR also contained data on maximum 

production capacity and actual production in tpy and testing 

results for pollutants regulated under subpart RRR. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 37 of 234

As mentioned above, the pollutants regulated under subpart 

RRR are PM, HCl, THC and D/F. PM is a surrogate for metal HAP 

and THC is a surrogate for organic HAP. Since subpart RRR 

compliance testing is performed for the surrogates PM and THC, 

there are limited test data available for HAP-speciated metal 

and organic HAP emissions. Therefore, responses to the ninecompany testing ICR were used to extrapolate the PM and THC 

testing results reported in the all-company ICR to specific 

metal and organic HAP emissions. In the nine-company testing 

ICR, companies were asked to provide speciated metal HAP 

concentrations (e.g. arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, nickel, 

etc.) in the particulate collected by fabric filters. These data 

were then used to estimate speciated metal HAP emissions, based 

on the PM emissions reported in the all-company ICR. For 

example, if a response to the all-company ICR indicated a

particular piece of equipment at a specific secondary aluminum 

facility had 10 tpy of PM emissions, and based on an analysis of 

the results of the nine-company testing ICR the EPA determined 

that the cobalt concentration in the fabric filter particulate

matter catch was 20 parts-per-million (ppm), the estimated 

emissions of cobalt would be 0.0002 tpy. In the nine-company 

testing ICR, companies were also required to conduct speciated 

organic HAP and THC emission testing for the two types of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 38 of 234

equipment that have THC limits under subpart RRR, scrap 

dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns and thermal chip dryers. The 

speciated organic HAPs for which data were provided included 

volatile HAPs (e.g., benzene, chloroprene, toluene, etc.) and 

semi-volatile HAPs (anthracene, chrysene, naphthalene, etc.). 

Using the reported amount of charge or production for the 

most recent year and the reported test results (in lb per ton of 

charge) from the all-company ICR, emissions were calculated. 

Where test results from the all-company ICR responses were 

expressed in terms of PM and THC surrogates, emissions were 

converted to speciated metal and organic HAP emissions using the 

nine-company test results, as described above. Allowable and 

actual emissions were calculated for each piece of equipment. 

The derivation of allowable emissions estimates is described in 

Section III of this preamble.

The emissions data, calculations and risk assessment inputs 

for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category are 

described further in the memorandum Draft Development of the RTR 

Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category which is available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking.

III. Analyses Performed
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 39 of 234

In this section we describe the analyses performed to 

support the proposed decisions for the RTR for this source 

category.

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?

The EPA conducted risk assessments that provide estimates 

of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions for each source in the 

category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential 

to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ)

for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer 

health effects. The assessments also provided estimates of the 

distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, 

cancer incidence and an evaluation of the potential for adverse 

environmental effects for the source category. The risk 

assessments consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed 

below. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following 

document which provides more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category. The methods used 

to assess risks (as described in the six primary steps below) 

are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in their peer 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 40 of 234

review report issued in 20103; they are also consistent with the 

key recommendations contained in that report.

1. Establishing the nature and magnitude of actual emissions and 

identifying the emissions release characteristics

As discussed in Section II.B. of this preamble, we used a 

dataset based on the estimated actual and allowable emissions as 

the basis for the risk assessment. This dataset was based on 

responses to an Information Collection Request (ICR) sent to 

approximately 425 facilities potentially subject to the subpart 

RRR NESHAP. Approximately 161 sources subject to the NESHAP 

responded, approximately 166 facilities confirmed that they were 

not subject to the NESHAP and no responses were received to 

approximately 51 ICRs. In addition to these responses, as 

described in section II.B, an earlier ICR was sent to 9 

companies requiring them to provide speciated metal and organic 

HAP concentrations for purposes of calculating speciated HAP 

emissions based on reported emissions of the surrogate 

pollutants, THC and PM. As part of our quality assurance (QA)

process, we checked the coordinates of every facility in the 

dataset using tools such as Google Earth. We corrected 

coordinates that were found to be incorrect. We also performed 

 

3 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 

Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with 

Case Studies – MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 

Manufacturing, May 2010.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 41 of 234

QA of the emissions data and release characteristics to identify

outliers and then confirmed or corrected the data.

2. Establishing the relationship between actual emissions and 

MACT-allowable emissions levels

The available emissions data in the MACT dataset include

estimates of the mass of HAP actually emitted during the 

specified annual time period. These “actual” emission levels are 

often lower than the emission levels that a facility might be 

allowed to emit and still comply with the MACT standards. The 

emissions level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is 

referred to as the “MACT-allowable” emissions level. This 

represents the highest emissions level that could be emitted by 

the facility without violating the MACT standards.

We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule 

(70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and 

final Hazardous Organic NESHAP residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 

respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 

reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level sources 

could emit and still comply with national emission standards. 

But we also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 42 of 234

emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the 

risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989.)

As discussed above, allowable and actual emissions were 

calculated for each piece of equipment. The estimates of actual 

emissions are described in Section II of this preamble. 

Allowable emissions for this source category were 

calculated by assuming emissions were at the maximum level 

allowed by the MACT standard (i.e., we assume emissions would be 

emitted at a level equal to the MACT emission limit). 

Nevertheless, we note that these are conservative estimates of 

allowable emissions. It is unlikely that emissions would be at 

the maximum limit at all times because sources cannot emit HAP 

at a level that is exactly equal to the limit at all times and 

remain in compliance with the standard due to day-to-day 

variability in process operations and emissions. On average, 

facilities must emit at some level below the MACT limit to 

ensure that they are always in compliance. The derivation of 

actual and allowable emissions estimates are discussed in more 

detail in the document Draft Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category

which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 43 of 234

3. Conducting dispersion modeling, determining inhalation 

exposures and estimating individual and population inhalation 

risks

Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure 

concentrations and health risks from each facility in the source 

category were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM)

(Community and Sector HEM–3 version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs 

three primary risk assessment activities: (1) conducting 

dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation 

exposures to individuals residing within 50 km of the modeled 

sources and (3) estimating individual and population-level 

inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative 

dose-response information.

The dispersion model used by HEM–3 is AERMOD, which is one 

of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial facilities.

4

To perform the 

dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk 

estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a 

library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 year (1991) of hourly 

 

4

U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption 

of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 44 of 234

surface and upper air observations for more than 158 

meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the 

United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States 

Census Bureau census block

5

internal point locations and 

populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations 

(Census, 2000). In addition, for each census block, the census 

library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, 

which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is 

used to estimate health risks. These risk factors and health 

benchmarks are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP 

and other toxic air pollutants. These values are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this section.

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of 

each of the HAP emitted by each source for which we have 

emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations at 

each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for 

the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people 

who reside in that census block. We calculated the MIR for each 

 

5

A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for which 

census statistics are tabulated. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 45 of 234

facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous 

lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per 

year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration 

at the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer 

risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in 

micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE), 

which is an upper bound estimate of an individual’s probability 

of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a 

concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of 

air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use URE values 

from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA IRIS values, we look to 

other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often 

using California EPA (CalEPA) URE values, where available. In 

cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values 

have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to 

that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response values in 

place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.

Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated 

with emissions from the source category were estimated as the 

sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 46 of 234

those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential

6

) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and 

the distribution of individual cancer risks for the population 

within 50 km of any source were also estimated for the source 

category as part of these assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis 

supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess risk of noncancer health effects from chronic 

exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a 

common target organ system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ for 

chronic exposures is the estimated chronic exposure divided by 

the chronic reference level, which is either the EPA reference 

concentration (RfC), defined as “an estimate (with uncertainty 

spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 

 

6

These classifications also coincide with the terms "known carcinogen, 

probable carcinogen and possible carcinogen," respectively, which are 

the terms advocated in the EPA's previous Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). 

Summing the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the 

EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's NATA entitled, NATA -

Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data -- an 

SAB Advisory, available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007

A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 47 of 234

inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects during a lifetime,” or, in cases where an 

RfC from the EPA’s IRIS database is not available, a value from 

the following prioritized sources: (1) the agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level, which is 

defined as “an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance 

that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse 

effects (other than cancer) over a specified duration of 

exposure”; (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level 

(REL), which is defined as “the concentration level at or below 

which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration;” or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 

credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 

consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by the EPA, in place of or 

in concert with other values.

Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also 

evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site 

exposure for each facility (i.e., not just the census block 

centroids), assuming that a person is located at this spot at a 

time when both the peak (hourly) emission rates from each 

emission point at the facility and worst-case dispersion 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 48 of 234

conditions occur. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure 

divided by the acute dose-response value. In each case, acute HQ 

values were calculated using best available, short-term doseresponse values. These acute dose-response values, which are 

described below, include the acute REL, acute exposure guideline 

levels (AEGL) and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG)

for 1-hour exposure durations. As discussed below, we used 

conservative assumptions for emission rates, meteorology and 

exposure location for our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program 

Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute 

Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL 

value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined 

as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.” 

Acute REL values are based on the most sensitive, relevant, 

adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological 

literature. Acute REL values are designed to protect the most 

sensitive sub-populations (e.g., asthmatics) by the inclusion of 

margins of safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated to 

address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the acute REL 

does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 49 of 234

AEGL values were derived in response to recommendations 

from the National Research Council (NRC). As described in 

Standing Operating Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory 

Committee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),

7

“the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure levels—community 

emergency exposure levels—was replaced by the term AEGL to 

reflect the broad application of these values to planning, 

response, and prevention in the community, the workplace, 

transportation, the military, and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.” This document also states that AEGL values “represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general public and are 

applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

eight hours.” The document lays out the purpose and objectives 

of AEGL by stating (page 21) that “the primary purpose of the 

AEGL program and the National Advisory Committee for Acute 

Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances is to develop 

guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to 

airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority 

chemicals.” In detailing the intended application of AEGL

values, the document states (page 31) that “[i]t is anticipated 

 

7

NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute 

Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 50 of 234

that the AEGL values will be used for regulatory and 

nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal and state agencies and 

possibly the international community in conjunction with 

chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention programs. 

More specifically, the AEGL values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as well as real-time 

emergency response actions, for accidental chemical releases at 

fixed facilities and from transport carriers.”

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically defined as “the 

airborne concentration of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 

certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon 

cessation of exposure.” The document also notes (page 3) that, 

“Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels 

that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 

and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.” Similarly, the document 

defines AEGL–2 values as “the airborne concentration (expressed 

as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that 

the general population, including susceptible individuals, could 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 51 of 234

experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse 

health effects or an impaired ability to escape.”

ERPG values are derived for use in emergency response, as 

described in the American Industrial Hygiene Association’s 

document entitled, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) 

Procedures and Responsibilities

(http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf)which 

states that, “Emergency Response Planning Guidelines were 

developed for emergency planning and are intended as health 

based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 

chemicals.”

8

The ERPG–1 value is defined as “the maximum airborne 

concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.” 

Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined as “the maximum airborne 

concentration below which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability 

to take protective action.”

 

8

ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. 

American Industrial Hygiene Association.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 52 of 234

As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and 

ERPG values include the similarly defined severity levels 1 and 

2. For many chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed; in these instances, higher severity level 

AEGL–2 or ERPG–2 values are compared to our modeled exposure 

levels to assess potential for acute concerns.

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are 

typically lower than their corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are slightly different, 

AEGL–1 values are often similar to the corresponding ERPG–1 

values, and AEGL–2 values are often similar to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk assessments 

typically result when basing them on the acute REL value for a 

particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value 

exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest 

acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1 

value).

To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we 

developed estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by 

multiplying the average actual annual hourly emission rates by a 

factor to cover routinely variable emissions. We chose the 

factor to use based on process knowledge and engineering 

judgment and with awareness of a Texas study of short-term 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 53 of 234

emissions variability, which showed that most peak emissions 

events, in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area (Harris, 

Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less 

than twice the annual average hourly emissions rate. The highest 

peak emissions event was 74 times the annual average hourly 

emissions rate, and the 99th percentile ratio of peak hourly 

emissions rate to the annual average hourly emissions rate was 

9.9 This analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for Secondary Aluminum Production which is 

available in the docket for this action. Considering this 

analysis, unless specific process knowledge or data are 

available to provide an alternate value, to account for more 

than 99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we generally apply 

the assumption to most source categories that the maximum onehour emissions rate from any source other than those resulting 

in fugitive dust emissions are 10 times the average annual 

hourly emissions rate for that source. We use a factor other 

than 10 in some cases if we have information that indicates that 

a different factor is appropriate for a particular source 

category. For this source category however, there was no such 

information available and the default factor of 10 was used in 

the acute screening process.. 

 

9 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html 

or docket to access the source of these data.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 54 of 234

When worst-case HQ values from the initial acute screen 

step were less than 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible and 

no further analysis was performed. In the cases where any worstcase acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, 

additional site-specific data were considered to develop a more 

refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern.

However, for this source category no acute values were greater 

than 1 and therefore, further refinement was not performed.

Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements 

over time to see how the emissions vary by each hour over an 

entire year. Having a frequency distribution of hourly emission 

rates over a year would allow us to perform a probabilistic 

analysis to estimate potential threshold exceedances and their 

frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more 

complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening analysis. However, we 

recognize that having this level of data is rare, hence our use 

of the multiplier approach.

To better characterize the potential health risks 

associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s peer review of 

the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies,10 we generally 

 

10 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 55 of 234

examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we 

do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the 

SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in 

chronic reference values. 

Comparisons of the estimated maximum off-site 1-hour 

exposure levels are not typically made to occupational levels 

for the purpose of characterizing public health risks in RTR 

assessments. This is because they are developed for working age 

adults and are not generally considered protective for the 

general public. We note that occupational ceiling values are, 

for most chemicals, set at levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL-1.

4. Conducting multipathway exposure and risk screening

The potential for significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway 

exposures) and the potential for adverse environmental impacts 

were evaluated in a two-step process. In the first step, we 

determined whether any facilities emitted any HAP known to be 

persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP). 

There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound classes identified for 

this screening in EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library

 

at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F006

68381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 56 of 234

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). 

They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and trifluralin. Since three of

these PB–HAP (cadmium compounds, POM and chlorinated D/F)

are emitted by at least one facility in this source

category, we proceeded to the second step of the

evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the 

facility-specific emission rates of each of the emitted PB–

HAP were large enough to create the potential for

significant non-inhalation human or environmental risks 

under reasonable, worst-case conditions. To facilitate

this step, we developed emission rate thresholds for each 

PB–HAP using a hypothetical worst-case screening exposure

scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s

TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical screening scenario was 

subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key

design parameters were established such that 

environmental media concentrations were not

underestimated (i.e., to minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that risks might be
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 57 of 234

acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high) and to

also minimize the occurrence of false positives for human

health endpoints. We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The facility-specific

emission rates of each of the PB–HAP were compared to the

TRIM-Screen emission threshold values for each of the PB–

HAP identified in the source category datasets to assess

the potential for significant human health risks or 

environmental risks via non-inhalation pathways. See 

Section IV for results of this screening analysis. 

5. Conducting other risk-related analyses: facilitywide

assessments

To put the source category risks in context, for our 

residual risk reviews, we also typically examine the risks from 

the entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAPemitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 

control. In these facilitywide assessments we examine the HAP 

emissions not only from the source category of interest, but 

also emissions of HAP from all other emissions sources at the 

facility. For the secondary aluminum source category, a 

facilitywide assessment was performed for all major sources. 

A facilitywide assessment was not conducted for area 

sources. By definition, no major sources of HAP (e.g., primary 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 58 of 234

aluminum production or coil coating operations) are collocated 

with any of the secondary aluminum area sources. Further, at 

many area sources, equipment subject to the Secondary Aluminum 

NESHAP is the only HAP-emitting equipment. Therefore, the most 

significant HAP emissions from area sources were already being 

considered under the area source risk assessment, and low levels 

of HAP emissions from equipment not subject to the Secondary 

Aluminum NESHAP at these facilities would not contribute 

appreciably to the risk profile. The results of the facilitywide

assessment for major sources are provided in Section IV.

6. Considering uncertainties in risk assessment

Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all 

risk assessments, including those performed for the Secondary 

Aluminum source category addressed in this proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used 

conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health-protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties 

in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation 

exposure estimates and dose-response relationships follows 

below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is 

included in the risk assessment documentation (referenced 

earlier) available in the docket for this action.

a. Uncertainties in the emissions datasets
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 59 of 234

Although the development of the MACT dataset involved 

QA/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values 

will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which 

assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors

in estimating emissions values and other factors. The emission 

estimates considered in this analysis were generally developed 

from one-time or periodic performance tests that do not reflect 

short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 

variations from year to year.

The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute 

effects screening assessment were based on a multiplication 

factor of 10 applied to the average annual hourly emission rate, 

which is intended to account for emission fluctuations due to 

normal facility operations. 

b. Uncertainties in dispersion modeling

While the analysis employed the EPA’s recommended 

regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is 

uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with 

any model, including AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to 

choose between various model options, where possible, model 

options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, chemistry) were 

selected to provide an overestimate of ambient air 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 60 of 234

concentrations of the HAP rather than underestimates. However, 

because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some 

factors (e.g., meteorology, building downwash) have the 

potential in some situations to overestimate or underestimate 

ambient impacts. For example, meteorological data were taken 

from a single year (1991), and facility locations can be a 

significant distance from the sites where these data were taken. 

Despite these uncertainties, we believe that at off-site 

locations and census block centroids, the approach considered in 

the dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.

c. Uncertainties in inhalation exposure

The effects of human mobility on exposures were not 

included in the assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility 

and long-term mobility between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.

11

The assumption of not considering 

short or long-term population mobility does not bias the 

estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does it affect the estimate 

of cancer incidence since the total population number remains 

the same. It does, however, affect the shape of the distribution 

of individual risks across the affected population, shifting it 

 

11

Short-term mobility is movement from one micro-environment to 

another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is 

movement from one residence to another over the course of a lifetime.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 61 of 234

toward higher estimated individual risks at the upper end and 

reducing the number of people estimated to be at lower risks, 

thereby increasing the estimated number of people at specific 

risk levels.

In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic exposures 

at the centroid of each populated census block as surrogates for 

the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block. 

Using the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for people in the census block 

who live further from the facility, and under-predict exposures 

for people in the census block who live closer to the facility. 

Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic 

exposures may lead to a potential understatement or 

overstatement of the true maximum impact, but it is an unbiased 

estimate of average risk and incidence.

The assessments evaluate the cancer inhalation risks 

associated with continuous pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of an individual. In 

reality, both the length of time that modeled emissions sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more or less than 70 

years) and the domestic growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size 

of United States facilities) will influence the risks posed by a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 62 of 234

given source category. Depending on the characteristics of the 

industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total 

estimated number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where 

a facility maintains or increases its emission levels beyond 70 

years, residents live beyond 70 years at the same location, and 

the residents spend most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual cancer 

incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of 

time emissions sources operate.

The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume 

chronic exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most 

people spend the majority of their time indoors, actual 

exposures may not be as high, depending on the characteristics 

of the pollutants modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor levels 

are roughly equivalent to ambient levels, but for very reactive 

pollutants or larger particles, these levels are typically 

lower. This factor has the potential to result in an 

overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.

12

In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there 

are several other factors specific to the acute exposure 

 

12

U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–

01–003; January 2001; page 85.)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 63 of 234

assessment. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure 

assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent 

factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology, and human activity patterns. In this assessment, we 

assume that individuals remain for 1 hour at the point of 

maximum ambient concentration as determined by the co-occurrence 

of peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions. 

These assumptions would tend to overestimate actual exposures 

since it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point 

of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case impact.

d. Uncertainties in dose-response relationships

There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the 

dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer 

effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties may be 

considered quantitatively, and others generally are expressed in 

qualitative terms. We note as a preface to this discussion a 

point on dose-response uncertainty that is brought out in the 

EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that “the primary goal of 

the EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as 

an agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default 

options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the 

contrary, should be health protective.” (EPA 2005 Cancer 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 64 of 234

Guidelines, pages 1–7.) This is the approach followed here as 

summarized in the next several paragraphs. A complete detailed 

discussion of uncertainties and variability in dose-response 

relationships is given in the residual risk documentation, which 

is available in the docket for this action.

Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those 

that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound 

estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper 

limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually 

not a true statistical confidence limit).

13

In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, 

in other circumstances, the risk could also be greater.

14

When 

developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to provide risk 

values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 

adequate health-protection, the EPA typically uses the upper 

bound estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an approach that may have 

limitations for other uses (e.g., priority-setting or expected 

benefits analysis).

 

13

IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm). 14

An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to 

cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally 

plausible and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 65 of 234

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and reference dose (RfD)) 

values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, these values provide an 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population (including 

sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable 

risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive values 

that are intended to be “without appreciable risk,” the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach 

(U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which includes consideration of both 

uncertainty and variability. When there are gaps in the 

available information, UF are applied to derive reference values 

that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default values,

15

e.g., 

 

15

According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment

(NRC, 1994) “[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are applied to 

various elements of the risk assessment process when the correct 

scientific model is unknown or uncertain.” The 1983 NRC report, Risk 

Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, defined 

default option as “the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the absence of data to 

the contrary” (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, default options are not 

rules that bind the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from them in 

evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance when it believes 

this to be appropriate. In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting 

public health and the environment, default assumptions are used to 

ensure that risk to chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults 

are not intended to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 66 of 234

factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific 

data; where data are available, UF may also be developed using 

compound-specific information. When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF are used. Thus, there may be 

a greater tendency to overestimate risk in the sense that 

further study might support development of reference values that 

are higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer default assumptions 

are needed. However, for some pollutants, it is possible that 

risks may be underestimated. While collectively termed 

“uncertainty factor,” these factors account for a number of 

different quantitative considerations when using observed animal 

(usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of 

the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., 

inter-individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating 

from experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data 

obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., 

extrapolating from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); (4) 

uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data to obtain an 

estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are 

 

EPA/100/B–04/001 available at:

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 67 of 234

problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of 

the UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values are quite similar to those 

developed for chronic durations, but more often they use 

individual UF values that may be less than 10. UF are applied 

based on chemical-specific or health effect-specific information 

(e.g., simple irritation effects do not vary appreciably between 

human individuals, hence a value of 3 is typically used), or 

based on the purpose for the reference value (see the following 

paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value derivation 

include: (1) heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse 

effect (exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database on toxic effects of 

potential concern. Additional adjustments are often applied to 

account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at 

one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute 

reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).

Not all acute reference values are developed for the same 

purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of 

an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 68 of 234

estimated exposures, the lack of short-term dose-response values 

at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk 

characterization as potential uncertainties.

Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed 

reference values for cancer and noncancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources included in this assessment, 

some HAP continue to have no reference values for cancer or 

chronic noncancer or acute effects (see table 3.1-1 of the risk 

assessment document available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking). Since exposures to these pollutants cannot be 

included in a quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of 

risk for these pollutants at environmental exposure levels is 

possible. For a group of compounds that are either unspeciated 

or do not have reference values for every individual compound 

(e.g., POM), we conservatively use the most protective reference 

value to estimate risk from individual compounds in the group of 

compounds.

Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the 

compounds included in this assessment are currently under the 

EPA IRIS review, and revised assessments may determine that 

these pollutants are more or less potent than the current value. 

We may re-evaluate residual risks for the final rulemaking if 

these reviews are completed prior to our taking final action for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 69 of 234

this source category and a dose-response metric changes enough 

to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this notice may 

significantly understate human health risk.

e. Uncertainties in the multipathway and environmental effects 

screening assessment

We generally assume that when exposure levels are not 

anticipated to adversely affect human health, they also are not 

anticipated to adversely affect the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the site-specific levels of PBHAP emissions to determine whether a full assessment of the 

multipathway and environmental effects is necessary. For this 

source category, we only performed a worst-case multipathway

screening assessment for PB-HAP. Thus, it is important to note 

that potential PB-HAP multipathway risks are biased high.

B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for 

this proposal?

In evaluating and developing standards under section 

112(f)(2), as discussed in Section I.A of this preamble, we 

apply a two-step process to address residual risk. In the first 

step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This 

determination “considers all health information, including risk 

estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 70 of 234

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)16 of 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million]” (54 at

FR 38045). In the second step of the process, the EPA sets the 

standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety “in 

consideration of all health information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than approximately one in one

million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and 

economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors 

relevant to each particular decision” Id.

In past residual risk actions, the EPA has presented and 

considered a number of human health risk metrics associated with 

emissions from the category under review, including: the MIR; 

the numbers of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; 

the maximum non-cancer hazard index (HI); and the maximum acute 

non-cancer hazard ((72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, July 

27, 2006). In more recent proposals (75 FR 65068, October 21, 

2010, and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010), the EPA also 

presented and considered additional measures of health 

information, such as estimates of the risks associated with the 

maximum level of emissions which might be allowed by the current 

MACT standards (see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010, and 75 

 

16 Although defined as “maximum individual risk,” MIR refers only 

to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 

the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 71 of 234

FR 80220, December 21, 2010). The EPA also discussed and 

considered risk estimation uncertainties. The EPA is providing 

this same type of information in support of the proposed 

determinations described in this Federal Register notice.

The agency is considering all available health information 

to inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as 

explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on 

acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and thus 

“[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk 

under [previous] section 112 is best judged on the basis of a 

broad set of health risk measures and information” (54 FR at

38046). Similarly, with regard to making the ample margin of 

safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP “[in the 

ample margin decision, the agency again considers all of the 

health risk and other health information considered in the first 

step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to 

the appropriate level of control will also be considered, 

including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological 

feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.” Id.

The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides

flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in 

making determinations and how these factors might be weighed for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 72 of 234

each source category. In responding to comment on our policy 

under the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained that: “The policy 

chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple 

measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be 

considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer 

health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be 

reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This 

approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the 

Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 

public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It 

also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of 

public health risk from the EPA's consideration with respect to 

CAA section 112 regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the 

Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are appropriate to 

determining what will ‘protect the public health’” (54 FR at 

38057).

For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be 

weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that “an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 73 of 234

should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of 

acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and 

would be weighed with the other health risk measures and 

information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that 

includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is 

unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors” (54 FR 

at 38045). Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety 

analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: “the EPA

believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be 

considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be 

determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic factors (along with the 

health-related factors) vary from source category to source 

category” (54 FR at 38061).

The EPA wishes to point out that certain health information 

has not been considered to date in making residual risk 

determinations. In assessing risks to populations in the 

vicinity of the facilities in each category, we present 

estimates of risk associated with HAP emissions from the source 

category alone (source category risk estimates) and HAP 

emissions from the entire facility at which the covered 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 74 of 234

source category is located (facilitywide risk estimates). We do 

not attempt to characterize the risks associated with all HAP 

emissions impacting the populations living near the sources in 

these categories. That is, at this time, we do not attempt to 

quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions 

from other facilities that do not include the source category in 

question, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, 

persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric 

transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these 

categories.

The agency understands the potential importance of 

considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to 

considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. This is particularly important when assessing noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference 

levels (e.g., Reference Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 

assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For 

example, the agency recognizes that, although exposures 

attributable to emissions from a source category or facility 

alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the exposures 

resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with 

emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 75 of 234

to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in 

increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 

2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised us “... that RTR 

assessments will be most useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in the broader context of 

aggregate and cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from other sources in the 

area.”17

While we are interested in placing source category and 

facilitywide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from 

all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we 

believe that such estimates of total HAP risks will have 

significantly greater associated uncertainties than for the 

source category or facilitywide estimates hence compounding the 

uncertainty in any such comparison. This is because we have not 

conducted a detailed technical review of HAP emissions data for 

source categories and facilities that have not previously 

undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such 

 

17 The EPA’s responses to this and all other key recommendations of the 

SAB’s advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is 

available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F006

68381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo to 

this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup, UESPA/OAQPS entitled, EPA’s 

Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of 

RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 76 of 234

review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to 

estimate and evaluate total HAP exposure in our assessments and, 

in particular, on whether and how it might be appropriate to use 

information from EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to 

support such estimates. We are also seeking comment on how best 

to consider various types and scales of risk estimates when 

making our acceptability and ample margin of safety 

determinations under CAA section 112(f). 

C. How did we perform the technology review?

Our technology review focused on the identification and 

evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies that have occurred since the Secondary Aluminum 

Production NESHAP was promulgated. In cases where the technology 

review identified such developments, we conducted an analysis of 

the technical feasibility of applying these developments, along 

with the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk 

reductions, etc.) of applying these developments. We then made 

decisions on whether it is appropriate or necessary to propose 

amendments to the 2000 NESHAP to require any of the identified 

developments.

Based on our analyses of the data and information collected 

from industry and the trade organization representing facilities 

subject to the NESHAP, our general understanding of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 77 of 234

industry, and other available information in the literature on 

potential controls for this industry, we identified several new 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies.

For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of the 

following to be a “development”:

• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 

not identified and considered during development of the 

2000 Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP.

• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 

equipment (that were identified and considered during 

development of the 2000 Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP) that could result in significant additional 

emissions reduction.

• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 

identified or considered during development of the 2000 

Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP.

• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that 

could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 

identified or considered during development of the 2000 

Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP.

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, or 

control technologies that were not considered at the time we 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 78 of 234

developed the 2000 NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources 

in our evaluation of whether there were additional practices, 

processes, or controls to consider for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production industry. Among the data sources we reviewed were the 

NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the 

2000 NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or 

technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to 

identify any practices, processes, and control technologies 

considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emissions sources in the Secondary Aluminum Production source 

category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy 

implications associated with the use of these technologies. 

Additionally, we requested information from facilities

regarding developments in practices, processes, or control 

technology. Finally, we reviewed other information sources, such 

as State or local permitting agency databases and industrysupported databases. In particular, we consulted the EPA’s 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify potential 

technology advances. Control technologies classified as RACT 

(Reasonably Available Control Technology), BACT (Best Available 

Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate) 

apply to stationary sources depending on whether the sources are 

existing or new and on the size, age, and location of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 79 of 234

facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a 

case-by-case basis, usually by State or local permitting 

agencies. The EPA established the RBLC to provide a central 

database of air pollution technology information (including 

technologies required in source-specific permits) to promote the 

sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in 

identifying future possible control technology options that 

might apply broadly to numerous sources within a category or 

apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains over 

5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant 

emissions streams. We searched this database to determine 

whether it contained any practices, processes or control 

technologies for the types of processes covered by the Secondary 

Aluminum Production NESHAP. No such practices, processes or 

control technologies were identified in this database.

D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?

In addition to the analyses described above, we also 

reviewed other aspects of the MACT standards for possible 

revision as appropriate and necessary. Based on this review we 

have identified aspects of the MACT standards that we believe 

need revision.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 80 of 234

This includes proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown 

and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to 

ensure that they are consistent with the court decision in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

We are also proposing changes to the rule related to

affirmative defense for exceedance of an emission limit during a 

malfunction. We are proposing other changes to address HF 

emissions, fugitive emissions during testing and numerous 

clarifications and corrections related to the existing 

provisions in the rule. Descriptions of each issue and the 

proposed revision to address the issue are presented in Section 

IV of this preamble.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

This section of the preamble provides the results of our 

RTR for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and 

our proposed decisions concerning changes to the Secondary 

Aluminum Production NESHAP.

A. What are the results of the risk assessments?

For major sources in the Secondary Aluminum source 

category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP 

emitted. In addition, we performed a facilitywide risk 

assessment for the major sources in the secondary aluminum 

source category. For area sources, we conducted an inhalation 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 81 of 234

risk assessment for D/F since this is the only HAP covered by 

the subpart RRR MACT standards at area sources. For all sources, 

we conducted multipathway screening analyses for PB-HAP emitted 

(e.g., D/F). Although there are 53 major sources and 108 area 

sources covered by the subpart RRR MACT standards, 52 major 

sources and 103 area sources were modeled due to the other 

sources’ lack of equipment with applicable emission standards. 

Results of the risk assessment are presented briefly below and 

in more detail in the residual risk documentation referenced in 

Section III of this preamble, which is available in the docket 

for this action.

Table 4 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the 

results of the inhalation risk assessment.

Table 4. Secondary Aluminum Production Inhalation Risk 

Assessment Results

Category & 

No of 

Facilities 

Modeled

Maximum

Individual

Cancer Risk

(in 1 million)1

Estimate

d 

Populati

on

at 

increase

d Risk 

of 

cancer ≥ 

1 in 1 

Million

Estimat

ed 

Annual

Cancer

Inciden

ce 

(cases 

per 

year)

Maximum

Chronic Noncancer

TOSHI2

Worstcase 

Maximum 

Refined 

Screeni

ng 

Acute 

Noncancer 

HQ3

Based 

on 

Actual 

Emissi

ons 

Level

Based 

on 

Allowab

le 

Emissio

ns 

Level

Based 

on 

Actual 

Emissio

ns 

Level

Based 

on 

Allowab

le 

Emissio

ns 

Level

Major 

Source (52) 1 20 2 0.0006 0.05 1

HQREL 

0.7 

(HCl)

Area Source 

(103) 0.4 6 0 0.0006 0.0003 0.004 -

Facilitywide Major 20 - 62,000 0.006 0.9 - -
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 82 of 234

Source

1 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP 

emissions from the source category.

We did not have allowable emissions information at the facilitywide level, 

therefore, risk estimates based on facilitywide allowable emissions were not 

calculated.

2 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the secondary 

aluminum source category is the respiratory system. 3 There is no acute dose-response value for dioxins, thus an acute HQ value 

for area sources was not calculated. See Section III.B of this preamble for 

explanations of acute dose-response values.

The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk 

assessment for major sources indicate that the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk, considering actual emissions, could be 

up to 1 in 1 million, driven by dioxin emissions. The maximum 

cancer risks for this source category exceeded a cancer risk of 

1 in 1 million at 1 of 52 facilities. The total estimated cancer 

incidence from this source category based on actual emission 

levels is 0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess 

case in every 1,666 years. No people were estimated to have 

cancer risks above 10 in a million and approximately 2 people

were estimated to have cancer risks above 1 in 1 million 

considering all major source facilities in this source category. 

Based on MACT-allowable emissions for the major sources in this 

category, the MIR could be up to 20 in 1 million. 

With respect to chronic inhalation noncancer risk from 

major sources, we estimate a maximum TOSHI value of 0.05 for the 

Secondary Aluminum source category, primarily from hydrochloric 

acid from Group 1 furnaces (handling clean charge only). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 83 of 234

Considering MACT-allowable emissions, this maximum TOSHI value 

is estimated to be 1. Moreover, our worst-case highest acute 

screening value for major sources was 0.7 based on the REL for 

HCL.

Considering facility wide emissions at the 52 major 

sources, the MIR is estimated to be up to 20 in 1 million, the 

estimated annual incidence is 0.0006 cases per year and the 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is calculated to be 0.9.

In addition, we estimated risks associated with dioxin 

emissions at the 103 area sources in the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category. The results of the chronic 

inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as 0.4 in 1

million and an estimated annual incidence of 0.0006 cases per 

year. Considering MACT-allowable emissions, the MIR could be up 

to 6 in 1 million. With respect to chronic inhalation noncancer 

risk from D/F emissions at area sources, we estimate a maximum 

TOSHI value of 0.0003. Considering MACT-allowable emissions, 

this maximum TOSHI value is estimated to be 0.004 for area 

sources. 

In addition to the analyses presented above, to screen for 

potential multipathway effects from emissions of PB-HAP (such as 

cadmium, dioxins and PAHs) we compared actual emission rates 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 84 of 234

from major source facilities in this source category to the 

screening values for these PB HAP described above (see Section 

III (A)(4)). For dioxins, we also screened for potential 

multipathway effects from emissions of D/F from area sources by 

comparing the estimated actual emission rates from these area 

sources to the screening value for D/F described above. (see 

Risk Assessment Document Appendix 4 for a more detailed 

discussion of screening emission rates). Results of this worstcase screen estimate that actual POM emissions from 20 of the 52

major source facilities exceed the POM screening emission rate. 

With respect to D/F, of the 46 major sources that emitted 

dioxins, 39 exceeded our screening emission rate. Similarly, 76 

out of 103 area sources exceeded our D/F screening rate. These 

exceedances of the worst-case multipathway screening level for 

POM and dioxins indicate that there may be potential 

multipathway impacts of concern due to emissions of POM and 

dioxins. In general, emission rates below the worst-case 

multipathway screening level indicate no significant potential 

for multipathway-related health effects; whereas emission levels 

above this worst-case screening level only indicate the 

potential for multipathway-related health risks of concern based 

on a worst-case scenario. Thus, we note that these screening 

values are biased high for purposes of screening and are subject 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 85 of 234

to significant uncertainties. As such, they do not represent 

refined estimates of risk and thus, do not necessarily indicate 

that potential multipathway risks from the source category are 

significant - only that we cannot rule out the possibility that 

they might be significant.

With respect to the potential for adverse environmental 

effects from non PB-HAP, we note that for both major and area 

sources all chronic non-cancer HQ values for all pollutants 

considering actual emissions are well below 1 using human health 

reference values. Thus, we believe that it is unlikely that 

adverse environmental effects would occur at the actual HAP 

concentrations estimated in our human health risk assessment. 

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety?

1. Risk acceptability

As noted in Section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all 

health risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, 

including the MIR, the numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer HI, the maximum 

acute noncancer hazard, the extent of noncancer risks, the 

potential for adverse environmental effects, distribution of 

risks in the exposed population, and risk estimation 

uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 86 of 234

For the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, the 

risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed could be as high as 1 in 1 million due to actual 

emissions and as high as 20 in 1 million due to MACT-allowable 

emissions. These risks are considerably less than 100 in 1 

million, which is the presumptive upper limit of acceptable 

risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence 

(0.0006 cases per year), as well as no potential for adverse 

chronic or acute non-cancer health effects.

In addition to the analyses presented above, to screen for 

potential multipathway effects from emissions of D/F and POM, we 

compared the estimated actual emission rates from facilities in 

this source category to the multipathway screening levels

described in section III.B. With respect to POM and dioxins, 

both major and area sources in the category exceeded our worstcase screening levels. However, we note that this is a worstcase conservative screening level analysis, therefore these 

results are biased high for purposes of screening and are 

subject to significant uncertainties. Moreover, we note that due 

to data limitations we were unable to further refine this worstcase screening scenario. As such, they do not necessarily 

indicate that significant multipathway risks actually exist at 

secondary aluminum facilities, only that we cannot rule them out 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 87 of 234

as a possibility. With regard to facilitywide risk, based on the 

low level of risk identified for the source category, a 

facilitywide analysis was not conducted for this source 

category.

Considering all of the health risk information and factors

discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in 

section IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from 

the Secondary Aluminum Production source category are 

acceptable.

2. Ample margin of safety analysis

We next considered whether the existing MACT standard 

provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 

Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost 

and feasibility of available control technologies and other 

measures (including the controls, measures and costs reviewed 

under the technology review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) 

due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment, along 

with all of the health risks and other health information 

considered in the risk acceptability determination described 

above. In this analysis we considered the results of the 

technology review, risk assessment and other aspects of our MACT 

rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 88 of 234

controls or other measures that would reduce emissions further 

to provide an ample margin of safety with respect to the risks 

associated with these emissions. 

For POM, THC and metal HAP emissions, our risk analysis 

indicated very low potential for risk from the facilities in the 

source category. Our technology review did not identify any new 

practices, controls or process options that are being used in 

this industry or in other industries that would be costeffective for further reduction of these emissions. Based on the 

estimated low risk levels and absence of new practices or 

control options, we conclude that the provisions of the current 

MACT provide for an ample margin of safety for public health 

with respect to emissions of POM, THC and metal HAP.

Our multipathway screening analysis results indicated

exceedances of the worst case screening levels which do not 

necessarily indicate any risks, however, they do suggest a 

potential for risks that cannot be ruled out. To evaluate the 

potential to reduce D/F emissions to ensure an ample margin of 

safety, our analysis for D/F focused on two options: 1) lowering 

the existing D/F limit from 15 to 10 μg TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean charge at all facilities;

and 2) lowering the existing D/F limit for Group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, after applying a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 89 of 234

subcategorization-based on facility production capacity. The 

lower D/F limits potentially could be met by using an activated 

carbon injection (ACI) system. With regard to the option of 

lowering the emission limit to 10 μg TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 

furnaces handling other than clean charge, we estimate that 

about 11 facilities would need to reduce their D/F emissions and 

that the costs would be about $5.9 million in total capital 

costs with total annualized costs of about $2.7 million. This 

option would achieve an estimated 1.66 grams TEQ reduction of 

D/F emissions with an overall cost-effectiveness of about $1.61 

million per gram D/F TEQ. The second option of lowering the 

emission limit based on a subcategorization according to 

facility production capacity yielded cost-effectiveness 

estimates of greater than $1 million per gram D/F TEQ reduced.

Furthermore, our analysis indicates that these options would not 

result in significant emissions reductions and would not, 

therefore, result in significant changes to the potential risk 

levels. After considering the costs and the small reductions 

that would be achieved, we have decided not to propose any of 

these options that are based on ACI injection technology.

We also evaluated possible options based on work practices 

to achieve further emissions reductions. The current subpart RRR 

NESHAP includes work practices to minimize D/F emissions which 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 90 of 234

include scrap inspection, limitations on materials processed by 

group 2 furnaces, temperature and residence time requirements 

for afterburners controlling sweat furnaces, labeling 

requirements, capture/collection requirements, and requirements 

for an operations, maintenance and monitoring plan that contains 

details on the proper operation and maintenance of processes and 

control equipment. We searched for and evaluated other possible 

work practices such as good combustion practices, better scrap 

inspection and cleaning, and process monitoring. However, none 

of these potential work practices were determined to be feasible 

and effective in reducing D/F emissions for this source 

category. Thus, we did not identify any feasible or applicable 

work practices for this industry beyond those that are currently 

in the MACT rule.

In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene 

NESHAP, we weighed all health risk information and factors 

considered in the risk acceptability determination, including 

uncertainties, along with the cost and feasibility of control 

technologies and other measures that could be applied in this 

source category, in making our ample margin of safety 

determination. In summary, we did not identify any costeffective approaches to further reduce POM, THC, metal HAP or 

D/F emissions beyond the reductions that are already being 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 91 of 234

achieved by the current NESHAP. Further, our analysis indicates 

that none of the options considered would result in significant 

emissions reductions and would not, therefore, result in 

significant changes to the potential risk levels.

Because of the high cost associated with the use of 

activated carbon injection systems and because work practices 

are already required to help ensure low emissions, we propose 

that the existing MACT standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect.

C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 

technology review?

As described above, the typical controls used to minimize 

emissions at secondary aluminum facilities include fabric 

filters for control of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; 

afterburners for control of THC and D/F from thermal chip 

dryers; afterburners plus lime-injected fabric filters for 

control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap dryers/delacquering 

kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of D/F from 

sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-only 

furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filters 

for control of PM and HCl from in-line fluxers; and limeinjected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 92 of 234

group 1 furnaces. There have been some developments in 

practices, processes, or control technologies that have been 

implemented in this source category since promulgation of the 

current NESHAP. However, these technologies do not clearly 

reduce HAP emissions relative to technologies that were 

available at the time of promulgation of the Secondary Aluminum 

Production NESHAP in 2000. 

At least one company supplies multichamber furnaces that 

combine the functions of a delacquering kiln and a melting 

furnace. At least 16 of these furnaces are in operation in 

Europe, Asia and the Middle East. One furnace of this type is 

presently operating in the U. S. and is permitted as a group 1 

furnace handling other than clean charge. However, the D/F 

emission test data for the one operating U.S. multichamber 

furnace are not lower than all other Group 1 furnaces handling 

other than clean charge and are not lower than all delacquering 

kiln emission test data. Based on available information it is 

not clear that this technology would reduce HAP emissions 

relative to technologies that are already used by other 

facilities in the U.S. Overall, based on our analyses, we 

conclude that it would not be appropriate to require other 

facilities in the U.S. to use this technology at this time. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 93 of 234

Eddy current separators are used to separate a concentrated 

aluminum fraction from a heterogeneous scrap feed. These units 

operate at ambient temperature and emit no D/F or other gaseous 

pollutants. They are used on the material output from mechanical 

shredders that shred automobiles and appliances (not on the 

scrap shredders used in the secondary aluminum industry). These 

units can potentially decrease the need for sweat furnaces. 

However, the product of eddy current separators is not clean 

charge, as with a sweat furnace. Therefore, the product of eddy 

current separators must undergo further processing to produce 

clean charge, and it is not possible to directly compare eddy 

current separators with sweat furnaces. 

Catalytic filtration systems, including catalytic filter 

bags, are available to reduce D/F emissions. These bags 

incorporate an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane coated 

with a precious metal catalyst which promotes the oxidation of 

D/F. The manufacturer claims that this system is installed in 

over 100 applications around the world, including at least 1 

secondary aluminum processing plant. However, no respondents to 

our all-company ICR reported using this technology, and we have 

no data on the D/F emissions reductions that can be achieved at 

secondary aluminum production facilities using this technology. 

We therefore conclude that catalytic filtration systems are not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 94 of 234

yet a demonstrated technology that can be broadly applied to the 

secondary aluminum production source category at this time.

We also evaluated the potential to lower D/F emissions 

under the technology review by lowering the emissions limits 

which would likely result in the broader use of activated carbon 

injection technology. Under this analysis, we evaluated the 

exact same approach that was evaluated under the ample margin of 

safety analysis described in section IV.B. In summary, we 

evaluated two main options, as follows: 1) lower the existing 

D/F limit from 15 to 10 μg TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge at all facilities; and 2)

lower the existing D/F limit for Group 1 furnaces processing 

other than clean charge, after applying a subcategorizationbased on facility production capacity. The lower D/F emissions 

limits potentially could be met by using an activated carbon 

injection (ACI) system. With regard to the option of lowering 

the emission limit to 10 μg TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces 

handling other than clean charge, we estimate that about 11 

facilities would need to reduce their D/F emissions and that the 

costs would be about $5.9 million in total capital costs with 

total annualized costs of about $2.7 million. This option would 

achieve an estimated 1.66 grams TEQ reduction of D/F emissions 

with an overall cost-effectiveness of about $1.61 million per 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 95 of 234

gram D/F TEQ. The second option of lowering the emission limit 

based on a subcategorization according to facility production 

capacity yielded cost-effectiveness estimates of greater than $1 

million per gram D/F TEQ reduced. Furthermore, our analysis 

indicates that these options would not result in significant 

emissions reductions. After considering the costs and the small 

reductions that would be achieved, we have decided not to 

propose either of these options that are based on ACI injection 

technology under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. 

Overall, based on our technology review, we determined that 

the developments in practices, processes and control 

technologies identified do not clearly reduce emissions relative 

to technologies that were available at the time of promulgation 

of the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP in 2000. We did not 

identify any feasible and cost effective options to further 

reduce emissions as part of technology review. Therefore, we are 

not proposing any revisions to the NESHAP as part of our 

technology review. Additional details regarding these analyses 

can be found in the following technical document for this action 

which is available in the docket: Draft Technology Review for 

the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category.

D. What other actions are we proposing?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 96 of 234

This section discusses revisions that are being proposed to 

correct and clarify provisions in the rule. We are proposing 

revisions to the rule to address SSM provisions within the rule 

that were vacated by a court ruling and we are adding a 

requirement for electronic submission of all test results to

increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. In addition, since promulgation of the 

subpart RRR NESAHP in March 2000 (65 FR 15689), individual 

representatives from state regulatory agencies, EPA regional 

offices and industry have submitted recommendations to the 

Agency to correct errors in the rule and to help clarify the 

intent and implementation of the rule. Table 5 provides a 

summary of these proposed changes. Following Table 5 are 

detailed descriptions of the proposed revisions.

Table 5. Summary of Technical Corrections/Clarifications to the 

Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP

Correction/Clarification Description

1. Startup, shutdown and 

malfunctions (63.1503, 

63.1506(q), 63.1520) 

• Addresses vacated General 

Provision (GP) requirements.

• Deletes references to vacated 

GP sections.

• Adds work practices for 

periods of startup and

shutdown for certain affected 

sources.

• Adds definition for 

affirmative defense. Adds 

affirmative defense 

requirements for malfunctions.

2. Electronic Reporting 

(63.1516(b)(3)) • Requires owners and operators 

to report performance test 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 97 of 234

results through the EPA 

Electronic Reporting System 

(ERT).

3. Capture and Collection 

Requirements (63.1506(c)(1)) • Requires use of the 2003, or 

later, ACGIH manual.

• Requests comments on methods 

other than ACGIH manual to 

ensure capture and collection.

4. Scrap Inspection Program 

for Group 1 Furnace without 

Add-on Air Pollutions 

Control Devices (63.1510(p))

• Considering a requirement to 

require a scrap inspection 

program.

• Current requirement is 

optional.

• Requesting comments and 

information.

5. Multiple Tests for Worst 

Case Scenarios

(63.1511(b)(6))

• Clarifies that multiple tests 

may be required to reflect the 

worst case for each regulated 

pollutant. 

6. Lime Injection Rate 

Verification (63.1510(i)(4)) • Requires verification of the 

lime mass injection rate at 

least once per month. 

7. Flux Monitoring

(63.1510(j)(4)) • Clarifies that solid flux must

be tracked at each addition 

during the cycle or time 

period used in the performance 

test.

8. Cover fluxes (63.1503) • Clarifies definition of cover 

flux.

9. Capture and Collection 

Systems (63.1503) • Adds a definition of capture 

and collection systems.

10. Bale Breakers (63.1503) • Adds a definition of a bale 

breaker to clarify that the 

bale breaker is not a scrap 

shredder.

11. Bag Leak Detection 

Systems (BLDS)

(63.1510(f)(1)(ii))

• Removes reference to an

outdated guidance document and 

requires use of manufacturer’s 

maintenance and operating 

instructions.

12. Sidewell Furnaces

(63.1510(n)(1)) • Requires visual inspection 

after each tap rather than 

after each charge 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 98 of 234

• Allows other means of 

measuring molten metal level

13. Testing Representative 

Units (63.1511(f)(6)) • Clarifies that all performance 

test runs must be conducted on

the same affected source or 

emission unit.

14.Inital Performance Tests

(63.1511(b)) • Revises performance test 

requirements to allow 180 days

to conduct initial performance 

test consistent with GP.

15. Definition of Scrap 

Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating 

Kiln and Scrap Shredder

(63.1503)

• Clarifies definition of Scrap 

Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating 

Kiln to include delamination 

of aluminum from paper or 

plastic.

• Clarifies definition of scrap 

shredder to include 

granulation.

16. Transporting metal

(63.1503) • Clarifies definition of Group 

2 furnaces to exclude pots 

used to transport metal.

17. Specifications for 

Cleaning Processes • Not proposing cleaning 

specifications at this time.

• Invites comments and solicits 

information on appropriated 

cleaning procedures.

18. Measurements of HF in 

Addition to HCl (63.1503, 

63.1505, 63.1511(c)(9), 

63.1513)

• Revises definition of HCl to 

account for HF; adds 

definition of HF.

• Revises emissions standards 

for HCl to include HF; 

combined HF and HCl emissions 

limit same as HCl.

• Requires EPA Method 26A for 

measurement of HF and HCl.

• Revises compliance equations.

19. Uncontrolled furnaces 

that do not Comply with 

ACGIH Hooding Guidelines

(63.1512(e)(4))

• Requires owner/operators with 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

to construct hoods for 

performance testing to 

demonstrate compliance, or 

assume 67 percent capture 

efficiency if hooding does not 

meet ACGIH guidelines.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 99 of 234

• Seeks comments on alternative 

approaches.

20.”Industrial Ventilation: 

A Manual of Recommended 

Practice”, 23rd Edition 

(63.1506(c)(1))

• Allows use of the 23rd or later 

editions, and takes out 

references to chapters 3 and 

5.

21. Clarify the possible 

Number of SAPUs (63.1503) • Revises “SAPU” definition to 

clarify there can be more than 

1 new SAPU.

22. Aluminum Scrap 

Containing Anodizing Dyes or 

Sealants (63.1503)

• Clarifies “clean charge”

definition to exclude anodized 

material coated with dyes or 

sealants that contain organic 

material.

23. Afterburner Residence 

Time (63.1503) • Clarifies “residence time” 

definition to include 

refractory lined ductwork up 

to the control thermocouple.

24. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate

(63.1505(k)) • Clarifies that daily 

throughput must be used to

calculate allowable emissions 

within the SAPU.

25. Changing Furnace 

Designations (63.1514) • Allows owners/operators to 

switch furnace designations.

• Specifies requirements for 

switching.

26. ACGIH Hooding 

Requirements • Invites comments on 

alternatives to the currently 

required ACGIH guidelines.

27. Dross Only Versus 

Dross/Scrap Furnaces • Clarifies that 

owners/operators have the 

option to conduct performance 

tests under different 

operating conditions to 

address charge/flux changes.

28. Annual Hood Inspections

(63.1510(d)(2)) • Clarifies that annual hood 

inspections include flow rate 

measurements.

29. Applicability of Rule to 

Area Sources (63.1506(a), 

63.1510(a))

• Clarifies which operating, 

monitoring and other standards 

apply to area sources.

30. Altering Parameters 

during Testing with New 

Scrap Streams

• Clarifies that

owners/operators can deviate
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 100 of 234

(63.1511(b)(1)) from established parametric 

limits during performance 

testing being done to 

establish new parametric 

limits.

31. Controlled Furnaces that 

are Temporarily Idled

(63.1506(q)(5))

• Allows control device for 

furnaces to be shut down if 

furnace will remain idle for 

24 hours or longer.

1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions

We are proposing to amend the provisions of the subpart RRR 

NESHAP regarding compliance with the emissions limits during

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These

proposed revisions are necessary to remove references in the 

subpart RRR NESHAP to certain requirements of the General 

Provisions to part 63 regarding HAP emissions during SSM 

periods. These General Provision requirements were vacated by a 

recent court decision.

We are proposing to revise the subpart RRR NESAHP to 

require certain affected sources to comply with work practice

standards during periods of startup and shutdown and numerical 

emissions limits at all other times. Specifically, we are 

proposing several revisions to subpart RRR including revising 

Table 1 to indicate that certain requirements of the General 

Provisions pertaining to SSM do not apply. For reasons discussed 

below, we are also proposing to promulgate an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 101 of 234

standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense. These changes would go 

into effect upon the effective date of the final rule.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA Section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 

40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a 

regulation, commonly referred to as the “General Provisions 

Rule,” that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When 

incorporated into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific 

source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the 

requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section

112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM.

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in 

this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is 

proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are 

also proposing several revisions to Appendix A to subpart RRR of 

part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability table). For 

example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 102 of 234

plan. We also are proposing to eliminate or revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM 

exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not 

included in the proposed regulatory language any provisions that 

are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked.

In proposing standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 

account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons 

explained below, the EPA is proposing different standards for 

startup and shutdown periods for some types of process units. 

However, for other processes, for the reasons explained below, 

we are not proposing different standards for those periods.

There are some processes that are part of the secondary 

aluminum production source category for which startup or 

shutdown has no relevance or for which the standard is already 

in the form of a work practice (e.g., scrap shredders, in-line 

fluxers, group 2 furnaces and rotary dross coolers). For most 

units subject to the current rule, emissions limits for PM, D/F, 

HCl, and THC during normal operations are expressed using a 

normalized format of mass of pollutant per unit of feed (e.g., 

lb/ton of feed) or charge. Because aluminum feed and production 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 103 of 234

are reduced or halted during startup and shutdown, determining

compliance with such an emission limit format without any feed 

materials is mathematically unrealistic. To apply a numerical 

emissions limit during startup and shutdown operations would 

require that we have data not yet available to us in order to 

address a suitable emissions limit format.

We considered whether performance testing and enforcement 

of numeric emission limits would be practical during periods of 

startup and shutdown. The EPA determined that there are a number 

of significant technical challenges associated with emissions 

measurements of PM and HAP emissions during periods of startup 

and shutdown that make establishing and complying with numerical 

emissions limits technically and economically impractical. 

The group 1 furnaces, dryers and kilns used in the 

secondary aluminum process are heated during periods of startup 

through slow feeding of natural gas with no scrap or other feed 

materials. During these periods, many stack gas characteristics 

including temperature, flow rate, pollutant and flow 

stratification, and stack gas molecular weight and moisture 

content of the gas change far more dramatically and rapidly than 

they would during normal operating conditions. An emissions

tester must account for these changing parameters with nearconstant measurements and adjustment during each test run and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 104 of 234

also conduct multiple, sequential test runs in order to produce 

representative values. The durations of these startup or 

shutdown periods are variable depending on the state of the 

refractory or other equipment. These periods could be on the 

order of 36 hours to multiple days in duration (e.g., to cure 

new refractory) requiring many more than three test runs to 

collect a representative measurement. During a shutdown, the 

period over which process exhaust flow rate would change from 

full load conditions to zero could range from less than a day to 

longer. Such transient and variable conditions would make the 

conduct of multiple test runs meeting the isokinetic or other 

proportional sampling requirements physically problematic. 

In terms of staff scheduling, multiple test crews would 

have to be on-site ready to begin testing at the beginning of a

startup or shutdown period. Further, test crews must be prepared 

to stop and restart measurements to coincide with process 

difficulties that can occur particularly during startup. 

Scheduling such testing to coincide with the beginning of less 

predictable shutdown periods would require having testing crews 

on-site nearly full time. These staff resource issues would 

dramatically increase the cost of testing to deal with startup 

and shutdown periods. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 105 of 234

In addition to the technical problems of collecting 

representative samples in stratified stack conditions, sampling 

for PM, HCl, and D/F must be isokinetic and sampling for THC 

concentrations must be proportional in order to assure 

representative results. Maintaining isokinetic or other 

proportional sampling when stack gas flows range from zero to 

nearly full load conditions during either startup or shutdown 

with measurement equipment commonly applied for this type of 

testing would be an extremely difficult measurement challenge 

and very likely lead to unacceptable test runs. 

For these technical and economic reasons, we have 

determined that conducting manual emissions testing during 

secondary aluminum startup or shutdown periods for dryers, 

kilns, sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces and group 1 furnaces 

is impracticable in the context of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the 

Clean Air Act. As a result, we have established a separate work 

practice standard for emissions of PM, HCl, D/F, and THC during

periods of startup and shutdown for these portions of the 

secondary aluminum manufacturing process. The EPA proposes in 

this rule to require sources to meet a work practice standard

for many processes involved in secondary aluminum production. 

Work practice standards will define the beginning and end of 

startup and shutdown periods and require certain operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 106 of 234

procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC, PM, HCl, and 

D/F for each scenario anticipated. 

For purposes of this rule, startup begins upon usage of 

natural gas or other clean fuel to ignite a dryer, kiln, sweat 

furnace, dross-only furnace or group 1 furnace from a cold 

start. Under the proposed work practice provisions for startup, 

the operator must engage and operate any associated exhaust 

fans, capture hoods and air pollution control devices whenever 

fuel is fired in the device. At the point that feed is 

introduced into the dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only 

furnace or group 1 furnace, startup ends and the process is in 

its normal operating mode and subject to the numerical emission 

limits. 

Similarly for shutdown conditions, when an operator halts 

the introduction of scrap or charge to and has removed all 

product (e.g., tapped a furnace) from an operating dryer, kiln, 

sweat furnace, dross-only furnace or group 1 furnace, the 

shutdown phase has begun during which the work practice 

provisions apply and the numerical emission limits do not apply. 

During equipment shutdown, any associated exhaust fans, capture 

hoods and air pollution control devices must be engaged and 

operating until the kiln, furnace or dryer exhaust gas 

temperature falls below 200oF at which point shutdown ends.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 107 of 234

The continued operation of the existing control devices and 

emission capture systems will, in conjunction with the detailed 

proposed work practices described above, be consistent with 

maximum achievable control technology and will be adequate, 

along with all the other standards described above, to ensure 

that risks will be acceptable and the rule will provide an ample 

margin of safety.

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operation. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, 

infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or 

a process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *” (40 CFR 

63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not 

require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction

be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under 

section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less 

stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

There is nothing in section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 108 of 234

best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission 

standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in 

setting emission standards consistent with the section 112 case 

law, nothing in that case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 of the CAA 

uses the concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit 

in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 

performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best 

controlled” or “best performing” to a unit that is 

malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as 

malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events.

Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if 

not impossible, given the countless types of malfunctions that 

can occur across all sources in the category and the 

difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 

frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that 

might occur. As such, the performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g.,

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (The EPA 

typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data

gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an 

agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to "invest the resources to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 109 of 234

conduct the perfect study."). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 

590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, 

no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision 

can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable 

acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, 

must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case 

enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by 

regulation”). In addition, the goal of a best controlled or best 

performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid 

malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions 

could lead to standards that are significantly less stringent 

than levels that are achieved by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is 

consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 110 of 234

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation” 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is 

properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant 

emission standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to 

add to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties 

for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1503 (defining “affirmative defense” 

to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response 

or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 

administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other 

regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 111 of 234

to establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by 

a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1520 (40 CFR 22.24). The 

criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit 

meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 

(sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to 

successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions

“[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure 

of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner....” The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps 

are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR §63.1506(a)(5) and §1520(a)(8) to prevent 

future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission

limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible steps 

were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment and human health....” In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 112 of 234

challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the 

respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties 

may be assessed in accordance with Section 113 (see also 40 CFR 

22.27).

The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule 

in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of 

air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis.” 42 USC. §7602(k)(defining “emission limitation and 

emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure 

that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this 

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 

the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are 

required, there is also case law indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 113 of 234

practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA 

Section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for 

upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction 

“appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 

standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 

‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also, 

Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. 

Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. 

EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these 

cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the 

control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, 

the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 

formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control 

of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 

1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 114 of 234

the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission 

limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), 

and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a whole.

Specifically, we are proposing the following rule changes:

• Add general duty requirements in 40 CFR §63.1506(a)(5) and 

§63.1520(a)(8) to replace General Provision requirements 

that reference vacated SSM provisions.

• Revise language in 40 CFR §63.1515 that references 

notifications for SSM events.

• Add paragraphs in 40 CFR §63.1520 requiring the reporting 

of malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense 

provisions.

• Add paragraphs in 40 CFR §63.1517 requiring the keeping of 

certain records during malfunctions as part of the 

affirmative defense provisions.

• Revise Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 to reflect 

changes in the applicability of the General Provisions to 

this subpart resulting from a court vacatur of certain SSM 

requirements in the General Provisions.

2. Electronic reporting.

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 115 of 234

as for many other purposes including compliance determinations, 

emissions factor development and annual emissions rate 

determinations. In conducting these required reviews, the EPA

has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, 

but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and 

operators, to locate, collect, and submit performance test data 

because of varied locations for data storage and varied data 

storage methods. In recent years, though, stack testing firms 

have typically collected performance test data in electronic 

format, making it possible to move to an electronic data 

submittal system that would increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data accessibility.

Through this proposal the EPA is presenting a step to 

increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

owners and operators of Secondary Aluminum Production facilities 

submit electronic copies of required performance test reports to 

the EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was constructed 

to store performance test data for use in developing emissions 

factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

As proposed above, data entry would be through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 116 of 234

Reporting Tool. The ERT would generate an electronic report 

which would be submitted using the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The submitted report would be 

transmitted through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network 

for storage in the WebFIRE database making submittal of data 

very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI 

can be accessed through the CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx). The 

proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the 

EPA would apply only to those performance tests conducted using 

test methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains 

a specific electronic data entry form for most of the commonly 

used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. We believe that 

industry would benefit from this proposed approach to electronic 

data submittal. Having these data, the EPA would be able to 

develop improved emissions factors, make fewer information 

requests and promulgate better regulations.

One major advantage of the proposed submittal of 

performance test data through the ERT is a standardized method 

to compile and store much of the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage is that the ERT clearly 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 117 of 234

states what testing information would be required. Another 

important proposed benefit of submitting these data to the EPA

at the time the source test is conducted is that it should 

substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection 

activities in the future. When the EPA has performance test data 

in hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data 

collection requests in conjunction with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology reviews. This would 

result in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms 

of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and 

the EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection 

requests and assessing the results).

State, local and tribal agencies could also benefit from 

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would allow for an electronic review 

process rather than a manual data assessment making review and 

evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier 

and more efficient. Finally, another benefit of the proposed 

data submittal to WebFIRE electronically is that these data 

would greatly improve the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test 

data for establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the 

factors are more representative of current industry operational 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 118 of 234

procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from most performance tests, 

the EPA would be able to ensure that emissions factors, when 

updated, represent the most current range of operational 

practices. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation 

development, control strategy development and other air 

pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

populated with performance test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and 

effort while also improving the quality of emissions inventories 

and, as a result, air quality regulations.

Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is available for many 

records and is the form considered most suitable for expeditious 

review if available. Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is 

encouraged in this proposal and some records and reports are 

required to be kept in electronic format.

3. Capture and Collection Requirements 

The current MACT rule uses the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation 

Manual as the standard for acceptable capture and collection of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 119 of 234

emissions from a source. Since the inception of the rule, 

several different methodologies of demonstrating compliance with 

capture and collection requirements have been accepted by the 

EPA. We are proposing that facilities must follow the ACGIH 

guidelines published in 2003 or, as an alternative that 

facilities can follow any updated versions published by ACGIH 

since that time. Nevertheless, we are considering allowing other 

acceptable methodologies for demonstration of compliance, which 

will provide more flexibility to the industry. We invite 

comments on other acceptable methodologies in addition to the 

ACGIH guidelines and how the secondary aluminum NESHAP could be

revised to better characterize hooding requirements that would

be adequate to ensure good capture of emissions. We are 

requesting information on minimum face velocity, elimination of 

visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other parameter(s)

that may be used to demonstrate adequate capture.

4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace without Add-on 

Air Pollutions Control Devices

Under the current subpart RRR NESHAP, the owner or operator 

of a group 1 furnace that is not equipped with an add-on air 

pollution control device must prepare a written monitoring plan 

describing the measures that will be taken to ensure continuous 

compliance with all applicable emissions limits. One such 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 120 of 234

measure is the inspection of scrap to determine the levels of 

contaminants in the scrap that will be charged to the furnace. 

Section 63.1510(p) lists the requirements for a scrap inspection 

program. However, this scrap inspection program is not 

mandatory. Because the Agency considers a well designed and 

implemented scrap inspection program important to ensuring that 

emissions are maintained at levels below the applicable 

emissions limits, we are considering adding a requirement in the 

final rule that all owners and operators with uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces develop and implement a scrap inspection program 

similar to the existing optional requirements in section 

63.1510(p). We are requesting comments on what such a program 

should include. We are particularly interested in receiving 

comments and information from companies, organizations or 

individuals that may have experience with scrap inspection 

programs and may have been involved in developing and 

implementing such programs.

5. Multiple Tests for Worst-Case Scenarios

The rule currently allows testing to demonstrate compliance 

under a “worst-case” scenario. Facilities that process a range 

of materials (including dross, used beverage containers (UBC), 

etc.) may have different “worst-case” scenarios (highest 

production levels, range of charge materials, and highest 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 121 of 234

reactive fluxing rate) for the different pollutants. For 

example, the worst-case scenario for HCl may be while processing 

dross; the worst-case scenario for D/F formation may be while

processing UBC; and the worst-case scenario for PM is most 

likely UBC as well. The original rule and subsequent amendments 

did not make it clear that different testing conditions may be 

required for different HAP. We are proposing amendments to 

§63.1511 to clarify that performance tests under multiple 

scenarios may be required in order to reflect the worst-case for 

each regulated pollutant.

6. Lime Injection Rate Verification

The rule currently requires owners/operators to verify that 

the continuous lime injection system maintain free-flowing lime 

in the hopper at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting 

at the same level established during the performance test. 

However the rule does not specifically require that the feeder 

setting be verified with a pound per hour (lb/hr) injection rate 

as established in the performance test. Due to continuous usage 

of the equipment, the feeder setting and injection rate may not 

correlate as they did during the performance test. Periodic 

verification of the actual injection rate in pounds per hour 

would ensure that the necessary amount of lime is reaching the 

baghouse and it would give a better indication of continuous 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 122 of 234

compliance. We are proposing to revise §63.1510 by adding a 

requirement for the verification of the lime injection rate in 

pounds per hour at least once per month.

7. Flux Monitoring

Flux monitoring provisions in §63.1510(j)(3)(ii) require 

the owner/operator to record, for each 15-minute block period 

during each operating cycle or time period used in the 

performance test during which reactive fluxing occurs, the time, 

weight and type of flux for each addition of solid reactive 

flux. Solid flux, however, may be added intermittently during 

the operating cycle dependent upon the needs of the bath. We are 

proposing amendments to revise these monitoring requirements to 

clarify that solid flux should be tracked at each addition 

during the cycle or time period used in the performance test.

8. Cover Fluxes

Cover flux is defined in §63.1503 as “salt added to the 

surface of molten aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace, 

without agitation of the molten aluminum for the purpose of 

preventing oxidation”. We have received information indicating 

that most furnaces are agitated. Rotary furnaces are constantly 

rotated until the metal is tapped and reverberatory furnaces 

have a molten metal pump circulating aluminum from the hearth to 

the charge well providing agitation to melt the scrap. In order 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 123 of 234

to avoid major source status, a few secondary aluminum 

facilities have claimed that they were using cover fluxes when 

they were actually using reactive fluxes. Other sources claiming 

to be using a cover flux are using them in furnaces in which the 

melt is being agitated and, therefore, does not meet the 

definition of cover flux. To address this, we are proposing to 

clarify the definition of cover flux.

9. Capture and Collection System

Affected sources under the current rule that are controlled 

by an air pollution control device must use a capture and 

collection system meeting the guidelines of the ACGIH in order 

to minimize fugitive emissions and ensure that emissions are 

routed to the control device where the pollutants are removed 

from the exhaust gas stream. As part of efforts to clarify 

hooding and capture requirements we are proposing a definition 

for capture and collection systems, as follows: Capture and 

collection system means the system of hood(s), duct system and 

fan used to collect a contaminant at or near its source and 

transport the contaminated air to the air cleaning device.

10. Bale Breakers

The current regulation exempts bale breakers from the 

requirements for aluminum scrap shredders and the definition of

shredders is intentionally broad. To clarify that a bale breaker 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 124 of 234

is not a scrap shredder, we are proposing a definition for bale 

breaker. We are also proposing to clarify in the definition of 

aluminum scrap shredder that both high speed and low speed 

shredding devices are considered scrap shredders.

11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS)

The current requirements for BLDS in the rule cite a 1997 

guidance document on bag leak detection systems that operate on 

the triboelectric effect (when materials become electrically 

charged through contact and separation from another material).

BLDS currently in use operate digitally and are not addressed by 

the 1997 guidance. We are proposing to update §63.1510 to remove 

the reference to the 1997 guidance document and require that the

manufacturer’s maintenance and operating instructions be 

followed at all times.

12. Sidewell Furnaces

The monitoring requirements for sidewell group 1 furnaces 

with uncontrolled hearths specify recording the level of molten 

metal (above or below the arch between the sidewell and hearth) 

for each charge to the furnace. Because there are emission units 

that add charge continuously and emission units that add charge 

intermittently, the requirements to record levels during each 

charge can be problematic for some sources. Also, the only 

option for verifying the molten level is visual observation 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 125 of 234

which may be difficult in some cases. To address these issues, 

we are proposing revisions to §63.1510 to require the monitoring 

to be done after each tap, rather than each charge. We are also 

proposing that where visual inspection of the molten metal level 

is not possible, physical measurement to determine the molten 

metal level in sidewell group 1 furnaces will be required.

13. Testing Representative Units

Section §63.1511 allows testing of a representative 

emissions unit to estimate emissions from other similar units. 

Some secondary aluminum facilities have conducted one test run 

on each of multiple emission units to comprise one test, rather 

than performing all test runs on the same unit. This is not the 

intent of the rule. We are proposing to amend §63.1511(f) to 

clarify that the three test runs must be conducted on the same 

unit.

14. Initial Performance Tests

Section 63.1511(b) of the current rule requires a source to 

conduct its initial performance tests for a new or modified 

source within 90 days of start-up to show compliance with 

emission limits and to establish its operating parameters. If a 

furnace is equipped with a baghouse, the temperature of the gas 

flow at the baghouse inlet must be determined. The inlet

temperature is significantly affected by ambient air 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 126 of 234

temperatures. Exhaust gases going to the baghouse control system 

usually include more ambient air than furnace exhaust gas, 

because a substantial amount of ambient air is necessary to 

achieve adequate capture efficiency. The high ratio of ambient 

air to furnace gas in the control system means that the ambient 

air temperature often controls the baghouse inlet temperature.

When a facility conducts an initial performance test in colder 

months (in order to meet the 90-day window in the MACT 

standard), it must frequently retest in warmer months because 

they cannot maintain the baghouse inlet temperature established 

during a cold month.

Other MACT standards provide sources 180 days in which to 

conduct their initial performance test. The General Provisions 

in §63.7 set this time limit at 180 days. Because a period of 

180 days to conduct testing would help the secondary aluminum 

industry avoid the cost of unnecessary repeat testing and it is 

consistent with the General Provisions, we are proposing to 

revise §63.1511 to allow 180 days to conduct an initial 

performance test.

15. Definitions of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln and 

Scrap Shredder

We are proposing revisions to the definition of scrap 

dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln to clarify that thermal 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 127 of 234

delaminating of aluminum scrap and mechanical granulation of the 

recovered metal are affected sources under Subpart RRR. Heat is 

used to separate foil from paper and plastic in scrap. The 

sources in question operate chambers with a maximum temperature 

of 900 degrees Fahrenheit and with no melting of the recovered 

aluminum. Subsequent melting of recovered aluminum need not 

occur at the same facility that conducts the recovery operation. 

We are also proposing to amend the definition of a scrap 

shredder to include granulation in addition to crushing, 

grinding, shearing and breaking of aluminum scrap into a more 

uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or furnace.

16. Transporting Metal

We are addressing questions as to the applicability of the 

rule to pots that are used to transport metal to customers. The 

rule does not currently regulate these pots and we are proposing 

to amend the definition of Group 2 furnace to clarify the fact

that the rule does not regulate these pots.

17. Specifications for Cleaning Processes

We considered whether to add specifications for cleaning 

processes such as those required for runaround scrap to ensure 

that scrap processed by certain methods qualifies as clean 

scrap. Specifications considered include minimum residence time 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 128 of 234

and temperature for thermal drying process and minimum speed and 

residence time for centrifuging processes. We are not proposing 

any of these revisions in today’s action. However, we invite 

comments on this issue and solicit information on appropriate 

specifications that could be applied to these processes to 

ensure that the cleaning process produces clean charge.

18. Measurements of HF in Addition to HCl

The current standard contains limits for HCl emissions, and 

requires operators to conduct performance tests for HCl 

emissions. The EPA’s original intent was that HCl would serve as 

a surrogate for all acid gases, including HF and chlorine. Where 

fluorine fluxes were used along with chlorine-containing fluxes, 

lime coated fabric filters would effectively control HF as well 

as HCl so that measuring HF was not considered necessary. 

However, a facility that exclusively used fluorine-containing 

fluxes would not be required to test for HF, and if testing for 

HCl would have very low HCl emissions. 

Therefore, we are proposing amendments to clarify the 

conditions under which testing must be conducted for both HF and 

HCl. We are still confident that, where fluorine flux is used, 

lime coated fabric filter will effectively remove HF as well as 

HCl. However, in instances where there is no add-on control 

device and fluorine fluxes are used, we are proposing that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 129 of 234

testing for HF be conducted. Where testing for HF and HCl must 

be conducted, we are proposing that EPA Method 26A, which is 

capable of measuring HCl and HF, be the measurement method used. 

We are also proposing that the emission limit for the combined 

HCl and HF measurements be equal to the current HCl limit, on 

the basis that the best performing facilities used to establish 

the current standard did not use any fluorine-containing fluxes. 

Testing for HF as well as HCl would be required at the next 

scheduled performance test. As an alternative to testing for HF 

and HCl, we are proposing that the owner or operator may choose 

to determine the rate of reactive flux addition for an affected 

source, and may assume that, for the purposes of demonstrating 

compliance with the SAPU emission limit, all chlorine and 

fluorine in the reactive fluxes added to the source are emitted

as HCl or HF. 

We estimate that approximately 20 facilities that are major 

sources use fluorine-containing fluxes. Since most of these 

facilities also use fluxes containing chlorine, they are 

required to determine HCl emissions at least once every five 

years. Therefore, the only additional costs would be the 

laboratory analysis for HF. We estimate these costs to be 

approximately $1,000 per test and that there are approximately 

70 uncontrolled furnaces at major sources that use fluorine-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 130 of 234

containing fluxes, and would be required to test every 5 years. 

Therefore, the total cost of this proposed rule revision is 

estimated to be $14,000 per year for the entire industry.

19. Requirements for Uncontrolled Furnaces that Do Not Presently 

Comply with ACGIH Ventilation Guidelines

Section 63.1506(c)(1) requires that, for each affected 

source or emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution 

control device, the owner or operator must design and install a 

system for the capture and collection of emissions to meet the 

engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates as published by 

the American Council of Government Hygienists in chapters 3 and 

5 of “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 

Practice(23rd Edition).” However, there are no similar 

requirements for furnaces that are not equipped with an add-on 

air pollution control device. Furnaces that are uncontrolled for 

fugitive emissions do not account for fugitive emissions during 

testing that escape for example through open doors and therefore 

underestimate emissions during performance testing.

Accordingly, we are proposing that owner/operators with 

uncontrolled affected sources either: (1) construct hooding for 

testing that meets the ACGIH guidelines, and include emissions 

captured by that hooding in the compliance determination, or (2) 

assume a capture efficiency of 66.67 percent (i.e., multiply 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 131 of 234

stack test results by a factor of 1.5) to account for emissions 

not captured. If the source fails to demonstrate compliance 

using the 66.67 percent capture efficiency approach, we are 

proposing that the owner/operator retest with hoods meeting the 

ACGIH guidelines within 180 days. These requirements would be 

implemented at the next scheduled performance test. We recognize 

that there may be situations (e.g., various furnace 

configurations) where constructing hooding may be problematic. 

Therefore, we are seeking comments and information on these 

proposed requirements and comments and information regarding 

other possible approaches that could be applied, such as 

emissions monitoring to address these unmeasured fugitive 

emissions. We also seek comments and information on work 

practices that could be applied during compliance testing that 

would minimize these fugitive emissions, including approaches 

that could be adapted for different furnace configurations, and 

ensure that the vast majority of emissions from these units are 

accounted for during compliance testing.

We estimate that there are 107 uncontrolled furnaces that 

would be required to install hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines 

for testing or assume the 66.67 percent capture efficiency. We 

estimate that the capital cost of constructing the appropriate 

hooding would be $57,000 per affected furnace, resulting in a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 132 of 234

total capital cost of up to $6,099,000 for the source category

(conservatively assuming that all these furnaces choose the 

hooding option), and an annualized cost of up to $1,220,000

(again based on the conservative assumption that all facilities 

choose the option of constructing hooding). 

20. “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, 

23rd Edition

The rule currently incorporates by reference “Chapters 3 

and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 

Practice”, American Conference of Government Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH), 23rd edition, 1998. This version of the 

manual is no longer in print. Therefore we are proposing that 

the 23rd or later editions to the manual may be used.

21. Clarify the Possible Number of New SAPUs

The rule currently states that there can be only one 

existing SAPU at an aluminum plant but is not clear on whether 

there can be more than one new SAPU. We are proposing revisions 

to clarify that more than one new SAPU is allowed under the 

rule.

22. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or Sealants

The current definition of “clean charge” does not clearly 

indicate the status of anodized aluminum. Some anodized aluminum 

parts contain dyes and/or sealants that contain organic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 133 of 234

materials. Therefore, we propose to amend the definition of 

“clean charge” to indicate, that clean charge does not include 

anodized material that is coated with dyes or sealants that 

contain organic material.

23. Afterburner Residence Time

Currently, the standard contains the following definition: 

“Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time 

required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion 

zone. Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner 

combustion zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate 

of the gas streams in actual cubic feet per second.”

At some secondary aluminum facilities, the ductwork has 

been included as part of the combustion chamber to increase the 

calculated residence time and meet the requirements to qualify 

for alternative limits in §63.1505(e). While this interpretation 

may not be consistent with the current definition, it can be 

shown that in some afterburners, the temperature in the duct 

work is adequate for D/F destruction, which would justify the 

inclusion of the duct work in the calculation of residence time. 

We found that the basis for the residence time requirements 

for sweat furnaces and delacquering kilns in §63.1505 did 

include the refractory lined duct up to the thermocouple 

measurement location. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 134 of 234

definition of residence time as follows, “Residence time means, 

for an afterburner, the duration of time required for gases to 

pass through the afterburner combustion zone. Residence time is 

calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion zone volume in 

cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in 

actual cubic feet per second. The combustion zone volume 

includes the reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the 

waste gas stream is exposed to the direct combustion flame and 

the complete refractory lined portion of the furnace stack up to 

the measurement thermocouple.”

24. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate

Some enforcement officials have interpreted the SAPU 

requirements such that a SAPU emission limit should be calculated 

based on feed/charge rates during performance test. Our 

interpretation has always been that allowable emissions are 

calculated on a daily basis using feed/charge throughput, which 

can change daily. Because of the confusion over the appropriate 

method, we are proposing clarifications that will make it clear 

that the daily throughput, and not the throughput at the time of 

the performance test, is used in the calculation of allowable 

emissions in each emissions unit (group 1 furnace or in-line 

fluxer) within the SAPU. Consistent with the existing rule, area 

sources of HAP would not be required to calculate, or comply with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 135 of 234

a SAPU emission limit for PM or HCl. The owner or operator would 

be required to demonstrate compliance with these limits and these 

calculated SAPU emission limits would be used to establish 

compliance in accordance with the procedures in §63.1513. 

25. Changing Furnace Designations

The rule currently does not address whether a facility 

may change furnace operating modes between group 1 controlled 

and group 1 uncontrolled, or between group 1 and group 2. The 

EPA sees no reason not to allow owner/operators to change a 

furnace operating mode, as long as the change is fully compliant 

with the substantive and procedural requirements of the rule. 

Because the rule does not expressly provide for such changes, we 

are proposing new provisions in §63.1516 that specify how 

owners/operators can switch furnace operating modes. The 

proposed amendments would apply to the following situations: 1) 

switching from a controlled group 1 furnace handling other than 

clean charge to an uncontrolled group 1 furnace handling other 

than clean charge, 2) switching from a controlled group 1 

furnace processing other than clean charge to an uncontrolled 

clean charge group 1 furnace, 3) switching from a group 1 

controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a group 2 furnace, and 4) 

switching from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a 

group 2 furnace, for furnaces capable of completely removing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 136 of 234

furnace content between batches. This would include furnaces 

with a sidewell. The proposed revisions specify the emissions 

testing that would be required to switch furnace designation; 

operating requirements, such as labeling, flux use, and scrap 

charging for the furnace before, during, and after switching; 

and requirements for records to be kept. The proposed revisions 

also would limit changes in furnace operating mode to occur no 

more frequently than once every 6 months, except situations 

wherein control device maintenance is being performed. When 

following the substantive and procedural requirements of this 

rule, the owners/operators would be able to turn off associated 

air pollution control devices. Because of this, we estimate an 

annual savings of $1,100,000, based on an estimate of controls 

for 50 furnaces being turned off for 6 months per year. We 

estimate additional testing costs of $500,000 per year. 

Therefore, we estimate the net cost to be -$600,000 per year (a 

savings of $600,000 per year).

26. ACGIH Hooding Requirements

The current rule requires that emissions capture and 

collection systems be designed consistent with the ACGIH 

industrial ventilation guidelines. Industry representatives 

point out that the manual contains “recommended” ventilation 

practices and that EPA has inappropriately required compliance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 137 of 234

with the guidelines. For example, the guidance establish a 

design criteria for determining minimum hood dimensions and 

flow; however, the relevant equation is not appropriate for 

determining minimum flow requirements for “oversized” hoods that 

are used in the secondary aluminum industry. The equations for 

sizing hoods in Chapter 3 of the 23rd edition were said to overpredict the required flow rates. According to industry 

representatives, the ACGIH manual should be used only as a 

guideline for judging the effectiveness of the hoods and that 

engineering evaluations of hoods can be performed similarly to 

those for other engineered processes. Also, there may be other 

rules and ventilation guidelines that are appropriate and could 

be used.

We are inviting comments on alternatives to the ACGIH 

guidelines or other suggestions for revising the rule to 

increase flexibility for the industry while ensuring that 

capture and collection systems are adequately designed and 

operated to insure that emissions are captured and fugitive 

emissions minimized. In particular, we would be interested in

obtaining information on minimum face velocity, elimination of 

visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other suitable

parameter(s) to determine capture effectiveness. 

27. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 138 of 234

The EPA’s current interpretation of the existing rule is 

that dross only furnaces at area sources are not subject to D/F

emission limitations and therefore not subject to the MACT 

operating parameter limitations. Industry representatives have 

inquired about the requirements for a furnace processing scrap 

on some occasions and then dross at other times.

We point out that dross only furnaces have been defined as 

furnaces that only process dross. A furnace that processes scrap 

may be a group 1 furnace or a group 2 furnace. Operators of 

group 1 furnaces have the option of conducting performance tests 

under different operating conditions to establish operating 

parameters applicable to different combinations of types of 

charge and fluxing rates. We have added language to clarify this 

in the proposed amendments. We note that dross is not clean 

charge, as defined, and thus any group 1 furnace processing 

dross is subject to limitations on emissions of D/F, and other 

requirements for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean 

charge.

28. Annual Hood Inspections

 Industry representatives have stated that our interpretation 

that annual hood inspections include an annual hood flow 

measurement represents an unnecessary cost burden for each 

regulated facility. They recommended that flow testing should 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 139 of 234

only be required after modifications to the hood, furnace, 

and/or controls that could negatively impact the capture and, 

only then if they cannot be demonstrated by alternate 

engineering calculations or operating parameters. They contend 

that due to stringent OM&M protocols, it should be sufficient to 

certify that there have been no changes, with possible 

verification of flow by visual inspections for leaks and 

possible verification of fan amperage. We disagree that these 

measures alone are sufficient to verify that flow is sufficient 

and that annual hood flow measurement represents an unnecessary 

cost burden. We are proposing changes to the rule to clarify 

that annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements. 

These flow rate measurements supplement the effectiveness of the 

required visual inspection for leaks (which may be difficult or 

uncertain for certain sections of ductwork), to reveal the 

presence of obstructions in the ductwork, confirm that fan 

efficiency has not declined, and provide a measured value for 

air flow.

29. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources

While the emissions standards that apply to area sources is 

evident in the current rule, the applicable operating, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

less clear. In general, the intent of the rule is to subject 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 140 of 234

area sources to standards for D/F with corresponding monitoring, 

testing, reporting, and recordkeeping. We are proposing 

amendments that would clarify which of the operating, monitoring 

and other standards apply to area sources. 

30. Altering Parameters during Testing with New Sources of 

Scrap

Currently, the rule requires that when a process parameter 

or add-on air pollution control device operating parameter 

deviates from the value or range established during a 

performance test, the owner or operator must initiate corrective 

action. However, when the owner or operator is conducting 

performance testing with a new type of scrap, it may be 

necessary to deviate from the previously established values. It 

was never our intent to prevent owners/operators from 

establishing new or revised operating parameters, if necessary 

to process different types of scrap. Accordingly, we are 

modifying the rule to allow deviations from the values and 

ranges in the OM&M plan during performance testing, provided 

that the site-specific test plan documents the intent to 

establish new or revised parametric limits. 

31. Controlled Furnaces that are Temporarily Idled

Currently, the rule does not specify if an owner or 

operator may discontinue the operation of its control device if 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 141 of 234

a furnace is not in use, but is not completely empty or shut 

down. Industry has requested that the EPA provide allowances for 

control devices to be turned off while the furnaces are not in 

operation or being charged with aluminum scrap or fluxing 

agents. This typically occurs over the weekend and accounts for 

unnecessary electrical and operating costs. Accordingly, we are 

modifying the rule to allow for the discontinued use of control 

devices for these furnaces that will remain idle for 24 hours or 

longer.

E. Compliance dates

We are proposing that existing facilities must comply with 

all changes proposed in this action upon promulgation of the 

final rule. All new or reconstructed facilities must comply with 

all requirements in this rule upon startup.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

We estimate that there are 161 secondary aluminum 

production facilities that will be affected by this proposed 

rule, of which 53 are major sources of HAPs, and 108 are area 

sources. We estimate that 10 secondary aluminum facilities have 

co-located primary aluminum operations. The affected sources at 

secondary aluminum production facilities include new and 

existing scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 142 of 234

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, group 2 furnaces, sweat 

furnaces, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross cooler and secondary 

aluminum processing units.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

No reductions are being proposed to numerical emissions 

limits. The proposed amendments will add work practices for 

periods of startup and shutdown to help ensure that emissions 

from affected sources continue to be minimized. The proposed 

amendments would help to clarify the existing provisions and 

would help to improve compliance. The proposed amendment to 

limit and require testing of HF emissions for uncontrolled group 

1 furnaces using fluorine fluxes is not expected to 

significantly reduce HF emissions but will help to ensure that 

HF emissions remain low. We believe that the proposed revisions 

would result in little or no emissions reductions. Therefore, no 

air quality impacts are expected.

C. What are the cost impacts?

We estimate that there will be minor cost impacts 

associated with these proposed requirements. We estimate the 

total cost of the proposed amendments to be up to approximately 

$614,000 per year. Our estimate includes an annualized cost of 

up to $1,200,000 for installing uncontrolled furnace testing 

hooding that meets ACGIH requirements, assuming that 107 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 143 of 234

furnaces choose that option (rather than assuming a 67 percent 

capture efficiency for their existing furnace exhaust system). 

Our estimate also includes an annualized cost of $14,000 for 

testing for HF on uncontrolled furnaces that are already testing 

for HCl. Finally, we estimate cost savings of $600,000 per year 

for furnaces that switch furnace categories and turn off their 

control devices. Our estimate is based on 50 furnaces turning 

off their controls for approximately 6 months every year. This 

savings is net of the cost of testing to demonstrate that these 

furnaces remain in compliance with emission limits after their 

control devices have been turned off.

D. What are the economic impacts?

Because there are only minor cost impacts, we do not expect 

economic impacts.

E. What are the benefits?

We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP 

emissions as a result from these proposed amendments. However, 

we think that the proposed amendments would help to improve the 

clarity of the rule, which can help to improve compliance and 

help to ensure that emissions are kept to a minimum. Certain 

provisions may also provide operational flexibility to the 

industry at no increase in HAP emissions.

VI. Request for Comments
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 144 of 234

We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, 

we are also interested in any additional data that may help to 

reduce the uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments and 

other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving 

corrections to the site-specific emissions profiles used for 

risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation 

in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality 

and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII 

of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source 

category risk and demographic analyses are available for 

download on the RTR web page at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 

include detailed information for each HAP emissions release 

point for the facility included in the source category.

If you believe that the data are not representative or are 

inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your 

reason for concern, and provide any “improved” data that you 

have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you 

provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 145 of 234

support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, complete the following steps:

1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions 

to the data fields appropriate for that information. The data 

fields that may be revised include the following:

Data Element Definition

Control Measure Are control measures in place? 

(yes or no)

Control Measure Comment

Select control measure from list 

provided, and briefly describe 

the control measure

Delete Indicate here if the facility or 

record should be deleted

Delete Comment Describes the reason for deletion

Emissions Calculation Method 

Code For Revised Emissions

Code description of the method 

used to derive emissions. For 

example, CEM, material balance, 

stack test, etc.

Emissions Process Group

Enter the general type of 

emissions process associated with 

the specified emissions point

Fugitive Angle

Enter release angle (clockwise 

from true North); orientation of 

the y-dimension relative to true 

North, measured positive for 

clockwise starting at 0 degrees 

(maximum 89 degrees)

Fugitive Length

Enter dimension of the source in 

the east-west (x-) direction, 

commonly referred to as length 

(ft)

Fugitive Width

Enter dimension of the source in 

the north-south (y-) direction, 

commonly referred to as width 

(ft)

Malfunction Emissions Enter total annual emissions due 

to malfunctions (tpy)
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 146 of 234

Data Element Definition

Malfunction Emissions Max 

Hourly

Enter maximum hourly malfunction 

emissions here (lb/hr)

North American Datum

Enter datum for 

latitude/longitude coordinates 

(NAD27 or NAD83); if left blank, 

NAD83 is assumed

Process Comment Enter general comments about 

process sources of emissions

REVISED Address Enter revised physical street 

address for MACT facility here

REVISED City Enter revised city name here

REVISED County Name Enter revised county name here

REVISED Emissions Release 

Point Type

Enter revised Emissions Release 

Point Type here

REVISED End Date Enter revised End Date here

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate Enter revised Exit Gas Flow Rate 

here (ft3/sec)

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature Enter revised Exit Gas 

Temperature here (F)

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity 

here (ft/sec)

REVISED Facility Category

Code

Enter revised Facility Category 

Code here, which indicates 

whether facility is a major or 

area source

REVISED Facility Name Enter revised Facility Name here

REVISED Facility Registry 

Identifier

Enter revised Facility Registry 

Identifier here, which is an ID 

assigned by the EPA Facility 

Registry System

REVISED HAP Emissions 

Performance Level Code

Enter revised HAP Emissions 

Performance Level here

REVISED Latitude Enter revised Latitude here 

(decimal degrees)

REVISED Longitude Enter revised Longitude here 

(decimal degrees)

REVISED MACT Code Enter revised MACT Code here

REVISED Pollutant Code Enter revised Pollutant Code here

REVISED Routine Emissions Enter revised routine emissions 

value here (tpy)

REVISED SCC Code Enter revised SCC Code here

REVISED Stack Diameter Enter revised Stack Diameter here 

(ft)

REVISED Stack Height Enter revised Stack Height here 

(ft)

REVISED Start Date Enter revised Start Date here

REVISED State Enter revised State here
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 147 of 234

Data Element Definition

REVISED Tribal Code Enter revised Tribal Code here

REVISED Zip Code Enter revised Zip Code here

Shutdown Emissions Enter total annual emissions due 

to shutdown events (tpy)

Shutdown Emissions Max 

Hourly

Enter maximum hourly shutdown 

emissions here (lb/hr)

Stack Comment Enter general comments about 

emissions release points

Startup Emissions Enter total annual emissions due 

to startup events (tpy)

Startup Emissions Max Hourly Enter maximum hourly startup 

emissions here (lb/hr)

Year Closed Enter date facility stopped 

operations

2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each 

suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, 

and revision comments).

3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions 

revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance 

calculations).

4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions 

in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation 

to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544 (through one of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To 

expedite review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if 

you submitted a copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at 

RTR@epa.gov in addition to submitting them to the docket.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 148 of 234

5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need 

only submit one file for that facility, which should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that facility. We request 

that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of 

updated Microsoft® Access files, which are provided on the RTR 

Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises 

novel legal and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this 

action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act.

The information collection requirements in this rule have

been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 149 of 234

prepared by the EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 

2453.01. The information collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. The 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 operators 

subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA 

section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the 

EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart 

B.

We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the 

Secondary Aluminum Production source category in the form of [To 

be completed on development of supporting statement]

For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative 

defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the 

public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden 

associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position 

adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative 

adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 150 of 234

assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s 

estimate for the required notification, reports and records for 

any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, 

totals $3,142 and is based on the time and effort required of a 

source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and 

document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an 

exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also includes 

time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission 

to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the 

affirmative defense.

Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions 

could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and 

maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related excess emissions events for 

a particular source. It is important to note that the EPA has no 

basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions that 

would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical 

records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or 

operators previously operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 

emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 151 of 234

emissions events reported by source operators, only a small 

number would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on 

the definition above), and only a subset of excess emissions 

caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to 

assert the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators might be expected to avail 

themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. 

With respect to the Secondary Aluminum Production source 

category, we estimate the annual recordkeeping and reporting 

burden after the effective date of the proposed rule for 

affirmative defense to be 30 hours at a cost of $3,142.

We expect to gather information on such events in the 

future and will revise this estimate as better information 

becomes available. We estimate 161 regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart RRR. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged 

over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to subpart RRR is estimated to 

be $1,384,821 per year. This includes 1,725 labor hours per year 

at a total labor cost of $165,521 per year, and total non-labor

capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $1,219,300

per year. The total burden for the Federal government (averaged 

over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 152 of 234

is estimated to be 271 labor hours per year at an annual cost of 

$12,231. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. When these ICRs are approved by OMB, the agency will 

publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal 

Register to display the OMB control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements contained in the final 

rules.

To comment on the agency's need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, which includes this 

ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to 

submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: 

Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 153 of 234

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 154 of 234

is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which 

has the NAICS code 331314, the SBA small business size standard 

is 750 employees according to the SBA small business standards 

definitions. 

After considering the economic impacts of these proposed 

changes on small entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Of the 31 entities affected by this proposed 

rule, ten of them are small. Of these ten, only one is estimated 

to experience a positive cost as a result of the rule, and that 

one small entity will have an impact that is an annualized cost 

of less than 0.01 percent of its sales. For more information, 

please refer to the Economic and Small Business Analysis that is 

in the docket.

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on 

small entities. To reduce the impacts, we are correcting certain 

provisions of the rule as well as proposing revisions to help 

clarify the rule’s intent. We have also proposed new provisions 

that increase industry’s flexibility as to how they operate 

group 1 furnaces. We continue to be interested in the potential 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 155 of 234

impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under 

the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The proposed rule would not 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on 

any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements 

of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it contains no requirements that apply to 

such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.

It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 

the relationship between the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 156 of 234

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned 

or operated by State governments, and, because no new 

requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed 

rule will supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with 

the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and 

State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). There are no secondary aluminum production facilities 

that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 157 of 234

significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the 

agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 

to children. Nevertheless, the public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess 

effects of early life exposure to HAP from Secondary Aluminum 

sources.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

under Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 158 of 234

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking does not involve use of any new 

technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low income populations in the United 

States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low income, indigenous 

populations because it increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations without having any 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 159 of 234

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority, 

low income or indigenous populations.

These proposed standards may improve public health and 

welfare, now and in the future, by limiting HAP emissions that 

may contribute to adverse environmental and human health 

impacts. The control of HAP emissions associated with the rule 

are expected to benefit all populations living near the sources 

affected by this rule. 

Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this rule to 

determine if there is an overrepresentation of minority, low 

income, or indigenous populations near the sources such that 

they may currently face disproportionate risks from pollutants 

that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. This analysis only 

gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that 

may be exposed HAP pollution from the sources affected by this 

rulemaking; it does not identify the demographic characteristics 

of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does 

it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or 

communities. 

The major source demographic analysis shows that while most 

demographic categories are below or within 10 percent of their 

corresponding national averages, the African American percentage 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 160 of 234

within 3 miles of any source affected by this rulemaking exceeds 

the national average by 3 percentage points (16 percent versus 

13 percent), or +23 percent. The area source sector-wide 

analysis of near source populations reveals that several 

demographic categories exceed 10 percent of their corresponding 

national averages: Minority by +16 percentage points (44% vs. 

28%), or +57%; Hispanic or Latino by +17 percentage points (34% 

vs. 17%), or +100%; Without a High School Diploma by +6 

percentage points (16% vs. 10%), or +60%, and; Below National 

Poverty Line: +7 percentage points (21% vs. 14%), or +50%. The 

facility-level demographic analysis results and the details 

concerning their development are presented in the OAQPS 

Environmental Justice Analytical Team Report, Secondary Aluminum 

– Area Sources, and OAQPS Environmental Justice Analytical Team 

Report, Secondary Aluminum – Major Sources, copies of which are 

available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010-0544).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 161 of 234

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Secondary Aluminum Production

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 162 of 234

For the reasons stated 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—[AMENDED]

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

follows:

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

2. Section 63.1502 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows:

§63.1502 Incorporation by reference.

(a) * * *

(1) “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 

Practice,” American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR approved for §63.1506(c), 

and

* * * * *

3. Section 63.1503 is amended by:

a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions of 

“affirmative defense,” “bale breaker,” “capture and collection 

system,” “HCl/HF” and “HF”; and

b. Revising the definitions of “aluminum scrap shredder,” 

“chips,” “clean charge,” “cover flux,” “Group 2 furnace,” “HCl,” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 163 of 234

“residence time,” “scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln”

and “secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU).” 

§63.1503 Definitions.

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the 

merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 

judicial or administrative proceeding.

Aluminum scrap shredder means a high speed or low speed 

unit that crushes, grinds, granulates or breaks aluminum scrap 

into a more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a 

scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. A bale 

breaker is not an aluminum scrap shredder.

Bale breaker means a device used to break apart a bale of 

aluminum scrap for further processing. Bale breakers are not 

used to crush, grind, shear or break aluminum scrap into more 

uniform size pieces.

Capture and collection system means the system of hood(s), 

duct system and fan used to collect a contaminant at or near its 

source and transport the contaminated air to the air cleaning 

device.

Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of 

aluminum scrap, typically below 1 1/4 inches in any dimension, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 164 of 234

primarily generated by turning, milling, boring, and machining 

of aluminum parts.

Clean charge means furnace charge materials, including 

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

elements; aluminum scrap known by the owner or operator to be 

entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants; 

uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have been thermally dried 

or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum scrap dried at 343 

°C (650 °F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/decoated at 

482 °C (900 °F) or higher, and runaround scrap. Anodized 

aluminum that contains dyes or sealants with organic compounds 

is not clean charge.

Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten 

aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of 

the molten aluminum, for the purpose of preventing oxidation. 

Any flux added to a rotary furnace or other furnace that uses a 

molten metal pump or other device to circulate the aluminum is 

not a cover flux. Any reactive flux cannot be a cover flux.

Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, 

holds, or processes only clean charge and that performs no 

fluxing or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAPcontaining/non-HAP-generating gases or agents. Pots used to 

transport metal to customers are not furnaces.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 165 of 234

HCl means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

hydrogen chloride that serve as a surrogate measure of the total 

emissions of the HAPs hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and 

chlorine. For an uncontrolled group 1 furnace that uses a flux 

that contains fluorine, HCl means the combined emissions of 

hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride.

HCl/HF means the combined emissions of HCl and HF from an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace that uses one or more fluxes 

containing chlorine and/or fluorine.

HF means hydrogen fluoride.

Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of 

time required for gases to pass through the afterburner

combustion zone. Residence time is calculated by dividing the 

afterburner combustion zone volume in cubic feet by the 

volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in actual cubic feet per 

second. The combustion zone volume includes the reaction chamber 

of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream is exposed to 

the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory lined 

portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple.

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit 

used primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as 

oil, paint, lacquer, ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 166 of 234

scrap (including used beverage containers) prior to melting, or 

that separates aluminum foil from paper and plastic in scrap.

Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU). An existing SAPU 

means all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line 

fluxers within a secondary aluminum production facility. Each 

existing group 1 furnace or existing in-line fluxer is 

considered an emission unit within a secondary aluminum 

processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of individual 

group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a secondary aluminum 

processing facility which either were constructed or 

reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently 

redesignated as new emission units pursuant to §63.1505(k)(6). 

Each of the group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new 

SAPU is considered an emission unit within that secondary 

aluminum processing unit. A secondary aluminum production 

facility may have more than one new SAPU.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.1505 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv); 

b. By revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv); 

c. By revising paragraph (i)(4); 

d. By revising paragraph (j)(1); 

e. By revising paragraph (k); 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 167 of 234

f. By revising paragraph (k)(1); 

g. By revising paragraph (k)(2); and 

h. By revising paragraph (k)(3)to read as follows:

§63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission 

units.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) 0.40 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.80 lb per ton) of 

feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 

at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 

source.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) 0.75 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (1.50 lb per ton) of 

feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 

at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major 

source.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(4) 0.20 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl/HF per ton) of 

feed/charge or, if the furnace is equipped with an add-on air 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 168 of 234

pollution control device, 10 percent of the uncontrolled HCl/HF 

emissions, by weight, for a group 1 furnace at a secondary 

aluminum production facility that is a major source. 

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) 0.02 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.04 lb of HCl/HF per ton) of 

feed/charge;

* * * * *

(k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the 

compliance date established by §63.1501, the owner or operator 

must comply with the emission limits calculated using the 

equations for PM and HCl/HF in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this 

section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a 

secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source. 

The owner or operator must comply with the emission limit 

calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph (k)(3) of 

this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a 

secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area 

source.

(1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 

discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 

emissions of PM in excess of:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 169 of 234

( )

( )

(Eq.1)

T

L T

L n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

ti ti

C

PM

PM ∑

∑

=

=

×

=

Where,

LtiPM= The PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in 

paragraph (i)(1) and (2) of this section for a group 1 furnace 

or in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for an in-line fluxer;

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

unit i; and

LcPM= The daily PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour PM 

emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be 

included in this calculation since they are not subject to the 

PM limit.

(2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 

discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 

emissions of HCl/HF in excess of:

( )

( )

(Eq. 2)

T

L T

L n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

tiHCl/HF ti

cHCl/HF

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

Where,
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 170 of 234

LtiHCl /HF= The HCl/HF emission limit for individual emission unit 

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

in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for an in-line fluxer; and

LcHCl /HF= The daily HCl/HF emission limit for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 

24-hour HCl/HF emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be 

included in this calculation since they are not subject to the 

HCl/HF limit.

(3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 

discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 

emissions of D/F in excess of:

( )

( )

(Eq. 3)

T

L T

L n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

tiD/F ti

cD/F

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

Where,

LtiD/F= The D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i in 

paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 furnace; and

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

processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour 

D/F emission limit applicable to the SAPU. Note: Clean charge 

furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are 

not subject to the D/F limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 171 of 234

* * * * *

5. Section 63.1506 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph (a)(1); 

b. By adding paragraph (a)(5); 

c. By revising paragraph (c)(1); 

d. By revising paragraph (g)(5); 

e. By revising paragraph (k)(3); 

f. By revising paragraph (m)(4); 

g. By revising paragraph (n)(1); and 

h. By adding paragraph (q)to read as follows:

§63.1506 Operating requirements.

(a) * * *

(1) On and after the compliance date established by 

§63.1501, the owner or operator must operate all new and 

existing affected sources and control equipment according to the 

requirements in this section. The affected sources, and their 

associated control equipment, listed in §63.1500(c)(1)through(4) 

of this subpart that are located at a secondary aluminum 

production facility that is an area source are subject to the 

operating requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), 

(h), (m), (n), (p), and (q) of this section.;

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 172 of 234

(5) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution 

control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such 

operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be 

based on information available to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 

operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Design and install a system for the capture and 

collection of emissions to meet the engineering standards for 

minimum exhaust rates as published by the American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists in the “Industrial 

Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice” 23rd edition or 

later (ACGIH Guidelines) (incorporated by reference in §63.1502 

of this subpart);

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(5) For a continuous injection device, maintain freeflowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 173 of 234

maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level 

established during the performance test.

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(3) For a continuous injection system, maintain freeflowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and 

maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level 

established during the performance test.

* * * * *

(m) * * *

(4) For a continuous lime injection system, maintain freeflowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and 

maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level 

established during the performance test.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection 

rate and fluorine flux addition rate for each operating cycle or 

time period used in the performance test at or below the average 

rate established during the performance test.

* * * * *

(q) Work practices for periods of startup and shutdown. 

During periods of startup and shutdown the owner or operator
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 174 of 234

must meet the requirements listed in (q)(1) through (7) of this 

section.

(1) Use natural gas or other clean fuels such as propane, 

kerosene or number 2 fuel oil during startup, which begins when 

a dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, or group 1 

furnace begins ignition and equipment warming.

(2) All associated exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air

pollution control devices must be engaged and operated whenever 

fuel is fired to the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this 

section.

(3) Startup ends at the point that scrap or charge 

materials are introduced into the affected sources listed in 

(q)(1) of this section and the process is considered to be in 

normal operating mode.

(4) Shutdown begins when an owner or operator halts the 

introduction of scrap or charge into and removes all scrap or 

charge from the affected sources listed in (q)(1).

(5) During shutdown, any associated exhaust fans, capture 

hoods, and air pollution control devices must remain engaged and 

operating until the temperature of the exhaust gases fall below 

200 °F at which point shutdown ends. If a furnace will be 

partially shutdown at the end of a cycle for at least 24 hours 

and will burn clean fuel only, will not receive new charge, will 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 175 of 234

not receive flux, and will not receive alloying materials, then 

the applicable exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air pollution 

control devices may be temporarily turned off. Before any new 

charge is added to the furnace, the applicable exhaust fans, 

capture hoods, and air pollution control devices must be engaged 

and operated. Any molten aluminum remaining in the furnace must 

be covered to reduce the likelihood of emissions from the 

furnace while the furnace is idle. When the furnace resumes 

operation, it must operate in its current furnace operating 

mode.

(6) For the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operator must comply with all applicable 

emissions standards in §63.1505 at all time except for startup 

and shutdown periods.

(7) The owner or operator must develop a written plan that 

describes the procedures to be followed for operating and 

maintaining the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this 

section during periods of startup and shutdown. Submit the plan

to the applicable permitting authority for approval within 

[INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RULE].

* * * * *

6. Section 63.1510 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph (a); 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 176 of 234

b. By revising paragraph (b); 

c. By revising paragraph (b)(5); 

d. By revising paragraph (d)(2); 

e. By revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii); 

f. By adding paragraph (i)(4); 

g. By revising paragraph (j)(4); 

h. By revising paragraph (n)(1); 

i. By revising paragraph (o)(1); 

j. By revising paragraph (o)(1)(ii); 

k. By revising paragraph (t); 

l. By adding paragraph (t)(2)(i);

m. By adding paragraph (t)(2)(ii); 

n. By revising paragraph (t)(4); and 

o. By revising paragraph (t)(5)to read as follows:

§63.1510 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Summary. On and after the compliance date established 

by §63.1501, the owner or operator of a new or existing affected 

source or emission unit must monitor all control equipment and 

processes according to the requirements in this section. 

Monitoring requirements for each type of affected source and 

emission unit are summarized in Table 3 to this subpart. Area 

sources are subject to monitoring requirements for those 

affected sources listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4)of this subpart, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 177 of 234

and associated control equipment as required by paragraphs (b)

through (k), (n) through (q), and (s) through (w) of this 

section, including but not limited to:

(1) The operation, maintenance and monitoring plan required 

in paragraph (b) of this section pertaining to each affected 

source listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,

(2) The labeling requirements described in paragraph (c) of 

this section pertaining to group 1 furnaces processing other 

than clean charge, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns,

(3) The requirements for capture and collection described

in paragraph (d) of this section for each controlled affected 

source listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,

(4) The feed charge weight monitoring requirements 

described in paragraph (e) of this section applicable to group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean charge, scrap 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and thermal chip dryers,

(5) The bag leak detector requirements described in 

paragraph (f) of this section applicable to all bag leak 

detectors installed on fabric filters and lime injected fabric 

filters used to control each affected source listed in 

§63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 178 of 234

(6) The requirements for afterburners described in 

paragraph (g) of this section applicable to sweat furnaces, 

thermal chip dryers, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns,

(7) The requirements for monitoring fabric filter inlet 

temperature described in paragraph (h) of this section for all 

lime injected fabric filters used to control group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat 

furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,

(8) The requirements for monitoring lime injection 

described in paragraph (i) of this section applicable to all 

lime injected fabric filters used to control emissions from 

group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, thermal 

chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kilns,

(9) The requirements for monitoring total reactive flux 

injection described in paragraph (j) of this section for all 

group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, 

(10) The requirements described in paragraph (k) of this 

section for thermal chip dryers,

(11) The requirements described in paragraph (n) of this 

section for controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing 

other than clean charge,
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 179 of 234

(12) The requirements described in paragraph (o) of this 

section for uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing 

other than clean charge,

(13) The requirements described in paragraph (p) of this 

section for scrap inspection programs for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces,

(14) The requirements described in paragraph (q) of this 

section for monitoring scrap contamination level for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces,

(15) The requirements described in paragraph (s) of this 

section secondary aluminum processing units, limited to only to 

compliance with limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean charge,

(16) The requirements described in paragraph (t) of this 

section for secondary aluminum processing units limited only to 

compliance with limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean charge,

(17) The requirements described in paragraph (u) of this 

section for secondary aluminum processing units limited only to 

compliance with limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean charge,

(18) The requirements described in paragraph (v) of this 

section for alternative lime addition monitoring methods 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 180 of 234

applicable to lime coated fabric filters used to control 

emissions from group 1 furnaces processing other than clean 

charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap 

dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, and

(19) The requirements described in paragraph (w) of this 

section for approval of alternate methods for monitoring group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean charge, thermal chip 

dryers, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and 

sweat furnaces and associated control devices for the control of 

D/F emissions.

* * * * *

(b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The 

owner or operator must prepare and implement for each new or 

existing affected source and emission unit, a written operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator 

of an existing affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the 

responsible permitting authority no later than the compliance 

date established by §63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any 

new affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible 

permitting authority within 90 days after a successful initial 

performance test under §63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the 

compliance date established by §63.1501(b) if no initial 

performance test is required. The plan must be accompanied by a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 181 of 234

written certification by the owner or operator that the OM&M 

plan satisfies all requirements of this section and is otherwise 

consistent with the requirements of this subpart. The owner or 

operator must comply with all of the provisions of the OM&M plan 

as submitted to the permitting authority, unless and until the 

plan is revised in accordance with the following procedures. If 

the permitting authority determines at any time after receipt of 

the OM&M plan that any revisions of the plan are necessary to 

satisfy the requirements of this section or this subpart, the 

owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and 

resubmit the revised plan. If the owner or operator determines 

that any other revisions of the OM&M plan are necessary, such 

revisions will not become effective until the owner or operator 

submits a description of the changes and a revised plan 

incorporating them to the permitting authority. The owner or 

operator must not begin operating under the revised plan until 

approval is received or until after 60 days, whichever is 

sooner. Each plan must contain the following information:

* * * * *

(5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device 

parameters, including lime injection rates, procedures for 

annual inspections of afterburners, and if applicable, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 182 of 234

procedure to be used for determining charge/feed (or throughput) 

weight if a measurement device is not used.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system 

at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system is 

operating in accordance with the operating requirements in 

§63.1506(c) and record the results of each inspection. This 

inspection shall include a volumetric flow rate measurement 

taken at a location in the ductwork downstream of the hoods 

which will be representative of the actual volumetric flow rate 

without the interference of leaks, the introduction of ambient 

air for cooling, or other ducts manifolded from other hoods. The 

measurement shall be performed using EPA Reference Methods 1 and 

2 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. 

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, 

calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the 

manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

* * * * *

(i) * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 183 of 234

(4) At least once per month, verify that the lime injection 

rate in lb/hr is no less than 90 percent of the lime injection 

rate used to demonstrate compliance during your performance 

test.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(4) Calculate and record the total reactive flux injection 

rate for each operating cycle or time period used in the 

performance test using the procedure in §63.1512(o). For solid 

flux that is added intermittently, record the amount added for 

each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test 

using the procedures in §63.1512(o). 

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(1) Record in an operating log for each tap of a sidewell 

furnace that the level of molten metal was above the top of the 

passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux 

injection, unless the furnace hearth was also equipped with an 

add-on control device. If visual inspection of the molten metal 

level is not possible, the molten metal level must be determined 

using physical measurement methods.

(2) Submit a certification of compliance with the 

operational standards in §63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 184 of 234

reporting period. Each certification must contain the 

information in §63.1516(b)(2)(iii).

* * * * *

(o) * * *

(1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation 

with the responsible permitting authority, a written sitespecific monitoring plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must 

be submitted to the permitting authority as part of the OM&M 

plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must contain sufficient 

procedures to ensure continuing compliance with all applicable 

emission limits and must demonstrate, based on documented test 

results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl (and, for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF), and D/F and the proposed 

monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data must 

establish the highest level of PM, HCl (and, for uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF), and D/F that will be emitted from the 

furnace. This may be determined by conducting performance tests 

and monitoring operating parameters while charging the furnace 

with feed/charge materials containing the highest anticipated 

levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest 

anticipated rate. If the permitting authority determines that 

any revisions of the site-specific monitoring plan are necessary 

to meet the requirements of this section or this subpart, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 185 of 234

owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and 

resubmit the revised plan to the permitting authority.

* * * * *

(ii) The permitting authority will review and approve or 

disapprove a proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based 

on whether the plan contains sufficient provisions to ensure 

continuing compliance with applicable emission limits and 

demonstrates, based on documented test results, the relationship 

between emissions of PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces, HCl/HF and the proposed monitoring parameters for each 

pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM,

HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF that 

will be emitted from the furnace. Subject to permitting agency 

approval of the OM&M plan, this may be determined by conducting 

performance tests and monitoring operating parameters while 

charging the furnace with feed/charge materials containing the 

highest anticipated levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at 

the highest anticipated rate.

* * * * *

(t) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Except as provided 

in paragraph (u) of this section, the owner or operator must 

calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 

emissions of PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 186 of 234

furnaces, HCl/HF for each secondary aluminum processing unit on 

a daily basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average, 

the owner or operator must:

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Where no performance test has been conducted, for a 

particular emission unit, because the owner of operator has, 

with the approval of the permitting authority, chosen to 

determine the emission rate of an emission unit by testing a

representative unit, in accordance with §63.1511(f), the owner 

of operator shall use the emission rate determined from the 

representative unit in the SAPU emission rate calculation 

required in §63.1510(t)(4).

(ii) If the owner or operator has not conducted a 

performance test for HCl/HF for a group 1 furnace or in-line 

fluxer, in accordance with the provisions of §63.1512(d)(3), 

§63.1512(e)(3), or §63.1512(h)(2), the calculation required in 

§63.1510(t)(4) to determine SAPU wide HCl/HF emissions shall be 

made under the assumption that all reactive flux added to the 

emission unit is emitted as HCl or HF. 

* * * * *

(4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using 

Equation 4:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 187 of 234

( )

( )

(Eq. 4)

T

T ER

E n

i 1

i

n

i 1

i i

day

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

Where,

Eday= The daily PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces, HCl/HF emission rate for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit for the 24-hour period;

Ti= The total amount of feed, or aluminum produced, for 

emission unit i for the 24-hour period (tons or Mg);

ERi= The measured emission rate for emission unit i as 

determined in the performance test (lb/ton or μg/Mg of 

feed/charge); and n = The number of emission units in the 

secondary aluminum processing unit.

(5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for 

each pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for 

each pollutant over the 3 most recent consecutive days and 

dividing by 3. The SAPU is in compliance with an applicable 

emission limit if the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for each 

pollutant is no greater than the applicable SAPU emission limit 

determined in accordance with §63.1505(k)(1)-(3).

* * * * *

7. Section 63.1511 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph (a);
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 188 of 234

b. By revising paragraph (b);

c. By revising paragraph (b)(1); 

d. By adding paragraph (b)(6); 

e. By revising paragraph (c)(9); 

f. By adding paragraph (f)(6); and

g. By adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:

§63.1511 Performance test/compliance demonstration general 

requirements.

(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any 

performance test required by this subpart, the owner or operator 

must prepare a site-specific test plan which satisfies all of 

the requirements, and must obtain approval of the plan pursuant 

to the procedures, set forth in §63.7(c). Performance tests 

shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for the period being tested. 

Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. (b) Initial performance test. 

Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or 

operator must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or operational 

standard for each affected source and emission unit, and report 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 189 of 234

the results in the notification of compliance status report as 

described in §63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any existing 

affected source for which an initial performance test is 

required to demonstrate compliance must conduct this initial 

performance test no later than the date for compliance 

established by §63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new 

affected source for which an initial performance test is 

required must conduct this initial performance test within 180 

days after the date for compliance established by §63.1501(b). 

Except for the date by which the performance test must be 

conducted, the owner or operator must conduct each performance 

test in accordance with the requirements and procedures set 

forth in §63.7(c). Owners or operators of affected sources 

located at facilities which are area sources are subject only to 

those performance testing requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners 

or operators of sweat furnaces meeting the specifications of 

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

(1) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest rate of production expected to be 

processed and using the highest reactive fluxing rate expected 

to be processed in controlled mode. Any subsequent performance 

tests for the purposes of establishing new or revised parametric 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 190 of 234

limits shall be allowed upon pre-approval from the permitting 

authorities as specified in the site-specific test plan. These 

new parametric settings shall be used to demonstrate compliance

for the period being tested.

* * * * *

(6) Apply paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section 

for each pollutant separately if a different production rate, 

charge material or, if applicable, reactive fluxing rate would 

apply and thereby result in a higher expected emissions rate for 

that pollutant.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(9) Method 26A for the concentration of HCl and HF. Where a 

lime-injected fabric filter is used as the control device to 

comply with the 90 percent reduction standard, the owner or 

operator must measure the fabric filter inlet concentration of 

HCl at a point before lime is introduced to the system. Test to 

measure HCl and HF must be conducted at the next required 

performance test.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) All 3 separate runs of a performance test must be 

conducted on the same unit.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 191 of 234

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(5) If the owner or operator wants to conduct a new

performance test and establish different operating parameter 

values, they must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (4) of this section and submit a revised site specific 

test plan and receive approval in accordance with paragraph (a) 

of this section.

* * * * *

8. Section 63.1512 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph (c); 

b. By revising paragraph (d)(3); 

c. By revising paragraph (e)(1);

d. By revising paragraph (e)(2); 

e. By revising paragraph (e)(3); 

f. By adding paragraphs (e)(4); 

g. By adding paragraphs (e)(5); 

h. By revising paragraph (h)(1); 

i. By revising paragraph (h)(2); 

j. By revising paragraph (j); 

k. By revising paragraph (j)(1); 

l. By revising paragraph (j)(2); 

m. By revising paragraph (j)(3) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 192 of 234

n. By revising paragraph (n)(1); 

o. By revising paragraph (o)(1); 

p. By revising paragraph (p); and

q. By revising paragraph (p)(2)to read as follows:

§63.1512 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements 

and procedures.

* * * * *

(c) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. The owner 

or operator must conduct performance tests to measure emissions 

of THC, D/F, HCl/HF, and PM at the outlet of the control device.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate 

of reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for 

the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission 

limit, that all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is 

emitted. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not 

required to conduct an emission test for HCl/HF.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean 

charge material, the owner or operator must conduct emission 

tests to measure emissions of PM, HCl/HF, and D/F (2) If the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 193 of 234

group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner or 

operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure 

emissions of PM and HF and HCl/HF. A D/F test is not required. 

Each test must be conducted while the group 1 furnace (including 

a melting/holding furnace) processes only clean charge.

(3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate 

of reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for 

the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission 

limit, that all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is 

emitted. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not 

required to conduct an emission test for HF or HCl.

(4) When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the 

owner or operator must either:

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or

(ii) Assume a 67 percent capture efficiency for the furnace 

exhaust (i.e., multiply emissions measured at the furnace 

exhaust outlet by 1.5) if hooding does not meet ACGIH 

guidelines. If the source fails to demonstrate compliance using 

the 67 percent capture efficiency assumption, the owner or 

operator must re-test with a hood that meets the ACGIH 

Guidelines within 90 days, or petition the permitting authority 

that such hoods are impracticable and propose testing procedures 

that will minimize fugitive emissions and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 194 of 234

(iii) Comply with the requirements of paragraphs (e)(4)(i) 

and (ii) of this section at the next required performance test.

(5) When testing a new uncontrolled furnace the owner or 

operator must either: 

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or 

(ii) Petition the permitting authority that such hoods are 

impracticable and propose testing procedures that will minimize 

fugitive emissions.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer that uses 

reactive flux materials must conduct a performance test to 

measure emissions of HCl/HF and PM or otherwise demonstrate

compliance in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

If the in-line fluxer is equipped with an add-on control device, 

the emissions must be measured at the outlet of the control 

device.

(2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which 

reactive chlorine flux is added to an in-line fluxer and assume, for 

the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, 

that all chlorine/fluorine in the reactive flux added to the in-line 

fluxer is emitted as HCl/HF. Under these circumstances, the owner or 

operator is not required to conduct an emission test for HCl/HF. If 

the owner or operator of any in-line flux box which has no ventilation 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 195 of 234

ductwork manifolded to any outlet or emission control device chooses 

to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for HCl/HF by

limiting use of reactive chlorine/fluorine flux and assuming that all 

chlorine/fluorine in the flux is emitted as HCl/HF, compliance with 

the HCl/HF limit shall also constitute compliance with the emission 

limit for PM, and no separate emission test for PM is required. In 

this case, the owner or operator of the unvented in-line flux box must 

utilize the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the in-line flux 

boxes when determining the total emissions for any SAPU which includes 

the flux box.* * * * *

(j) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must 

conduct performance tests as described in paragraphs (j)(1) through 

(3) of this section. The results of the performance tests are used to 

establish emission rates in lb/ton of feed/charge for PM, HCl/HF and 

μg TEQ/Mg of feed/charge for D/F emissions from each emission unit. 

These emission rates are used for compliance monitoring in the 

calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission rates using 

the equation in §63.1510(t). A performance test is required for:* *

* * *

(1) * * *

(i) Emissions of HCl/HF (for the emission limit); or

(ii) The mass flow rate of HCl/HF at the inlet to and 

outlet from the control device (for the percent reduction 

standard).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 196 of 234

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Emissions of HCl/HF (for the emission limit); or

(ii) The mass flow rate of HCl/HF at the inlet to and 

outlet from the control device (for the percent reduction 

standard).

* * * * *

(3) Each in-line fluxer to measure emissions of PM and 

HCl/HF.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(1) Continuously measure and record the temperature at the 

inlet to the lime-injected fabric filter every 15 minutes during 

the HCl/HF and D/F performance tests;

* * * * *

(o) * * *

(1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous 

or liquid reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period 

during the HCl/HF and D/F tests, determine and record the 15-

minute block average weights, and calculate and record the total 

weight of the gaseous or liquid reactive flux for the 3 test 

runs;

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 197 of 234

(p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected 

source or emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter 

system must use these procedures during the HCl/HF and D/F tests 

to establish an operating parameter value for the feeder setting 

and lime injection rate for each operating cycle or time period 

used in the performance test.

* * * * *

(2) Record the feeder setting and lime injection rate for 

the 3 test runs. If the feed rate setting and lime injection 

rates vary during the runs, determine and record the average 

feed rate and lime injection rate from the 3 runs.

* * * * *

9. Section 63.1513 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph (b)

b. By revising paragraph (b)(1); 

c. By revising paragraph (e)(1);

d. By revising paragraph (e)(2); and 

e. By revising paragraph (e)(3)to read as follows:

§63.1513 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements 

and procedures.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 198 of 234

(b) PM, HCl/HF and D/F emission limits. (1) Use Equation 7 

of this section to determine compliance with an emission limit 

for PM or HCl/HF:

(Eq. 7) P

C Q K E

× × l = Where:

E = Emission rate of PM or HCl/HF, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;

C = Concentration of PM or HCl, g/dscm (gr/dscf);

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);

K1= Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and

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

(e) * * *

(1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM 

emissions for a secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance 

is achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit (EcPM) is less than or equal to the 

emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (LcPM) 

calculated using Equation 1 in §63.1505(k).

( )

( )

(Eq. 9)

T

E n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

cPM

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

Eti Tti PM

Where,

EcPM= The mass-weighted PM emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit;
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 199 of 234

EtiPM= Measured PM emissions for individual emission unit, or 

group of co-controlled emission units, i;

Tti= The average feed rate for individual emission unit i during 

the operating cycle or performance test period, or the sum of 

the average feed rates for all emission units in the group of 

co-controlled emission unit i; and

n= The number of individual emission units, and groups of cocontrolled emission units in the secondary aluminum processing 

unit.

(2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted 

HCl/HF emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. 

Compliance is achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit (EcHCl/HF) is less than or equal 

to the emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit 

(LcHCl/HF) calculated using Equation 2 in §63.1505(k).

( )

( )

(Eq.10)

T

T

E n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

/ ti

cHCl/HF

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

EtiHCl HF

Where,

EcHCl/HF= The mass-weighted HCl and HF emissions for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit; and

EtiHCl/HF= Measured HCl/HF emissions for individual emission unit, 

or group of co-controlled emission units i.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 200 of 234

(3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted 

D/F emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. 

Compliance is achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit is less than or equal to the 

emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (LcD/F) 

calculated using Equation 3 in §63.1505(k).

( )

( )

(Eq.11)

T

E T

E n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

ti ti

cD/F

D/F

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

Where,

EcD/F= The mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit; and

EtiD/F= Measured D/F emissions for individual emission unit, or 

group of co-controlled emission units i.

* * * * *

10. Section 63.1514 is revised to read as follows:

§63.1514 Change of Furnace Classification.

(a) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing 

other than clean charge to group 1 uncontrolled furnace 

processing other than clean charge. 

An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes must 

conduct performance tests to demonstrate to the delegated
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 201 of 234

permitting authority that compliance can be achieved under both 

modes. Operating parameters relevant to each mode of operation 

must be established during the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance 

tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§63.1512(d) with the capture system and control device operating 

normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected and using the 

highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed 

in controlled mode.

(ii)Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection 

must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits 

for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) Operators of major sources must conduct additional

performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the 

procedures in §63.1512(e) without operating a control device.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 202 of 234

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap 

cycles, or 24 operating hours with scrap of the highest level of 

contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with 

furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of 

§63.1512(e)(4) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be 

established during these tests.

(iv) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits 

for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(3) Operators of area sources must conduct performance 

tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(d) with

the capture system and control device operating normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processes 

and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected 

to be processed in controlled mode.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 203 of 234

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection 

must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits 

for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(4) Operators of area sources must conduct performance 

tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e) 

without operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap 

cycles, or 24 operating hours with scrap of the highest level of 

contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with 

furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of 

§63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be 

established during these tests. In addition the number of 

cycles of furnace operation with scrap of the highest level of 

contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode that 

elapsed prior to the performance test(s) conducted in 

uncontrolled mode is established as a parameter.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 204 of 234

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, 

for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission 

limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(5) To switch modes of operation from uncontrolled to 

controlled, the owner or operator must, before charging scrap to 

the furnace that exceeds the contaminant level established for 

uncontrolled mode,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 

operation,

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, 

and

(iii) Begin lime addition to the control device at the rate 

established for controlled mode.

(6) To switch modes of operation from controlled to 

uncontrolled, the owner or operator must, before turning off or 

bypassing the control device,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 

operation, 

(ii) Charge scrap with a level of contamination no greater 

than that used in the performance test for uncontrolled furnaces 

for the number of charge to tap cycles that elapsed with scrap 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 205 of 234

of a contamination level no higher than that used in the 

uncontrolled mode performance test(s), and

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the 

flux addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance 

test.

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of 

§63.1517, the owner or operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode switch (controlled to uncontrolled, or 

uncontrolled to controlled), the time the switch is initiated, 

and the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device to 

bypass or bypass to control device. 

(b) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing 

other than clean charge and to group 1 uncontrolled furnace 

processing clean charge. An owner or operator wishing to operate 

under controlled mode with other than clean charge and 

uncontrolled mode with clean charge must conduct performance 

tests to demonstrate to the delegated permitting authority that 

compliance can be achieved in both modes. Operating parameters 

relevant to each mode of operation must be established during 

the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance 

tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 206 of 234

§63.1512 with the capture system and control device operating 

normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected 

in controlled mode.

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection 

must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits 

for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) Operators of major sources must conduct performance 

tests for PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§63.1512 without operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap 

cycles with clean charge.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with 

furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of 

§63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 207 of 234

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be 

established during these tests.

(iv) Emissions of D/F during this test must not exceed 1.5 

μg TEQ/Mg of feed/charge processed, or this mode of operation is 

not allowed.

(v) The emission factors for PM and HCl/HF for this mode of 

operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be 

determined.

(3) Operators of area sources must conduct additional

performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§63.1512 with the capture system and control device operating 

normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected 

in controlled mode.

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection 

must be established during these tests.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 208 of 234

(iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, 

for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission 

limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(4) Operators of area sources must conduct additional

performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§63.1512(e) without operating a control device.

(i) Testing may be conducted at any time after the furnace 

has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles with scrap of the 

highest level of contamination at the expected to be processed 

in uncontrolled mode at the highest throughput expected to be 

processed in uncontrolled mode.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with 

furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of 

§63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Parameters for flux rate must be established during 

these tests. In addition the number of cycles of furnace 

operation with scrap of the highest level of contamination 

expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode that elapsed prior 

to the performance test(s) conducted in uncontrolled mode is 

established as a parameter.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 209 of 234

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, 

for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission 

limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(5) To switch modes of operation from uncontrolled to 

controlled, the owner or operator must, before charging scrap to 

the furnace that exceeds the contaminant level established for 

uncontrolled mode,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 

operation,

(ii)Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, and

(iii) Begin lime addition to the control device at the rate 

established for controlled mode.

(6) To switch modes of operation from controlled to 

uncontrolled, the owner or operator must, before turning off or 

bypassing the control device,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 

operation, 

(ii) Charge clean charge for the number of charge to tap 

cycles that elapsed before the uncontrolled mode performance 

test was conducted, and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 210 of 234

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the 

flux addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance 

test.

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of 

§63.1517, the owner or operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode switch (controlled to uncontrolled, or 

uncontrolled to controlled), the time the switch is initiated, 

and the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device to 

bypass or bypass to control device. 

(c) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled 

furnace to a group 2 furnace. An owner or operator wishing to 

change operating modes must conduct additional performance tests 

to demonstrate to the delegated permitting authority that 

compliance can be achieved under group 1 mode and establish the 

number of cycles of operation with clean charge and no reactive 

flux addition necessary to elapse before switching to group 2 

mode. Operating parameters relevant to group 1 operation must 

be established during the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct additional 

performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the 

procedures in §63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 211 of 234

performance tests with the capture system and control device 

operating normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected 

to be processed in controlled mode.

(ii) Parameters for throughput, capture, flux rate, and 

lime injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits 

for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) While in compliance with the operating standards of 

§63.1506(o) for group 2 furnaces, operators of major sources 

must conduct additional performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and 

D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e) without 

operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge-to-tap 

cycles, or 24 operating hours with clean charge, and without 

reactive flux addition.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 212 of 234

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with 

furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of 

§63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Owners or operators must demonstrate that emissions 

are no greater than:

(A) 1.5 μg D/F (TEQ) per ton of feed/charge,

(B) 0.04 lb HCl/HF per ton of feed charge, and

(C) 0.04 lb PM per ton of feed/charge.

(iv) The number of charge-to-tap cycles, or operating hours 

elapsed before the group 2 furnace performance tests were 

conducted is established as an operating parameter to be met 

before switching to group 2 mode.

(3) Operators of area sources must conduct additional

performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance 

tests with the capture system and control device operating 

normally.

(i) The performance test must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected 

to be processed in group 1 mode.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 213 of 234

(ii) Parameters for throughput, flux rate, and lime 

injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device 

parameter(s) for capture must be established.

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, 

for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission 

limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(4) While in compliance with the operating standards of 

§63.1506(o) for group 2 furnaces, operators of area sources must 

conduct an additional performance test for D/F, according to the 

procedures in §63.1512(e), without operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge-to-tap 

cycles, or 24 operating hours with clean charge, and without 

reactive flux addition.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with 

furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of 

§63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Owners or operators must demonstrate that emissions 

are no greater than 1.5 μg D/F (TEQ) per ton of feed/charge.

(iv) The number of charge-to-tap cycles, or operating hours 

elapsed before the group 2 furnace performance tests were 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 214 of 234

conducted is established as an operating parameter to be met 

before switching to group 2 mode.

(d) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled 

furnace to group 2 furnace, for tilting reverberatory furnaces 

capable of completely removing furnace contents between batches. 

An owner or operator of a tilting reverberatory furnace capable 

of completely removing furnace contents between batches, wishing 

to change operating modes, must conduct additional performance 

tests to demonstrate that compliance can be achieved under group 

1 mode. Operating parameters relevant to group 1 operation must 

be established during the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct additional

performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the 

procedures in §63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct 

performance tests with the capture system and control device 

operating normally. The performance tests must be conducted with 

the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be 

processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection 

expected to be processed in controlled mode.

(i) Parameters for throughput, capture, flux rate, and lime 

injection must be established during these tests.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 215 of 234

(ii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits 

for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) Operators of area sources must conduct an additional

performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§63.1512. Operators of controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct 

performance tests with the capture system and control device 

operating normally.

(i) The performance test must be conducted with the scrap 

containing the highest level of contamination expected to be 

processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected 

to be processed in group 1 mode.

(ii) Parameters for throughput, flux rate, and lime 

injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device 

parameter(s) for capture must be established.

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, 

for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission 

limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(3) To switch modes between group 1 and group 2, the 

operator must

(i) Completely remove all aluminum from the furnace;
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 216 of 234

(ii) Change the furnace label;

(iii) Use only clean charge; and

(iv) Use no reactive flux;

(4)To switch modes between group 2 and group 1, the owner 

or operator must, before charging other than clean charge or 

reactive flux to the furnace;

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 1 

operation,

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, if 

any, and,

(iii) Begin lime addition to the control device, if any.

(5) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of 

§63.1517, the owner or operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode switch (group 1 to group 2, or group 2 to 

group 1), the time the switch is initiated, and, if the furnace 

is equipped with a control device, the time the exhaust gas is 

diverted from control device to bypass or bypass to control 

device. 

(e) Frequency of switching furnace status. Switching 

furnace status as provided in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 

section may not be done more frequently than once every 6 months 

unless necessary to perform maintenance on the furnace.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 217 of 234

11. Section 63.1515 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(10).

12. Section 63.1516 is amended by: 

a. By removing and reserving paragraph (a); 

b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii); 

c. By adding paragraph (b)(3); 

d. By revising paragraph (c); and

e. By adding paragraph(d)to read as follows:

§63.1516 Reports.

* * * * *

(a) [Reserved]

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) For each sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air 

pollution control devices: “Each furnace was operated such that 

the level of molten metal remained above the top of the passage 

between the sidewell and hearth during reactive fluxing, and 

reactive flux, except for cover flux, was added only to the 

sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped with an add-on air 

pollution control device for PM, HCl/HF, and D/F emissions 

during this reporting period.”

* * * * *

(3)(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test(defined in §63.2) as required by this subpart 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 218 of 234

you must transmit the results of the performance tests required 

by this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that 

is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in 

the file format generated through use of EPA’s Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data 

collected using test methods on the ERT website are subject to 

this requirement for submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the 

information being submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete 

ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact 

disk or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, 

but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 

Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI 

omitted must be submitted to EPA via CDX as described earlier in 

this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, including the confidential 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 219 of 234

business information, to the delegated authority in the format 

specified by the delegated authority.

(ii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to 

the requirements in paragraphs (1)(i) and (ii) of this section 

must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form suitable for the specific case 

(e.g., by commonly used electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the 

right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph 

(1)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.

* * * * *

(c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of 

annual certifications of compliance required by 40 CFR part 70 

or 71, the owner or operator of a major or area source subject 

to this subpart must certify continuing compliance based upon, 

but not limited to, the following conditions:

* * * * *

(d) If there was a malfunction during the reporting period, 

the owner or operator must submit a report that includes the 

number, duration, and a brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which 

caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 220 of 234

be exceeded. The report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an 

affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§§63.1506(a)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction.

* * * * *

13. Section 63.1517 is amended by: 

a. By revising paragraph( b)(3); 

b. By revising paragraph (b)(10); 

c. By revising paragraph (b)(16)(i); 

d. By adding paragraph (b)(18); and

e. By adding paragraph (c)to read as follows:

§63.1517 Records.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) For each scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 

and group 1 furnace, subject to D/F and HCl/HF emission 

standards with emissions controlled by a lime-injected fabric 

filter, records of 15-minute block average inlet temperatures 

for each lime-injected fabric filter, including any period when 

the 3-hour block average temperature exceeds the compliant 

operating parameter value +14 °C (+25 °F), with a brief 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 221 of 234

explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective 

action taken.

* * * * *

(10) Operating logs for each group 1 sidewell furnace with 

add-on air pollution control devices documenting conformance 

with operating standards for maintaining the level of molten 

metal above the top of the passage between the sidewell and 

hearth during reactive flux injection and for adding reactive 

flux only to the sidewell or a furnace hearth equipped with a 

control device for PM, HCl/HF, and D/F emissions.

* * * * *

(16) * * *

(i) Startup and shutdown plan;

* * * * *

(18) For each malfunction for which the owner or operator 

chooses to claim coverage under the affirmative defense 

provisions, the owner or operator must maintain the following 

records;

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §§63.1506(a)(5) and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 222 of 234

63.1520(a)(8), including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation.

(c) All reports required by this subpart not subject to 

the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section must be sent 

to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 

§63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or 

operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require 

submittal of reports subject to paragraph (b) of this section in 

paper format.

* * * * *

14. Section 63.1520 is revised to read as follows: 

§63.1520 Affirmative defense for exceedance of emission limit 

during malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a 

claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that 

are caused by malfunction, as defined at §63.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your 

burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 223 of 234

defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for 

claims for injunctive relief.

(a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the notification 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by 

a preponderance of evidence that:

(1) The excess emissions:

(i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and

(ii) Could not have been prevented through careful 

planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could 

have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for.

(iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift 

and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make 

these repairs; and
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 224 of 234

(3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess 

emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable during periods of such emissions; and

(4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of 

control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable 

to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and

(5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of 

the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and 

human health; and

(6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept 

in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices; and

(7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions 

were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating 

logs; and

(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a 

manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; 

and

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions 

resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 225 of 234

shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and 

engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction.

(b) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected 

source experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) 

during a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the initial occurrence of the 

malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or 

operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense, shall also 

submit a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of 

the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standards in 

this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting 

documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (e) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by 

submitting a written request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an 

extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or 

operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance.

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 226 of 234

15. Table 1 to Subpart RRR is amended to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart RRR – Emission standards for New and Existing 

Affected Sources 

Affected 

source/Emission 

unit

Pollutant Limit Units

All new and 

existing affected 

sources and 

emission units 

that are 

controlled with a 

PM add-on control 

device and that 

choose to monitor 

with a COM; and 

all new and 

existing aluminum 

scrap shredders 

that choose to 

monitor with a COM 

or to monitor 

visible emissions

Opacity 10 Percent

New and existing 

aluminum scrap 

shredder

PM 0.01 Gr/dscf

New and existing 

thermal chip dryer

THC 0.8 lb/ton of 

feed

D/Fa 2.5 ug TEQ/Mg 

of feed

New and existing 

scrap 

dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating 

kilnh

or

PM 0.08 lb/ton of 

feed

HCl/HF 0.8 lb/ton of 

feed

THC 0.06 lb/ton of 

feed

D/Fa 0.25 ug TEQ/Mg 

of feed

Alternative limits 

if afterburner has 

a design residence 

time of at least 1 

second and 

PM 0.08 lb/ton of 

feed

HCl/HF 0.8 lb/ton of 

feed

THC 0.06 lb/ton of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 227 of 234

operates at a 

temperature of at 

least 1400 F

feed

D/Fa 0.25 ug TEQ/Mg 

of feed

New or existing 

sweat furnaceh

D/Fa 0.8 ng 

TEQ/dscm @ 

11% O2 b

New or existing 

dross-only 

furnaceh

PM 0.3 lb/ton of 

feed

New or existing

in-line fluxer 

footnote

HCL/HF 0.04 lb/ton of 

feed

PM 0.01 lb/ton of 

feed

New and existing 

in-line fluxer 

with no reactive 

fluxing

No limit work 

practice: 

no 

reactive 

fluxing

New and existing 

rotary dross 

cooler

PM 0.04 gr/dscf

New and existing 

clean furnace 

(Group 2)

No limit Work 

practices: 

clean 

charge 

only and 

no 

reactive 

fluxing

New and existing 

group 1 

melting/holding 

furnace 

(processing only 

clean charge)c, h

PM 0.8 lb/ton of 

feed

HCL/HF 0.4 lb/ton of 

feed

or

10 percent of 

the HCl 

upstream 

of the 

add-on 

control 

device

New and existing 

group 1 furnacec, h

PM 0.4 lb/ton of 

feed

HCL/HF 0.4 lb/ton of 

feed

or
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 228 of 234

10 percent of 

the HCl 

upstream 

of the 

add-on 

control 

device

D/Fa 15 ug/TEQ/Mg 

of feed

New and existing 

group 1 furnace 

with clean charge 

onlyh

PM 0.4 lb/ton of 

feed

HCL/HF 0.4 lb/ton of 

feed

or

10 percent of 

the HCl 

upstream 

of the 

add-on 

control 

device

D/Fa No limit Clean 

charge 

only

New and existing 

group 1 furnace, 

uncontrolled for 

HCl/HF, and using 

flux containing 

fluorineh

Combined 

HCl and HF

0.40 lb/ton of 

feed

New and existing 

secondary aluminum 

processing unita,d

(consists of all 

existing group 1 

furnaces and 

existing in-line 

flux boxes at the 

facility, or all 

simultaneously 

constructed new 

group 1 furnaces 

and new in-lie 

fluxers)

PMe

( )

( )

(Eq.1)

T

L T

L n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

ti ti

C

PM

PM ∑

∑

=

=

×

=
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 229 of 234

HCl/HF

( )

( )

(Eq. 2)

T

L T

L n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

tiHCl/HF ti

cHCl/HF

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

D/Fg

( )

( )

(Eq. 3)

T

L T

L n

i 1

ti

n

i 1

tiD/F ti

cD/F

∑

∑

=

=

×

=

a D/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area source. b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the 

specifications of § 63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a 

performance test. c These limits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to 

secondary aluminum processing units.

d Equation definitions: LiPM = the PM emission limit for individual 

emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg 

(lb/ton) of feed]; Ti = the feed rate for individual emission uniti

in the secondary aluminum processing unit; LtPM = the overall PM 

emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg 

(lb/Ton of feed)]; LiHCL/HF = the HCL/HF emission limit for individual 

emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg 

(lb/Ton) of feed]; LtHCl/HF = the overall HCl/HF emission limit for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; LiD/F = 

the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr 

TEQ/ton) of feed]; LtD/F = the overall D/F emission limit for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/Ton) of feed]; 

n = the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit. 

(Need to check. These are slightly different that what is in the 

text of the rule)

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

in this calculation since they are not subject to the PM limit.

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

in this calculation since they are not subject to the HCL/HF limit. g Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since 

they are not subject to the D/F limit.

h During periods of startup and shutdown, affected source is not 

subject to numerical emissions limits but must be operated according 

to the work practice provisions in section §63.1506(q).

* * * * *

16. Appendix A to Subpart RRR is amended to read as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 230 of 234

Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63 – Applicability of General 

Provisions 40 CFR 63, Subpart RRR

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to RRR Comment

§63.1(a)(1)–

(4)

General Applicability Yes.

§63.1(a)(5) No [Reserved].

§63.1(a)(6)–

(8)

Yes.

§63.1(a)(9) No [Reserved].

§63.1(a) (10)–

(14)

Yes.

§63.1(b) Initial Applicability 

Determination

Yes EPA retains approval authority.

§63.1(c)(1) Applicability After Standard 

Established

Yes.

§63.1(c)(2) Yes §63.1500(e) exempts area sources subject to this 

subpart from the obligation to obtain Title V operating 

permits.

§63.1(c)(3) No [Reserved].

§63.1(c)(4)–

(5)

Yes.

§63.1(d) No [Reserved].

§63.1(e) Applicability of Permit Program Yes.

§63.2 Definitions Yes Additional definitions in §63.1503.

§63.3 Units and Abbreviations Yes

§63.4(a)(1)–

(3)

Prohibited Activities Yes.

§63.4(a)(4) No [Reserved]

§63.4(a)(5) Yes.

§63.4(b)–(c) Circumvention/ Severability Yes.

§63.5(a) Construction and 

Reconstruction—Applicability

Yes.

§63.5(b)(1) Existing, New, Reconstructed 

Sources—Requirements

Yes.

§63.5(b)(2) No [Reserved].

§63.5(b)(3)–

(6)

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 231 of 234

§63.5(c) No [Reserved].

§63.5(d) Application for Approval of 

Construction/ Reconstruction

Yes.

§63.5(e) Approval of Construction/ 

Reconstruction

Yes.

§63.5(f) Approval of 

Construction/Reconstruction 

Based on State Review

Yes.

§63.6(a) Compliance with Standards and 

Maintenance—Applicability

Yes.

§63.6(b)(1)–

(5)

New and Reconstructed 

Sources—Dates

Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) No [Reserved].

§63.6(b)(7) Yes.

§63.6(c)(1) Existing Sources Dates Yes §63.1501 specifies dates.

§63.6(c)(2) Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)–

(4)

No [Reserved].

§63.6(c)(5) Yes.

§63.6(d) No [Reserved].

63.6(e)(1)(i) No See 63.1506(A)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8) for general duty 

requirement.

63.6(e)(1)(ii) No

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes

§63.6(e)(2) Operation & Maintenance 

Requirements

Yes §63.1510 requires plan.

§63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown Plan No Startup and Shutdown Plan Only

§63.6(f) Compliance with Emission 

Standards

Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative Standard No

§63.6(h) Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards

Yes.

§63.6(i)(1)–

(14)

Extension of Compliance Yes.

§63.6(i)(15) No [Reserved].

§63.6(i)(16) Yes.

§63.6(j) Exemption from Compliance Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 232 of 234

§63.7(a)–(h) Performance Test 

Requirements-Applicability and 

Dates

Yes Except §63.1511 establishes dates for initial

performance tests.

§63.7(b) Notification Yes.

§63.7(c) Quality Assurance/Test Plan Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing Facilities Yes.

§63.7(e) Conduct of Tests Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative Test Method Yes.

§63.7(g) Data Analysis Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of Tests Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Monitoring Requirements—

Applicability

Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) No [Reserved]

§63.8(a)(4) Yes

§63.8(b) Conduct of Monitoring Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(i) No See 63.843(f) and 63.844(f) for general duty 

requirement.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii)–

(3)

CMS Operation and 

Maintenance

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4)–

(8)

Yes.

§63.8(d) Quality Control Yes.

§63.8(e) CMS Performance Evaluation Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)–(5) Alternative Monitoring Method No §63.1510(w) includes provisions for monitoring 

alternatives.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to RATA Test Yes.

§63.8(g)(1) Data Reduction Yes.

§63.8(g)(2) No §63.1512 requires five 6-minute averages for an 

aluminum scrap shredder.

§63.8(g)(3)–

(5)

Yes.

§63.9(a) Notification Requirements—

Applicability

Yes.

§63.9(b) Initial Notifications Yes.

§63.9(c) Request for Compliance 

Extension

Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 233 of 234

§63.9(d) New Source Notification for 

Special Compliance 

Requirements

Yes.

63.9(e) Notification of Performance Test Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test Yes.

§63.9(g) Additional CMS Notifications Yes.

§63.9(h)(1)–

(3)

Notification of Compliance 

Status

Yes Except §63.1515 establishes dates for notification of 

compliance status reports.

§63.9(h)(4) No [Reserved].

§63.9(h)(5)–

(6)

Yes.

§63.9(i) Adjustment of Deadlines Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in Previous Information Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/Reporting—

Applicability

Yes.

§63.10(b) General Requirements Yes §63.1517 includes additional requirements. See 

63.1517(x),(y) and (z) for recordkeeping of 

occurrence and duration of malfunctions and 

recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction.

§63.10(c)(1) Additional CMS Recordkeeping Yes.

§63.10(c)(2)–

(4)

No [Reserved].

§63.10(c)(5) Yes.

§63.10(c)(6) Yes.

§63.10(c)(7)–

(8)

Yes.

§63.10(c)(9) No [Reserved].

§63.10(c)(10)–

(13)

Yes. See 63.1517(e)(4)(xvi) and (xvii)for recordkeeping of 

malfunctions.

§63.10(c)(14) Yes.

§63.10(d)(1) General Reporting 

Requirements

Yes.

§63.10(d)(2) Performance Test Results Yes.

§63.10(d)(3) Opacity or VE Observations Yes.

§63.10(d)(4)–

(5)

Progress Reports/Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Reports

Yes.

§63.10(e)(1)–

(2)

Additional CMS Reports Yes.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 234 of 234

§63.10(e)(3) Excess Emissions/CMS 

Performance Reports

Yes Reporting deadline given in §63.1516.

§63.10(e)(4) COMS Data Reports Yes.

§63.10(f) Recordkeeping/Reporting 

Waiver

Yes.

§63.11(a)–(b) Control Device Requirements No Flares not applicable.

§63.12(a)–(c) State Authority and Delegations Yes. EPA retains authority for applicability determinations.

§63.13 Addresses Yes.

§63.14 Incorporation by Reference Yes ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual for 

capture/collection systems; and Interim Procedures 

for Estimating Risk Associated with Exposure to 

Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDDs and 

CDFs) and 1989 Update (incorporated by reference in 

§63.1502).

§63.15 Availability of 

Information/Confidentiality

Yes.