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-propo sal 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– Draft (12/ 30 /2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***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 -**  **0 544**  **; FRL -**  **???]**
**RIN 2060**  **- AQ40**  **National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:**  **Secondary Aluminum Production**
**AGENCY:** Env ironmental 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– Draft (12/ 30 /2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **2** of **234**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 r equirements regarding testing of uncontrolled furnaces;

• Add rule requirements for testing hydrogen fluoride in addition to hydrogen chloride in furnaces that use fluorine

containing fluxes;

• Add operating requirements such as monitoring of lime injection ra tes; 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 bef ore [ 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 F EDERAL 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

- 0 544
. • Fax: (202) 566

- 9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2010

- 0 544
. • Mail : U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0 544 , 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 17 th 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

- HQ

OAR

- 2010

- 0 544 . Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of oper ation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions **.** Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0 544
. The EPA ’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without c hange 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 restr icted 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 ident ity 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 c omment 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 CD

ROM you subm it. 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 fr ee 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

- 0 544
. 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 disclo sure 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.regul ations.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 PROPOSE D 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 sh ould 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 FURTHE R INFORMATION CONTACT**  **:** For questions about this proposed action, c ontact M s. 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 C arolina 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, Hea lth and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C 504

– 0 6 ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number : (919) 541

– 7524 ; fax number : (919) 541

– 0840; and e mail 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 o**  **f E PA**  **Contacts For The N ESHAP**  **Addres sed In This**  **Proposed Action** NESHAP for: OECA Contact 1 OAQPS Contact 2 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 AEG L acute exposure guideline levels AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM

- 3 model AMOS a mple m argin of s afety ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substan ces and Disease Registry BACT best available control technology CAA Clean Air Act CBI c onfidential b usiness i nformation CFR Code of Federal Regulations D/F dioxins and furans EJ environmental justice EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG E mergency R esponse P lanning G uidelines ERT E lectronic R eporting T ool HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hydrogen chloride HEM

- 3 H uman E xposure M odel , V ersion 3 HF hydrogen fluoride HHRAP h uman h ealth r isk a ssessment p rotocols HI h azard i ndex 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 k m ki lometer LAER lowest achievable emissions rate lb/yr pounds per year MACT maximum achievable control technology MACT Code c ode within the NEI used to identify processes included in a source category MDL method detection level mg/acm milligrams per actual cu bic meter mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter mg/m 3 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 Standard s 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 A ssessment 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 Administratio n SCC s ource c lassification c odes SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary SIP s tate i mplementation p lan SOP standard operating procedures SSM startup, shutdown , and malfunction TEF toxic equivalency factors TEQ toxic equivalency quotient THC tota l 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/m 3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates R eform 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 o rganized 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 sup port 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 dec isions 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. Summa ry 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 Environme ntal Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations.
**I .**  **General Information**
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Se ction 112 of the CAA establishes a two

- stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutant s (H AP ) 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 fo r 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 technology

b ased standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cos t, 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 measur es, processes, methods, systems or techniques including, but no t limited to, measures which (1 ) reduce the volume of or eli minate***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
mate rials or other modifications, (2 ) enclose systems or
proc esses to eliminate emissions, (3 ) capture or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emis sions point, (4 ) are d esign, equipment, work practice or operational standards (including requirements for operator t raining 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 d es ign, 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 t o 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 con trol 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

- controlle d similar source
. The
M ACT 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
str ingent than the floor based on consideration of the cost of achieving th e emissions reductions and any non

- air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.
U nder CAA section 112(d)(6) , t he EPA is then required to review these technolog y - based standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no les s 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 Repo rt 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 re garding 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 promu lgate 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 ex isting standards are sufficiently protective
. NRDC v. EPA , 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D .C. Cir. 2008)
. (“If EPA determines that the existing technol ogy - based standards provide an “ample margin of safety,” then the a gency 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 effect 1 but mus t consider cost, energy, safety and other relevant factors in doing so
. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA express ly 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 Anh ydride 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
. Th e 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 Be nzene NESHAP, and the U nited
States Court of Appeals for the D istrict 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]ubsecti on 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 ”)
. s ee also A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 , volume 1, p. 877 (Se nate 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 NESHA P, 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 strive s to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by , (1) prote cting 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 livi ng 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 a gency stated that, “ [t] he EPA also considers incidence (the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health effects as a re sult 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 serio us health effects i n the exposed population.” 54 FR 38045. The a gency 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 Benz ene 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 lif etime 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 a n 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 displa ys 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 acknowledge d 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 b enchmark 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 **2 34**  The a gency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP : “ [i] n establishing a presumption for MIR, rather th an a rigid line for acceptability, the A gency 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 expose d 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 sci entific evidence for human health effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects d ue 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 rea listic 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** additi onal factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, technolog ical feasibility, uncertainties and any other relevant factors
. Considering all of these factors, the A gency 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 t he 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 approximate ly 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

r isk 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 : t he MIR; the numbers of persons in various risk ranges; cancer inciden ce; the maximum

non cancer hazard index (HI); and the maximum acut e non cancer 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

w ell 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 a gency acknowledge s 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 expla ined 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 estim ates . 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 Administra tor 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.
F o r 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 r ange 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 a gency 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, th e 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 economi c 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 pre amble. 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. Th ese standard s , once finalized, will be directly applicable to affected sources
. Federal, S tate, 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 f rom 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**  **code 1**  **MACT code**  **2** 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 33131 5 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 elect ronic 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

r eview (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 informatio n 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 C BI 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 info rmation 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 includ ed 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

- 0 544
. **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

- l ine fluxing; and (4) Cooling of dross. The following sections include descriptions of the affected sources in th e secondary aluminum production source category, the origin of HAP emissions from these affected
sources, and fa ctors 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 decoatin g 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

unc oated 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 HA P. 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 perce nt 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 s crap 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 orga nic 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 emit s PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP), HCl, THC (of which some fraction is or ganic 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 th e 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, mo lten aluminum can be fed directly to a melting or refining furnace.
An uncontrolled sweat furnace emit s 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 temperatu re 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 adj usted 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 poly vinyl 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 sidew ell 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 emit s PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP), HCl, and D/F
. P rocess 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 flu xes they can use. G roup 2 furnaces process only clean charge and conduct no reactive flux ing.***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/alloy ing 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 skimm ed from the surface of the aluminum bath and cooled. Dross

- only furnaces are typically rotary barrel furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). A dross

only furnace without controls emit s PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP ). Rotary dross cool ers 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 ve ry 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 emit s HCl and
PM. The Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP was promulgated on March 23, 2000 , (65 FR 1569 0 ) and codified as 4 0 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 alu minum 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 coo lers, 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 a rea sources of HAP only with respect to em issions 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). T he standards promulgated in 2000 established emission limits for particulate matter (P M) 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 af fected 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 s tandards
. 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**  **So urces 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/F a 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/F a 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/F a 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/F a 0.80 ng TEQ/dscm @ 11% O 2 b New and existing dross

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

- line fluxer c 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 ch arge) 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 furnace c 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 contr ol device D/F a 15.0 μg TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing group 1 furnace c 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/F a No Limit Clean charge only New and exi sting secondary aluminum processing unit a,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) PM e 

# ( ) ( ) 

# ∑ ∑

= = 

### ×

= n

i i n

i i i
t 

### T T L L PM

PM
1 1

HCl f 

# ( ) ( ) 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

### ×

= n

i i n

i i i
t 

### T T L L l HC

HCl
1 1

D/F g 

# ( ) ( ) 

# ∑ ∑

=

= 

### ×

= n

i i n

i i i
t 

### T T L L F D

F D
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 l imits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to secondary aluminum processing units. d Equation definitions: L iPM = the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; T i = the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit; L tPM = the overall PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb

- ton) of feed]; L iHCl = the HCl emission limit for individual emission unit i in t he secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L tHCl = the overall HCl emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L iD/F = the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton ) of feed]; L tD/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 th is 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 f or 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 filter s for control of PM from dross

- only furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime

- injected fabric filters for control of PM and HCl from in

- line fluxers; and lime

injected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. 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 perform ance 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, s ent 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 maxi mum 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 surr ogate for organic HAP. Since subpart RRR compliance testing is performed for the surrogate s PM and THC, there are limited test data available for HAP

- speciated metal and organic HAP emissions. Therefore, responses to the nine

company 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, l ead, 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

m atter 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 test ing 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 h ave 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 (anthracen e, chrysene, naphthalene, etc.).
U sing 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

- compan y 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 o f 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 memora ndum D raft D evelopment of the RTR Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category which is available in the docket fo r 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
suppo rt the proposed decisions for the RTR for this source

ca tegory.
A . How did we estimate risks posed by the source category ? The EPA conducted risk assessments that provide estimates of the M I R 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 expose d 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 r ulemaking 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 Categor y . 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 2010 3 ; 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 basi s 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 1 61 sources subject to the NESHAP responded, approxi mately 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 faci lity in the dataset using tools such as Google Earth. We corrected

co ordinates that w ere found to be incorrect. We also performed

3 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodo logies: 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. Establi shing 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 leve ls 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
repr esents 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 i nherently 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 estimat es 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 compli ance 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 est imates are discussed in more detail in the document Draft D evelopment 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, deter mining inhalation exposures and estimating i ndividual and population i nhalation

r isks Both long

- term and short

- term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from each facility in the source categor y were estimated using the Human Exposure Model ( HEM ) (Community and Sector HEM

– 3 version 1.1.0). The HEM

– 3 performs three primary r isk assessment activities: (1) c onducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long

- term and short

- term inhalation
expos ures to individuals residing with in 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, whic h 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 mete orological 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 sec ond library of U nited 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 controllin g 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 EP A 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 da ys 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 cu bic 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 value s, 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

- r esponse 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 c ancer 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 targ et 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
sp anning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous

6 These classifications also coincide with the terms "k nown 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 indi vidual 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) t he 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 ha s been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and ha s 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 tha t a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak (hourly) emission rate s 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 val ue. In each case, acute HQ values were calculated using best available, short

- term dose

response values. These acute dose

- response values, which are described below, include the acute REL, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency response plann ing 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 Assessme nt 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 concentratio n 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

- population s (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 a n 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 Hazardo us 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 a pplication 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 Committ ee 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 nonregula tory 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 in dividuals, 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 co ncentrations 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 v alues as “the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m 3 ) 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 gu ideline 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 tra nsient 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 ho ur 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 Responsib ilities . 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 c oncerns. 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 AEG L

– 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 rep ort 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 p eak 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 hour ly emissions rate, and the 99 th 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 avai lable 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 mo st source categories that the maximum one

hour 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 hav e 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 wor st

- case HQ values from the initial acute screen step were less than 1, acute impacts were deemed negligibl e and no further analysis was performed. In the cases where an y worst

case acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, additional site

- specif ic 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 ther e 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 develo ped 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 screeni ng The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., mu ltipathway 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, methoxychlo r, 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 categor y , we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. In thi s 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 th is 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 a nalysis to ensure that its key design parameters were established such that

e nvironmental 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

- Sc reen 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 ana lysis
. 5. Cond ucting other risk

- related analyses: facilitywide

a ssessments To put the source category risks in context, for our residual risk review s , we also typically examine the risks from the entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAP

e mitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In these facilitywide assessments w e 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 coat ing 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 so urces 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 a ssessment Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for the Secondary Aluminum sour ce categor y 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 dat asets, 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 thi s action.

a. Uncertainties in the e miss ions d atasets***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 incomplet e 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 perform ance 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 t o the average annual hourly emission rate, which is intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in dispersion m odeling While the analysis employed the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AE RMOD, 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 depl etion, 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 poten tial 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 site s 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 ef fects 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 popul ation 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 assess ment 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 exposu res 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 un derstatement 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 decrea se 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 a nd 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 l ocation, 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 th e 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 meteorol ogical 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 r elationships The re 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 quantitati vely, 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 protecti on of human health; accordingly, as

an a gency 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 actio n. 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 tru e 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 underes timate 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 leve ls. 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 considerati on 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) “[De fault] 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 Asse ssment 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 o ptions 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, de fault 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** fac tors 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 te ndency 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 under estimat ed. 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 ar e intended to account for: (1) v ariation 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 extra polating 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 a t: 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 d eveloped 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 in dividuals, 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) h eterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in extrapolating fr om 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. Additio nal 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 deve loped 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 emit ted 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 exp osures 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 curr ently 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 prio r 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** th i s source categor y 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 environment al effects screening a ssessment 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

- s pecific levels of PB

HAP 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 importa nt 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), a s discussed in S ection 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**

max imum 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 par ticular 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; can cer 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 a gency is consideri ng 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 am ple margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP “[ i n the ample margin decision, the a gency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors rel ating 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.
T he agency acknowledges tha t the Benzene NESHAP provides flex ibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making determinations and how the se 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 t he 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 th e 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 o f 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 respe ct 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 38 057 )
. 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 a gency may find, in a pa rticular 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 Benz ene 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**

s ource 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 quanti fy 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 a gency 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 particular ly important when assessing non

cancer risks, where pollutant

- specific exposure health reference levels ( e.g. , Reference Concentration s (RfC s )) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the a gency 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 u s “... 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
Wh ile 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 suc h 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 techni cal 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

- 1 0

- 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 exposur e 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 practice s, 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 conduct ed an analysis of the technical feasibility of applying t hese developments, along with the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions, etc.) of applying these developments . We then ma d e decision s on whether it is appropriate or necessary to propose amend ments to the 2000 NESHAP to require an y 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 informatio n 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 co ntrol 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 dev elopment 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 P roduction 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 t he 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 t he 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 regula tory 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 ene rgy implications associated with the use of these technologies
. Additionally, w e requested information from facilit ies regarding developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed other information sources, such

as State or local permitting agency databases and industry

supported databases. In particular, w e consulted the EPA ’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify potential technology advances . Control technologies classified as RACT (Reasonably Available Control T echnology), 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 sometim es 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 techno logies 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 analys es 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 revisi ons 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

a ffirmative defense for exceedance of an emission limit during a malfunction
. W e are proposing other changes to address HF emissions, fugitive emissions during testing and numerous clarifications and corrections related to the existing provisions in the r ule. Descriptions of each issue and the proposed revision to address the issue are presented in Section
I V of this preamble.
**IV. Analy**  **tical Results and Proposed Decisions**  This section of the preamble provides the results of o ur RTR for the Secondary Alumin um Production source category and our proposed decisions concerning changes to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP
. A. What are the results of the risk assessments?
F or major sources in the Secondary Aluminum source category, we conducted an inhalatio n risk assessment for all HAP emitted . In ad dition, we performed a facility wide 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** ris k 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 d etail in the residual risk documentation referenced in
S ection II I 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 Non

cancer TOSHI 2 Worst

case Maximum R efined Screeni ng Acute Non

cancer

HQ 3 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 2 0 2 0.0006 0.05 1 HQ REL 0.7 (HCl)
Area Source (103) 0. 4 6 0 0.0006 0.0003 0. 00 4

- Facility

wid e 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 facilitywid e 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

- resp onse value for dioxins, thus an acute HQ value for area sources was not calculated. See Section III.B of this preamble for explanation s 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. Th e 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 approximat ely 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

- al lowable 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 5 2 major sources, the MIR is estimated to be up to 2 0 in 1 million , the estimated annual incidence is 0.00 0 6 cases per year and the ch r onic 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 . Co nsidering 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 value s for these PB HAP described above ( s ee Section III (A)(4) )
. For dioxins, we also screen ed for potential multipathway effects from emissions of D/F from area sources by
compar ing 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 worst

case screen estimate that actual POM emissions from 20 of the 5 2 major source facilities exceed the POM screening emission rate. With respect to D/F , of the 46 major sources that emitted dioxins, 39 exceed ed our screening emission rate . Similarly, 76 out of 103 area sources e xceeded our D/F s creening rate
. T hese exceed a nces 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. I n general, emission rates below the worst

- case

mu ltipathway 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 wors t

- 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 ar ea 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
concentr ations estimated in our human health risk assessment.
B . What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety? 1. Risk acceptability
A s noted in Section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all health risk factors in our ri sk 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 2 0 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 acceptab le risk . The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence (0.0006 case s per year), as well as no potential for adve rse 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 a nd POM , we compared the estimated actual emission rates from facilities in this source category to the multipathway screening levels des cribed in section III.B
. With respect to POM and dioxins, both major and area sources in the category exceeded our worst

case screening levels. However, we note that this is a worst

case 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 lim itations we were unable to further refine this worst

case 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
pro vides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate d the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the t echnology 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 ri sk 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

sourc e 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 cost

effective 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 analys is 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 μ g 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 fur naces 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 capacit y. The lower D/F limit s potentially could be met by using an activated carbon injection (ACI) system. With regard to the option of lowering the emission limit to 10 μ g 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 annua lized 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 subc ategorization 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 an d would not, therefore, result in significant changes to the potential risk levels. After considering the costs and the small reduction s that would be achieved , we have decided not to pro pose any of the se 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
g roup 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 t he 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 pote ntial 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.
I n 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 an d 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 cost

effective approaches to further reduce POM, THC, metal HAP or D/F emissions beyond the reductions t hat 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 f ilters 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 kil ns; afterburners for control of D/F from sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross

- only furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime

- injected fabric filters for control of PM and HCl from in

- line fluxers; and lime

injected fabric filters for c ontrol 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 s ome developments in practices, processes , or control technologies that have been implemented in this source category since promulgation of the
current NESHAP
. However, t hese 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 M iddle E ast. 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, t he 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

n ot clear that this technology would reduce HAP emissions relative to technologies that are already used by other facilities in the U.S. Overall, b ased 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 se parators 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. Catal ytic 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, n o respondents to our all

- company ICR reported using this technology , and we have no data on the D/F emissio ns reductions that can be achieved at secondary aluminum production facilities using this technology. We therefore conclude that catalytic filtration sy s tems 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 produc tion 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 re sult in the broader use of activated carbon injection technology. Under this analysi s, 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 μ g 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 subcategorization

based on facility production capacity. The lower D/F emissions li mits potentially could be met by using an activated carbon injection (ACI) system. With regard to the option of lowering the emission limit to 10 μ g TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces handling other than clean charge, we estimate that about 11 facilities wou ld 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 t hat are based on ACI injection technology under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA
. Overall , based on our technology review, w e determined that the developments in practices, processes and control technologies identified do not clearly reduce emissions relativ e 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

n ot 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 Second ary 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 **9 6**  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, s ince 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 implementati on of the rule
. Table 5 provides a summary of these proposed changes. Following Table 5 are detailed descriptions of the proposed revisions. **Table 5**  **. S ummary of Technical Corrections/Clarifications to the**  **S econdary Aluminum Production**  **NESHAP Correction**  **/Cla rification**  **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 cert ain affected sources. • Adds definition for affirmative defense
. Adds affirmative defense requirements for malfunctions
. 2. Electronic Reporting (63.1516(b)(3)) • Require s 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 Re porting 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 Mon itoring ( 63.1510(j)( 4)) • C larif ies 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) • Clarif ies definition of cover flux
. 9. Capture and Collection Systems (63.1503) • Ad d s a definition of capture and collection systems
. 10. Bale Breakers (63.1503) • Add s a definition of a bale breaker to clarify that the bale breaker is not a scrap shredder. 11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (B LDS) (63.1510(f)(1)(ii)) • Remove s reference to an outdated guidance document and require s 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**

• A llow s other means of measuring molten me tal level 13. Testing Representative Units (63.1511(f)(6) ) • Clarif ies that all performance test runs must be conducted o n the same affected source or emission unit. 14.Inital Performance Tests (63.1511(b)) • Revise s performance test requirements to allow 1 80 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) • Clarif ies definition of Group 2 furnaces to exclude pots used to transport metal
. 17. Specifications for Cleaning Processes • Not proposing c leaning specifications at this time.
• Invite s 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 defi nition of HF.
• Revises emissions standards for HCl to include HF; combined HF and HCl emissions limit same as HCl.
• Require s EPA Method 26A for measurement of HF and HCl
. • Revises compliance equations. 19. Uncontrolled furnace s that d o n ot Comply with ACGIH Hooding Guidelines ( 63.15 12(e)(4)) • Require s owner/operators with uncontrolled group 1 furnaces to construct hood s for performance testing to demonstrate compliance, or assume 6 7 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 co mments on alternative approaches. 20.”Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, 23 rd Edition (63.1506(c)(1)) • A llow s use of the 23 rd 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 “ c lean charge” definition to exclude anodized material coated with dyes or sealants that contai n organic material. 23. Afterburner Residence Time (63.1503) • Clarifies “r esidence time ” definition to include refractory lined ductwork up to the control thermocouple. 24. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate (63.1505(k)) • Clarif ies that daily throughput must be used to calculate allowable emissions within the SAPU
. 25. Changing Furnace Designations (63.1514) • Allow s owners/operators to switch furnace designations.
• Specifies requirements for switching
. 26. ACGIH Hooding Requirements • Invit es comments on alternatives to t he current ly required ACGIH guidelines
. 27. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces • Clarif ies that owners/operators have the option to conduct performance tests under different operating conditions to address charge/flux changes. 28. Annual Hood Inspecti ons (63.1510(d)(2)) • Clarif ies that annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements. 29. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources (63.1506(a), 63.1510(a)) • Clarif ies which operating, monitoring and other standards apply to area sources. 30. Altering Pa rameters during Testing with New Scrap Streams • Clarif ies 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 Tempor arily Idled (63.1506(q)(5)) • A llow s control device for furnaces to be shut down if furnace will remain idle for 24 hours or longer. 1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions
W e are proposing to amend the provisions of the subpart RRR
NE SHA P regarding complian ce with the emissions limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). The se proposed revisions are necessary to remove references in the subpart RRR NE SHAP to certain requirements of the General Provisions to part 63 regarding HAP emissi ons during SSM periods. The se 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 reas ons 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 effe ct 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, shut down 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 Prov isions 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 revi sions to Appendix A to subpart RRR of
p art 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 el iminate 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 shutdow n 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 b elow , we are not proposing different standar ds 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, emission s 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., l b/ton of feed) o r 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, determin ing compliance with such an emission limit format without any feed materials is mathematically unrealistic
. To apply a numerical emiss ions 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 p ractical 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 ot her 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 c onditions. An emissions tester must account for these changing parameters with near

constant 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 con ditions 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 beginn ing 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 pred ictable 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 collectin g 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 sampl ing 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 una cceptable 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 shutdo wn 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, swe at furnace, dross

- only furnace or group 1 furnace from a cold start. Under the proposed work practice provisions for startup, the operato r must engage and operate any associated exhaust fans, capture hoods and air pollution control devices whenever fuel is fired in the device. A t 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, w hen 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 durin g 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 drye r 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 wit h 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 shutdo wn 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 proc ess 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 1 12 standards . Under section 1 12, 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 perfo rming 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, w hile 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 c ontrolled” 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 difficultie s, 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 wit h 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.Ci r. 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 resou rces 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 po int, 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

- ca se 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 non

malfunctioning source. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. In th e 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 emissi ons 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 designe d 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 caus ed 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 ar e 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 prepondera nce 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 definiti on of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonabl y 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 evi dence 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 ensur e 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 mad e 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 judici al 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 S ection 113 (see also 40 CFR 22. 2 7). 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 cont inuous 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 af firmative 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 i n 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 n ot 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 releva nce 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

co ntrol 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 p ermit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA , 564 F.2d 1253, 1272

- 73 (9 th 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 th e 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 ru le 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 para graphs 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.

• R evise 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 pe rformance 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 requi red 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 varie d 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 Alu minum 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 WebFI RE database is available at h ttp://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 repo rt 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 s traightforward 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 factor s, 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 t he 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 te chnology 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 su pplementing 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 fact ors 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 ope rational 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 re cords 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. Si nce the inception of the rule, several different methodologies of demonstrating compliance with capture and collection req uirements 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 revise d to better characterize hooding requirements that w ould be adequate to e nsure good capture of emissions. We are

r equesting 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 Co ntrol 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 cont inuous 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
p rogram. 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 a re 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 c omments 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 developin g and implementing such programs.
5
. Multiple Tests for Worst

- Case Scenarios The rule currently allows testing to demons trate 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 w orst

- 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 differe nt 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 owne rs/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 re quire 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 performa nce test . P eriodic 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 a dding 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 agit ated. Rotary furnaces are constantly rotated until the metal is tapped and r everb er atory 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 f acilities 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 us e 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 cla rify 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
trans port the contaminated air to the air cleaning device.
1 0
. Bale Breakers
T he 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.
1 1
. Bag Leak Detecti on Systems (BLDS) The c urrent 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 mat erial)
. 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.
1 2
. 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 th e furnace. Because t here 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 mo lten 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 ins pection of the molten metal level is not possible, physical measurement to determine the molten metal level in sidewell group 1 furnaces will be required
. 1 3
. Testing Representative Units Section §63.1511 allows testing of a representative emissions unit t o estimate emissions from other similar units. Some secondary aluminum facilities have conduct ed 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.
1 4
. Initial Performance Test s Section 63.1511(b) of the current rule requires a source to conduct its initial performance tests for a new or mod ified 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 . Th e inlet tempera ture is significant ly affected by ambient air***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft (12/ 30 /2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **126** of **234** temperature s . Exhaust g ases 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 e fficiency. 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 conduct s 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 per formance test. T he 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 Pr ovisions, we are proposing to revise §63.1511 to allow 180 days to conduct an initial performance test
. 1 5
. Definition s of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln and Scrap Shredder We are proposing revisions to the definition of scrap dryer/delacquering / d ecoating kiln to c larify 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 c h ambers with a ma ximum 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 t he definition of a scrap shredder to include granulation in addition to crush ing , grind ing , shearing and break ing of aluminum scrap into a more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or furnace.
1 6
. Tra nsporting Metal We are addressing q uestions 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 clarif y th e fact that the rule does not regulate these pots
. 1 7
. Specifications for Cleaning Processes We consider ed whether to a dd 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 process es . We are not proposing any of these revisions in today’s action. H owever, w e 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 standar d 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 alo ng 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 c oated 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 limi t, on the basis that the be st performing facilities used to establish the current standard did not us e 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 proposin g 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 flux es 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 emiss ions 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 u se fluorine

-***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft (12/ 30 /2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **130** of **234** containing flux es , 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 N ot Present ly 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 col lection 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 (23 rd Edition) .” However, there a re 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 under estimate 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 captu red 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 6 6.67 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 b e 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 minim ize these fugitive emissions , including approa ches 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 i nstall 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, 2 20 , 0 00 (again based on the conservative assumption that all facilities choose the option of constructing hooding)
. 20. “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, 23 rd Edition The rule currently incorporates by reference “Chapters 3 and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, American Conference of Government Industri al Hygienists (ACGIH), 23 rd edition, 1998. This version of the manual is no longer in print. Therefore we are proposing that the 23 rd 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 D yes or Sealants The current definition of “clean charge” does not clearly indicate the status of anodized aluminum. S ome 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 comple te 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 t hat a SAPU emission limit should be calculated based on feed/charge r ates during performance test. Our interpretation has always been that allowable emissions are calculated on a daily basis using feed /charge throu gh put, which can change daily. Because of the confusion over the appropriate method, we are proposing clarifica tions 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 wi th 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 t hese calculated SAPU emission limits would be used to establish compliance in accordance with the procedures in § 63. 15 13. 25. Changing Furnace Designations The rule currently does not address whether a facility may change furnace operating modes between g roup 1 controlled and g roup 1 uncont rolled , or between g roup 1 and g roup 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 f urnace 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 fro m 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 f urnaces 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 fu rnaces 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;

a nd 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 furnace s 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 t hat 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, th e 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

a re used in the secondary aluminum industry
. T he equations for sizing hoods in Chapter 3 of the 23 rd edition were said to over predict the required flow rates
. According to industry representatives, t he ACGIH manual should be used only as a guideline for ju dging the effectiveness of the hoods and that

e ngineering evaluation s of hoods can be performed similar ly to those for other engineered processes . Also, there may be other rules and ventilation guidelines that are appropriate and could be used.
We are inv it ing 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, w e 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 d ross o nly furnaces have been defined as furnaces that only process dross. A furnace that pro cesses 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 type s o f charge and fluxing rate s . We have added language to clarify this in the propos ed 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 requir ements for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge. 28. Annual Hood Inspections
I ndustry representatives have stated that our interpretation that annual hood inspections include an annual hood flow measurement represents an unnecessary cos t 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 **2 34**  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

e ngineering 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 verifica tion 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 inspe ctions 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 t he 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 operati ng, 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 amendment s 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 establish ing new or revised operating p a rameters, 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 Idl ed 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 de vices 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 rul e to allow for the discontinued use of control devices for these furnaces that will remain idle for 24 hours or longer.
E . Compliance d ates 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
pro duction facilities that will be affected by this proposed rule , of which 5 3 are major sources of HAPs, and 10 8 are area

sources . We estimate that 10 secondary aluminum facilities have

co - located primary aluminum operations. The affected sources at secondar y 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 unit s.
B . What are the air quality impacts? No reductions are being proposed to numerical emissions limits. T he 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 expect ed 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 imp acts?
W e 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 includ es 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 estima te 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 turne d 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. H owever ,
we think that the proposed amendments w ould 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 in dustry 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 redu ce 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 sufficien t 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 th e source category risk and demographic analyses are available for download on the RTR w eb p age 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 th e 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 t hat 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 pr ovided, 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 use d 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 emiss ions 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 stre et 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 R ate here (ft 3 /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 Longi tude 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 C ode 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 a bout 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., performan ce 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 th e 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
. **V III**  **. 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 E xecutive Order s 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 info rmation 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 req uirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to a gency 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 th is 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 asserti on 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 e ntail. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3, 14 2 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant emp loyees, 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 estima te 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 s ources' 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 comp ly 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 emission s 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.
W it h respect to the Secondary Aluminum Production source categor y , 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 informa tion on such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better information becomes available. We estimate 1 61 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 r egulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICRs are approved by OMB, the a gency 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 require ments contained in the final rules. To comment on the a gency'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, whic h 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 Offi ce 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 D ATE 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 entitie s 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 Administ ration’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

- for

pr ofit 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 N AICS code 331314, the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees according to the SBA small business standards defini tions
. After considering the economic impacts of t hese 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
t he 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 propos ed 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 Governm ents.
T his 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 actio n 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: Ac tions 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, Di stribution, 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 Trans fer 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 impractic al. 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, explanati ons when the a gency 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

- I ncome 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 environme ntal 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 fo r 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 analys is 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 +1 00%; 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 a re 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 acti on (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 Regulation s 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 Incorp oration 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 f urnace ,” “ 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 forwa rd 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 crus hes, 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 b reak 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 coll ect 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, mi lling, 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 preve nting 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 m elts, holds, or processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, non

- HAP

containing/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 purpo ses 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 mea ns 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. Resid ence 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 g as 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 containe rs) 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 f acility
. 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
pr ocessing 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 considere d 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 facili ty 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

mu st 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 op erator 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 op erator 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** 

# ( ) ( ) ) 1 (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti ti C PM

PM 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

Where,
L tiPM = 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;
T ti = The mass of feed/charge for 24 hours for individual emission unit i; and
L cPM = The daily PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit whi ch 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 no t discharge or allow to be discharged to the atmosphere any 3

- day, 24

- hour rolling average emissions of HCl/HF in excess of: 

## ( ) ( ) 2) Eq. ( T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiHCl/HF cHCl/HF 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

Where,***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft (12/ 30 /2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **170** of **234**
L tiHCl /HF = The HCl/HF emission limit for individual emission unit i in paragraph (i)(4) of this sec tion for a group 1 furnace or in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for an in

- line fluxer; and
L cHCl /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 applicab le 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: 

## ( ) ( ) 3) (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiD/F cD/F 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

Where,
L tiD/F = The D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 furnace; and
L cD/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
. Sectio n 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 equipme nt 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 subje ct 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
contr ol 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 avai lable 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” 23 rd edition or later (ACGIH Guidelines) (incorporated by reference in §63.1502 of this subpart);

* * * * * (g) * * * (5) For a continuous injection device, maintain free

flowing 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 feed er setting at or above the level established during the performance test.

* * * * * (k) * * * (3) For a continuous injection system, maintain free

flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at or above t he level established during the performance test.

* * * * * (m) * * * (4) For a continuous lime injection system, maintain free

flowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level establishe d 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 du ring 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) Durin g 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 a t 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 l ikelihood 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, t he owner or operator must comply w ith 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 source s li sted 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. B y 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 rea d 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) T he 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) T he labeling requirements described in paragraph (c) of this section pertaining to group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, and scrap dryer/d elacquering kiln/decoating kilns, (3) T he 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) T he feed charge weight monitoring requirement s 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) T he 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) T he requirements for afterburners described in paragraph (g) o f this section applicable to sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, (7) T he 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) T he requirements for monitoring lime injection described in paragraph (i) of this secti on 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) T he 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) T he requirements described in paragraph (k) of this section for thermal chip dryers, (11) T he requirements describe d 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) T he requirements described in paragraph (o) of this section for uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean charge, (13) T he requirements described in paragraph (p) of this section for scrap inspection programs for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces , (14) T he requirements described in paragraph (q) of this section for monitoring scrap contamination level for uncontrolled gro up 1 furnaces, (15) T he 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) T he requireme nts 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) T he 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) T he requirements described in paragraph (v) of this section for alternative lim e 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) T he r equirements 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 assoc iated 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, main tenance, 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 affec ted 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 compl y 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 revisio ns 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 u nder 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 s ystem 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 in structions.

* * * * * (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) Su bmit 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 co nsultation with the responsible permitting authority, a written site

specific 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 sufficie nt 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 propos ed 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 m onitoring 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 th e 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 permitti ng 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 gro up 1 furnaces , HC l /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 mate rials 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 an d 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 conducte d 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

ma de 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** 

## ( ) ( ) 4) (Eq. T

ER T E n

1 i i n

1 i i i day 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

Where,
E day = The daily PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled g roup 1 furnaces , HCl/HF emission rate for the secondary aluminum processing unit for the 24

- hour period;
T i = The total amount of feed, or aluminum produced, for emission unit i for the 24

- hour period (tons or Mg);
ER i = The measured emission rate for emissi on 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 applicab le 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 revis ing paragraph ( c ) (9); f . By adding paragraph ( f ) (6); and
g . By adding paragraph ( g ) (5) to read as follows: **§63.151 1**  **Performance test/compliance demonstration general requirements.**  ( a) Site

- specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance test requi red 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 su ch 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 practi ce, 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 performan ce 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 mu st 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 w ith 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 furna ces 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 produ ction 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 fr om 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 pollut ant 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 a nd 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. T est 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 thi s 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 paragraph s ( e ) (4);
g . By adding paragraph s ( 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 paragrap h ( 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/de coating 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 additio n 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 e mission 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 cle an 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 fu rnace 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 G uideli nes, 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 perce nt capture efficiency assumption, the owner or operator must re

- test with a hood that meets the ACGIH
G uidelines within 90 days, or petition the permitting authority that such hoods are impracticable and propose testing procedures that will minimize fugiti ve 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 G uidelines, 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 mater ials 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 measu red 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 ch lorine/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 ve ntilation***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 permi ssible 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 paragrap hs (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 f or 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 fl ow 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 contr ol 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 minut es 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 blo ck 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 settin g and lime injection rate for the 3 test runs. If the feed rate setting and lime injection
rates var y 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 re vising 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: 7) (Eq. P K Q C E l × × = Where: E = Emission rate of PM or HCl/HF, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed; C = Concentrati on of PM or HCl, g/dscm (gr/dscf); Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K 1 = 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

- weighte d PM emissions for a secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass

- weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit (E cPM ) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (L cPM )

c alculated using Equation 1 in §63.1505(k). 

# ( ) ( ) 9) (Eq. T E n

1 i ti n

1 i c PM 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

= ti ti T E PM

Where,
E cPM = 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**
E tiPM = Measured PM emissions for individual emission unit, or group of co

- controlled emission units, i;
T ti = 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 e mission units, and groups of co

controlled emission units in the secondary aluminum processing unit. (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass

- weighted HCl/HF emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass

- w eighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit (E cHCl/HF ) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (L cHCl/HF ) calculated using Equation 2 in §63.1505(k). 

## ( ) ( ) ) 10 (Eq. T T E n

1 i ti n

1 i ti / cHCl/HF 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

= HF tiHCl E

Where,
E cHCl/HF = T he mass

- weighted HCl and HF emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit; and
E tiHCl/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 (L cD/F ) calcula ted using Equation 3 in §63.1505(k). 

# ( ) ( ) 11) (Eq. T T E E n

1 i ti n

1 i ti ti cD/F D/F 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

Where,
E cD/F = The mass

- weighted D/F emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit; and
E tiD/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)Paramet ers 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 det ermined.
(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 capture d 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 demonstr ation 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 **2 34**  (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 demonstratio n of compliance with the emiss ion 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 c onducted 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 w ith 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 operat ion 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 ope ration, 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 fu rnace 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 uncontrol led 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 maint ain 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 f rom 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 cha rge 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** §63.151 2 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 estab lished 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 §63.15 05(k) must be determined.
(2) Operators of major sources must conduct perform ance tests for PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.15 12 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 t he emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.15 05(k) must be determined.
(3) Operators of area sources must conduct additional performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.15 12 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 contro lled 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 ha s 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
ope ration 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 operat ion,
(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 a dditional 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 s witching 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 §63.151 2. 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
pro cessed, 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 ti me 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 provi sions 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 sour ces must conduct a dditional performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.151 2. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests with the capture system and control device operating normally. (i) The performance test must be conduc ted 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 fo r 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 a n additional perf ormance 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 c lean 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 d emonstrate 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 til ting 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 con duct 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
pr ocessed 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 a n 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 §63.150 5(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 devi ce, 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 statu s 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) [ Res erved] ( 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 reacti ve 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 da ys 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 Reporti ng 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/e rt/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

mus t 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 thi s 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 li mited 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 dur ing 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 emiss ions 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 valu e +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 sta ndards 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 follo wing 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 emi ssions 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 sub part 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 submitt ed 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 def ined 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, i nfrequent 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 we re 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, pers onal 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 operati on 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 so urce 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 exces s 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 opera tor 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
t he 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 o f 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 r equirement 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 sou**  **rce/Emission unit**  **Pollutant Limit**  **Units**

All new and exi s ting 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 mo nitor 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/F a 2.5 ug TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing scrap dryer/delacquerin g kiln/decoating kiln h or PM 0.08 lb/ton of feed HCl /HF 0.8 lb/ton of feed THC 0.06 lb/ton of feed D/F a 0.25 ug TEQ/Mg of feed Alternative limits if afterburner has a design residence time of at le a st 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**
oper a tes a t a temperature of at lea st 1400 F feed D/F a 0.25 ug TEQ/Mg of feed New or existing sweat furnace h D/Fa 0.8 ng TEQ/dscm @ 11% O2 b New or existing dross

- only furnace h 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 clea n furnace (Group 2) No limit Work practices: clean charge only and no reactive fluxing New and existing group 1 melting/holding fur nac e (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 furnace c , 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/F a 15 ug/TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing group 1 furnac e with clean charge only h 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/F a No limit Clean charge only New and existing group 1 furnace, uncontrolled for HCl /HF , and using flux c ontaining fluorine h Combined HCl and HF 0.40 lb/ton of feed

New and existing secondary aluminum process i ng unit a,d (consists of all existing group 1 furnaces and existing in

- line flux boxes at the facility, or all simultaneously constructed new group 1 fu rnaces and new in

- lie fluxers) PM e 

# ( ) ( ) ) 1 (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i 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 

## ( ) ( ) 2) Eq. ( T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiHCl/HF cHCl/HF 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

D/F g 

## ( ) ( ) 3) (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiD/F cD/F 

## ∑ ∑

=

= ×

=

a D/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area sour c e. b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the s pec ifications of § 63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a perfor ma n ce test. c These limits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to secondary aluminum processing units. d Equation defin i tions: L iPM = the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/t on) of feed]; T i = the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit; L tPM = the overall PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/Ton of feed)]; L iHCL /HF = the HCL /HF emission limit for ind ividual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/Ton) of feed]; L tHCl /HF = the overall HCl /HF emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L iD/F = the D/F emission limit for individual emis sion unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; L tD/F = the overall D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/Ton) o f feed]; n = the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit. (Need to check. These are s lightly 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 inc luded 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**  **Pro visions 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 Applicab ility 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 Y es.
§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 & Maintena nce 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 De adlines 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 an d 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 [Reser ved]. §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 Observatio ns 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 Addr esses 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 Upd ate (incorporated by reference in §63.1502). §63.15 Availability of Information/Confidentiality Yes.