8576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544; FRL–9628–8] 

RIN 2060–AQ40 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 

Aluminum Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for Secondary Aluminum Production to 

address the results of the residual risk 

and technology review that the EPA is 

required to conduct by the Clean Air 

Act. In addition, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to correct and clarify rule 

requirements and provisions. These 

proposed amendments would require 

emission sources to comply with the 

emission limits at all times including 

periods of startup and shutdown; add a 

definition of affirmative defense; add a 

requirement to report performance 

testing through the Electronic Reporting 

Tool (ERT); add rule provisions 

allowing owners and operators to 

change furnace classifications; add rule 

requirements regarding testing of 

uncontrolled furnaces; add compliance 

provisions for hydrogen fluoride (HF) 

for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces; add 

operating requirements such as 

monitoring of lime injection rates; and 

make technical corrections and 

clarifications to the applicability, 

definitions, operating, monitoring, and 

performance testing requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2012. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before March 15, 2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by February 24, 2012, a public 

hearing will be held on February 29, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0544, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0544. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0544. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0544. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0544. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544. 

The proposed rulemaking also used 

material from Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0469 in the 

development of this rule. All documents 

in the docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

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

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on 

February 29, 2012 and will be held at 

the EPA’s campus in Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate 

facility nearby. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a public hearing is to be 

held should contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, (D243–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0832. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

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

3207; and email address: 

boyd.rochelle@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Dr. Michael 

Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division, Air 

Toxics Assessment Group (C504–06), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8577 

telephone number: (919) 541–7524; fax 

number: (919) 541–0840; and email 

address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a 

particular entity, contact the appropriate 

person listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP for: OECA Contact1 OAQPS Contact2

Secondary Aluminum Production .... Scott Throwe, (202) 564–7013 

throwe.scott@epa.gov.

Rochelle Boyd, (919) 541–1390, 

boyd.rochelle@epa.gov 

1EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

2EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories, and risk modeling are 

included in this preamble. While this 

may not be an exhaustive list, for ease 

of reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

and acronyms are defined here: 

ACGIH American Conference of 

Government Industrial Hygienists 

ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

APCD air pollution control devices 

AMOS ample margin of safety 

ANPRM advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BACT best available control technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

D/F dioxins and furans 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HCl hydrogen chloride 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

HHRAP human health risk assessment 

protocols 

HI hazard index 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICR information collection request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

km kilometer 

LAER lowest achievable emissions rate 

lb/yr pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MACT Code code within the NEI used to 

identify processes included in a source 

category 

MDL method detection level 

mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter 

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

MRL minimum risk level 

NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline 

Levels for Hazardous Substances 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAEL no observed adverse effects level 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OHEA Office of Health and Environmental 

Assessment 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PM particulate matter 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

RACT reasonably available control 

technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCC source classification codes 

SF3 2000 Census of Population and 

Housing Summary 

SIP state implementation plan 

SOP standard operating procedures 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TEF toxic equivalency factors 

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient 

THC total hydrocarbons 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UBC used beverage containers 

UF uncertainty factor 

mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit 

URE unit risk estimate 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air 

pollutants 

WHO World Health Organization 

WWW worldwide web 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What is this source category and how 

did the MACT standard regulate its HAP 

emissions? 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by the 

source category? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

D. What other issues are we addressing in 

this proposal? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

D. What other actions are we proposing? 

E. Compliance dates 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, after the EPA has identified 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) 

of the CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA 

calls for us to promulgate national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for those sources. 

‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or 

have the potential to emit (PTE) 10 tons 

per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of 

HAP. For major sources, these 

technology-based standards must reflect 

the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must require the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques including, but not limited 

to, measures which (1) reduce the 

volume of or eliminate emissions of 

pollutants through process changes, 

substitution of materials or other 

modifications, (2) enclose systems or 

processes to eliminate emissions, (3) 

capture or treat pollutants when 

released from a process, stack, storage or 

fugitive emissions point, (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification) or (5) 

are a combination of the above. CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT 

standard may take the form of a design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standard where the EPA first determines 

that either (1) a pollutant cannot be 

emitted through a conveyance designed 

and constructed to emit or capture the 

pollutant or that any requirement for, or 

use of, such a conveyance would be 

inconsistent with law, or (2) the 

application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

CAA sections 112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floors for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions and 

any non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA 

is then required to review these 

technology-based standards and to 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years. In 

conducting this review, the EPA is not 

obliged to completely recalculate the 

prior MACT determination. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 

2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining 

‘‘residual’’ risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, 

first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating risk 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks, and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted this report 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA– 

453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress 

did not act in response to the report, 

thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze 

and address residual risk. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to 

determine, for source categories subject 

to certain MACT standards, whether the 

emissions standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

If the MACT standards for HAP 

‘‘classified as a known, probable, or 

possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ the EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory), as necessary, 

to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In doing so, the 

EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 

2008). (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards 

provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

then the agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’) The EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect 1 but must consider cost, energy, 

safety and other relevant factors in 

doing so. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly 

preserves our use of a two-step process 

for developing standards to address any 

residual risk and our interpretation of 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 

Emissions From Maleic Anhydride 

Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 

Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 

Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 

FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The 

first step in this process is the 

determination of acceptable risk. The 

second step provides for an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

which is the level at which the 

standards are set (unless a more 

stringent standard is necessary to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental 

effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA’s 

interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP, and the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8579 

2Although 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. 

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 (DC Cir. 

2008) (‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) 

expressly incorporates the EPA’s 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act from 

the Benzene standard, complete with a 

citation to the Federal Register’’); see 

also A Legislative History of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, 

p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference 

Report). We notified Congress in the 

Residual Risk Report to Congress that 

we intended to use the Benzene 

NESHAP approach in making CAA 

section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 FR at 

38044–38045, we stated as an overall 

objective: 

In protecting public health with an ample 

margin of safety under section 112, EPA 

strives to provide maximum feasible 

protection against risks to health from 

hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to an 

individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) limiting 

to no higher than approximately 1 in 10 

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

risk that a person living near a plant would 

have if he or she were exposed to the 

maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 

years. 

The agency stated that ‘‘[t]he EPA also 

considers incidence (the number of 

persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of 

exposure to a pollutant) to be an 

important measure of the health risk to 

the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risk to the 

exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ 54 FR at 

38045. The agency went on to conclude 

that ‘‘estimated incidence would be 

weighed along with other health risk 

information in judging acceptability.’’ 

54 FR at 38046. As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

the EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,’’ but considers rather 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

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

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a 

judgment of ‘‘what risks are acceptable 

in the world in which we live’’ 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 

178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision 

at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our 

world is not risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR at 38045. We discussed the 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk (or maximum individual risk (MIR)) 

as being ‘‘the estimated risk that a 

person living near a plant would have 

if he or she were exposed to the 

maximum pollutant concentrations for 

70 years.’’ Id. We explained that this 

measure of risk ‘‘is an estimate of the 

upper bound of risk based on 

conservative assumptions, such as 

continuous exposure for 24 hours per 

day for 70 years.’’ Id. We acknowledge 

that maximum individual lifetime 

cancer risk ‘‘does not necessarily reflect 

the true risk, but displays a conservative 

risk level which is an upper bound that 

is unlikely to be exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the 

presumptive risk level of 100 in 1 

million (1 in 10 thousand) provides a 

benchmark for judging the acceptability 

of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 

for making that determination. 

The agency also explained in the 1989 

Benzene NESHAP: ‘‘[i]n establishing a 

presumption for MIR, rather than a rigid 

line for acceptability, the Agency 

intends to weigh it with a series of other 

health measures and factors. These 

include the overall incidence of cancer 

or other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of 

persons exposed within each individual 

lifetime risk range and associated 

incidence within, typically, a 50 km 

[kilometer] exposure radius around 

facilities, the science policy 

assumptions and estimation 

uncertainties associated with the risk 

measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health 

effects, effects due to co-location of 

facilities, and co-emission of 

pollutants.’’ Id. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks 

judged ‘acceptable’ by the EPA in the 

first step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry 

are already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘ample margin 

of safety,’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further * * *.’’ 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the Agency will establish the standard 

at a level that provides an ample margin 

of safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112.’’ 54 FR at 

38046. 

As discussed above, we apply a twostep process for developing standards to 

address residual risk. In the first step, 

the EPA determines whether risks are 

acceptable. This determination 

‘‘considers all health information, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

and includes a presumptive limit on 

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] 

risk (MIR) 2 of approximately 1 in 10 

thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million].’’ 54 FR 

at 38045. In the second step of the 

process, the EPA sets the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as 

other relevant factors, including costs 

and economic impacts, technological 

feasibility, and other factors relevant to 

each particular decision.’’ Id. 

In past residual risk determinations, 

the EPA presented a number of human 

health risk metrics associated with 

emissions from the category under 

review, including: The MIR; the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

noncancer hazard index (HI); and the 

maximum acute noncancer hazard. In 

estimating risks, the EPA considered 

source categories under review that are 

located near each other and that affect 

the same population. The EPA estimates 

risk based on the actual emissions from 

the source category under review as 

well as based on the emissions allowed 

pursuant to the source category MACT 

standard. The EPA also discussed and 

considered risk estimation 

uncertainties. The EPA is providing this 

same type of information in support of 

these actions. 

The agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making our determinations 

and how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: ‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of 

noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations 

and thereby implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health.’ ’’ 54 FR at 38057. 

For example, the level of the MIR is 

only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risks. The 

Benzene NESHAP explains ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately 1 in 10 thousand should 

ordinarily be the upper end of the range 

of acceptability. As risks increase above 

this benchmark, they become 

presumptively less acceptable under 

CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors.’’ 54 FR at 38045. 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the Benzene 

NESHAP states that: ‘‘EPA believes the 

relative weight of the many factors that 

can be considered in selecting an ample 

margin of safety can only be determined 

for each specific source category. This 

occurs mainly because technological 

and economic factors (along with the 

health-related factors) vary from source 

category to source category.’’ 54 FR at 

38061. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated industrial source 

category that is the subject of this 

proposal is listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Table 2 of this preamble is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

the entities likely to be affected by this 

proposed action. These standards, once 

finalized, will be directly applicable to 

affected sources. Federal, State, local, 

and tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. The 

EPA defined the Secondary Aluminum 

source category in 1992 as any 

establishment using clean charge, 

aluminum scrap, or dross from 

aluminum production, as the raw 

material and performing one or more of 

the following processes: Scrap 

shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/ 

decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace 

operations (i.e., melting, holding, 

sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), 

recovery of aluminum from dross, inline fluxing, or dross cooling. 

TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS 

code 1

MACT 

code 2

Secondary Aluminum Production ...................................................................................... Secondary Aluminum Production 331314 0044 

Primary aluminum production facilities .............................................................................. ...................................................... 331312 

Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing facilities ................................................... ...................................................... 331315 

Aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities ......................................................... ...................................................... 331316 

Other aluminum rolling and drawing facilities .................................................................... ...................................................... 331319 

Aluminum die casting facilities .......................................................................................... ...................................................... 331521 

Aluminum foundry facilities ................................................................................................ ...................................................... 331524 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control including the residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) and 

includes source category descriptions 

and detailed emissions estimates and 

other data that were used as inputs to 

the risk assessments. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8581 

II. Background 

A. What is this source category and how 

did the MACT standard regulate its HAP 

emissions? 

The Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category includes facilities that 

produce aluminum from scrap 

aluminum material and consists of the 

following operations: (1) Preprocessing 

of scrap aluminum, including size 

reduction and removal of oils, coatings, 

and other contaminants; (2) Furnace 

operations including melting, in-furnace 

refining, fluxing, and tapping; (3) 

Additional refining, by means of in-line 

fluxing; and (4) Cooling of dross. The 

following sections include descriptions 

of the affected sources in the secondary 

aluminum production source category, 

the origin of HAP emissions from these 

affected sources, and factors affecting 

the emissions. 

Scrap aluminum is often preprocessed 

prior to melting. Preprocessing steps 

may include shredding to reduce the 

size of aluminum scrap; drying of oily 

scrap such as machine turnings and 

borings; and/or heating in a scrap dryer, 

delacquering kiln or decoating kiln to 

remove coatings or other contaminants 

that may be present on the scrap. 

Heating of high iron content scrap in a 

sweat furnace to reclaim the aluminum 

content is also a preprocessing 

operation. 

Crushing, shredding and grinding 

operations are used to reduce the size of 

scrap aluminum. Particulate matter 

(PM) and HAP metals emissions are 

generated as dust from coatings and 

other contaminants contained in the 

scrap aluminum as they are processed. 

A chip dryer is used to evaporate oil 

and/or moisture from uncoated 

aluminum chips and borings. Chip 

dryers typically operate at temperatures 

ranging between 150 °C to 400 °C (300 

°F to 750 °F). An uncontrolled chip 

dryer may emit dioxins and furans (D/ 

F) and total hydrocarbons (THC), of 

which some fraction is organic HAP. 

Painted and/or coated materials are 

processed in a scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kiln to remove coatings 

and other contaminants that may be 

present in the scrap prior to melting. 

Coatings, oils, grease, and lubricants 

represent up to 20 percent of the total 

weight of these materials. Organic HAP, 

D/F, and inorganic HAPs including 

particulate metal HAP are emitted 

during the drying/delacquering/ 

decoating process. 

Used beverage containers (UBC) 

comprise a major portion of the recycled 

aluminum scrap used as feedstock by 

the industry. In scrap drying/ 

delacquering/decoating operations, UBC 

and other post-consumer, coated 

products (e.g., aluminum siding) are 

heated to an exit temperature of up to 

540 °C (1,000 °F) to volatilize and 

remove various organic contaminants 

such as paints, oils, lacquers, rubber, 

and plastic laminates prior to melting. 

An uncontrolled scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln emits 

PM (of which some fraction is 

particulate metal HAP), HCl, THC (of 

which some fraction is organic HAP), 

and D/F. 

A sweat furnace is typically used to 

reclaim (or ‘‘sweat’’) the aluminum from 

scrap with high levels of iron. These 

furnaces operate in batch mode at a 

temperature that is high enough to melt 

the aluminum but not high enough to 

melt the iron. The aluminum melts and 

flows out of the furnace while the iron 

remains in the furnace in solid form. 

The molten aluminum can be cast into 

sows, ingots, or T-bars that are used as 

feedstock for aluminum melting and 

refining furnaces. Alternately, molten 

aluminum can be fed directly to a 

melting or refining furnace. An 

uncontrolled sweat furnace may emit D/ 

F. 

Process (i.e. melting, holding or 

refining) furnaces are refractory-lined 

metal vessels heated by an oil or gas 

burner to achieve a metal temperature of 

about 760 °C (1,400 °F). The melting 

process begins with the charging of 

scrap into the furnace. A gaseous 

(typically, chlorine) or salt flux may be 

added to remove impurities and reduce 

aluminum oxidation. Once molten, the 

chemistry of the bath is adjusted by 

adding selected scrap or alloying agents, 

such as silicon. Salt and other fluxes 

contain chloride and fluoride 

compounds that may be released when 

introduced to the bath. HCl may also be 

released when chlorine-containing 

contaminants (such as polyvinyl 

chloride coatings) present in some types 

of scrap are introduced to the bath. 

Argon and nitrogen fluxes are not 

reactive and do not produce HAPs. In a 

sidewell melting furnace, fluxing is 

performed in the sidewell and fluxing 

emissions from the sidewell are 

controlled. In this type of furnace, 

fluxing is not typically done in the 

hearth and hearth emissions (which 

include products of combustion from 

the oil and gas fired furnaces) are 

typically uncontrolled. 

Process furnaces may process 

contaminated scrap which can result in 

HAP emissions. In addition, fluxing 

agents may contain HAPs, some fraction 

of which is emitted from the furnace. 

Process furnaces are significant sources 

of HAP emissions in the secondary 

aluminum industry. An uncontrolled 

melting furnace which processes 

contaminated scrap and uses reactive 

fluxes emits PM (of which some fraction 

is particulate metal HAP), HCl, and D/ 

F. 

Process furnaces are divided into 

group 1 and group 2 furnaces. Group 1 

furnaces are unrestricted in the type of 

scrap they process and the type of fluxes 

they can use. Group 2 furnaces process 

only clean charge and conduct no 

reactive fluxing. 

Dross-only furnaces are furnaces 

dedicated to reclamation of aluminum 

from drosses formed during the melting/ 

holding/alloying operations carried out 

in other furnaces. Exposure to the 

atmosphere causes the molten 

aluminum to oxidize, and the flotation 

of the impurities to the surface along 

with any salt flux creates ‘‘dross.’’ Prior 

to tapping, the dross is periodically 

skimmed from the surface of the 

aluminum bath and cooled. Dross-only 

furnaces are typically rotary barrel 

furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). 

A dross-only furnace without controls 

emits PM (of which some fraction is 

particulate metal HAP). 

Rotary dross coolers are devices used 

to cool dross in a rotating, water-cooled 

drum. A rotary dross cooler without 

controls emits PM (of which some 

fraction is particulate metal HAP). 

In-line fluxers are devices used for 

aluminum refining, including degassing, 

outside the furnace. The process 

involves the injection of chlorine, argon, 

nitrogen or other gases to achieve the 

desired metal purity. Argon and 

nitrogen are not reactive and do not 

produce HAPs. In-line fluxers are found 

primarily at facilities that manufacture 

very high quality aluminum or in 

facilities with no other means of 

degassing. An in-line fluxer operating 

without emission controls emits HCl 

and PM. 

The Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP was promulgated on March 23, 

2000, (65 FR 15690) and codified as 40 

CFR part 63, subpart RRR. The rule was 

amended at 67 FR 79808, December 30, 

2002; 69 FR 53980, September 3, 2004; 

70 FR 57513, October 3, 2005 and 70 FR 

75320, December 19, 2005. The existing 

subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP 

emissions from secondary aluminum 

production facilities that are major 

sources of HAP that operate aluminum 

scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, 

scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/ 

decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, group 

2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only 

furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and 

secondary aluminum processing units 

(SAPUs). The SAPUs include group 1 

furnaces and in-line fluxers. The 

subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

emissions from secondary aluminum 

production facilities that are area 

sources of HAP only with respect to 

emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from 

thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/ 

delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, 

group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and 

SAPUs. 

The secondary aluminum industry 

consists of approximately 161 secondary 

aluminum production facilities, of 

which the EPA estimates 53 to be major 

sources of HAP. Several of the 

secondary aluminum facilities are colocated with primary aluminum, coil 

coating, and possibly other source 

category facilities. Natural gas boilers or 

process heaters may also be co-located 

at a few secondary aluminum facilities. 

The HAP emitted by these facilities 

are metals, organic HAP, D/F, hydrogen 

chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride 

(HF). 

The standards promulgated in 2000 

established emission limits for 

particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate 

for metal HAP, total hydrocarbons 

(THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP 

other than D/F, D/F expressed as 

toxicity equivalents, and HCl as a 

surrogate for acid gases including HF, 

chlorine and fluorine. HAP are emitted 

from the following affected sources: 

aluminum scrap shredders (subject to 

PM standards), thermal chip dryers 

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

scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/ 

decoating kilns (subject to standards for 

PM, D/F, HCl and THC), sweat furnaces 

(subject to D/F standards), dross-only 

furnaces (subject to PM standards), 

rotary dross coolers (subject to PM 

standards), group 1 furnaces (subject to 

standards for PM, HCl and D/F), and inline fluxers (subject to standards for PM 

and HCl). Group 2 furnaces and certain 

in-line fluxers are subject to work 

practice standards. Table 3 provides a 

summary of the current MACT 

emissions limits for existing and new 

sources under the 2000 NESAHP and 

the 2005 amendments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8583 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.031</GPH>
8584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8585 

Control devices currently in use to 

reduce emissions from affected sources 

subject to the subpart RRR NESHAP 

include fabric filters for control of PM 

from aluminum scrap shredders; 

afterburners for control of THC and D/ 

F from thermal chip dryers; afterburners 

plus lime-injected fabric filters for 

control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from 

scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/ 

decoating kilns; afterburners for control 

of D/F from sweat furnaces; fabric filters 

for control of PM from dross-only 

furnaces and rotary dross coolers; limeinjected fabric filters for control of PM 

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

HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. All 

affected sources with add-on controls 

are also subject to design requirements 

and operating limits to limit fugitive 

emissions. 

Compliance with the emission limits 

in the current rule is demonstrated by 

an initial performance test for each 

affected source. Repeat performance 

tests are required every 5 years. Area 

sources are only subject to one-time 

performance tests for D/F. After the 

compliance tests, facilities are required 

to monitor various control parameters or 

conduct other types of monitoring to 

ensure continuous compliance with the 

MACT standards. Owners or operators 

of sweat furnaces that operate an 

afterburner that meets temperature and 

residence time requirements are not 

required to conduct performance tests. 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

For the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category, we 

compiled a dataset from two primary 

sources: (1) An all-company information 

collection request (ICR) sent to 

companies in February 2011, and (2) a 

nine-company testing ICR, sent in May 

2010. 

Responses to the all-company ICR 

contained data on stack release 

characteristics such as height, 

volumetric flow rate, temperature, and 

location (latitude/longitude) 

coordinates. Responses to the allcompany ICR also contained data on 

maximum production capacity and 

actual production in tpy and testing 

results for pollutants regulated under 

subpart RRR. 

As mentioned above, the pollutants 

regulated under subpart RRR are PM, 

HCl, THC and D/F. PM is a surrogate for 

metal HAP and THC is a surrogate for 

organic HAP. Since subpart RRR 

compliance testing is performed for the 

surrogates PM and THC, there are 

limited test data available for speciated 

metal HAP and organic HAP emissions. 

Therefore, responses to the ninecompany testing ICR were used to 

extrapolate the PM and THC testing 

results reported in the all-company ICR 

to specific metal and organic HAP 

emissions. In the nine-company testing 

ICR, companies were asked to provide 

speciated metal HAP concentrations 

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

nickel, etc.) in the particulate collected 

by fabric filters. For more information 

on the selection of these facilities, see 

the Draft Technical Support Document 

for the Secondary Aluminum 

Production Source Category located in 

the docket. 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 allcompany 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 ninecompany testing ICR the EPA 

determined that the cobalt 

concentration in the fabric filter 

particulate matter catch was 20 partsper-million (ppm), the estimated 

emissions of cobalt would be 0.0002 

tpy. In the nine-company testing ICR, 

companies were also required to 

conduct speciated organic HAP and 

THC emission testing for the two types 

of equipment that have THC limits 

under subpart RRR, scrap dryer/ 

delacquering/decoating kilns and 

thermal chip dryers. The speciated 

organic HAPs for which data were 

provided included volatile HAPs (e.g., 

benzene, chloroprene, toluene, etc.) and 

semi-volatile HAPs (anthracene, 

chrysene, naphthalene, etc.). 

Using the reported amount of charge 

or production for the most recent year 

and the reported test results (in lb per 

ton of charge) from the all-company ICR, 

emissions were calculated. Where test 

results from the all-company ICR 

responses were expressed in terms of 

PM and THC surrogates, emissions were 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.033</GPH>
8586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. 

converted to speciated metal and 

organic HAP emissions using the ninecompany test results, as described 

above. Allowable and actual emissions 

were calculated for each piece of 

equipment. The derivation of allowable 

emissions estimates is described in 

Section III of this preamble. 

The emissions data, calculations and 

risk assessment inputs for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category are described further in 

the memorandum Draft Development of 

the RTR Risk Modeling Dataset for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category which is available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

III. Analyses Performed 

In this section we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR for this 

source category. 

A. How did we estimate risks posed by 

the source category? 

The EPA conducted risk assessments 

that provide estimates of the MIR posed 

by the HAP emissions for each source in 

the category, the HI for chronic 

exposures to HAP with the potential to 

cause noncancer health effects, and the 

hazard quotient (HQ) for acute 

exposures to HAP with the potential to 

cause noncancer health effects. The 

assessments also provided estimates of 

the distribution of cancer risks within 

the exposed populations, cancer 

incidence and an evaluation of the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects for the source category. The risk 

assessments consisted of seven primary 

steps, as discussed below. The docket 

for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category. 

The methods used to assess risks (as 

described in the six primary steps 

below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 

and described in their peer 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 basis for the risk 

assessment. This dataset was based on 

responses to an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) sent to approximately 425 

facilities potentially subject to the 

subpart RRR NESHAP. Approximately 

161 sources subject to the NESHAP 

responded, approximately 166 facilities 

confirmed that they were not subject to 

the NESHAP and no responses were 

received to approximately 51 ICRs. In 

addition to these responses, as 

described in section II.B, an earlier ICR 

was sent to 9 companies requiring them 

to provide speciated metal and organic 

HAP concentrations for purposes of 

calculating speciated HAP emissions 

based on reported emissions of the 

surrogate pollutants, THC and PM. As 

part of our quality assurance (QA) 

process, we checked the coordinates of 

every facility in the dataset using tools 

such as Google Earth. We corrected 

coordinates that were found to be 

incorrect. We also performed QA of the 

emissions data and release 

characteristics to identify outliers and 

then confirmed or corrected the data. 

2. Establishing the Relationship 

Between Actual Emissions and MACTAllowable Emissions Levels 

The available emissions data in the 

MACT dataset include estimates of the 

mass of HAP actually emitted during the 

specified annual time period. These 

‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower 

than the emission levels that a facility 

might be allowed to emit and still 

comply with the MACT standards. The 

emissions level allowed to be emitted by 

the MACT standards is referred to as the 

‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions level. 

This represents the highest emissions 

level that could be emitted by the 

facility without violating the MACT 

standards. 

We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the 

final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk 

rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP residual 

risk rules (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, 

and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, 

respectively). In those previous actions, 

we noted that assessing the risks at the 

MACT-allowable level is inherently 

reasonable since these risks reflect the 

maximum level sources could emit and 

still comply with national emission 

standards. But we also explained that it 

is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in both steps of the risk 

analysis, in accordance with the 

Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989.) 

As discussed above, allowable and 

actual emissions were calculated for 

each piece of equipment. The estimates 

of actual emissions are described in 

Section II of this preamble. 

Allowable emissions for this source 

category were calculated by assuming 

emissions were at the maximum level 

allowed by the MACT standard (i.e., we 

assume emissions would be emitted at 

a level equal to the MACT emission 

limit). Nevertheless, we note that these 

are conservative estimates of allowable 

emissions. It is unlikely that emissions 

would be at the maximum limit at all 

times because sources cannot emit HAP 

at a level that is exactly equal to the 

limit at all times and remain in 

compliance with the standard due to 

day-to-day variability in process 

operations and emissions. On average, 

facilities must emit at some level below 

the MACT limit to ensure that they are 

always in compliance. 

The derivation of actual and 

allowable emissions estimates are 

discussed in more detail in the 

document Draft Development of the 

RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category which is available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from each facility in the 

source category were estimated using 

the Human Exposure Model (HEM) 

(Community and Sector HEM–3 version 

1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs three 

primary risk assessment activities: (1) 

Conducting dispersion modeling to 

estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to 

individuals residing within 50 km of the 

modeled sources and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level 

inhalation risks using the exposure 

estimates and quantitative doseresponse information. 

The dispersion model used by HEM– 

3 is AERMOD, which is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8587 

4U.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). 

5A census block is generally the smallest 

geographic area for which census statistics are 

tabulated. 

6These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer 

review of EPA’s NATA entitled, NATA—Evaluating 

the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 

Data—an SAB Advisory, available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ 

ecadv02001.pdf. 

facilities.4 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year (1991) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations for more than 158 

meteorological stations, selected to 

provide coverage of the United States 

and Puerto Rico. A second library of 

United States Census Bureau census 

block 5 internal point locations and 

populations provides the basis of 

human exposure calculations (Census, 

2000). In addition, for each census 

block, the census library includes the 

elevation and controlling hill height, 

which are also used in dispersion 

calculations. A third library of pollutant 

unit risk factors and other health 

benchmarks is used to estimate health 

risks. These risk factors and health 

benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentration of each of the HAP 

emitted by each source for which we 

have emissions data in the source 

category. The air concentrations at each 

nearby census block centroid were used 

as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of an inhabited census block. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate 

(URE), which is an upper bound 

estimate of an individual’s probability 

of contracting cancer over a lifetime of 

exposure to a concentration of 1 

microgram of the pollutant per cubic 

meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible doseresponse 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 doseresponse 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 those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential 6) emitted by the modeled 

source. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of any 

source were also estimated for the 

source category as part of these 

assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) 

and the limitations of Gaussian 

dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess risk of noncancer health 

effects from chronic exposures, we 

summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic 

exposures is the estimated chronic 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference level, which is either the EPA 

reference concentration (RfC), defined 

as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty 

spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 

exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime,’’ 

or, in cases where an RfC from the 

EPA’s IRIS database is not available, a 

value from the following prioritized 

sources: (1) The agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry 

Minimum Risk Level, which is defined 

as ‘‘an estimate of daily human 

exposure to a substance that is likely to 

be without an appreciable risk of 

adverse effects (other than cancer) over 

a specified duration of exposure’’; (2) 

the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level (REL), which is defined as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration;’’ or 

(3) as noted above, a scientifically 

credible dose-response value that has 

been developed in a manner consistent 

with the EPA guidelines and has 

undergone a peer review process similar 

to that used by the EPA, in place of or 

in concert with other values. 

Screening estimates of acute 

exposures and risks were also evaluated 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest off-site exposure for each facility 

(i.e., not just the census block 

centroids), assuming that a person is 

located at this spot at a time when both 

the peak (hourly) emission rates from 

each emission point at the facility and 

worst-case dispersion conditions occur. 

The acute HQ is the estimated acute 

exposure divided by the acute doseresponse value. 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 planning guidelines (ERPG) for 

1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emission rates, 

meteorology and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Acute REL values 

are based on the most sensitive, 

relevant, adverse health effect reported 

in the medical and toxicological 

literature. Acute REL values are 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

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

inclusion of margins of safety. Since 

margins of safety are incorporated to 

address data gaps and uncertainties, 

exceeding the acute REL does not 

automatically indicate an adverse health 

impact. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 

Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 

Chemicals, page 2. 

8ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. 

November 1, 2006. American Industrial Hygiene 

Association. 

9See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ 

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/ 

opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),7 ‘‘the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response, and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military, 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ This document also states that 

AEGL values ‘‘represent threshold 

exposure limits for the general public 

and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

eight hours.’’ The document lays out the 

purpose and objectives of AEGL by 

stating (page 21) that ‘‘the primary 

purpose of the AEGL program and the 

National Advisory Committee for Acute 

Exposure Guideline Levels for 

Hazardous Substances is to develop 

guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, 

short-term exposures to airborne 

concentrations of acutely toxic, highpriority chemicals.’’ In detailing the 

intended application of AEGL values, 

the document states (page 31) that ‘‘[i]t 

is anticipated that the AEGL values will 

be used for regulatory and 

nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal 

and state agencies and possibly the 

international community in conjunction 

with chemical emergency response, 

planning, and prevention programs. 

More specifically, the AEGL values will 

be used for conducting various risk 

assessments to aid in the development 

of emergency preparedness and 

prevention plans, as well as real-time 

emergency response actions, for 

accidental chemical releases at fixed 

facilities and from transport carriers.’’ 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes (page 3) that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as ppm or mg/m 3) of a substance above 

which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s document entitled, 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/ 

1documents/committees/ 

ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, 

‘‘Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 8

The ERPG–1 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing other than 

mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, 

objectionable odor.’’ Similarly, the 

ERPG–2 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed; in these instances, 

higher severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG– 

2 values are compared to our modeled 

exposure levels to assess potential for 

acute concerns. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often similar to the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often similar to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures, we developed 

estimates of maximum hourly emission 

rates by multiplying the average actual 

annual hourly emission rates by a factor 

to cover routinely variable emissions. 

We chose the factor to use based on 

process knowledge and engineering 

judgment and with awareness of a Texas 

study of short-term emissions 

variability, which showed that most 

peak emissions events, in a heavilyindustrialized 4-county area (Harris, 

Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria 

Counties, Texas) were less than twice 

the annual average hourly emissions 

rate. The highest peak emissions event 

was 74 times the annual average hourly 

emissions rate, and the 99th percentile 

ratio of peak hourly emissions rate to 

the annual average hourly emissions 

rate was 9.9 This analysis is provided in 

Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Secondary Aluminum 

Production which is available in the 

docket for this action. Considering this 

analysis, unless specific process 

knowledge or data are available to 

provide an alternate value, to account 

for more than 99 percent of the peak 

hourly emissions, we generally apply 

the assumption to most source 

categories that the maximum 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 have information that 

indicates that a different factor is 

appropriate for a particular source 

category. For this source category 

however, there was no such information 

available and the default factor of 10 

was used in the acute screening process. 

When worst-case HQ values from the 

initial acute screen step were less than 

1, acute impacts were deemed negligible 

and no further analysis was performed. 

In the cases where any worst-case acute 

HQ from the screening step was greater 

than 1, additional site-specific data were 

considered to develop a more refined 

estimate of the potential for acute 

impacts of concern. However, for this 

source category no acute values were 

greater than 1 and therefore, further 

refinement was not performed. 

Ideally, we would prefer to have 

continuous measurements over time to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8589 

10The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/ 

EPA–SAB–10–007-unsigned.pdf. 

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 examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics than we 

do for our chronic risk assessments. 

This is in response to the SAB’s 

acknowledgement that there are 

generally more data gaps and 

inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. 

Comparisons of the estimated 

maximum off-site 1-hour exposure 

levels are not typically made to 

occupational levels for the purpose of 

characterizing public health risks in 

RTR assessments. This is because they 

are developed for working age adults 

and are not generally considered 

protective for the general public. We 

note that occupational ceiling values 

are, for most chemicals, set at levels 

higher than a 1-hour AEGL–1. 

4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure 

and Risk Screening 

The potential for significant human 

health risks due to exposures via routes 

other than inhalation (i.e., 

multipathway exposures) and the 

potential for adverse environmental 

impacts were evaluated in a two-step 

process. In the first step, we determined 

whether any facilities emitted any HAP 

known to be persistent and bioaccumulative 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 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are 

cadmium compounds, chlordane, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, 

hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, 

methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and 

trifluralin. Since three of these PB–HAP 

(cadmium compounds, POM and 

chlorinated D/F) are emitted by at least 

one facility in this source category, we 

proceeded to the second step of the 

evaluation. In this step, we determined 

whether the facility-specific emission 

rates of each of the emitted PB–HAP 

were large enough to create the potential 

for significant non-inhalation human or 

environmental risks under, worst-case 

conditions. To facilitate this step, we 

developed emission rate thresholds for 

each PB–HAP using a hypothetical 

worst-case screening exposure scenario 

developed for use in conjunction with 

the EPA’s TRIM.FaTE model. The 

hypothetical screening scenario was 

subjected to a sensitivity analysis to 

ensure that its key design parameters 

were established such that 

environmental media concentrations 

were not underestimated (i.e., to 

minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that 

risks might be acceptable when, in fact, 

actual risks are high) and to also 

minimize the occurrence of false 

positives for human health endpoints. 

We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model TRIM–Screen. The 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the PB–HAP were compared to the 

TRIM–Screen emission threshold values 

for each of the PB–HAP identified in the 

source category datasets to assess the 

potential for significant human health 

risks or environmental risks via noninhalation pathways. See Section IV for 

results of this screening analysis. 

5. Conducting Other Risk-Related 

Analyses: Facilitywide Assessments 

To put the source category risks in 

context, for our residual risk reviews, 

we also typically examine the risks from 

the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the facility 

includes all HAP-emitting operations 

within a contiguous area and under 

common control. In these facilitywide 

assessments we examine the HAP 

emissions not only from the source 

category of interest, but also emissions 

of HAP from all other emissions sources 

at the facility. For the secondary 

aluminum source category, a 

facilitywide assessment was performed 

for all major sources. 

A facilitywide assessment was not 

conducted for area sources. By 

definition, no major sources of HAP 

(e.g., primary aluminum production or 

coil coating operations) are collocated 

with any of the secondary aluminum 

area sources. Further, at many area 

sources, equipment subject to the 

Secondary Aluminum NESHAP is the 

only HAP-emitting equipment. 

Therefore, the most significant HAP 

emissions from area sources were 

already being considered under the area 

source risk assessment, and low levels 

of HAP emissions from equipment not 

subject to the Secondary Aluminum 

NESHAP at these facilities would not 

contribute appreciably to the risk 

profile. The results of the facilitywide 

assessment for major sources are 

provided in Section IV. 

6. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for the 

Secondary Aluminum source category 

addressed in this proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our 

approach, which used conservative 

tools and assumptions, ensures that our 

decisions are health-protective. A brief 

discussion of the uncertainties in the 

emissions datasets, dispersion 

modeling, inhalation exposure estimates 

and dose-response relationships follows 

below. A more thorough discussion of 

these uncertainties is included in the 

risk assessment documentation 

(referenced earlier) available in the 

docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions 

Datasets 

Although the development of the 

MACT dataset involved QA/quality 

control processes, the accuracy of 

emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the datasets are accurate, 

errors in estimating emissions values 

and other factors. The emission 

estimates considered in this analysis 

were generally developed from one-time 

or periodic performance tests that do 

not reflect short-term fluctuations 

during the course of a year or variations 

from year to year. 

The estimates of peak hourly emission 

rates for the acute effects screening 

assessment were based on a default 

factor of 10 applied to the average 

annual hourly emission rate, which is 

intended to account for emission 

fluctuations due to normal facility 

operations. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

While the analysis employed the 

EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we 

recognize that there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11Short-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. 

12U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

13 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ 

help_gloss.htm). 

14An 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. 

associated with any model, including 

AERMOD. In circumstances where we 

had to choose between various model 

options, where possible, model options 

(e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, 

chemistry) were selected to provide an 

overestimate of ambient air 

concentrations of the HAP rather than 

underestimates. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., meteorology, building 

downwash) have the potential in some 

situations to overestimate or 

underestimate ambient impacts. For 

example, meteorological data were 

taken from a single year (1991), and 

facility locations can be a significant 

distance from the sites where these data 

were taken. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe that at off-site locations and 

census block centroids, the approach 

considered in the dispersion modeling 

analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.11 The 

assumption of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, 

nor does it affect the estimate of cancer 

incidence since the total population 

number remains the same. It does, 

however, affect the shape of the 

distribution of individual risks across 

the affected population, shifting it 

toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

risk levels. 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

further from the facility, and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but it is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

continuous pollutant exposures over a 

70-year period, which is the assumed 

lifetime of an individual. In reality, both 

the length of time that modeled 

emissions sources at facilities actually 

operate (i.e., more or less than 70 years) 

and the domestic growth or decline of 

the modeled industry (i.e., the increase 

or decrease in the number or size of 

United States facilities) will influence 

the risks posed by a given source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, 

where a facility maintains or increases 

its emission levels beyond 70 years, 

residents live beyond 70 years at the 

same location, and the residents spend 

most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be 

underestimated. Annual cancer 

incidence estimates from exposures to 

emissions from these sources would not 

be affected by uncertainty in the length 

of time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.12

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

other factors specific to the acute 

exposure assessment. The accuracy of 

an acute inhalation exposure assessment 

depends on the simultaneous 

occurrence of independent factors that 

may vary greatly, such as hourly 

emissions rates, meteorology, and 

human activity patterns. In this 

assessment, we assume that individuals 

remain for 1 hour at the point of 

maximum ambient concentration as 

determined by the co-occurrence of 

peak emissions and worst-case 

meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to overestimate 

actual exposures since it is unlikely that 

a person would be located at the point 

of maximum exposure during the time 

of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and noncancer effects from both chronic 

and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of the EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an agency 

policy, risk assessment procedures, 

including default options that are used 

in the absence of scientific data to the 

contrary, should be health protective.’’ 

(EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1– 

7.) This is the approach followed here 

as summarized in the next several 

paragraphs. A complete detailed 

discussion of uncertainties and 

variability in dose-response 

relationships is given in the residual 

risk documentation, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).13 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances, the risk could also be 

greater.14 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate healthprotection, 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). 

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and 

reference dose (RfD)) values represent 

chronic exposure levels that are 

intended to be health-protective levels. 

Specifically, these values provide an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8591 

15According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily 

oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. To derive values that 

are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable 

risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an 

uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. 

EPA, 1993, 1994) which includes 

consideration of both uncertainty and 

variability. When there are gaps in the 

available information, UF are applied to 

derive reference values that are 

intended to protect against appreciable 

risk of deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,15 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. While collectively 

termed ‘‘uncertainty factor,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but more often they 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. UF are applied based on 

chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose, and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer and noncancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources 

included in this assessment, some HAP 

continue to have no reference values for 

cancer or chronic noncancer or acute 

effects (see table 3.1–1 of the risk 

assessment document available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking). 

Since exposures to these pollutants 

cannot be included in a quantitative risk 

estimate, an understatement of risk for 

these pollutants at environmental 

exposure levels is possible. For a group 

of compounds that are either 

unspeciated or do not have reference 

values for every individual compound 

(e.g., POM), we conservatively use the 

most protective reference value to 

estimate risk from individual 

compounds in the group of compounds. 

Additionally, chronic reference values 

for several of the compounds included 

in this assessment are currently under 

the EPA IRIS review, and revised 

assessments may determine that these 

pollutants are more or less potent than 

the current value. We may re-evaluate 

residual risks for the final rulemaking if 

these reviews are completed prior to our 

taking final action for this source 

category and a dose-response metric 

changes enough to indicate that the risk 

assessment supporting this notice may 

significantly understate human health 

risk. More information regarding the 

dose-response values used in this 

assessment is provided in the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Effects Screening 

Assessment 

We generally assume that when 

exposure levels are not anticipated to 

adversely affect human health, they also 

are not anticipated to adversely affect 

the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the sitespecific levels of PB–HAP emissions to 

determine whether a full assessment of 

the multipathway and environmental 

effects is necessary. Our screening 

methods use worst-case scenarios to 

determine whether multipathway 

impacts might be important. The results 

of such a process are biased high for the 

purpose of screening out potential 

impacts. Thus, when individual 

pollutants or facilities screen out, we are 

confident that the potential for 

multipathway impacts is negligible. On 

the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipollutant 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility. For this 

source category, we only performed a 

worst-case multipathway screening 

assessment for PB–HAP. Thus, it is 

important to note that potential PB– 

HAP multipathway risks are biased 

high. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

In evaluating and developing 

standards under section 112(f)(2), as 

discussed in Section I.A of this 

preamble, we apply a two-step process 

to address residual risk. In the first step, 

the EPA determines whether risks are 

acceptable. This determination 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8592 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16Although 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. 

17The 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/ 

‘‘considers all health information, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

and includes a presumptive limit on 

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] 

risk (MIR) 16 of approximately 1 in 10 

thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million]’’ (54 FR 

at 38045). In the second step of the 

process, the EPA sets the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately one in one million, as 

well as other relevant factors, including 

costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision’’ Id. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

has presented and considered a number 

of human health risk metrics associated 

with emissions from the category under 

review, including: the MIR; the numbers 

of persons in various risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum non-cancer 

hazard index (HI); and the maximum 

acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, 

May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 

2006). In more recent proposals 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., 76 FR 72770, November 25, 

2011, 76 FR 72508, November 23, 2011, 

75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010, and 75 

FR 80220, December 21, 2010). The EPA 

also discussed and considered risk 

estimation uncertainties. The EPA is 

providing this same type of information 

in support of the proposed 

determinations described in this 

Federal Register notice. 

The agency is considering all 

available health information to inform 

our determinations of risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety under CAA 

section 112(f). Specifically, as explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information’’ (54 FR at 38046). 

Similarly, with regard to making the 

ample margin of safety determination, 

as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ‘‘[in 

the ample margin decision, the agency 

again considers all of the health risk and 

other health information considered in 

the first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making determinations and 

how these factors might be weighed for 

each source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: ‘‘The policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health’ ’’ (54 FR at 38057). 

For example, the level of the MIR is 

only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risks. The 

Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an 

MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors’’ (54 FR at 38045). 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘the EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category’’ (54 FR at 38061). 

The EPA wishes to point out that 

certain health information has not been 

considered to date in making residual 

risk determinations. In assessing risks to 

populations in the vicinity of the 

facilities in each category, we present 

estimates of risk associated with HAP 

emissions from the source category 

alone (source category risk estimates) 

and HAP emissions from the entire 

facility at which the covered source 

category is located (facilitywide risk 

estimates). We do not attempt to 

characterize the risks associated with all 

HAP emissions impacting the 

populations living near the sources in 

these categories. That is, at this time, we 

do not attempt to quantify those HAP 

risks that may be associated with 

emissions from other facilities that do 

not include the source category in 

question, mobile source emissions, 

natural source emissions, persistent 

environmental pollution, or 

atmospheric transformation in the 

vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The agency understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. This is particularly 

important when assessing non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., Reference 

Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 

assumption that thresholds exist for 

adverse health effects. For example, the 

agency recognizes that, although 

exposures attributable to emissions from 

a source category or facility alone may 

not indicate the potential for increased 

risk of adverse non-cancer health effects 

in a population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) advised us ‘‘* * * that RTR 

assessments will be most useful to 

decision makers and communities if 

results are presented in the broader 

context of aggregate and cumulative 

risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 17

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8593 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo 

to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup, 

UESPA/OAQPS entitled, EPA’s Actions in 

Response to the Key Recommendations of the SAB 

Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies. 

While we are interested in placing 

source category and facilitywide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. At this point, we believe that 

such estimates of total HAP risks will 

have significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than for the source 

category or facilitywide estimates hence 

compounding the uncertainty in any 

such comparison. This is because we 

have not conducted a detailed technical 

review of HAP emissions data for source 

categories and facilities that have not 

previously undergone an RTR review or 

are not currently undergoing such 

review. We are requesting comment on 

whether and how best to estimate and 

evaluate total HAP exposure in our 

assessments and, in particular, on 

whether and how it might be 

appropriate to use information from 

EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA) to support such estimates. We 

are also seeking comment on how best 

to consider various types and scales of 

risk estimates when making our 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

determinations under CAA section 

112(f). 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the Secondary 

Aluminum Production NESHAP was 

promulgated. In cases where the 

technology review identified such 

developments, we conducted an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

applying these developments, along 

with the estimated impacts (costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions, 

etc.) of applying these developments. 

We then made decisions on whether it 

is appropriate or necessary to propose 

amendments to the 2000 NESHAP to 

require any of the identified 

developments. 

Based on our analyses of the data and 

information collected from industry and 

the trade organization representing 

facilities subject to the NESHAP, our 

general understanding of the industry, 

and other available information in the 

literature on potential controls for this 

industry, we identified several new 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. For the 

purpose of this exercise, we considered 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the 2000 Secondary Aluminum 

Production NESHAP. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the 2000 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP) that could result in significant 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

2000 Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP. 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the 2000 Secondary 

Aluminum Production NESHAP. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

were not considered at the time we 

developed the 2000 NESHAP, we 

reviewed a variety of data sources in our 

evaluation of whether there were 

additional practices, processes, or 

controls to consider for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production industry. Among 

the data sources we reviewed were the 

NESHAP for various industries that 

were promulgated after the 2000 

NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these regulatory actions 

to identify any practices, processes, and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emissions sources in the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category, 

as well as the costs, non-air impacts, 

and energy implications associated with 

the use of these technologies. 

Additionally, we requested 

information from facilities regarding 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technology. Finally, we 

reviewed other information sources, 

such as State or local permitting agency 

databases and industry-supported 

databases. In particular, we consulted 

the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify 

potential technology advances. Control 

technologies classified as RACT 

(Reasonably Available Control 

Technology), BACT (Best Available 

Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest 

Achievable Emissions Rate) apply to 

stationary sources depending on 

whether the sources are existing or new 

and on the size, age, and location of the 

facility. BACT and LAER (and 

sometimes RACT) are determined on a 

case-by-case basis, usually by State or 

local permitting agencies. The EPA 

established the RBLC to provide a 

central database of air pollution 

technology information (including 

technologies required in source-specific 

permits) to promote the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and to aid in identifying future possible 

control technology options that might 

apply broadly to numerous sources 

within a category or apply only on a 

source-by-source basis. The RBLC 

contains over 5,000 air pollution control 

permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to 

mitigate many air pollutant emissions 

streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether it contained any 

practices, processes or control 

technologies for the types of processes 

covered by the Secondary Aluminum 

Production NESHAP. No such practices, 

processes or control technologies were 

identified in this database. 

D. What other issues are we addressing 

in this proposal? 

In addition to the analyses described 

above, we also reviewed other aspects of 

the MACT standards for possible 

revision as appropriate and necessary. 

Based on this review we have identified 

aspects of the MACT standards that we 

believe need revision. 

This includes proposing revisions to 

the startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in 

order to ensure that they are consistent 

with the court decision in Sierra Club v. 

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

We are also proposing changes to the 

rule related to affirmative defense for 

violation of an emission limit during a 

malfunction. We are proposing other 

changes to address HF emissions, 

fugitive emissions during testing and 

numerous clarifications and corrections 

related to the existing provisions in the 

rule. Descriptions of each issue and the 

proposed revision to address the issue 

are presented in Section IV of this 

preamble. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section of the preamble provides 

the results of our RTR for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category 

and our proposed decisions concerning 

changes to the Secondary Aluminum 

Production NESHAP. 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

For major sources in the Secondary 

Aluminum source category, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8594 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

conducted an inhalation risk assessment 

for all HAP emitted. In addition, we 

performed a facilitywide risk 

assessment for the major sources in the 

secondary aluminum source category. 

For area sources, we conducted an 

inhalation risk assessment for D/F since 

this is the only HAP covered by the 

subpart RRR MACT standards at area 

sources. For all sources, we conducted 

multipathway screening analyses for 

PB–HAP emitted (e.g., D/F). Although 

there are 53 major sources and 108 area 

sources covered by the subpart RRR 

MACT standards, 52 major sources and 

103 area sources were modeled due to 

the other sources’ lack of equipment 

subject to the applicable emission 

standards. Results of the risk assessment 

are presented briefly below and in more 

detail in the residual risk 

documentation referenced in Section III 

of this preamble, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

Table 4 of this preamble provides an 

overall summary of the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment. 

TABLE 4—SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Category & 

number of facilities modeled 

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 1 Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 1 

in 1 million 4

Estimated annual cancer incidence 

(cases per 

year) 4

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 2 Worst-case maximum refined 

screening acute Based on actual non-cancer HQ 3

emissions level 

Based on allowable emissions level 

Based on actual 

emissions level 

Based on allowable emissions 

level 

Major Source 

(52).

1 20 2 0 .0006 0 .05 1 HQREL 0.7 (HCl) 

Area Source 

(103).

0 .4 6 0 0 .0006 0 .0003 0 .005 

Facility-wide 

Major Source.

20 ........................ 62,000 0 .006 0 .4 ..........................

1Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. We did not have allowable emissions information at the facilitywide level, therefore, risk estimates based on facilitywide allowable emissions were not calculated. 2 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the secondary aluminum source category is the respiratory system. 

3There is no acute dose-response value for dioxins, thus an acute HQ value for area sources was not calculated. See Section III.B of this preamble for explanations of acute dose-response values. 4These estimates are based on actual emissions. 

The results of the chronic inhalation 

cancer risk assessment for major sources 

indicate that the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk, considering 

actual emissions, could be up to 1 in 1 

million, driven by dioxin emissions. 

The maximum cancer risks for this 

source category exceeded a cancer risk 

of 1 in 1 million at 1 of 52 facilities. The 

total estimated cancer incidence from 

this source category based on actual 

emission levels is 0.0006 excess cancer 

cases per year, or one excess case in 

every 1,666 years. No people were 

estimated to have cancer risks above 10 

in a million and approximately 2 people 

were estimated to have cancer risks 

above 1 in 1 million considering all 

major source facilities in this source 

category. Based on MACT-allowable 

emissions for the major sources in this 

category, the MIR could be up to 20 in 

1 million. 

With respect to chronic inhalation 

noncancer risk from major sources, we 

estimate a maximum TOSHI value of 

0.05 for the Secondary Aluminum 

source category, primarily from 

hydrochloric acid from Group 1 

furnaces. Considering MACT-allowable 

emissions, this maximum TOSHI value 

is estimated to be 1. Moreover, our 

worst-case highest acute screening value 

for major sources was 0.7 based on the 

REL for HCL. 

Considering facility wide emissions at 

the 52 major sources, the MIR is 

estimated to be up to 20 in 1 million, 

the estimated annual incidence is 0.006 

cases per year, and the chronic noncancer TOSHI value is calculated to be 

0.4. 

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 up to 0.4 in 1 million and 

an estimated annual incidence of 0.0006 

cases per year. Considering MACTallowable 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 0.005 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 from major source facilities in this 

source category to the screening values 

for these PB HAP described above (see 

Section III(A)(4)). For dioxins, we also 

screened for potential multipathway 

effects from emissions of D/F from area 

sources by comparing the estimated 

actual emission rates from these area 

sources to the screening value for D/F 

described above. (see Risk Assessment 

Document Appendix 4 for a more 

detailed discussion of screening 

emission rates). Results of this worstcase screen estimate that actual POM 

emissions from 10 of the 52 major 

source facilities exceed the POM 

screening emission rate. With respect to 

D/F, of the 46 major sources that 

emitted dioxins, 39 exceeded our 

screening emission rate. Similarly, 76 

out of 103 area sources exceeded our D/ 

F screening rate. These exceedances of 

the worst-case multipathway screening 

level for POM and dioxins indicate that 

there may be potential multipathway 

impacts of concern due to emissions of 

POM and dioxins. In general, emission 

rates below the worst-case 

multipathway screening level indicate 

no significant potential for 

multipathway-related health or 

environmental effects; whereas emission 

levels above this worst-case screening 

level only indicate the potential for 

multipathway-related health or 

environmental risks of concern based on 

a worst-case scenario. Thus, we note 

that these screening values are biased 

high for purposes of screening and are 

subject 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 may be a concern; we can only 

say that we cannot rule them out. 

With respect to the potential for 

adverse environmental effects from non 

PB–HAP, we note that for both major 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8595 

and area sources all chronic non-cancer 

HQ values for all pollutants considering 

actual emissions are well below 1 using 

human health reference values. Thus, 

we believe that it is unlikely that 

adverse environmental effects would 

occur at the actual HAP concentrations 

estimated in our human health risk 

assessment. 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in Section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR, the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum 

noncancer HI, the maximum acute 

noncancer hazard, the extent of 

noncancer risks, the potential for 

adverse environmental effects, 

distribution of risks in the exposed 

population, and risk estimation 

uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 

14, 1989). 

For the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category, the risk 

analysis indicates that the cancer risks 

to the individual most exposed could be 

up to 1 in 1 million due to actual 

emissions and up to 20 in 1 million due 

to MACT-allowable emissions. These 

risks are considerably less than 100 in 

1 million, which is the presumptive 

upper limit of acceptable risk. The risk 

analysis also shows very low cancer 

incidence (0.0006 cases per year), as 

well as no potential for adverse chronic 

or acute non-cancer health effects. In 

addition, the risk assessment indicates 

no significant potential for adverse 

environmental effects. 

In addition to the analyses presented 

above, to screen for potential 

multipathway effects from emissions of 

D/F and POM, we compared the 

estimated actual emission rates from 

facilities in this source category to the 

multipathway screening levels 

described in section III.B. With respect 

to POM and dioxins, both major and 

area sources in the category exceeded 

our worst-case screening levels. 

However, we note that this is a worstcase conservative screening level 

analysis, therefore these results are 

biased high for purposes of screening 

and are subject to significant 

uncertainties. Moreover, we note that 

due to data limitations we were unable 

to further refine this 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 as a possibility. 

With regard to facilitywide 

multipathway risk, based on the low 

level of risk identified for the source 

category, a facilitywide multipathway 

risk analysis was not conducted for this 

source category. 

Considering all of the health risk 

information and factors discussed 

above, including the uncertainties 

discussed in section IV.A.7 of this 

preamble, we propose that the risks 

from the Secondary Aluminum 

Production source category are 

acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

We next considered whether the 

existing MACT standard provides an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. Under the ample margin of 

safety analysis, we evaluated the cost 

and feasibility of available control 

technologies and other measures 

(including the controls, measures and 

costs reviewed under the technology 

review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the 

risks (or potential risks) due to 

emissions of HAP identified in our risk 

assessment, along with all of the health 

risks and other health information 

considered in the risk acceptability 

determination described above. In this 

analysis we considered the results of the 

technology review, risk assessment and 

other aspects of our MACT rule review 

to determine whether there are any costeffective controls or other measures that 

would reduce emissions further to 

provide an ample margin of safety with 

respect to the risks associated with these 

emissions. 

For POM, THC and metal HAP 

emissions, our risk analysis indicated 

very low potential for risk from the 

facilities in the source category. Our 

technology review did not identify any 

new practices, controls or process 

options that are being used in this 

industry or in other industries that 

would be 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 analysis 

results indicated exceedances of the 

worst-case screening levels which do 

not necessarily indicate any risks, 

however, they do suggest a potential for 

risks that cannot be ruled out. To 

evaluate the potential to reduce D/F 

emissions to ensure an ample margin of 

safety, our analysis for D/F focused on 

two options: (1) Lowering the existing 

D/F limit from 15 to 10 mg TEQ/Mg feed 

for Group 1 furnaces processing other 

than clean charge at all facilities; and (2) 

lowering the existing D/F limit for 

Group 1 furnaces processing other than 

clean charge, after applying a 

subcategorization based on facility 

production capacity. The lower D/F 

limits potentially could be met by using 

an activated carbon injection (ACI) 

system. With regard to the option of 

lowering the emission limit to 10 mg 

TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces 

handling other than clean charge, we 

estimate that about 11 facilities would 

need to reduce their D/F emissions and 

that the costs would be about $5.9 

million in total capital costs with total 

annualized costs of about $2.7 million. 

This option would achieve an estimated 

1.66 grams TEQ reduction of D/F 

emissions with an overall costeffectiveness of about $1.61 million per 

gram D/F TEQ. The second option of 

lowering the emission limit based on a 

subcategorization according to facility 

production capacity yielded costeffectiveness estimates of greater than 

$1 million per gram D/F TEQ reduced. 

Furthermore, our analysis indicates that 

these options would not result in 

significant emissions reductions and 

would not, therefore, result in 

significant changes to the potential risk 

levels. After considering the costs and 

the small reductions that would be 

achieved, we have decided not to 

propose any of these options. For more 

information, please refer to the Draft 

Technical Document for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

that is available in the public docket for 

this proposed rulemaking. 

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 include scrap 

inspection, limitations on materials 

processed by group 2 furnaces, 

temperature and residence time 

requirements for afterburners 

controlling sweat furnaces, labeling 

requirements, capture/collection 

requirements, and requirements for an 

operations, maintenance and monitoring 

plan that contains details on the proper 

operation and maintenance of processes 

and control equipment. We searched for 

and evaluated other possible work 

practices such as good combustion 

practices, better scrap inspection and 

cleaning, and process monitoring. 

However, none of these potential work 

practices were determined to be feasible 

and effective in reducing D/F emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. Further detail on work practices 

and control options are provided in the 

Draft Technology Review for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, we 

weighed all health risk information and 

factors considered in the risk 

acceptability determination, including 

uncertainties, along with the cost and 

feasibility of control technologies and 

other measures that could be applied in 

this source category, in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

In summary, we did not identify any 

cost-effective approaches to further 

reduce POM, THC, metal HAP or D/F 

emissions beyond the reductions that 

are already being achieved by the 

current NESHAP. Further, our analysis 

indicates that none of the options 

considered would result in significant 

emissions reductions and would not, 

therefore, result in significant changes 

to the potential risk levels. 

Because of the high cost associated 

with the use of activated carbon 

injection systems and because work 

practices are already required to help 

ensure low emissions, we propose that 

the existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

As described above, the typical 

controls used to minimize emissions at 

secondary aluminum facilities include 

fabric filters for control of PM from 

aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners 

for control of THC and D/F from thermal 

chip dryers; afterburners plus limeinjected fabric filters for control of PM, 

HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap dryers/ 

delacquering kilns/decoating kilns; 

afterburners for control of D/F from 

sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control 

of PM from dross-only furnaces and 

rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric 

filters for control of PM and HCl from 

in-line fluxers; and lime-injected fabric 

filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F 

from group 1 furnaces. There have been 

some developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

have been implemented in this source 

category since promulgation of the 

current NESHAP. However, based on 

information available to the EPA, these 

technologies do not clearly reduce HAP 

emissions relative to technologies that 

were considered by the EPA when 

promulgating the Secondary Aluminum 

Production NESHAP in 2000. In 

addition, we evaluated whether limeinjection fabric filters with activated 

carbon injection could be used to 

further reduce D/F from group 1 

furnaces in a cost-effective manner. 

At least one company supplies 

multichamber furnaces that combine the 

functions of a delacquering kiln and a 

melting furnace. At least 16 of these 

furnaces are in operation in Europe, 

Asia and the Middle East, however 

emission test data for these facilities is 

not available. One furnace of this type 

is presently operating in the U.S. and is 

permitted as a group 1 furnace handling 

other than clean charge. 

However, the limited D/F emission 

test data available for the one operating 

U.S. multichamber furnace is within the 

range of test data for Group 1 furnaces 

and delacquering kilns that are in 

compliance with subpart RRR using 

control technologies considered by the 

EPA in the subpart RRR NESHAP. Based 

on available information it is not clear 

that this technology would reduce HAP 

emissions relative to technologies that 

were considered by the EPA in 

promulgating the subpart RRR NESHAP 

and are already used by other facilities. 

Based on our analysis, we conclude that 

it would not be appropriate at this time 

to revise subpart RRR standards based 

on use of this technology. 

Eddy current separators are used to 

separate a concentrated aluminum 

fraction from a heterogeneous scrap 

feed. These units operate at ambient 

temperature and emit no D/F or other 

gaseous pollutants. They are used on the 

material output from mechanical 

shredders that shred automobiles and 

appliances (not on the scrap shredders 

used in the secondary aluminum 

industry). These units can potentially 

decrease the need for sweat furnaces. 

However, the product of eddy current 

separators is not clean charge, as with 

a sweat furnace. Therefore, the product 

of eddy current separators must undergo 

further processing to produce clean 

charge, and it is not possible to directly 

compare eddy current separators with 

sweat furnaces. 

Catalytic filtration systems, including 

catalytic filter bags, are available to 

reduce D/F emissions. These bags 

incorporate an expanded 

polytetrafluoroethylene membrane 

coated with a precious metal catalyst 

which promotes the oxidation of D/F. 

The manufacturer claims that this 

system is installed in over 100 

applications around the world, 

including at least 1 secondary 

aluminum processing plant. However, 

no respondents to our all-company ICR 

reported using this technology and we 

have no data on the D/F emission levels 

that can be achieved at secondary 

aluminum production facilities using 

this technology. Therefore we cannot 

conclude that they are more effective at 

reducing D/F emissions than the control 

technologies considered by the EPA in 

the 2000 subpart RRR NESHAP. We 

therefore conclude, based on 

information available to the EPA, that 

catalytic filtration systems are not at 

present a demonstrated control 

technology that should be used as the 

technical basis to require more stringent 

emission limits for the secondary 

aluminum production source category. 

We also evaluated the potential to 

lower D/F emissions under the 

technology review by lowering the 

emissions limits based on the broader 

use of activated carbon injection 

technology. Under this analysis, we 

evaluated the 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 mg 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 limits potentially could be 

met by using an activated carbon 

injection (ACI) system. With regard to 

the option of lowering the emission 

limit to 10 mg TEQ/Mg feed for Group 

1 furnaces handling other than clean 

charge, we estimate that about 11 

facilities would need to reduce their D/ 

F emissions and that the costs would be 

about $5.9 million in total capital costs 

with total annualized costs of about $2.7 

million. This option would achieve an 

estimated 1.66 grams TEQ reduction of 

D/F emissions with an overall costeffectiveness of about $1.61 million per 

gram D/F TEQ. The second option of 

lowering the emission limit based on a 

subcategorization according to facility 

production capacity yielded costeffectiveness 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 compliance costs and 

the small associated emission 

reductions that would be achieved, we 

are not proposing revised subpart RRR 

standards based on either of these 

options that rely on the use of ACI 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8597 

injection technology under section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA. 

Overall, based on our review of 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies, we have not 

identified any control approaches that 

clearly reduce HAP emissions in a costeffective manner relative to technologies 

that were available and considered by 

the EPA at the time of promulgation of 

the Secondary Aluminum Production 

NESHAP in 2000. Therefore, we are not 

proposing any revisions to the NESHAP 

as a result of our technology review. 

Additional details regarding these 

analyses can be found in the following 

technical document for this action 

which is available in the docket: Draft 

Technology Review for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category. 

D. What other actions are we proposing? 

This section discusses revisions that 

are being proposed to correct and clarify 

provisions in the rule as well as 

solicitations of comments and requests 

for additional information. We are 

proposing revisions to the rule to 

address SSM provisions within the rule 

that were vacated by a court ruling and 

we are adding a requirement for 

electronic submission of all test results 

to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data 

accessibility. In addition, since 

promulgation of the subpart RRR 

NESHAP in March 2000 (65 FR 15689), 

we have received recommendations and 

suggestions from individual 

representatives from state regulatory 

agencies and industry, as well as within 

EPA, to correct errors in the rule and to 

help clarify the intent and 

implementation of the rule. Table 5 

provides a summary of these proposed 

changes. Following Table 5 are detailed 

descriptions of the proposed revisions. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS TO THE SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION

NESHAP 

Correction/Clarification Description 

1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions (63.1503, 

63.1506(l) and (m), 63.1506(q),and 63.1520).

• Addresses vacated General Provision (GP) requirements. 

• Deletes references to vacated GP sections. 

• Requires all sources to comply with emission limits including during periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

• Adds definition for affirmative defense. Adds affirmative defense provisions for malfunctions. 

2. Electronic Reporting (63.1516(b)(3)) ............................. • Requires owners and operators to report performance test results through the EPA 

Electronic Reporting System (ERT). 

3. ACGIH Guidelines .......................................................... • The capture and collection provision of § 63.1506(c)(1) that reference the ’’Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice’’, is revised to allow 23rd or 

27th Editions and take out specific references to chapters 3 and 5. 

• Requests comments on methods other than ACGIH Guidelines to ensure capture 

and collection and alternatives to the currently required hooding requirements. 

4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace without 

Add-on Air Pollutions Control Devices (63.1510(p)).

• Considering improvements to scrap inspection program. 

• 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 range of emissions likely 

for each regulated pollutant. 

6. Lime Injection Rate Verification (63.1510(i)(4)) ............. • Requires verification of the lime mass injection rate at least once per month. 

7. Flux Monitoring (63.1510(j)(4)) ...................................... • Clarifies that solid flux must be tracked at each addition during the cycle or time 

period used in the performance test. 

8. Cover fluxes (63.1503) .................................................. • Clarifies definition of cover flux. 

9. Capture and Collection Systems (63.1503) ................... • Adds a definition of capture and collection systems. 

10. Bale Breakers (63.1503) .............................................. • Adds a definition of a bale breaker to clarify that a bale breaker is not a scrap 

shredder. 

11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS) 

(63.1510(f)(1)(ii)).

• Removes reference to an outdated guidance document and requires use of manufacturer’s maintenance and operating instructions. 

12. Sidewell Furnaces (63.1510(n)(1)) .............................. • Requires visual inspection after each tap rather than after each charge. 

• Allows other means of measuring molten metal level. 

13. Testing Representative Units (63.1511(f)(6)) .............. • Clarifies that all performance test runs must be conducted on the same affected 

source or emission unit. 

14. Inital Performance Tests (63.1511(b)) ......................... • Revises performance test requirements to allow 180 days to conduct initial performance test consistent with GP. 

15. Definition of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering Kiln/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 and shearing. 

16. Transporting metal (63.1503) ...................................... • Clarifies definition of Group 2 furnace to exclude pots used to transport metal. 

17. Specifications for Cleaning Processes ........................ • Not proposing cleaning specifications at this time. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS TO THE SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION

NESHAP—Continued 

Correction/Clarification Description 

• Invites comments and solicits information on appropriate cleaning procedures. 

18. HF Emissions Compliance Provisions (63.1503, 

63.1505, 63.1511(c)(9), 63.1513).

• Adds definition of HF. 

• Adds emissions standard for HF. 

• Requires EPA Method 26A for measurement of HF. 

19. Uncontrolled furnaces that do not Comply with 

ACGIH Hooding Guidelines (63.1512(e)(4)).

• Requires owner/operators with uncontrolled group 1 furnaces to construct hoods 

for performance testing to demonstrate compliance, or assume 67 percent capture 

efficiency if hooding does not meet ACGIH guidelines. 

• Seeks comments on alternative approaches. 

20. Clarify the possible Number of SAPUs (63.1503) ....... • Revises ‘‘SAPU’’ definition to clarify there can be more than 1 new SAPU. 

21. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or 

Sealants (63.1503).

• Clarifies ‘‘clean charge’’ definition to exclude anodized material that contains dyes 

or sealants that contain organic material. 

22. Afterburner Residence Time (63.1503) ....................... • Clarifies ‘‘residence time’’ definition to include refractory lined ductwork up to the 

control thermocouple. 

23. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate (63.1505(k)) ........................ • Clarifies that daily throughput must be used to calculate allowable emissions within 

the SAPU. 

24. Changing Furnace Classifications (§ 63.1514) ............ • Allows owners/operators to change furnace classifications. 

• Specifies requirements for changing. 

25. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces .................. • Clarifies that owners/operators have the option to conduct performance tests under 

different operating conditions to address charge/flux changes. 

26. Annual Hood Inspections (63.1510(d)(2)) ................... • Clarifies that annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements. 

27. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources (63.1506(a), 

63.1510(a)).

• Clarifies which operating, monitoring and other standards apply to area sources. 

28. Altering Parameters during Testing with New Scrap 

Streams (63.1511(b)(1)).

• Clarifies that owners/operators can deviate from established parametric limits during performance testing being done to establish new parametric limits. 

29. Controlled Furnaces that are Temporarily Idled 

(63.1506(q)(5)).

• Allows control device for furnaces to be shut down if furnace will remain idle for 24 

hours or longer. 

30. Annual Compliance Certification for Area Sources 

(63.1516(c)).

• Clarifies that area sources must submit an annual compliance certification. 

1. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunctions 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacated portions of two provisions in 

the EPA’s CAA Section 112 regulations 

governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 

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

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are 

part of a regulation, commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that 

the EPA promulgated under CAA 

section 112. When incorporated into 

CAA Section 112(d) regulations for 

specific source categories, these two 

provisions exempt sources from the 

requirement to comply with the 

otherwise applicable CAA section 

112(d) emission standard during periods 

of SSM. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in this rule. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to Appendix 

A to subpart RRR of part 63 (the General 

Provisions Applicability table). For 

example, we are proposing to eliminate 

the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source 

develop an SSM plan. We also are 

proposing to eliminate or revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption. The EPA has attempted to 

ensure that we have not included in the 

proposed regulatory language any 

provisions that are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether there are any such provisions 

that we have inadvertently incorporated 

or overlooked. 

In proposing standards in this rule, 

the EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and is proposing 

standards for startup and shutdown 

periods for all process units. 

We are proposing that the subpart 

RRR standards apply at all times, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown. Because the scrap processed 

at secondary aluminum production 

facilities is the source of emissions, we 

expect that emissions during startup 

and shutdown would be no higher and 

probably much lower than emissions 

during normal operations since no scrap 

would be processed. We know of no 

reason why the existing standards 

should not apply at all times. For 

production processes in the secondary 

aluminum production source category 

where the standards are expressed in 

units of pounds per ton of feed or 

similar units (i.e. thermal chip dyers, 

scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8599 

fluxers using reactive flux, and group 1 

furnaces), we are proposing certain 

methods for demonstrating compliance 

with those limits, as discussed further 

in the Technical Document for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category that is available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

We solicit comment on the proposed 

standards during startup and shutdown 

periods. Specifically, for those processes 

that have production-based limits (i.e., 

thermal chip dyers, scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, 

dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers 

using reactive flux, and group 1 

furnaces), we solicit comment as to 

whether work practices under section 

112(h) of the CAA should be applied 

during startup and shutdown. If you 

believe work practices would be 

appropriate for such processes, please 

explain how the requirements of section 

112(h)(2) are met and identify any work 

practices that would be effective in 

limiting HAP emissions during periods 

of startup and shutdown for such 

processes. 

For these processes (thermal chip 

dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/ 

decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, 

group 1 furnaces, in-line fluxers, dross 

only furnaces, sweat furnaces, and 

group 2 furnaces), startup begins with 

ignition and equipment warming from a 

cold start or a complete shutdown, 

using natural gas or other clean fuel. At 

the point that feed is introduced, startup 

ends and the process is in normal 

operation. Similarly for shutdown 

periods, when an operator halts the 

introduction of feed or charge to, and 

has removed all product (e.g., tapped a 

furnace), the shutdown phase has 

begun. For more information about the 

application of subpart RRR standards to 

periods of Startup and shutdown, 

including revised methods to 

demonstrate compliance, see the 

Technical Support Document for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Source Category that is available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operation. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under section 

112, emissions standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in section 112 

that directs the agency to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or 

best controlled sources when setting 

emission standards. Moreover, while the 

EPA accounts for variability in setting 

emission standards consistent with the 

section 112 case law, nothing in that 

case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. 

Section 112 of the CAA uses the concept 

of ‘‘best controlled’’ and ‘‘best 

performing’’ unit in defining the level of 

stringency that CAA section 112 

performance standards must meet. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a 

unit that is malfunctioning presents 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(The EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem. We 

generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to 

‘‘invest the resources to conduct the 

perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

regulation’’). In addition, the goal of a 

best controlled or best performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source, and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation’’ 

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause a 

violation 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 

violations of emission limits that are 

caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 

63.1503 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

to mean, in the context of an 

enforcement proceeding, a response or 

defense put forward by a defendant, 

regarding which the defendant has the 

burden of proof, and the merits of which 

are independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding). We also are proposing 

other regulatory provisions to specify 

the elements that are necessary to 

establish this affirmative defense; the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1520 

(See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure 

that the affirmative defense is available 

only where the event that causes a 

violation of the emission limit meets the 

narrow definition of malfunction in 40 

CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

* * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.1506(a)(5) 

and § 1520(a)(8) and to prevent future 

malfunctions. For example, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded * * *’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll 

possible steps were taken to minimize 

the impact of the excess emissions on 

ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health * * *.’’ In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, 

the Administrator may challenge the 

assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance 

with Section 113 of the Clean Air Act 

(see also 40 CFR 22.27). 

The EPA included an affirmative 

defense in the proposed rule in an 

attempt to balance a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure 

adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

limits may be exceeded under 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ‘‘limit the 

quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k) 

(defining ‘‘emission limitation and 

emission standard’’). See generally 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is 

required to ensure that section 112 

emissions limitations are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission limitation is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While ‘‘continuous’’ limitations, 

on the one hand, are required, there is 

also case law indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA 

to account for the practical realities of 

technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 

433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit 

acknowledged that in setting standards 

under CAA Section 111 ‘‘variant 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). Though intervening case law 

such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 

1977 amendments undermine the 

relevance of these cases today, they 

support the EPA’s view that a system 

that incorporates some level of 

flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative 

defense simply provides for a defense to 

civil penalties for excess emissions that 

are proven to be beyond the control of 

the source. By incorporating an 

affirmative defense, the EPA has 

formalized its approach to upset events. 

In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth 

Circuit required this type of formalized 

approach when regulating ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). But 

see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(holding that an informal approach is 

adequate). The affirmative defense 

provisions give the EPA the flexibility to 

both ensure that its emission limitations 

are ‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 

U.S.C. § 7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. 

Specifically, we are proposing the 

following rule changes: 

• Add general duty requirements in 

40 CFR 63.1506(a)(5) and § 63.1520(a)(8) 

to replace General Provision 

requirements that reference vacated 

SSM provisions. 

• Revise language in 40 CFR 63.1515 

that references notifications for SSM 

events. 

• Add paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1520 

concerning the reporting of 

malfunctions as part of the affirmative 

defense provisions. 

• Add paragraph in 40 CFR 

63.1516(d) regarding reporting of 

malfunctions and revised 

§ 63.1516(b)(1)(v) to remove reference to 

malfunction. 

• Revise paragraph in 40 CFR 

63.1510(s)(iv) to remove reference to 

malfunction. 

• Add paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1517 

concerning the keeping of certain 

records relating to malfunctions as part 

of the affirmative defense provisions. 

• Revise Appendix A to subpart RRR 

of part 63 to reflect changes in the 

applicability of the General Provisions 

to this subpart resulting from a court 

vacatur of certain SSM requirements in 

the General Provisions. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA must have performance test 

data to conduct effective reviews of 

CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as 

well as for many other purposes 

including compliance determinations, 

emissions factor development and 

annual emissions rate determinations. 

In conducting these required reviews, 

the EPA has found it ineffective and 

time consuming, not only for us, but 

also for regulatory agencies and source 

owners and operators, to locate, collect, 

and submit performance test data 

because of varied locations for data 

storage and varied data storage methods. 

In recent years, though, stack testing 

firms have typically collected 

performance test data in electronic 

format, making it possible to move to an 

electronic data submittal system that 

would increase the ease and efficiency 

of data submittal and improve data 

accessibility. 

Through this proposal the EPA is 

presenting a step to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

the EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of Secondary Aluminum 

Production facilities submit electronic 

copies of required performance test 

reports to the EPA’s WebFIRE database. 

The WebFIRE database was constructed 

to store performance test data for use in 

developing emissions factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

As proposed above, data entry would 

be through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool. The ERT would 

generate an electronic report which 

would be submitted using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 

submitted report would be transmitted 

through EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) network for storage in the 

WebFIRE database making submittal of 

data very straightforward and easy. A 

description of the ERT can be found at 

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

index.html and CEDRI can be accessed 

through the CDX Web site 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8601 

We believe that industry would benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these 

data, the EPA would be able to develop 

improved emissions factors, make fewer 

information requests and promulgate 

better regulations. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what 

testing information would be required. 

Another important proposed benefit of 

submitting these data to the EPA at the 

time the source test is conducted is that 

it should substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in 

the future. When the EPA has 

performance test data in hand, there 

will likely be fewer or less substantial 

data collection requests in conjunction 

with prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a reduced burden on 

both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and the EPA (in 

terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the 

results). 

State, local and tribal agencies could 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would 

allow for an electronic review process 

rather than a manual data assessment 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data 

submittal to WebFIRE electronically is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data for 

establishing emissions factors and by 

ensuring that the factors are more 

representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emissions factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emissions factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emissions 

inventories and, as a result, air quality 

regulations. 

3. ACGIH Guidelines 

Capture and Collection Requirements 

Subpart RRR specifies the ACGIH 

Industrial Ventilation Manual as the 

standard for acceptable capture and 

collection of emissions from a source 

with an add-on air pollution control 

device. See § 63.1506(c)(1) and Table 3 

to subpart RRR. The rule currently 

incorporates by reference ‘‘Chapters 3 

and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A 

Manual of Recommended Practice’’, 

American Conference of Government 

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 23rd 

edition, 1998. Two issues have been 

raised with respect to the ACGIH 

Guidelines since inception of the rule. 

First the referenced version of the 

manual is no longer in print. Therefore 

we are proposing that the 23rd edition 

or the most recent 27th edition to the 

manual may be used. Further we are 

proposing to remove the specific 

chapter reference due to difference in 

the manual versions. 

Second, the current rule requires that 

emissions capture and collection 

systems be designed consistent with the 

ACGIH industrial ventilation guidelines 

and that the methodologies of 

demonstrating compliance with capture 

and collection are consistent with 

ACGIH requirements. We are proposing 

that affected sources that are equipped 

with air pollution control devices must 

follow the ACGIH Guidelines, 23rd or 

27th editions. Industry representatives 

point out that the manual contains 

‘‘recommended’’ ventilation practices 

and assert that subpart RRR 

inappropriately requires compliance 

with the guidelines. For example, the 

guidance establishes design criteria for 

determining minimum hood dimensions 

and flow; however, industry 

representatives allege that the relevant 

equation is not appropriate for 

determining minimum flow 

requirements for ‘‘oversized’’ hoods that 

are used in the secondary aluminum 

production industry. The equations for 

sizing hoods in Chapter 3 of the 23rd 

edition were said to over-predict the 

required flow rates. According to 

industry representatives, the ACGIH 

manual should be used only as a 

guideline for judging the effectiveness of 

the hoods and that engineering 

evaluations of hoods can be performed 

similarly to those for other engineered 

processes. Also, there may be rules and 

ventilation guidelines developed by 

other professional organizations, 

governmental agencies or industry 

organizations that are appropriate and 

could be used. 

Therefore, we are considering 

allowing other recognized design 

criteria and methodologies for the 

capture and collection of emissions in 

the demonstration of compliance, which 

will provide more flexibility to the 

industry. We are inviting comments on 

alternatives to the ACGIH guidelines or 

other suggestions for revising the rule to 

increase flexibility for the industry 

while ensuring that capture and 

collection systems are adequately 

designed and operated to insure that 

emissions are captured and fugitive 

emissions minimized. In particular, we 

would be interested in obtaining 

information on minimum face velocity, 

elimination of visible emissions, 

minimum pressure drop or other 

suitable parameter(s) to determine 

capture effectiveness. 

4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 

1 Furnace Without Add-on Air 

Pollution Control Device 

Under the current subpart RRR 

NESHAP, the owner or operator of a 

group 1 furnace that is not equipped 

with an add-on air pollution control 

device must prepare a written 

monitoring plan describing the 

measures that will be taken to ensure 

continuous compliance with all 

applicable emissions limits. One such 

measure is the inspection of scrap to 

determine the levels of contaminants in 

the scrap that will be charged to the 

furnace. Section 63.1510(p) lists the 

requirements for a scrap inspection 

program although this scrap inspection 

program is not mandatory. Because the 

Agency considers a well designed and 

implemented scrap inspection program 

important to ensuring that emissions are 

maintained at levels below the 

applicable emissions limits, we are 

interested in how we could improve the 

current scrap inspection provisions as 

well as how we would make the scrap 

inspection program more usable. 

Therefore, we are soliciting comments 

and information on what such a 

program should include. We are 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and information from 

companies, organizations or individuals 

that may have experience with scrap 

inspection programs and may have been 

involved in developing and 

implementing such programs. 

5. Multiple Tests for Worst Case 

Scenarios 

The existing rule currently allows 

testing to demonstrate compliance 

under a range of operating scenarios. 

Facilities that process a range of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

materials (such as dross, used beverage 

containers (UBC), etc.) may have 

different scenarios (production levels, 

range of charge materials, and reactive 

fluxing rates) that result in a range of 

emissions for the different regulated 

pollutants. For example, the scenario 

resulting in the highest emissions of HCl 

may be while processing dross; the 

scenario resulting in the highest 

emissions of D/F formation may be 

while processing UBC; and the scenario 

resulting in the highest emissions of PM 

is most likely UBC as well. The EPA is 

aware of concerns that under the 

original rule and subsequent 

amendments, there may be some 

uncertainty about different testing 

conditions that may be required for 

different HAP. We are proposing 

amendments to § 63.1511 to clarify that 

performance tests under multiple 

scenarios may be required in order to 

reflect the emissions ranges for each 

regulated pollutant. 

6. Lime Injection Rate Verification 

The rule currently requires owners/ 

operators to verify that continuous lime 

injection system maintains free-flowing 

lime in the hopper at all times and 

maintain the lime feeder setting at the 

same level established during the 

performance test. However the rule does 

not specifically require that the feeder 

setting be verified with a pound per 

hour (lb/hr) injection rate as established 

in the performance test. Due to 

continuous usage of the equipment, the 

feeder setting and injection rate may not 

correlate as they did during the 

performance test. Periodic verification 

of the actual injection rate in pounds 

per hour would ensure that the 

necessary amount of lime is reaching 

the baghouse and it would give a better 

indication of continuous compliance. 

We are proposing to revise § 63.1510 by 

adding a requirement for the verification 

of the lime injection rate in pounds per 

hour at least once per month. We are 

also proposing changes to clarify that for 

the purposes of monitoring the rate of 

lime injection, the lime injection feeder 

setting must be set no lower than that 

determined in the performance test; 

however, it may be set above that level. 

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 furnace. 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 from industry and state 

agencies indicating that most furnaces 

are agitated. Rotary furnaces are 

constantly rotated until the metal is 

tapped and reverberatory furnaces have 

a molten metal pump circulating 

aluminum from the hearth to the charge 

well providing agitation to melt the 

scrap. In order to avoid major source 

status, a few secondary aluminum 

facilities have claimed that they were 

using cover fluxes when they were 

actually using reactive fluxes which 

may lead to higher emissions. Other 

sources claiming to use a cover flux 

were using them in furnaces in which 

the melt was being agitated and, 

therefore, did not meet the definition of 

cover flux. To address this, we are 

proposing to clarify the definition of 

cover flux by adding to the definition 

the following: 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. 

9. Capture and Collection System 

Affected sources under the current 

rule that are controlled by an air 

pollution control device must use a 

capture and collection system meeting 

the guidelines of the ACGIH in order to 

minimize fugitive emissions and ensure 

that emissions are routed to the control 

device where the pollutants are 

removed from the exhaust gas stream. 

As part of efforts to clarify hooding and 

capture requirements we are proposing 

a definition for capture and collection 

systems, as follows: Capture and 

collection system means the system of 

hood(s), duct system and fan used to 

collect a contaminant at or near its 

source, and for affected sources 

equipped with an air pollution control 

device, transport the contaminated air to 

the air cleaning device. 

10. Bale Breakers and Scrap Shredders 

The current regulation exempts bale 

breakers from the requirements for 

aluminum scrap shredders and the 

definition of shredders is intentionally 

broad. To clarify that a bale breaker is 

not a scrap shredder, we are proposing 

a definition for bale breaker. We are also 

proposing to clarify in the definition of 

aluminum scrap shredder that both high 

speed and low speed shredding devices 

are considered scrap shredders. 

11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS) 

The current requirements for BLDS in 

the rule cite a 1997 guidance document 

on bag leak detection systems that 

operate on the triboelectric effect (when 

materials become electrically charged 

through contact and separation from 

another material). BLDS currently in use 

operate digitally and are not addressed 

by the 1997 guidance. We are proposing 

to update § 63.1510(f) to remove the 

reference to the 1997 guidance 

document and require that the 

manufacturer’s maintenance and 

operating instructions be followed at all 

times. 

12. Sidewell Furnaces 

The monitoring requirements for 

sidewell group 1 furnaces with 

uncontrolled hearths specify recording 

the level of molten metal (above or 

below the arch between the sidewell 

and hearth) for each charge to the 

furnace. Because there are emission 

units that add charge continuously and 

emission units that add charge 

intermittently, the requirements to 

record levels during each charge can be 

problematic for some sources. Also, the 

only option for verifying the molten 

level is visual observation which may be 

difficult in some cases. To address these 

issues, we are proposing revisions to 

§ 63.1510(n) to require the monitoring to 

be done after each tap, rather than each 

charge. We are also proposing that 

where visual inspection of the molten 

metal level is not possible, physical 

measurement to determine the molten 

metal level in sidewell group 1 furnaces 

will be required. We are also proposing 

to add a definition of tap to mean the 

end of an operating cycle when 

processed molten aluminum is poured 

from a furnace. 

13. Testing Representative Units 

Section 63.1511 allows testing of a 

representative uncontrolled Group 1 

furnace or in-line fluxer to determine 

the emission rate of other similar units. 

Some secondary aluminum facilities 

have conducted one test run on each of 

multiple emission units to comprise one 

test, rather than performing all test runs 

on the same unit. This is not the intent 

of the rule. We are proposing to amend 

§ 63.1511(f) to clarify that the three test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8603 

runs must be conducted on the same 

unit. 

14. Initial Performance Tests 

Section 63.1511(b) of the current rule 

requires a new source (i.e., a source that 

commences construction after 1999) to 

conduct its initial performance tests for 

a new or modified source within 90 

days of start-up to show compliance 

with emission limits and to establish its 

operating parameters. Other MACT 

standards provide sources 180 days in 

which to conduct their initial 

performance test. The General 

Provisions in § 63.7 set this time limit 

at 180 days. Because a period of 180 

days to conduct testing would help the 

secondary aluminum industry avoid the 

cost of unnecessary repeat testing and it 

is consistent with the General 

Provisions, we are proposing to revise 

§ 63.1511 to allow 180 days to conduct 

an initial performance test. 

15. Definitions of Scrap Dryer/ 

Delacquering Kiln/Decoating Kiln and 

Aluminum Scrap Shredder 

We are proposing revisions to the 

definition of scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kiln to clarify that 

thermal 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. These sources operate chambers 

with a maximum temperature of 900 

degrees Fahrenheit and with no melting 

of the recovered aluminum. Under the 

proposed definition, subsequent melting 

of recovered aluminum need not occur 

at the same facility that conducts the 

recovery operation. We are also 

proposing to amend the definition of a 

scrap shredder to include granulation 

and shearing in addition to crushing, 

grinding, and breaking of aluminum 

scrap into a more uniform size prior to 

processing or charging to a scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or 

furnace. 

16. Transporting Metal 

We are addressing questions as to the 

applicability of the rule to pots that are 

used to transport metal to customers. 

The rule does not currently regulate 

these pots and we are proposing to 

amend the definition of Group 2 furnace 

to clarify the fact that the rule does not 

regulate these pots. 

17. Specifications for Cleaning 

Processes 

We considered whether to add 

specifications for cleaning processes 

such as those required for runaround 

scrap to ensure that scrap processed by 

certain methods qualifies as clean scrap. 

Specifications considered include 

minimum residence time and 

temperature for thermal drying process 

and minimum speed and residence time 

for centrifuging processes. We are not 

proposing these revisions in today’s 

action. However, we invite comments 

on this issue and solicit information on 

appropriate specifications that could be 

applied to these processes to ensure that 

the cleaning process produces clean 

charge. 

18. HF Emissions Compliance 

Provisions 

The current subpart RRR standards 

applicable to major sources contain 

limits for HCl emissions from group 1 

furnaces and require operators to 

conduct performance tests for HCl 

emissions. The EPA stated in the 

subpart RRR NESHAP that HCl would 

serve as a surrogate for all acid gases, 

including HF. Where chlorinecontaining fluxes were used along with 

fluorine-containing fluxes, lime-injected 

fabric filters would effectively control 

HCl and HF so that determining 

compliance with the HCl limit was 

considered sufficient, and a separate 

compliance measure for HF was not 

required. 

In this rulemaking, we are proposing 

to modify the compliance provisions in 

subpart RRR to ensure that HF 

emissions from group 1 furnaces 

without add-on control devices are 

addressed consistent with the intent of 

the promulgated standards. Specifically, 

a secondary aluminum facility with an 

uncontrolled Group 1 furnace may use 

fluorine-containing fluxes without using 

chlorine-containing fluxes, and would 

not be required under the current rule 

to test the furnace for HF, so any HF 

emissions would be neither controlled 

nor accounted for in any HCl testing. 

We are proposing to require owners 

and operators of uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces to test for both HF and HCl. We 

are proposing that the limits for HF from 

these furnaces would be 0.4 lb/ton of 

feed, equivalent to the existing subpart 

RRR limits for HCl from Group 1 

furnaces. Our reasoning is that 

secondary aluminum facilities use 

chlorine-containing and fluorinecontaining fluxes to perform the same 

function of enabling the removal of 

impurities (such as magnesium) from 

aluminum. They are also chemically 

similar, in that both are halogens. 

Therefore, if an uncontrolled Group 1 

furnace has a given mass of impurities 

to be removed from the aluminum, the 

owner/operator may either use a 

chlorine-containing or fluorinecontaining flux, and based on the 

information currently available to EPA, 

we propose that uncontrolled Group 1 

furnaces be subject to testing for HF and 

an associated HF emission limit that is 

the same as the currently applicable HCl 

emission limit. We are proposing that 

EPA Method 26A be used, which is 

capable of measuring HCl and HF. The 

testing requirement for HF would 

coincide with HCl testing at the next 

scheduled performance test after the 

effective date of the final rule. As an 

alternative to testing for HF, we are 

proposing that the owner or operator 

may choose to determine the rate of 

reactive flux addition for an affected 

source, and may assume that, for the 

purposes of demonstrating compliance 

with the SAPU emission limit, all 

fluorine in the reactive fluxes added to 

the source are emitted as HCl or HF. 

This alternative is already available for 

operators using chlorine-containing 

reactive fluxes. 

Based on information received from 

industry, we estimate that 

approximately 199 group 1 furnaces at 

approximately 29 secondary aluminum 

production facilities are uncontrolled. 

These furnaces are already required to 

be tested to determine HCl emissions at 

least once every five years. Therefore, 

the only additional costs for these 

sources would be the laboratory analysis 

for HF. We estimate these costs to be 

approximately $1,000 per test. We 

expect that only furnaces that use 

fluorine-containing fluxes would 

potentially test for HF. Approximately 

55 furnaces at eight facilities use 

fluorine-containing fluxes. Therefore, 

the total cost of this proposed rule 

revision is approximately $55,000 every 

5 years, or approximately $11,000 per 

year. More information is available in 

the Cost Estimates for 2012 Proposed 

Rule Changes to Secondary Aluminum 

NESHAP which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

19. Requirements for Uncontrolled 

Furnaces That Do Not Presently Comply 

With ACGIH Ventilation Guidelines 

Section 63.1506(c)(1) requires that, for 

each affected source or emission unit 

equipped with an add-on air pollution 

control device, the owner or operator 

must design and install a system for the 

capture and collection of emissions to 

meet the engineering standards for 

minimum exhaust rates as published by 

the ACGIH in chapters 3 and 5 of 

‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice.’’ However, 

there are no similar requirements for 

furnaces that are not equipped with an 

add-on air pollution control device. 

Furnaces that are uncontrolled for 

fugitive emissions do not account for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

fugitive emissions that escape during 

testing for example through open doors 

and therefore underestimate emissions 

during performance testing. 

Accordingly, we are proposing that 

owner/operators with uncontrolled 

affected sources either: (1) Construct 

hooding for testing that meets the 

ACGIH guidelines, and include 

emissions captured by that hooding in 

the compliance determination, or (2) 

assume a capture efficiency of 66.67 

percent (i.e., multiply stack test results 

by a factor of 1.5) to account for 

emissions not captured. The basis for 

this proposed requirement is further 

discussed in the Draft Technical 

Support Document for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

included in the docket for this rule. If 

the source fails to demonstrate 

compliance using the 66.67 percent 

capture efficiency approach, we are 

proposing that the owner/operator retest 

with hoods meeting the ACGIH 

guidelines within 180 days. These 

proposed requirements would be 

implemented at the next scheduled 

performance test after the effective date 

of the final rule. We recognize that there 

may be situations (e.g., various furnace 

configurations) where constructing 

hooding may be problematic. Therefore, 

we are seeking comments and 

information on these proposed 

requirements and regarding other 

possible approaches that could be 

applied, such as emissions monitoring 

to address these unmeasured fugitive 

emissions. We also seek comments and 

information on work practices that 

could be applied during compliance 

testing that would minimize the escape 

of these fugitive emissions, including 

approaches that could be adapted for 

different furnace configurations, and to 

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 either install hooding that 

meets ACGIH guidelines for testing or to 

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 total capital cost 

of up to $6,099,000 for the source 

category (conservatively assuming that 

all these furnaces choose the hooding 

option), and an annualized cost of up to 

$1,220,000 (again based on the 

conservative assumption that all 

facilities choose the option of 

constructing hooding). 

20. 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. 

21. Aluminum Scrap Containing 

Anodizing Dyes or Sealants 

The current definition of ‘‘clean 

charge’’ does not clearly indicate the 

status of anodized aluminum. Some 

anodized aluminum parts contain dyes 

and/or sealants that contain organic 

materials. Therefore, we propose to 

amend the definition of ‘‘clean charge’’ 

to indicate that clean charge does not 

include anodized material that contains 

dyes or sealants that contain organic 

material. 

22. 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 stream 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 definition of 

residence time as follows, ‘‘Residence 

time means, for an afterburner, the 

duration of time required for gases to 

pass through the afterburner combustion 

zone. Residence time is calculated by 

dividing the afterburner combustion 

zone volume in cubic feet by the 

volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in 

actual cubic feet per second. The 

combustion zone volume includes the 

reaction chamber of the afterburner in 

which the waste gas stream is exposed 

to the direct combustion flame and the 

complete refractory lined portion of the 

furnace stack up to the measurement 

thermocouple.’’ 

23. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate 

There has been confusion over the 

interpretation of certain SAPU 

requirements such that a SAPU 

emission limit should be calculated 

based on feed/charge rates during 

performance test. Our interpretation has 

always been that allowable emissions 

are calculated on a daily basis using 

feed/charge throughput, which can 

change daily. Because of the confusion 

over the appropriate method, we are 

proposing clarifications that will make 

it clear that the daily throughput, and 

not the throughput at the time of the 

performance test, is used in the 

calculation of allowable emissions in 

each emissions unit (group 1 furnace or 

in-line fluxer) within the SAPU. 

Consistent with the existing rule, area 

sources of HAP would not be required 

to calculate, or comply with a SAPU 

emission limit for PM or HCl. The 

owner or operator would be required to 

demonstrate compliance with these 

limits and these calculated SAPU 

emission limits would be used to 

establish compliance in accordance 

with the procedures in § 63.1513. 

24. Changing Furnace Classification 

The current subpart RRR regulatory 

text does not explicitly address whether 

and under what conditions a secondary 

aluminum production furnace may 

change its classification between group 

1 furnace with add-on air pollution 

control device (APCD) (i.e., group 1 

controlled furnace), group 1 furnace 

without add-on APCD (i.e., group 1 

uncontrolled furnace), and group 2 

furnace. This has led to uncertainty for 

facilities when considering available 

compliance options. The EPA proposes 

a new § 63.1514 that would allow an 

owner/operator to change a furnace’s 

classification (also called an operating 

mode), as long as the change and new 

operating mode are fully compliant with 

all substantive and procedural 

requirements of the subpart RRR. The 

proposed procedures include limits on 

the frequency with which furnace 

operating modes can be changed. 

Practical implementation and 

enforcement of requirements such as 

SAPU compliance, Operation, 

Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) 

plans, and labeling require that furnace 

operating modes are not in a state of 

constant change. Therefore, we are 

proposing that a change in furnace 

operating mode and reversion to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8605 

previous operating mode occurs no 

more frequently than once every 6 

months, with an exception for control 

device maintenance requiring 

shutdown. Furnaces equipped with 

APCDs that meet the requirements for 

changing furnace classifications would 

be permitted to change operating mode 

and revert to the previous operating 

mode without restriction on frequency 

in cases where an APCD was shut down 

for planned maintenance activities such 

as bag replacement. 

These proposed revisions specify the 

emissions testing that would be required 

to change furnace operating modes; 

operating requirements, such as 

labeling, flux use, scrap charging for the 

furnace before, during, and after 

changing; and recordkeeping 

requirements. These proposed revisions 

will provide industry with the 

flexibility to efficiently operate furnaces 

in response to changes in the 

availability of feed materials and other 

operational conditions. While providing 

increased flexibility, it is also important 

that EPA maintain its compliance 

oversight of these affected sources to 

ensure furnace operations are compliant 

with the rule. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing certain limitations on how 

and when furnaces can change from one 

operating mode to another. For example, 

when a furnace is changed from a group 

1 furnace to a group 2 furnace, we are 

proposing that performance testing be 

conducted when the furnace is changed 

to the group 2 mode to verify that the 

furnace is not emitting HAP at levels 

above the relevant limits as a result of 

any HAP-containing feed or flux left in 

the furnace. We are also proposing 

requirements for this scenario to 

confirm that HAP emissions are 

sufficiently low to ensure that the 

furnace, while operating as a group 2 

furnace, is performing as a group 2 

furnace, that is, with little or no HAP 

emissions. To ensure that furnaces have 

had sufficient throughput (or time) in 

their new operating mode such that 

performance tests are representative of 

their new operating mode, the proposed 

amendments would require waiting 

periods of one or more charge-to-tap 

cycles or 24 operating hours before 

conducting performance testing. For 

alternate operating modes we are 

proposing that the testing be required in 

order to demonstrate that the furnace 

remains compliant with all applicable 

emission limits. Major sources would be 

required to repeat the required tests at 

least once every 5 years. When 

following the substantive and 

procedural requirements of this rule, 

some owners/operators may be able to 

turn off associated air pollution control 

devices. Because of this increased 

flexibility, we estimate an annual 

savings of $1,100,000, based on an 

estimate of controls for 50 furnaces 

being turned off for 6 months per year. 

We estimate additional testing costs of 

$500,000 per year. Therefore, we 

estimate the net cost to be negative 

$600,000 per year (a savings of $600,000 

per year). We solicit comment on our 

estimates of avoided costs and testing 

costs. 

25. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap 

Furnaces 

Dross only furnaces at area sources 

are not subject to subpart RRR D/F 

emission limitations and therefore are 

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 note that dross only furnaces are 

defined as furnaces that only process 

dross. A furnace that processes scrap 

may be a group 1 furnace or a group 2 

furnace. Operators of group 1 furnaces 

have the option of conducting 

performance tests under different 

operating conditions to establish 

operating parameters applicable to 

different combinations of types of 

charge and fluxing rates. We have added 

language to clarify this in the proposed 

amendments. We note that dross is not 

clean charge, as defined in the rule, and 

thus any group 1 furnace processing 

dross is subject to limitations on 

emissions of D/F, and other 

requirements for group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge. 

26. Annual Hood Inspections 

Industry representatives have stated 

that our interpretation that annual hood 

inspections include an annual hood 

flow measurement represents an 

unnecessary cost burden for each 

regulated facility. Industry 

representatives recommended that flow 

testing should only be required after 

modifications to the hood, furnace, and/ 

or controls that could negatively impact 

the capture and, only then if they 

cannot be demonstrated by alternate 

engineering calculations or operating 

parameters. They contend that due to 

stringent OM&M protocols, it should be 

sufficient to certify that there have been 

no changes, with possible verification of 

flow by visual inspections of hoods and 

ductwork for leaks and possible 

verification of fan amperage. We 

disagree that these measures alone are 

sufficient to verify that flow is sufficient 

and that annual hood flow measurement 

represents an unnecessary cost burden. 

We are proposing to codify in the rule 

our existing interpretation that annual 

hood inspections include flow rate 

measurements. These flow rate 

measurements supplement the 

effectiveness of the required visual 

inspection for leaks (which may be 

difficult or uncertain for certain sections 

of ductwork), to reveal the presence of 

obstructions in the ductwork, confirm 

that fan efficiency has not declined, and 

provide a measured value for air flow. 

27. Applicability of Rule to Area 

Sources 

While the emissions standards that 

apply to area sources are evident in the 

current rule, the applicable operating, 

monitoring, and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are less clear. In 

general, the intent of the rule is to 

subject area sources to standards for D/ 

F with corresponding monitoring, 

testing, reporting, and recordkeeping. 

We are proposing amendments that 

would clarify which of the operating, 

monitoring and other requirements 

apply to area sources. 

28. 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. 

The rule was not intended to prevent 

owners/operators from establishing new 

or revised operating parameters, if 

necessary to process different types of 

scrap. Accordingly, we are modifying 

the rule to allow deviations from the 

values and ranges in the OM&M plan 

during performance testing only, 

provided that the site-specific test plan 

documents the intent to establish new 

or revised parametric limits. 

29. Controlled Furnaces That Are 

Temporarily Idled 

Currently, the rule does not specify if 

an owner or operator may discontinue 

the operation of its control device if a 

furnace is not in use, but is not 

completely empty or shut down. 

Industry has requested that the EPA 

provide allowances for control devices 

to be turned off while the furnaces are 

not in operation or being charged with 

aluminum scrap or fluxing agents. This 

typically occurs over the weekend and 

accounts for unnecessary electrical and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8606 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

operating costs. Accordingly, we are 

modifying the rule to allow for the 

discontinued use of control devices for 

these furnaces that will remain idle for 

24 hours or longer. 

30. Annual Compliance Certification for 

Area Sources 

Because area sources that are subject 

to subpart RRR are exempt from the 

obligation to obtain a permit under 40 

CFR part 70 or 71, it was not clear how 

area sources certified their annual 

compliance. To clarify that area sources 

are required to certify their annual 

compliance, we are proposing clarifying 

language to § 63.1516(c). 

E. Compliance Dates 

We are proposing that existing 

facilities must comply with all changes 

proposed in this action 90 days after 

promulgation of the final rule. All new 

or reconstructed facilities must comply 

with all requirements in the final rule 

upon startup. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We estimate that there are 161 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities that will be affected by this 

proposed rule, of which 53 are major 

sources of HAPs, and 108 are area 

sources. We estimate that 10 secondary 

aluminum facilities have co-located 

primary aluminum operations. The 

affected sources at secondary aluminum 

production facilities include new and 

existing scrap shredders, thermal chip 

dryers, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kilns, group 2 furnaces, sweat 

furnaces, dross-only furnaces, rotary 

dross cooler and secondary aluminum 

processing units containing group 1 

furnaces and in-line fluxers. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

No reductions are being proposed to 

numerical emissions limits. The 

proposed amendments include 

requirements that affected sources 

comply with the numerical emissions 

limits at all times including periods of 

startup and shutdown to help ensure 

that emissions from those affected 

sources are 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 is not expected to 

significantly reduce HF emissions but 

will help to ensure that HF emissions 

remain low. We believe that the 

proposed revisions would result in little 

or no emissions reductions. Therefore, 

no air quality impacts are expected. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

We estimate the total cost of the 

proposed amendments to be up to 

approximately $611,000 per year. We 

estimate that 56 unique facilities are 

affected and that the cost per facility 

ranges from negative $36,000 per year 

for a facility changing furnace operating 

modes to $112,000 per year for a facility 

installing hooding for testing. 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 furnaces choose that 

option (rather than assuming a 67 

percent capture efficiency for their 

existing furnace exhaust system). Our 

estimate also includes an annualized 

cost of $11,000 for testing for HF on 

uncontrolled furnaces that are already 

testing for HCl. Finally, we estimate cost 

savings of $600,000 per year for 

furnaces that change furnace operating 

modes and turn off their control 

devices. Our estimate is based on 50 

furnaces turning off their controls for 

approximately 6 months every year. 

This savings is net of the cost of testing 

to demonstrate that these furnaces 

remain in compliance with emission 

limits after their control devices have 

been turned off. The estimated costs are 

explained further in the Cost Estimates 

for 2012 Proposed Rule Changes to 

Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, which 

is available in the docket. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for the proposed modifications 

in this rulemaking. That analysis 

estimates total annualized costs of 

approximately $0.6 million at 28 

facilities and cost to sales ratios of less 

than 0.02 percent for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category. 

For more information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Secondary Aluminum 

NESHAP that is available in the public 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

E. What are the benefits? 

We do not anticipate any significant 

reductions in HAP emissions as a result 

from these proposed amendments. 

However, we think that the proposed 

amendments would help to improve the 

clarity of the rule, which can help to 

improve compliance and help to ensure 

that emissions are kept to a minimum. 

Certain provisions may also provide 

operational flexibility to the industry at 

no increase in HAP emissions. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. In 

addition to general comments on this 

proposed action, we are also interested 

in any additional data that may help to 

reduce the uncertainties inherent in the 

risk assessments and other analyses. We 

are specifically interested in receiving 

corrections to the site-specific emissions 

profiles used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section VII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses are available for 

download on the RTR web page at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ 

rtrpg.html. The data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point for the facility 

included in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. The 

data fields that may be revised include 

the following: 

Data element Definition 

Control Measure ....................................................................................... Are control measures in place? (yes or no). 

Control Measure Comment ...................................................................... Select control measure from list provided, and briefly describe the control measure. 

Delete ....................................................................................................... Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8607 

Data element Definition 

Delete Comment ....................................................................................... Describes the reason for deletion. 

Emissions Calculation Method Code For Revised Emissions ................. Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEM, material balance, stack test, etc. 

Emissions Process Group ........................................................................ Enter the general type of emissions process associated with the specified emissions point. 

Fugitive Angle ........................................................................................... Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension relative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89 degrees). 

Fugitive Length ......................................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly 

referred to as length (ft). 

Fugitive Width ........................................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to as width (ft). 

Malfunction Emissions .............................................................................. Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (tpy). 

Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly .......................................................... Enter maximum hourly malfunction emissions here (lb/hr). 

North American Datum ............................................................................. Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if 

left blank, NAD83 is assumed. 

Process Comment .................................................................................... Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. 

REVISED Address .................................................................................... Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. 

REVISED City ........................................................................................... Enter revised city name here. 

REVISED County Name ........................................................................... Enter revised county name here. 

REVISED Emissions Release Point Type ............................................... Enter revised Emissions Release Point Type here. 

REVISED End Date .................................................................................. Enter revised End Date here. 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ................................................................. Enter revised Exit Gas Flow Rate here (ft3/sec). 

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature ............................................................. Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (F). 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity ..................................................................... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). 

REVISED Facility Category Code ............................................................ Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source. 

REVISED Facility Name ........................................................................... Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier ........................................................ Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned 

by the EPA Facility Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code .............................. Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. 

REVISED Latitude .................................................................................... Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED Longitude ................................................................................. Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED MACT Code ............................................................................. Enter revised MACT Code here. 

REVISED Pollutant Code ......................................................................... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. 

REVISED Routine Emissions ................................................................... Enter revised routine emissions value here (tpy). 

REVISED SCC Code ............................................................................... Enter revised SCC Code here. 

REVISED Stack Diameter ........................................................................ Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). 

REVISED Stack Height ............................................................................ Enter revised Stack Height here (ft). 

REVISED Start Date ................................................................................ Enter revised Start Date here. 

REVISED State ........................................................................................ Enter revised State here. 

REVISED Tribal Code .............................................................................. Enter revised Tribal Code here. 

REVISED Zip Code .................................................................................. Enter revised Zip Code here. 

Shutdown Emissions ................................................................................ Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (tpy). 

Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly ............................................................. Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions here (lb/hr). 

Stack Comment ........................................................................................ Enter general comments about emissions release points. 

Startup Emissions ..................................................................................... Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (tpy). 

Startup Emissions Max Hourly ................................................................. Enter maximum hourly startup emissions here (lb/hr). 

Year Closed .............................................................................................. Enter date facility stopped operations. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number, and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To 

expedite review of the revisions, it 

would also be helpful if you submitted 

a copy of your revisions to the EPA 

directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition to 

submitting them to the docket. 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a facility, you need only submit one file 

for that facility, which should contain 

all suggested changes for all sources at 

that facility. We request that all data 

revision comments be submitted in the 

form of updated Microsoft® Access 

files, which are provided on the RTR 

Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action because it 

raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8608 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 prepared by the 

EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR 

number 2453.01. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information requirements are based 

on notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

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

to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

We are proposing new paperwork 

requirements to the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category 

in the form of reporting for furnace 

changes in classification and affirmative 

defense and recordkeeping with regard 

to verification of lime injection rates 

and change in furnace classifications. 

New monitoring requirements under the 

proposed revisions include testing for 

HF, and testing related to furnace 

classification changes. 

For this proposed rule, the EPA is 

adding affirmative defense to the 

estimate of burden in the ICR. To 

provide the public with an estimate of 

the relative magnitude of the burden 

associated with an assertion of the 

affirmative defense position adopted by 

a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$3,142 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review 

relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused a violation of an emissions limit. 

The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to the EPA. The 

EPA provides this illustrative estimate 

of this burden because these costs are 

only incurred if there has been a 

violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above), and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. 

With respect to the Secondary 

Aluminum Production source category, 

we estimate the annual recordkeeping 

and reporting burden after the effective 

date of the proposed rule for affirmative 

defense to be 30 hours at a cost of 

$3,142. 

We expect to gather information on 

such events in the future and will revise 

this estimate as better information 

becomes available. We estimate 161 

regulated entities are currently subject 

to subpart RRR. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart RRR is estimated to be 

$1,876,521 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 $1,711,000 per year. The 

total burden for the Federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 271 labor hours per year 

at an annual cost of $12,231. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

these ICRs are approved by OMB, the 

agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rules. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0544. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

February 14, 2012, a comment to OMB 

is best assured of having its full effect 

if OMB receives it by March 15, 2012. 

The final rule will respond to any OMB 

or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. For this source 

category, which has the NAICS code 

331314, the SBA small business size 

standard is 750 employees according to 

the SBA small business standards 

definitions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8609 

After considering the economic 

impacts of these proposed changes on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We determined in the economic 

and small business analysis that, using 

the results from the cost memorandum, 

28 entities will incur costs associated 

with the proposed rule. Of these 28 

entities, nine of them are small. Of these 

nine, all of them are estimated to 

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

savings) as a result of the rule according 

to our analysis. 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 impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed rule would not result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in aggregate, or the private sector in any 

1 year. 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 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. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and State and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from State and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). There are no 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities that are owned or operated by 

tribal governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the 

agency does not believe the 

environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), because it is not likely to have 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve use of any new technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income, or indigenous 

populations because we have concluded 

that the existing rules adequately 

protect human health with an ample 

margin of safety and the proposed 

amendments do not decrease the level 

of protection provided to human health 

or the environment. Our analyses show 

that adverse environmental effects, 

human health multi-pathway effects and 

acute and chronic noncancer health 

impacts are unlikely. Our additional 

analysis of facilitywide risks for major 

sources showed that the maximum 

facilitywide cancer risks are within the 

range of acceptable risks and that the 

maximum chronic noncancer risks are 

unlikely to cause health impacts. 

Because our residual risk assessment 

determined that there was minimal 

residual risk associated with the 

emissions from facilities in this source 

category, a demographic risk analysis 

was not necessary for this category. 

However, the Agency 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 demographic 

distribution analysis only gives some 

indication of the prevalence of subpopulations that may be exposed to 

HAP pollution from the sources affected 

by this rulemaking; it does not identify 

the demographic characteristics of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8610 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

most highly affected individuals or 

communities, nor does it quantify the 

level of risk faced by those individuals 

or communities. 

The demographic distribution 

analysis shows that while most 

demographic categories are below or 

within 10 percent of their corresponding 

national averages, the African American 

percentage within 3 miles of any source 

affected by this rulemaking exceeds the 

national average by 3 percentage points 

(16 percent versus 13 percent), or +23 

percent. The area source sector-wide 

analysis of near source populations 

reveals that several demographic 

categories exceed 10 percent of their 

corresponding national averages: 

Minority by +16 percentage points (44% 

vs. 28%), or +57%; Hispanic or Latino 

by +17 percentage points (34% vs. 

17%), or +100%; Without a High School 

Diploma by +6 percentage points (16% 

vs. 10%), or +60%, and; Below National 

Poverty Line: +7 percentage points (21% 

vs. 14%), or +50%. The facility-level 

demographic analysis results and the 

details concerning their development 

are presented in the OAQPS 

Environmental Justice Analytical Team 

Report, Secondary Aluminum—Area 

Sources, and OAQPS Environmental 

Justice Analytical Team Report, 

Secondary Aluminum—Major Sources, 

copies of which are available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0544). 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 

Aluminum Production 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 30, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 63.1501 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1501 Dates. 

* * * * * 

(d) The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source must comply 

with the following requirements of this 

subpart by [DATE 90 DAYS FROM 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]: 

§ 63.1505(a), (i)(4), (k), (k)(1),(k)(2), 

(k)(3); § 63.1506 (a)(1), (a)(5), 

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

§ 63.1510 (a), (b), (b)(5),(b)(9), (d)(2), 

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

(o)(1)(ii), (s)(2)(iv), (t), (t)(2)(i), (t)(2)(ii), 

(t)(4), (t)(5); § 63.1511(a), (b), (b)(1), 

(b)(6), (c)(9), (f)(6), (g)(5); § 63.1512(e)(1), 

(e)(2),(e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), (h)(1), (h)(2), 

(j), (j)(1)(I, (j)(2)(i), (o)(1), (p), (p)(2); 

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

§ 63.1514; § 63.1516(a), (b), (b) (1)(v), 

(b)(2)(iii), (b)(3), (c),(d); 

§ 63.1517(b)(16)(i), (b)(18), (c); 

§ 63.1520. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 63.1502 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1502 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) * * * 

(1) ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual 

of Recommended Practice,’’ American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR 

approved for § 63.1506(c), and 

* * * * * 

(3) ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual 

of Recommended Practice,’’ American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists, (27rd edition, 2010), IBR 

approved for § 63.1506(c). 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.1503 is amended by: 

a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new 

definitions of ‘‘affirmative defense,’’ 

‘‘bale breaker,’’ ‘‘capture and collection 

system,’’ ‘‘HF’’ and ‘‘Tap’’; and 

b. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘aluminum scrap shredder,’’ ‘‘clean 

charge,’’ ‘‘cover flux,’’ ‘‘Group 2 

furnace,’’ ‘‘HCl,’’ ‘‘residence time,’’ 

‘‘scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kiln’’ and ‘‘secondary 

aluminum processing unit (SAPU).’’ 

§ 63.1503 Definitions. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Aluminum scrap shredder means a 

high speed or low speed unit that 

crushes, grinds, granulates, shears or 

breaks aluminum scrap into a more 

uniform size prior to processing or 

charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. A bale 

breaker is not an aluminum scrap 

shredder. 

Bale breaker means a device used to 

break apart a bale of aluminum scrap for 

further processing. Bale breakers are not 

used to crush, grind, granulate, shear or 

break aluminum scrap into more 

uniform size pieces. 

Capture and collection system means 

the system of hood(s), duct system and 

fan used to collect a contaminant at or 

near its source, and for affected sources 

equipped with an air pollution control 

device, transport the contaminated air to 

the air cleaning device. 

Clean charge means furnace charge 

materials, including molten aluminum; 

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

elements; aluminum scrap known by 

the owner or operator to be entirely free 

of paints, coatings, and lubricants; 

uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips 

that have been thermally dried or 

treated by a centrifugal cleaner; 

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

or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/ 

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

and runaround scrap. Anodized 

aluminum that contains dyes or sealants 

with organic compounds is not clean 

charge. 

Cover flux means salt added to the 

surface of molten aluminum in a group 

1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation 

of the molten aluminum, for the 

purpose of preventing oxidation. Any 

flux added to a rotary furnace or other 

furnace that uses a molten metal pump 

or other device to circulate the 

aluminum is not a cover flux. Any 

reactive flux cannot be a cover flux. 

Group 2 furnace means a furnace of 

any design that melts, holds, or 

processes only clean charge and that 

performs no fluxing or performs fluxing 

using only nonreactive, non-HAPcontaining/non-HAP-generating gases or 

agents. Pots used to transport metal to 

customers are not furnaces. 

HCl means hydrogen chloride. 

HF means hydrogen fluoride. 

Residence time means, for an 

afterburner, the duration of time 

required for gases to pass through the 

afterburner combustion zone. Residence 

time is calculated by dividing the 

afterburner combustion zone volume in 

cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of 

the gas stream in actual cubic feet per 

second. The combustion zone volume 

includes the reaction chamber of the 

afterburner in which the waste gas 

stream is exposed to the direct 

combustion flame and the complete 

refractory lined portion of the furnace 

stack up to the measurement 

thermocouple. 

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kiln means a unit used 

primarily to remove various organic 

contaminants such as oil, paint, lacquer, 

ink, plastic, and/or rubber from 

aluminum scrap (including used 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8611 

beverage containers) prior to melting, or 

that separates aluminum foil from paper 

and plastic in scrap. 

Secondary aluminum processing unit 

(SAPU). An existing SAPU means all 

existing group 1 furnaces and all 

existing in-line fluxers within a 

secondary aluminum production 

facility. Each existing group 1 furnace or 

existing in-line fluxer is considered an 

emission unit within a secondary 

aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU 

means any combination of individual 

group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers 

within a secondary aluminum 

processing facility which either were 

constructed or reconstructed after 

February 11, 1999, or have been 

permanently redesignated as new 

emission units pursuant to 

§ 63.1505(k)(6). Each of the group 1 

furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new 

SAPU is considered an emission unit 

within that secondary aluminum 

processing unit. A secondary aluminum 

production facility may have more than 

one new SAPU. 

Tap means the end of an operating 

cycle when processed molten aluminum 

is poured from a furnace. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.1505 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a); 

b. Revising paragraph (i)(4); 

c. Revising paragraph (k); 

d. Revising paragraph (k)(1) 

e. Revising paragraph (k)(2); and 

f. Revising paragraph (k)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1505 Emission standards for affected 

sources and emission units. 

(a) Summary. (1) The owner or 

operator of a new or existing affected 

source must comply at all times with 

each applicable limit in this section, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown. Table 1 to this subpart 

summarizes the emission standards for 

each type of source. 

(2) For a new or existing affected 

sources subject to an emissions limit in 

paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section 

expressed in units of pounds per ton of 

feed, or mg TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of 

feed, calculate your emissions during 

periods of startup and shutdown by 

dividing your measured emissions in lb/ 

hr or mg/hr or ng/hr by the appropriate 

feed rate in tons/hr or Mg/hr from your 

most recent or current performance test. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

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

HF per ton) of feed/charge from an 

uncontrolled group 1 furnace and 0.20 

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

of feed/charge or, if the furnace is 

equipped with an add-on air pollution 

control device, 10 percent of the 

uncontrolled HCl emissions, by weight, 

for a group 1 furnace at a secondary 

aluminum production facility that is a 

major source. 

* * * * * 

(k) Secondary aluminum processing 

unit. On and after the compliance date 

established by § 63.1501, the owner or 

operator must comply with the emission 

limits calculated using the equations for 

PM, HCl and HF in paragraphs (k)(1) 

and (2) of this section for each 

secondary aluminum processing unit at 

a secondary aluminum production 

facility that is a major source. The 

owner or operator must comply with the 

emission limit calculated using the 

equation for D/F in paragraph (k)(3) of 

this section for each secondary 

aluminum processing unit at a 

secondary aluminum production facility 

that is a major or area source. 

(1) The owner or operator must not 

discharge or allow to be discharged to 

the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour 

rolling average emissions of PM in 

excess of: 

Where, 

LtiPM = The PM emission limit for individual 

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

of this section for a group 1 furnace or 

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

in-line fluxer; 

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

individual emission unit i; and 

LcPM = The daily PM emission limit for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit 

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

hour PM emission limit applicable to the 

SAPU. 

Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux 

materials cannot be included in this 

calculation since they are not subject to the 

PM limit. 

(2) The owner or operator must not 

discharge or allow to be discharged to 

the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour 

rolling average emissions of HCl or HF 

in excess of: 

Where, 

LtiHCl/HF = The HCl emission limit for 

individual emission unit i in paragraph 

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

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

an in-line fluxer; or the HF emission 

limit for individual emission unit i in 

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

uncontrolled group 1 furnace; and 

LcHCl/HF = The daily HCl or HF emission limit 

for the secondary aluminum processing 

unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 

24-hour HCl or HF emission limit 

applicable to the SAPU. 

Note: Only uncontrolled group 1 furnaces 

are included in this HF limit calculation and 

in-line fluxers using no reactive flux 

materials cannot be included in this 

calculation since they are not subject to the 

HCl limits. 

(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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.034</GPH> EP14FE12.035</GPH>
8612 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Where, 

LtiD/F = The D/F emission limit for 

individual emission unit i in paragraph (i)(3) 

of this section for a group 1 furnace; and 

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

secondary aluminum processing unit which 

is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour D/F 

emission limit applicable to the SAPU. 

Note: Clean charge furnaces cannot be 

included in this calculation since they are 

not subject to the D/F limit. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.1506 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

b. Adding paragraph (a)(5); 

c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

d. Revising paragraph (g)(5); 

e. Revising paragraph (k)(3); 

f. Revising paragraph (m)(4); and 

g. Revising paragraph (n)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1506 Operating requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) On and after the compliance date 

established by § 63.1501, the owner or 

operator must operate all new and 

existing affected sources and control 

equipment according to the 

requirements in this section. The 

affected sources, and their associated 

control equipment, listed in 

§ 63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of this 

subpart that are located at a secondary 

aluminum production facility that is an 

area source are subject to the operating 

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

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

section. 

* * * * * 

(5) At all times, the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Design and install a system for the 

capture and collection of emissions to 

meet the engineering standards for 

minimum exhaust rates as published by 

the American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists in 

‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice’’ 23rd or 27th 

edition (ACGIH Guidelines) 

(incorporated by reference in § 63.1502 

of this subpart); 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(5) For a continuous injection device, 

maintain free-flowing lime in the 

hopper to the feed device at all times 

and maintain the lime feeder setting at 

or above the level established during the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) For a continuous injection system, 

maintain free-flowing lime in the 

hopper to the feed device at all times 

and maintain the lime feeder setting at 

or above the level established during the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(4) For a continuous lime injection 

system, maintain free-flowing lime in 

the hopper to the feed device at all 

times and maintain the lime feeder 

setting at or above the level established 

during the performance test. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) Maintain the total reactive 

chlorine flux injection rate and fluorine 

flux addition rate for each operating 

cycle or time period used in the 

performance test at or below the average 

rate established during the performance 

test. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.1510 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a); 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

c. Revising paragraph (b)(5); 

d. Adding paragraph (b)(9); 

e. Revising paragraph (d)(2); 

f. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii); 

g. Adding paragraph (i)(4); 

h. Revising paragraph (j)(4); 

i. Revising paragraph (n)(1); 

j. Revising paragraph (o)(1); 

k. Revising paragraph (o)(1)(ii); 

l. Revising paragraph (s)(2)(iv); 

m. Revising paragraph (t) introductory 

text; 

n. Adding paragraph (t)(2)(i); 

o. Adding paragraph (t)(2)(ii); 

p. Revising paragraph (t)(4); and 

q. Revising paragraph (t)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1510 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) Summary. On and after the 

compliance date established by 

§ 63.1501, the owner or operator of a 

new or existing affected source or 

emission unit must monitor all control 

equipment and processes according to 

the requirements in this section. 

Monitoring requirements for each type 

of affected source and emission unit are 

summarized in Table 3 to this subpart. 

Area sources are subject to monitoring 

requirements for those affected sources 

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

subpart, and associated control 

equipment as required by paragraphs (b) 

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

through (w) of this section, including 

but not limited to: 

(1) The operation, maintenance and 

monitoring plan required in paragraph 

(b) of this section pertaining to each 

affected source listed in § 63.1500(c)(1)– 

(4) of this subpart, 

(2) The labeling requirements 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section pertaining to group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, and 

scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns, 

(3) The requirements for capture and 

collection described in paragraph (d) of 

this section for each controlled affected 

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

this subpart, 

(4) The feed charge weight monitoring 

requirements described in paragraph (e) 

of this section applicable to group 1 

furnaces processing other than clean 

charge, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kilns and thermal chip dryers, 

(5) The bag leak detection system 

requirements described in paragraph (f) 

of this section applicable to all bag leak 

detection systems installed on fabric 

filters and lime injected fabric filters 

used to control each affected source 

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

subpart, 

(6) The requirements for afterburners 

described in paragraph (g) of this 

section applicable to sweat furnaces, 

thermal chip dryers, and scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, 

(7) The requirements for monitoring 

fabric filter inlet temperature described 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8613 

in paragraph (h) of this section for all 

lime injected fabric filters used to 

control group 1 furnaces processing 

other than clean charge, sweat furnaces 

and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kilns, 

(8) The requirements for monitoring 

lime injection described in paragraph (i) 

of this section applicable to all lime 

injected fabric filters used to control 

emissions from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and 

scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating 

kilns, 

(9) The requirements for monitoring 

total reactive flux injection described in 

paragraph (j) of this section for all group 

1 furnaces processing other than clean 

charge, 

(10) The requirements described in 

paragraph (k) of this section for thermal 

chip dryers, 

(11) The requirements described in 

paragraph (n) of this section for 

controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(12) The requirements described in 

paragraph (o) of this section for 

uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(13) The requirements described in 

paragraph (p) of this section for scrap 

inspection programs for uncontrolled 

group 1 furnaces, 

(14) The requirements described in 

paragraph (q) of this section for 

monitoring scrap contamination level 

for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, 

(15) The requirements described in 

paragraph (s) of this section for 

secondary aluminum processing units, 

limited to compliance with limits for 

emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(16) The requirements described in 

paragraph (t) of this section for 

secondary aluminum processing units 

limited to compliance with limits for 

emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(17) The requirements described in 

paragraph (u) of this section for 

secondary aluminum processing units 

limited to compliance with limits for 

emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces 

processing other than clean charge, 

(18) The requirements described in 

paragraph (v) of this section for 

alternative lime addition monitoring 

methods applicable to lime coated fabric 

filters used to control emissions from 

group 1 furnaces processing other than 

clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat 

furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kilns, and 

(19) The requirements described in 

paragraph (w) of this section for 

approval of alternate methods for 

monitoring group 1 furnaces processing 

other than clean charge, thermal chip 

dryers, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kilns and sweat furnaces and 

associated control devices for the 

control of D/F emissions. 

(b) Operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or 

operator must prepare and implement 

for each new or existing affected source 

and emission unit, a written operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) 

plan. The owner or operator of an 

existing affected source must submit the 

OM&M plan to the responsible 

permitting authority no later than the 

compliance date established by 

§ 63.1501(a). The owner or operator of 

any new affected source must submit 

the OM&M plan to the responsible 

permitting authority within 90 days 

after a successful initial performance 

test under § 63.1511(b), or within 90 

days after the compliance date 

established by § 63.1501(b) if no initial 

performance test is required. The plan 

must be accompanied by a written 

certification by the owner or operator 

that the OM&M plan satisfies all 

requirements of this section and is 

otherwise consistent with the 

requirements of this subpart. The owner 

or operator must comply with all of the 

provisions of the OM&M plan as 

submitted to the permitting authority, 

unless and until the plan is revised in 

accordance with the following 

procedures. If the permitting authority 

determines at any time after receipt of 

the OM&M plan that any revisions of 

the plan are necessary to satisfy the 

requirements of this section or this 

subpart, the owner or operator must 

promptly make all necessary revisions 

and resubmit the revised plan. If the 

owner or operator determines that any 

other revisions of the OM&M plan are 

necessary, such revisions will not 

become effective until the owner or 

operator submits a description of the 

changes and a revised plan 

incorporating them to the permitting 

authority. The owner or operator must 

not begin operating under the revised 

plan until approval is received or until 

after 60 days, whichever is sooner. Each 

plan must contain the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(5) Procedures for monitoring process 

and control device parameters, 

including lime injection rates, 

procedures for annual inspections of 

afterburners, and if applicable, the 

procedure to be used for determining 

charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a 

measurement device is not used. 

* * * * * 

(9) Procedures to be followed when 

changing furnace classification under 

the provisions of § 63.1514. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Inspect each capture/collection 

and closed vent system at least once 

each calendar year to ensure that each 

system is operating in accordance with 

the operating requirements in 

§ 63.1506(c) and record the results of 

each inspection. This inspection shall 

include a volumetric flow rate 

measurement taken at a location in the 

ductwork downstream of the hoods 

which will be representative of the 

actual volumetric flow rate without the 

interference of leaks, the introduction of 

ambient air for cooling, or other ducts 

manifolded from other hoods. The 

measurement shall be performed using 

EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2 in 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Each bag leak detection system 

must be installed, calibrated, operated, 

and maintained according to the 

manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(4) At least once per month, verify 

that the lime injection rate in pound per 

hour (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 whether the 

level of molten metal was above the top 

of the passage between the sidewell and 

hearth during reactive flux injection, 

unless the furnace hearth was also 

equipped with an add-on control 

device. If visual inspection of the 

molten metal level is not possible, the 

molten metal level must be determined 

using physical measurement methods. 

(2) Submit a certification of 

compliance with the operational 

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

month reporting period. Each 

certification must contain the 

information in § 63.1516(b)(2)(iii). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(o) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator must 

develop, in consultation 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 sitespecific monitoring plan must contain 

sufficient procedures to ensure 

continuing compliance with all 

applicable emission limits and must 

demonstrate, based on documented test 

results, the relationship between 

emissions of PM, HCl (and, for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HF), and 

D/F and the proposed monitoring 

parameters for each pollutant. Test data 

must establish the highest level of PM, 

HCl (and, for uncontrolled group 1 

furnaces, HF), and D/F that will be 

emitted from the furnace. This may be 

determined by conducting performance 

tests and monitoring operating 

parameters while charging the furnace 

with feed/charge materials containing 

the highest anticipated levels of oils and 

coatings and fluxing at the highest 

anticipated rate. If the permitting 

authority determines that any revisions 

of the site-specific monitoring plan are 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

this section or this subpart, the owner 

or operator must promptly make all 

necessary revisions and resubmit the 

revised plan to the permitting authority. 

* * * * * 

(ii) The permitting authority will 

review and approve or disapprove a 

proposed plan, or request changes to a 

plan, based on whether the plan 

contains sufficient provisions to ensure 

continuing compliance with applicable 

emission limits and demonstrates, based 

on documented test results, the 

relationship between emissions of PM, 

HCl (for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, 

HF) and D/F and the proposed 

monitoring parameters for each 

pollutant. Test data must establish the 

highest level of PM, HCl (for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HF) and 

D/F that will be emitted from the 

furnace. Subject to permitting agency 

approval of the OM&M plan, this may 

be determined by conducting 

performance tests and monitoring 

operating parameters while charging the 

furnace with feed/charge materials 

containing the highest anticipated levels 

of oils and coatings and fluxing at the 

highest anticipated rate. 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The inclusion of any periods of 

startup or shutdown in emission 

calculations. 

* * * * * 

(t) Secondary aluminum processing 

unit. Except as provided in paragraph 

(u) of this section, the owner or operator 

must calculate and record the 3-day, 24- 

hour rolling average emissions of PM, 

HCl (for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, 

HF) and D/F for each secondary 

aluminum processing unit on a daily 

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

rolling average, the owner or operator 

must: 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Where no performance test has 

been conducted, for a particular 

emission unit, because the owner of 

operator has, with the approval of the 

permitting authority, chosen to 

determine the emission rate of an 

emission unit by testing a representative 

unit, in accordance with § 63.1511(f), 

the owner of operator shall use the 

emission rate determined from the 

representative unit in the SAPU 

emission rate calculation required in 

§ 63.1510(t)(4). 

(ii) If the owner or operator has not 

conducted performance tests for HCl 

and HF for an uncontrolled group 1 

furnace or for HCL for an in-line fluxer, 

in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 63.1512(d)(3), (e)(3), or (h)(2), the 

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

determine SAPU-wide HCl and HF 

emissions shall be made under the 

assumption that all chlorine-containing 

reactive flux added to the emission unit 

is emitted as HCl and all fluorinecontaining reactive flux added to the 

emission unit is emitted as HF. 

* * * * * 

(4) Compute the 24-hour daily 

emission rate using Equation 4: 

Where: 

Eday = The daily PM, HCl, D/F and, for 

uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HF 

emission rate for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit for the 24- 

hour period; 

Ti = The total amount of feed, or aluminum 

produced, for emission unit i for the 24- 

hour period (tons or Mg); 

ERi = The measured emission rate for 

emission unit i as determined in the 

performance test (lb/ton or mg/Mg of 

feed/charge); and 

n = The number of emission units in the 

secondary aluminum processing unit. 

(5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24- 

hour rolling average for each pollutant 

each day by summing the daily 

emission rates for each pollutant over 

the 3 most recent consecutive days and 

dividing by 3. The SAPU is in 

compliance with an applicable emission 

limit if the 3-day, 24-hour rolling 

average for each pollutant is no greater 

than the applicable SAPU emission 

limit determined in accordance with 

§ 63.1505(k)(1)–(3). 

* * * * * 

8. Section 63.1511 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a); 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

c. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

d. Adding paragraph (b)(6); 

e. Revising paragraph (c)(9); 

f. Adding paragraph (f)(6); and 

g. Adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1511 Performance test/compliance 

demonstration general requirements. 

(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to 

conducting any performance test 

required by this subpart, the owner or 

operator must prepare a site-specific test 

plan which satisfies all of the 

requirements, and must obtain approval 

of the plan pursuant to the procedures, 

set forth in § 63.7(c). Performance tests 

shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, the owner or 

operator shall make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(b) Initial performance test. Following 

approval of the site-specific test plan, 

the owner or operator must demonstrate 

initial compliance with each applicable 

emission, equipment, work practice, or 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8615 

operational standard for each affected 

source and emission unit, and report the 

results in the notification of compliance 

status report as described in 

§ 63.1515(b). The owner or operator of 

any existing affected source for which 

an initial performance test is required to 

demonstrate compliance must conduct 

this initial performance test no later 

than the date for compliance established 

by § 63.1501(a). The owner or operator 

of any new affected source for which an 

initial performance test is required must 

conduct this initial performance test 

within 180 days after the date for 

compliance established by § 63.1501(b). 

Except for the date by which the 

performance test must be conducted, the 

owner or operator must conduct each 

performance test in accordance with the 

requirements and procedures set forth 

in § 63.7(c). Owners or operators of 

affected sources located at facilities 

which are area sources are subject only 

to those performance testing 

requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners 

or operators of sweat furnaces meeting 

the specifications of § 63.1505(f)(1) are 

not required to conduct a performance 

test. 

(1) The performance tests must be 

conducted with the scrap containing the 

highest level of contamination, at the 

highest rate of production and using the 

highest reactive fluxing rate while an air 

pollution control device is operating. 

Any subsequent performance tests for 

the purposes of establishing new or 

revised parametric limits shall be 

allowed upon pre-approval from the 

permitting authorities as specified in the 

site-specific test plan. These new 

parametric settings shall be used to 

demonstrate compliance for the period 

being tested. 

* * * * * 

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

(5) of this section for each pollutant 

separately if a different production rate, 

charge material or, if applicable, 

reactive fluxing rate would apply and 

thereby result in a higher expected 

emissions rate for that pollutant. 

(c) * * * 

(9) Method 26A for the concentration 

of HCl and HF. Where a lime-injected 

fabric filter is used as the control device 

to comply with the 90-percent reduction 

standard, the owner or operator must 

measure the fabric filter inlet 

concentration of HCl at a point before 

lime is introduced to the system. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(6) All 3 separate runs of a 

performance test must be conducted on 

the same unit. 

(g) * * * 

(5) If the owner or operator wants to 

conduct a new performance test and 

establish different operating parameter 

values, they must meet the requirements 

in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 

section and submit a revised site 

specific test plan and receive approval 

in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

9. Section 63.1512 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (e)(1); 

b. Revising paragraph (e)(2); 

c. Revising paragraph (e)(3); 

d. Adding paragraphs (e)(4); 

e. Adding paragraphs (e)(5); 

f. Revising paragraph (h)(1); 

g. Revising paragraph (h)(2); 

h. Revising paragraph (j); 

i. Revising paragraph (j)(1)(i); 

j. Revising paragraph (j)(2)(i); 

k. Revising paragraph (o)(1); 

l. Revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1512 Performance test/compliance 

demonstration requirements and 

procedures. 

* * * * * 

(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 group 1 furnace processes 

only clean charge, the owner or operator 

must conduct emission tests to 

simultaneously measure emissions of 

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

required. Each test must be conducted 

while the group 1 furnace (including a 

melting/holding furnace) processes only 

clean charge. 

(3) The owner or operator may choose 

to determine the rate of reactive flux 

addition to the group 1 furnace and 

assume, for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

SAPU emission limit, that all reactive 

flux added to the group 1 furnace is 

emitted. Under these circumstances, the 

owner or operator is not required to 

conduct an emission test for HCl or HF. 

(4) When testing an existing 

uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 

operator must comply with the 

requirements of either paragraph 

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

section at the next required performance 

test. 

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH 

Guidelines, or 

(ii) Assume a 67-percent capture 

efficiency for the furnace exhaust (i.e., 

multiply emissions measured at the 

furnace exhaust outlet by 1.5) if hooding 

does not meet ACGIH Guidelines. If the 

source fails to demonstrate compliance 

using the 67-percent capture efficiency 

assumption, the owner or operator must 

re-test with a hood that meets the 

ACGIH Guidelines within 90 days, or 

petition the permitting authority that 

such hoods are impracticable and 

propose testing procedures that will 

minimize fugitive emissions. 

(5) When testing a new uncontrolled 

furnace the owner or operator must 

either: 

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH 

Guidelines, or 

(ii) Petition the permitting authority 

that such hoods are impracticable and 

propose testing procedures that will 

minimize fugitive emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator of an in-line 

fluxer that uses reactive flux materials 

must conduct a performance test to 

measure emissions of HCl and PM or 

otherwise demonstrate compliance in 

accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this 

section. If the in-line fluxer is equipped 

with an add-on control device, the 

emissions must be measured at the 

outlet of the control device. 

(2) The owner or operator may choose 

to limit the rate at which reactive flux 

is added to an in-line fluxer and 

assume, for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

SAPU emission limit, that all chlorine 

in the reactive flux added to the in-line 

fluxer is emitted as HCl. Under these 

circumstances, the owner or operator is 

not required to conduct an emission test 

for HCl. If the owner or operator of any 

in-line flux box which has no 

ventilation ductwork manifolded to any 

outlet or emission control device 

chooses to demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits for HCl by 

limiting use of reactive flux and 

assuming that all chlorine in the flux is 

emitted as HCl, compliance with the 

HCl limit shall also constitute 

compliance with the emission limit for 

PM, and no separate emission test for 

PM is required. In this case, the owner 

or operator of the unvented in-line flux 

box must utilize the maximum 

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

total emissions for any SAPU which 

includes the flux box. 

* * * * * 

(j) Secondary aluminum processing 

unit. The owner or operator must 

conduct performance tests as described 

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

section. The results of the performance 

tests are used to establish emission rates 

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

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

F emissions from each emission unit. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8616 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

These emission rates are used for 

compliance monitoring in the 

calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling 

average emission rates using the 

equation in § 63.1510(t). A performance 

test is required for: 

(1) * * * 

(i) Emissions of HCl or HF (for the 

emission limits); or 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Emissions of HCl or HF (for the 

emission limits); or 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(1) Continuously measure and record 

the weight of gaseous or liquid reactive 

flux injected for each 15 minute period 

during the HCl, HF and D/F tests, 

determine and record the 15-minute 

block average weights, and calculate 

and record the total weight of the 

gaseous or liquid reactive flux for the 3 

test runs; 

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(2) Record the feeder setting and lime 

injection rate for the 3 test runs. If the 

feed rate setting and lime injection rates 

vary during the runs, determine and 

record the average feed rate and lime 

injection rate from the 3 runs. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 63.1513 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

c. Revising paragraph (e)(1); 

d. Revising paragraph (e)(2); and 

e. Revising paragraph (e)(3)to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1513 Performance test/compliance 

demonstration requirements and 

procedures. 

* * * * * 

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

limits. (1) Use Equation 7 of this section 

to determine compliance with an 

emission limit for PM, HCl or HF: 

Where: 

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

(lb/ton) of feed; 

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

(gr/dscf); 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, 

dscm/hr (dscf/hr); 

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

7,000 gr); and 

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

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Use Equation 9 to compute the 

mass-weighted PM emissions for a 

secondary aluminum processing unit. 

Compliance is achieved if the massweighted emissions for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit (EcPM) is less 

than or equal to the emission limit for 

the secondary aluminum processing 

unit (LcPM) calculated using Equation 1 

in § 63.1505(k). 

Where, 

EcPM = The mass-weighted PM emissions for 

the secondary aluminum processing 

unit; 

EtiPM = Measured PM emissions for 

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

Tti = The average feed rate for individual 

emission unit i during the operating 

cycle or performance test period, or the 

sum of the average feed rates for all 

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

n = The number of individual emission units, 

and groups of co-controlled emission 

units in the secondary aluminum 

processing unit. 

(2) Use Equation 10 to compute the 

aluminum mass-weighted HCl or HF 

emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit. Compliance is achieved 

if the mass-weighted emissions for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit 

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

emission limit for the secondary 

aluminum processing unit (LcHCl/HF) 

calculated using Equation 2 in 

§ 63.1505(k). 

Where, 

EcHCl/HF = The mass-weighted HCl or HF 

emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit; and 

EtiHCl/HF = Measured HCl or HF emissions for 

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

(3) Use Equation 11 to compute the 

aluminum mass-weighted D/F 

emissions for the secondary aluminum 

processing unit. Compliance is achieved 

if the mass-weighted emissions for the 

secondary aluminum processing unit is 

less than or equal to the emission limit 

for the secondary aluminum processing 

unit (LcD/F) calculated using Equation 3 

in § 63.1505(k). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.038</GPH> EP14FE12.039</GPH> EP14FE12.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8617 

Where, 

EcD/F = The mass-weighted D/F emissions for 

the secondary aluminum processing 

unit; and 

EtiD/F = Measured D/F emissions for 

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

* * * * * 

11. Section 63.1514 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1514 Change of Furnace 

Classification. 

The requirements of this section are 

in addition to the other requirement of 

this subpart that apply to group 1 and 

group 2 furnaces. 

(a) Changing from a group 1 

controlled furnace processing other than 

clean charge to group 1 uncontrolled 

furnace processing other than clean 

charge. 

An owner or operator wishing to 

change operating modes must conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate to the 

regulatory 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 

and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally. 

Performance tests must be repeated at 

least once every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) The performance tests must be 

conducted with the scrap containing the 

highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed, at the highest 

throughput expected and using the 

highest rate of reactive flux injection 

expected to be processed in controlled 

mode. 

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, 

and lime injection must be established 

during these tests. 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(2) Operators of major sources must 

conduct additional performance tests for 

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

procedures in § 63.1512(e) without 

operating a control device. Performance 

tests must be repeated at least once 

every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance with each operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has completed 1 or more charge 

to tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with 

scrap of the highest level of 

contamination expected to be processed 

in uncontrolled mode. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1512(e)(4) and 

directed to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux 

rate must be established during these 

tests. 

(iv) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(3) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(d) with the capture system 

and control device operating normally. 

(i) The performance tests must be 

conducted with the scrap containing the 

highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed, at the highest 

throughput expected to be processes 

and using the highest rate of reactive 

flux expected to be injected in 

controlled mode. 

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, 

and lime injection must be established 

during these tests. 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(4) Operators of area sources must 

conduct performance tests for D/F, 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has completed 1 or more charge 

to tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with 

scrap of the highest level of 

contamination expected to be processed 

in uncontrolled mode. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux 

rate must be established during these 

tests. In addition, the number of cycles 

of furnace operation with scrap of the 

highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed in uncontrolled mode 

that elapsed prior to the performance 

test(s) conducted in uncontrolled mode 

is established as a parameter. 

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(5) To change modes of operation 

from uncontrolled to controlled, the 

owner or operator must, 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 change 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 of a 

contamination level no higher than that 

used in the uncontrolled mode 

performance test(s), and 

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to 

no higher than the flux addition rate 

used in the uncontrolled mode 

performance test. 

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode change (controlled 

to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to 

controlled), the time the change is 

initiated, and the time the exhaust gas 

is diverted from control device to 

bypass or bypass to control device. 

(b) Changing from a group 1 

controlled furnace processing other than 

clean charge to a group 1 uncontrolled 

furnace processing clean charge. An 

owner or operator wishing to operate 

under controlled mode with other than 

clean charge and uncontrolled mode 

with clean charge must conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate to the 

delegated regulatory authority that 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.041</GPH>
8618 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

compliance can be achieved in both 

modes. Operating parameters relevant to 

each mode of operation must be 

established during the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl 

and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512 with the capture system and 

control device operating normally. 

Performance tests must be repeated at 

least once every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(i) The performance tests must be 

conducted with the scrap containing the 

highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed, at the highest 

throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive 

flux injection expected in controlled 

mode. 

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, 

and lime injection must be established 

during these tests. 

(iii) The emission factors for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(2) Operators of major sources must 

conduct performance tests for PM, HCl 

and D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512 without operating a control 

device. Performance tests must be 

repeated at least once every 5 years to 

demonstrate compliance for each 

operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has 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. 

(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 mg TEQ/Mg of feed/ 

charge processed, or this mode of 

operation is not allowed. 

(v) The emission factors for PM, HCl 

and HF for this mode of operation, for 

use in the demonstration of compliance 

with the emission limits for SAPUs 

specified in § 63.1505(k) must be 

determined. 

(3) Operators of area sources must 

conduct additional performance tests for 

D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512 with the capture system and 

control device operating normally. 

(i) The performance tests must be 

conducted with the scrap containing the 

highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed, at the highest 

throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive 

flux injection expected in controlled 

mode. 

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, 

and lime injection must be established 

during these tests. 

(iii) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(4) Operators of area sources must 

conduct additional performance tests for 

D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512(e) without operating a control 

device. 

(i) Testing may be conducted at any 

time after the furnace has completed 1 

or more charge to tap cycles with scrap 

of the highest level of contamination 

expected to be processed in 

uncontrolled mode at the highest 

throughput expected to be processed in 

uncontrolled mode. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Parameters for flux rate must be 

established during these tests. In 

addition the number of cycles of furnace 

operation with scrap of the highest level 

of contamination expected to be 

processed in uncontrolled mode that 

elapsed prior to the performance test(s) 

conducted in uncontrolled mode is 

established as a parameter. 

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(5) To change modes of operation 

from uncontrolled to controlled, the 

owner or operator must, 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 change modes of operation 

from controlled to uncontrolled, the 

owner or operator must, before turning 

off or bypassing the control device, 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect controlled operation, 

(ii) Charge clean charge for the 

number of charge to tap cycles that 

elapsed before the uncontrolled mode 

performance test was conducted, and 

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to 

no higher than the flux addition rate 

used in the uncontrolled mode 

performance test. 

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 63.1517, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

nature of each mode change (controlled 

to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to 

controlled), the time the furnace 

operating mode change is initiated, and 

the time the exhaust gas is diverted from 

control device to bypass or bypass to 

control device. 

(c) Changing from a group 1 

controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a 

group 2 furnace. An owner or operator 

wishing to change operating modes 

must conduct additional performance 

tests to demonstrate to the delegated 

regulatory 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 changing to group 2 mode. 

Operating parameters relevant to group 

1 operation must be established during 

the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct additional performance tests for 

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

procedures in § 63.1512. Controlled 

group 1 furnaces must conduct 

performance tests with the capture 

system and control device operating 

normally. Performance tests must be 

repeated at least once every 5 years to 

demonstrate compliance for each 

operating mode. 

(i) The performance tests must be 

conducted with 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 expected to be injected 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 requirements 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. Performance tests must be 

repeated at least once every 5 years to 

demonstrate compliance for each 

operating mode. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has completed 1 or more chargeto-tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with 

clean charge, and without reactive flux 

addition. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8619 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Owners or operators must 

demonstrate that emissions are no 

greater than: 

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

charge, 

(B) 0.04 lb HCl or 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 

changing to group 2 mode. 

(3) Operators of area sources must 

conduct an additional performance test 

for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces 

must conduct performance tests with 

the capture system and control device 

operating normally. 

(i) The performance test must be 

conducted with the scrap containing the 

highest level of contamination expected 

to be processed, at the highest 

throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive 

flux expected to be injected in group 1 

mode. 

(ii) Parameters for throughput, flux 

rate, and lime injection must be 

established during these tests. 

(iii) If the furnace is equipped with a 

control device parameter(s) for capture 

must be established. 

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(4) While in compliance with the 

operating standards of § 63.1506(o) for 

group 2 furnaces, operators of area 

sources must conduct an additional 

performance test for D/F, according to 

the procedures in § 63.1512(e), without 

operating a control device. 

(i) Testing under this paragraph may 

be conducted at any time after the 

furnace has completed 1 or more chargeto-tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with 

clean charge, and without reactive flux 

addition. 

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must 

be conducted with furnace emissions 

captured in accordance with the 

provisions of § 63.1506(c) and directed 

to the stack or vent tested. 

(iii) Owners or operators must 

demonstrate that emissions are no 

greater than 1.5 mg 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 conducted is established as 

an operating parameter to be met before 

changing to group 2 mode. 

(5) To change modes of operation 

from a group 1 furnace to a group 2 

furnace, the owner or operator must 

(i) discontinue addition of other than 

clean charge; 

(ii) discontinue addition of reactive 

flux; 

(iii) change the label on the furnace to 

reflect group 2 operation; 

(iv) and if the furnace is equipped 

with a control device, allow the number 

of cycles of operation established in 

paragraph (c) of this section to elapse 

before turning off the control device or 

diverting emissions from the control 

device. In addition control device 

parameters related to lime addition, 

capture, and inlet temperature must be 

maintained during this period. 

(6) To change mode of operation from 

a group 2 furnace to group 1 furnace, the 

owner or operator must change the label 

to reflect group 1 operation. If a control 

device is required for group 1 operation, 

the owner or operator must direct the 

emissions to the control device and 

maintain control device parameters 

related to lime addition, capture, and 

inlet temperature. 

(d) Changing from a group 1 

controlled or uncontrolled furnace to 

group 2 furnace, for tilting reverberatory 

furnaces capable of completely 

removing furnace contents between 

batches. An owner or operator of a 

tilting reverberatory furnace capable of 

completely removing furnace contents 

between batches, wishing to change 

operating modes, must conduct 

additional performance tests to 

demonstrate that compliance can be 

achieved under group 1 mode. 

Operating parameters relevant to group 

1 operation must be established during 

the performance test. 

(1) Operators of major sources must 

conduct additional performance tests for 

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

procedures in § 63.1512. Controlled 

group 1 furnaces must conduct 

performance tests with the capture 

system and control device operating 

normally. The performance tests must 

be conducted with the scrap containing 

the highest level of contamination 

expected to be processed, at the highest 

throughput expected to be processed 

and using the highest rate of reactive 

flux expected to be injected in 

controlled mode. Performance tests 

must be repeated at least once every 5 

years to demonstrate compliance for 

each operating mode. 

(i) Parameters for throughput, capture, 

flux rate, and lime injection must be 

established during these tests. 

(ii) The emission factors for this mode 

of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(2) Operators of area sources must 

conduct an additional performance test 

for D/F, according to the procedures in 

§ 63.1512. Operators of controlled group 

1 furnaces must conduct performance 

tests with the capture system and 

control device operating normally. 

Performance tests must be repeated at 

least once every 5 years to demonstrate 

compliance for each operating mode. 

(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 in group 1 mode. 

(ii) Parameters for throughput, flux 

rate, and lime injection must be 

established during these tests. 

(iii) If the furnace is equipped with a 

control device parameter(s) for capture 

must be established. 

(iv) The D/F emission factor for this 

mode of operation, for use in the 

demonstration of compliance with the 

emission limits for SAPUs specified in 

§ 63.1505(k) must be determined. 

(3) To change modes from group 1 to 

group 2 the operator must: 

(i) Completely remove all aluminum 

from the furnace; 

(ii) Change the furnace label; 

(iii) Use only clean charge; and 

(iv) Use no reactive flux; 

(4) To change modes from group 2 to 

group 1 the owner or operator must, 

before charging other than clean charge 

and before adding reactive flux to the 

furnace; 

(i) Change the label on the furnace to 

reflect group 1 operation, 

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the 

control device, if 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 change (group 1 to 

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

the change is initiated, and, if the 

furnace is equipped with a control 

device, the time the exhaust gas is 

diverted from control device to bypass 

or bypass to control device. 

(e) Frequency of changing furnace 

operating mode. Changing furnace 

operating mode and reversion to the 

previous mode, as provided in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8620 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

may not be done more frequently than 

once every 6 months, except that 

controlled furnaces may change 

operating modes (and revert to 

prechange operating mode) without 

restriction on frequency, when the air 

pollution control device must be shut 

down for planned maintenance. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1515 [Amended] 

12. Section 63.1515 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b)(10). 

13. Section 63.1516 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a); 

b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(1)(v); 

d. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii); 

e. Adding paragraph (b)(3); 

f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; and 

g. Adding paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1516 Reports. 

(a) [Reserved] 

(b) Excess emissions/summary report. 

The owner or operator of a major or area 

source must submit semiannual reports 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.10(e)(3). Except, the owner or 

operator must submit the semiannual 

reports within 60 days after the end of 

each 6-month period instead of within 

30 days after the calendar half as 

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

deviations of parameters have occurred, 

the owner or operator must submit a 

report stating that no excess emissions 

occurred during the reporting period. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) For each sidewell group 1 furnace 

with add-on air pollution control 

devices: ‘‘Each furnace was operated 

such that the level of molten metal 

remained above the top of the passage 

between the sidewell and hearth during 

reactive fluxing, and reactive flux, 

except for cover flux, was added only to 

the sidewell or to a furnace hearth 

equipped with an add-on air pollution 

control device for PM, HCl, HF and D/ 

F emissions during this reporting 

period.’’ 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

(defined in § 63.2) as required by this 

subpart you must transmit the results of 

the performance tests required by this 

subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in the file format generated through use 

of EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/index.html). Only data collected 

using test methods on the ERT Web site 

are subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

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

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to EPA via CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. At the 

discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. 

(ii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraphs (1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

commonly used electronic media such 

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the 

right to require submittal of reports 

subject to paragraph (1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section in paper format. 

(c) Annual compliance certifications. 

For the purpose of annual certifications 

of compliance required by 40 CFR part 

70 or 71, the owner or operator of a 

major or area source subject to this 

subpart must certify continuing 

compliance based upon, but not limited 

to, the following conditions: 

* * * * * 

(d) If there was a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the owner or 

operator must submit a report that 

includes the number, duration, and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with §§ 63.1506(a)(5) and 

63.1520(a)(8), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.1517 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(16)(i); 

b. Adding paragraph (b)(18); and 

c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1517 Records. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(16) * * * 

(i) [Reserved]; 

* * * * * 

(18) For each malfunction for which 

the owner or operator chooses to claim 

coverage under the affirmative defense 

provisions, the owner or operator must 

maintain the following records; 

(i) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. 

(ii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§§ 63.1506(a)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(c) All reports required by this subpart 

not subject to the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section must be 

sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If 

acceptable to both the Administrator 

and the owner or operator of a source, 

these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator 

retains the right to require submittal of 

reports subject to paragraph (b) of this 

section in paper format. 

* * * * * 

15. Section 63.1520 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1520 Affirmative defense for violation 

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 violations of 

such standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if you fail to meet your burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims 

for injunctive relief. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8621 

(a) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, you must timely meet the 

notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent and unavoidable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Reports. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the violation of the 

standards in this subpart, which may be 

the end of any applicable averaging 

period, to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the violation. 

* * * * * 

16. Table 1 to Subpart RRR of part 63 

is amended to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8623 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.043</GPH>
8624 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

17. Table 2 to Subpart RRR of part 63 

is amended by: 

a. Revising the entry All affected 

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

b. Revising the entry Scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with 

afterburner and lime-injected fabric 

filter; 

c. Revising the entry In-line fluxer 

with lime-injected fabric filter 

(including those that are part of a 

secondary aluminum processing unit); 

d. Revising entry Group 1 furnace 

with lime-injected fabric filter 

(including those that are part of a 

secondary of aluminum processing 

unit); 

e. Adding the entry Thermal chip 

dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/ 

decoating kiln, sweat furnace, drossonly furnace, and group 1 furnace; and 

f. Adding footnote d to Table 2 to read 

as follows: 

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

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS

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

*******

All affected sources and emission units with 

an add-on air pollution control device.

Emission capture and collection system .......... Design and install in accordance with Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of Recommended Practice, 23rd or 27th edition; 

operate in accordance with OM&M plan.b


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP14FE12.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8625 

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

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

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

*******

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 

with afterburner and lime-injected fabric filter.

Afterburner operating temperature ................... Maintain average temperature for each 3-hr 

period at or above average operating temperature during the performance test. 

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

Bag leak detector or ......................................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of alarm 

and complete in accordance with the OM&M 

plan;b operate such that alarm does not 

sound more than 5% of operating time in 6- 

month period. 

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

minute average opacity reading of 5% or 

more and complete in accordance with the 

OM&M plan.b

Fabric filter inlet temperature ............................ Maintain average fabric filter inlet temperature 

for each 3-hr period at or below average 

temperature during the performance test 

+14 °C (+25 °F). 

Lime injection rate ............................................ Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper 

or silo at all times for continuous injection 

systems; maintain feeder setting at level established during the performance test for 

continuous injection systems. 

* * * * * * * 

In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric filter (including those that are part of a secondary 

aluminum processing unit).

Bag leak detector or ......................................... Initiate corrective action within 1-hr of alarm 

and complete in accordance with the OM&M 

plan;b operate such that alarm does not 

sound more than 5% of operating time in 6- 

month period. 

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

minute average opacity reading of 5% or 

more and complete in accordance with the 

OM&M plan.b

Lime injection rate ............................................ Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper 

or silo at all times for continuous injection 

systems; maintain feeder setting at level established during performance test for continuous injection systems. 

Reactive flux injection rate ............................... Maintain reactive flux injection rate at or below 

rate used during the performance test for 

each operating cycle or time period used in 

the performance test. 

* * * * * * * 

Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric filter 

(including those that are part of a secondary 

of aluminum processing unit)..

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

operate such that alarm does not sound 

more than 5% of operating time in 6-month 

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

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

minute average opacity reading of 5% or 

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

Fabric filter inlet temperature ............................ Maintain average fabric filter inlet temperature 

for each 3-hour period at or below average 

temperature during the performance test 

+14 °C (+25 °F). 

Reactive flux injection rate ............................... Maintain reactive flux injection rate (kg/Mg) (lb/ 

ton) at or below rate used during the performance test for each furnace cycle. 

Lime injection rate ............................................ Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper 

or silo at all times for continuous injection 

systems; maintain feeder setting at level established at performance test for continuous 

injection systems. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8626 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

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

Maintain molten aluminum level ....................... Operate sidewell furnaces such that the level 

of molten metal is above the top of the passage between sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless the hearth is 

also controlled. 

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

furnace unless the hearth is also controlled. 

* * * * * * * 

Furnaces that will be idle for at least 24 hours 

and will burn clean fuel only, will not receive 

new charge, flux or alloying material.

Associated fans, hoods and APCD may be 

temporarily turned off. 

Before charging resumes, all associated fans, 

hoods and APCD must be turned on and 

operated continuously. 

* * * * * * * 

dAPCD—Air pollution control device. 

* * * * * 

18. Table 3 to Subpart RRR of part 63 

is amended by: 

a. Revising the entry All affected 

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

b. Revising the entry Aluminum scrap 

shredder with fabric filter; 

c. Revising the entry Scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln with 

afterburner and lime-injected fabric 

filter; 

d. Revising entry Dross-only furnace 

with fabric filter; 

e. Revising the entry Rotary dross 

cooler with fabric filter; 

f. Revising the entry In-line fluxer 

with lime-injected fabric filter; 

g. Revising the entry Group 1 furnace 

with lime-injected fabric filter; 

h. Removing footnote c to Table 3; 

and 

i. Revising footnote d to Table 3 to 

read as follows: 

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

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS

Affected source/Emission 

unit 

Monitor type/Operation/ 

Process Monitoring requirements 

*******

All affected sources and 

emission units with an 

add-on air pollution control device.

Emission capture and collection system.Annual inspection of all emission capture, collection, and transport systems to ensure that systems continue to operate in accordance with ACGIH standards. Inspection includes volumetric flow rate measurements. 

*******

Aluminum scrap shredder 

with fabric filter.

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

COM or ............................... Design and install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute block averages. 

VE ....................................... Conduct and record results of 30-minute daily test in accordance with Method 9. 

*******

Scrap dryer/delacquering 

kiln/decoating kiln with 

afterburner and lime-injected fabric filter.

Afterburner operating temperature..Continuous measurement device to meet specifications in § 63.1510(g)(1); record 

temperature for each 15-minute block; determine and record 3-hr block averages. 

Afterburner operation .......... Annual inspection of afterburner internal parts; complete repairs in accordance with 

the OM&M plan. 

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

COM ................................... Design and Install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute block averages. 

Lime injection rate .............. For continuous injection systems, inspect each feed hopper or silo every 8 hours to 

verify that lime is free flowing; record results of each inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect every 4 hours for 3 days; return to 8-hour inspections if corrective 

action results in no further blockage during 3-day period, record feeder setting 

daily. 

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

during the compliance demonstration test. 

Fabric filter inlet temperature..Continuous measurement device to meet specifications in § 63.1510(h)(2); record 

temperatures in 15-minute block averages; determine and record 3-hr block averages. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8627 

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

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

Affected source/Emission 

unit 

Monitor type/Operation/ 

Process Monitoring requirements 

*******

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

COM ................................... Design and install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute block averages. 

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

*******

Rotary dross cooler with 

fabric filter.

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

COM ................................... Design and install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute block averages. 

*******

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

COM ................................... Design and install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart 

A of 40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-minute block averages. 

Reactive flux injection rate Weight measurement device accuracy of ±1% b; calibrate according to manufacturer’s specifications or at least once every 6 months; record time, weight and type 

of reactive flux added or injected for each 15-minute block period while reactive 

fluxing occurs; calculate and record total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time period used in performance test; or 

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

flux added intermittently, record the amount added for each operating cycle or 

time period used in the performance test. 

Lime injection rate .............. For continuous injection systems, record feeder setting daily and inspect each feed 

hopper or silo every 8 hrs to verify that lime is free-flowing; record results of each 

inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect every 4 hrs for 3 days; return to 8-hour inspections if corrective action results in no further blockage during 3-day period.d

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

during the compliance demonstration test. 

* * * * * * * 

Group 1 furnace with limeinjected fabric filter.Bag leak detector or ........... Install and operate in accordance with manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

COM ................................... Design and install in accordance with PS–1; collect data in accordance with subpart 

A of 40 part CFR 63; determine and record 6-minute block averages. 

Lime injection rate .............. For continuous injection systems, record feeder setting daily and inspect each feed 

hopper or silo every 8 hours to verify that lime is free-flowing; record results of 

each inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect every 4 hours for 3 days; return to 8- 

hour inspections if corrective action results in no further blockage during 3-day 

period.d

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

during the compliance demonstration test. 

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

weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 15-minute block period 

while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and record total reactive flux injection rate 

for each operating cycle or time period used in performance test; or Alternative 

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

added intermittently, record the amount added for each operating cycle or time 

period used in the performance test. 

Fabric filter inlet temperature.Continuous measurement device to meet specifications in § 63.1510(h)(2); record 

temperatures in 15-minute block averages; determine and record 3-hour block 

averages. 

Maintain molten aluminum 

level in sidewell furnace.

Maintain aluminum level operating log; certify every 6 months. If visual inspection of 

molten metal level is not possible, use physical measurement methods. 

* * * * * * * 

Group 1 furnace without 

add-on controls.

Fluxing in sidewell furnace 

hearth.

Maintain flux addition operating log; certify every 6 months. 

Reactive flux injection rate Weight measurement device accuracy of +1% b; calibrate according to manufacturers specifications or at least once every six months; record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 15-minute block period while reactive fluxing 

occurs; calculate and record total reactive flux injection rate for each operating 

cycle or time period used in performance test. For solid flux added intermittently, 

record the amount added for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

8628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS—Continued 

Affected source/Emission 

unit 

Monitor type/Operation/ 

Process Monitoring requirements 

OM&M plan (approved by 

permitting agency).

Demonstration of site-specific monitoring procedures to provide data and show correlation of emissions across the range of charge and flux materials and furnace 

operating parameters. 

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

months. 

* * * * * * * 

cPermitting agency may approve other alternatives including load cells for lime hopper weight, sensors for carrier gas pressure, or HCl monitoring devices at fabric filter outlet. 

* * * * * 

19. Appendix A to Subpart RRR of 

part 63 is amended by: 

a. Removing entry 63.6(e)(1)–(2); 

b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 

63.6(e)(1)ii); 

c. Adding entry 63.6(e)(2); 

d. Revising entry 63.6(e)(3) 

e. Removing entry 63.6(f); 

f. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and 

63.6(f)(2); 

g. Removing entries 63.6((h); 

h. Adding entries 63.6(h)(1) and 

63.6(h)(2); 

i. Removing entries 63.7((e); 

j. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 

63.7(e)(2); 

k. Removing entries 63.8((c)(1)–(3); 

l. Adding entries 63.8(c)(1)(i), 

63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.8(c)(1)(iv) 

and 63.7(e)(2)–(3); 

m. Removing entries 63.10((b); 

n. Adding entries 63.10(b)(1), 

63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv) and (v), and 

63.10(b)(2)(iii; 

o. Revising entry 63.10(c)(10)–(13); 

p. Revising entry 63.10(d)(4)–(5); and 

q. Revising entries 63.14 to read as 

follows: 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART RRR 

Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment 

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................... ....................................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1506(a)(5) for general 

duty requirement. Any other 

cross reference to § 63.6(3)(1)(i) 

in any other general provision 

incorporated by reference shall 

be treated as a cross reference 

to § 63.1506(a)(5). 

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

*******

63.6(e)(2)) ..................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

*******

§ 63.6(e)(3) .................................... Startup, Shutdown Plan ................ No ..................................................

*******

§ 63.6(f)(1) ..................................... Compliance with Emission Standards.No ..................................................

§ 63.6(f)(2) ..................................... Compliance with Emission Standards.Yes ................................................

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(h)(1) .................................... Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards.

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

§ 63.6(h)(2) .................................... Compliance with Opacity/VE 

Standards.

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

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................................... Conduct of Tests ........................... No .................................................. See 63.1511(a). 

§ 63.7(e)(2) .................................... Conduct of Tests ........................... Yes ................................................

* * * * * * * 

63.8(c)(1)(i) ................................... ....................................................... No .................................................. See 63.1506(a)(5) for general 

duty requirement. 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................... ....................................................... Yes ................................................

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............................... CMS Operation and Maintenance NO .................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 8629 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART

RRR—Continued 

Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment 

*******

§ 63.8(d)(3) .................................... Quality Control .............................. Yes, except for last sentence, 

which refers to an SSM plan. 

SSM plans are not required.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(b)(1) .................................. General Requirements .................. Yes ................................................ See 63.1517 includes additional 

requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) ..... General Requirements .................. No .................................................. See 63.1517(b)(18) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) and (vi) to (ix) ..... General Requirements .................. Yes ................................................ See 63.1517 includes additional 

requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(13) ........................ ....................................................... No .................................................. See 63.1517(b)(18) for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

*******

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

*******

§ 63.10(d)(4)–(5) ........................... Progress Reports/Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports.No ..................................................

*******

§ 63.14 ........................................... Incorporation by Reference .......... Yes ................................................ ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual for capture/collection systems; and Interim Procedures 

for Estimating Risk Associated 

with Exposure to Mixtures of 

Chlorinated Dibenzofurans 

(CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 

Update (incorporated by reference in § 63.1502). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–2874 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4