1 From: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov > To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/20/2012 03:29 PM Subject: Interagency Comments under EO 13563 on Secondary Aluminum RTR



## Hi Rochelle, Attached is a redline of the dr aft preamble with interagency comme nts under EO 13563. In addition, a commenter provided the following suggested edits for the risk assessment document:

Comments on the risk assessment:  Table 2.6

‐ 1: o For TCE the tables cite CalEPA. EPA IRIS finalized values in September 2011, should these be used instead? Would the switch lead to a change in outcome o for dioxin the table says “EPA ORD”. It is unclear where this value and where its derivation can be found. The discussion of sources does not i nclude anything from EPA ORD that is not IRIS. Some discussion is needed. OAR should also ensure that it has undergone appropriate peer review.2 

##  Page 25, please replace “as high as” with “up to” in the last sentence on the page

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you’d like to schedule a follow-up discussion on the comments. Regards, Cortney***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review***

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

**6560-50-P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**

**40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544; FRL-???]**  **RIN 2060-AQ40 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:**  **Secondary Aluminum Production**

**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

**ACTION** : Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY:** The EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for Secondary

Aluminum Production to address the results of the residual risk and technology review that the EPA is required to conduct by the Clean Air Act. In addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to correct and clarify rule requirements and provisions. These proposed amendments would:

 Add work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for some processes;

 Add a definition of affirmative defense;

 Add a requirement to report performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT);***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **2** of **234**

 Add rule provisions allowing owners and operators to change furnaces designations;

 Add rule requirements regarding testing of uncontrolled furnaces;

 Add rule requirements for testing hydrogen fluoride inaddition to hydrogen chloride in furnaces that use fluorinecontaining fluxes;

 Add operating requirements such as monitoring of lime injection rates; and

 Make technical corrections and clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring, and performance testing requirements.

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

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

THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS

PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. Public Hearing . If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by [INSERT THE DATE 10 DAYS AFTER THE

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ], a public hearing***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **3** of **234** will be held on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ].

**ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544, by one of the following methods:

 http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544.

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

 Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

 Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQOAR-2010-0544. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions **.** Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0544. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes

information claimed to be confidential business information***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **4** of **234** (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contactinformation in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket . The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. All***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **5** of **234**

documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. Public Hearing . If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00 a.m. on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] and will be held at the EPA’s campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243-02), U.S.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **6** of **234** Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0832.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-1390; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Dr. Michael Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C504–06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–7524; fax number: (919) 541– 0840; and email address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

**Table 1. List of EPA Contacts For The NESHAP Addressed In This Proposed Action**  NESHAP for: OECA Contact 1 OAQPS Contact 2 Secondary Aluminum Production Scott Throwe, (202)564-7013 throwe.scott@epa.gov Rochelle Boyd, (919) 541-1390, boyd.rochelle@epa.gov 1 EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **7** of **234**

2 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations**  Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, for ease of reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined here:

ACGIH American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors AEGL acute exposure guideline levels AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model AMOS ample margin of safety ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BACT best available control technology CAA Clean Air Act CBI confidential business information CFR Code of Federal Regulations D/F dioxins and furans EJ environmental justice EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines ERT Electronic Reporting Tool HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hydrogen chloride HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3 HF hydrogen fluoride HHRAP human health risk assessment protocols HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient ICR information collection request***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **8** of **234** IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer LAER lowest achievable emissions rate lb/yr pounds per year MACT maximum achievable control technology MACT Code code within the NEI used to identify processes included in a source category MDL method detection level mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter mg/m 3 milligrams per cubic meter MIR maximum individual risk MRL minimum risk level NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAS National Academy of Sciences NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOAEL no observed adverse effects level NRC National Research Council NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act O&M operation and maintenance OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OHEA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment OMB Office of Management and Budget PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PM particulate matter ppmv parts per million by volume RACT reasonably available control technology RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **9** of **234**

RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RIA regulatory impact analysis RTR residual risk and technology review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SCC source classification codes SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary SIP state implementation plan SOP standard operating procedures SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TEF toxic equivalency factors TEQ toxic equivalency quotient THC total hydrocarbons TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System TTN Technology Transfer Network UBC used beverage containers UF uncertainty factor μg/m 3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper predictive limit URE unit risk estimate VOC volatile organic compounds VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air pollutants WHO World Health Organization WWW worldwide web Organization of this Document . The information in this preamble is organized as follows: **I. General Information** A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? **II. Background*****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **10** of **234** A. What is this source category and how did the MACT standard regulate its HAP emissions? B. What data collection activities were conducted to support this action? **III. Analyses Performed** A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category? B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this proposal? C. How did we perform the technology review? D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal? **IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions** A. What are the results of the risk assessments? B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety? C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? D. What other actions are we proposing? E. Compliance dates **V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts** A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? **VI. Request for Comments VII. Submitting Data Corrections**  **VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **11** of **234**

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. **I. General Information** A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA calls for us to promulgate national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit (PTE) 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or moreof any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technologybased standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable through the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques including, but not limited to, measures which (1) reduce the volume of or eliminate***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **12** of **234** emissions of pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials or other modifications, (2) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions, (3) capture or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point, (4) are design, equipment, work practice or operational standards (including requirements for operator training or certification) or (5) are a combination of the above. CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standard may take the form of a design, equipment, work practice or operational standard where the EPA first determines that either (1) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent with law, or (2) the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2).

The MACT “floor” is the minimum control level allowed for MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing sources can be less stringent than***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **13** of **234** floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. In conducting this review, the EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT determination. NRDC v.

EPA , 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any remaining “residual” risk according to CAA section 112(f). This provision requires, first, that the EPA prepare a Report to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health Comment [A1]: Is this a quote? Can you provide a quote from the decision? In particular, the phrase “completely recalculate” implies that the 8 year review requires a recalculation of the previous MACT.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **14** of **234** significance of those risks, and the EPA’s recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress , EPA– 453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk. CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine, for source categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. If the MACT standards for HAP “classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one in one million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or subcategory), as necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that the existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA , 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). (“If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an “ample margin of safety,” then the agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.”) The EPA must also adopt***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **15** of **234** more stringent standards, if necessary, to prevent an adverse

environmental 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

1 “Adverse environmental effect” is defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life or natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental qualities over broad areas.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **16** of **234** interpretation set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in

NRDC v. EPA , concluded that the EPA’s interpretation of subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See NRDC v. EPA , 529 F.3d 1077 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the Federal Register ”). see also A Legislative History of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 , volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 FR at 38044-38045, we stated as an overall objective: In protecting public health with an ample margin of safety under section 112, EPA strives to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by, (1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) limiting to no higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million] the estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **17** of **234** were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70

years. The agency stated that, “[t]he EPA also considers incidence (the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an important measure of the health risk to the exposed population. Incidence measures the extent of health risk to the exposed population as a whole, by providing an estimate of the

occurrence of cancer or other serious health effects in the exposed population.” 54 FR 38045. The agency went on to conclude that “estimated incidence would be weighed along with other health risk information in judging acceptability.” 54 FR at 38046. As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress , the EPA does not define “rigid line[s] of acceptability,” but considers rather broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures and factors (EPA– 453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). The determination of what represents an “acceptable” risk is based on a judgment of “what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live” (Residual Risk Report to Congress , p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free. In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that “EPA will generally presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **18** of **234** no higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that risk level is considered acceptable.” 54 FR at 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (or maximum individual risk (MIR)) as being “the estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.” Id . We explained that this measure of risk “is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.” Id . We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk “does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is an upper bound that is unlikely to be exceeded.” Id

. Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene

NESHAP that “consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account the strengths and weaknesses of this measure

of risk.” Id. Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100 in 1 million (1 in 10 thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line for making that

determination.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **19** of **234** The agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP: “[i]n establishing a presumption for MIR, rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of

other health measures and factors. These include the overall

incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km [kilometer] exposure radius around facilities, the science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due to co-location of facilities, and co-emission of pollutants.” Id. In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “[e]ven though the risks judged ’acceptable‘ by the EPA in the first step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, determining an ’ample margin of safety,’ again includes consideration of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even further * * *.” Beyond that information,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **20** of **234** additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties and any other relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health, as required by

CAA section 112.” 54 FR at 38046. As discussed above, we apply a two-step process for developing standards to address residual risk. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination “considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 2 of approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million].” 54 FR at 38045. In the second step of the process, the EPA sets the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety “in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.” Id.

2 Although defined as “maximum individual risk,” MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk were an individual to be exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **21** of **234** In past residual risk determinations, the EPA presented a

number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer hazard index (HI); and the maximum acute noncancer hazard. In estimating risks, the EPA considered source categories under review that are located near each other and that affect the same population. The EPA estimates risk based on the actual emissions from the source category under review as well as based on the emissions allowed pursuant to the source category MACT standard. The EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of information in support of these actions. The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making our determinations and how they might be weighed for each source category. In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained that: “[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **22** of **234** impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl

Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health.’” 54 FR at 38057. For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explains “an MIR of approximately 1 in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.” 54 FR at 38045. Similarly, with***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **23** of **234** regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the Benzene NESHAP states that: “EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.” 54 FR at 38061. B. Does this action apply to me? The regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be affected by this proposed action. These standards, once finalized, will be directly applicable to affected sources. Federal, State, local, and tribal government entities are not affected by this proposed action. The EPA defined the Secondary Aluminum source category in 1992 as any establishment using clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum production, as the raw material and performing one or more of the following processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of aluminum from dross, in-line fluxing, or dross cooling.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **24** of **234 Table 2. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By**  **This Proposed Action Source Category NESHAP NAICS**  **code 1**  **MACT code**  **2** Secondary Aluminum Production Primary aluminum production facilities Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing facilities Aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities Other aluminum rolling and drawing facilities Aluminum die casting facilities Aluminum foundry facilities Secondary Aluminum Production 331314 331312 331315

331316

331319

331521 331524 0044

1 North American Industry Classification System 2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related

information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control including the residual risk and technology review (RTR) and includes source category descriptions and

detailed emissions estimates and other data that were used as inputs to the risk assessments. D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **25** of **234** Submitting CBI . Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does

not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. **II. Background*****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **26** of **234** A. What is this source category and how did the MACT standard regulate its HAP emissions? The Secondary Aluminum Production source category includes facilities that produce aluminum from scrap aluminum material and consists of the following operations: (1) Preprocessing of scrap aluminum, including size reduction and removal of oils, coatings, and other contaminants; (2) Furnace operations including melting, in-furnace refining, fluxing, and tapping; (3) Additional refining, by means of in-line fluxing; and (4) Cooling of dross. The following sections include descriptions of the affected sources in the secondary aluminum production source category, the origin of HAP emissions from these affected sources, and factors affecting the emissions. Scrap aluminum is often preprocessed prior to melting. Preprocessing steps may include shredding to reduce the size of aluminum scrap; drying of oily scrap such as machine turnings and borings; and/or heating in a scrap dryer, delacquering kiln or decoating kiln to remove coatings or other contaminants that may be present on the scrap. Heating of high iron content scrap

in a sweat furnace to reclaim the aluminum content is also a preprocessing operation. Crushing, shredding and grinding operations are used to reduce the size of scrap aluminum. Particulate matter (PM) and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **27** of **234**

HAP metals 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 Comment [A2]: Suggested edit for clarity***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **28** of **234** melting. An uncontrolled scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP), HCl, THC (of which some fraction is organic HAP), and D/F. A sweat furnace is typically used to reclaim (or ‘‘sweat’’) the aluminum from scrap with high levels of iron. These furnaces operate in batch mode at a temperature that is high enough to melt the aluminum but not high enough to melt the iron. The

aluminum melts and flows out of the furnace while the iron

remains in the furnace in solid form. The molten aluminum can be cast into sows, ingots, or T-bars that are used as feedstock for aluminum melting and refining furnaces. Alternately, molten aluminum can be fed directly to a melting or refining furnace. An uncontrolled sweat furnace emits D/F. Process (i.e. melting, holding or refining) furnaces are refractory-lined metal vessels heated by an oil or gas burner to achieve a metal temperature of about 760°C (1,400°F). The melting process begins with the charging of scrap into the furnace. A gaseous (typically, chlorine) or salt flux may be added to remove impurities and reduce aluminum oxidation. Once molten, the chemistry of the bath is adjusted by adding selected scrap or alloying agents, such as silicon. Salt and other fluxes contain chloride and fluoride compounds that may be released when introduced to the bath. HCl may also be released when Comment [A3]: What is the basis for this statement? If no supporting emissions information, suggest adding “may.”***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **29** of **234** chlorine-containing contaminants (such as polyvinyl chloride coatings) present in some types of scrap are introduced to the bath. Argon and nitrogen fluxes are not reactive and do not produce HAPs. In a sidewell melting furnace, fluxing is performed in the sidewell and fluxing emissions from the sidewell are controlled. In this type of furnace, fluxing is not typically done in the hearth and hearth emissions (which include products of combustion from the oil and gas fired furnaces) are typically uncontrolled. Process furnaces may process contaminated scrap which can result in HAP emissions. In addition, fluxing agents may contain HAPs, some fraction of which is emitted from the furnace. Process furnaces are significant sources of HAP emissions in the secondary aluminum industry. An uncontrolled melting furnace which processes contaminated scrap and uses reactive fluxes emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP), HCl, and D/F. Process furnaces are divided into group 1 and group 2 furnaces. Group 1 furnaces are unrestricted in the type of scrap they process and the type of fluxes they can use. Group 2 furnaces process only clean charge and conduct no reactive fluxing.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **30** of **234** Dross-only furnaces are furnaces dedicated to reclamation of aluminum from drosses formed during the melting/ holding/alloying operations carried out in other furnaces. Exposure to the atmosphere causes the molten aluminum to oxidize, and the flotation of the impurities to the surface along with any salt flux creates ‘‘dross.’’ Prior to tapping, the dross is periodically skimmed from the surface of the aluminum bath and cooled. Dross-only furnaces are typicallyrotary barrel furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). A drossonly furnace without controls emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP). Rotary dross coolers are devices used to cool dross in a rotating, water-cooled drum. A rotary dross cooler without controls emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal HAP). In-line fluxers are devices used for aluminum refining, including degassing, outside the furnace. The process involves the injection of chlorine, argon, nitrogen or other gases to achieve the desired metal purity. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAPs. In-line fluxers are found primarily at facilities that manufacture very high quality aluminum or in facilities with no other means of degassing. An***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **31** of **234** in-line fluxer operating without emission controls emits HCl and

PM. The Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP was promulgated on March 23, 2000, (65 FR 15690) and codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. The rule was amended at 67 FR 79807, December, 30, 2002; 69 FR 53980, September 3, 2004; 70 FR 57513, October 3, 2005 and 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005. The existing subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources of HAP that operate aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, group 2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs). The SAPUs include group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. The subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources of HAP only with respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs. The secondary aluminum industry consists of approximately 161 secondary aluminum production facilities, of which the EPA estimates 53 to be major sources of HAP. Several of the secondary aluminum facilities are co-located with primary***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **32** of **234** aluminum, coil coating, and possibly other source category facilities. Natural gas boilers or process heaters may also be co-located at a few secondary aluminum facilities. The HAP emitted by these facilities are metals, organic HAP, D/F, hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF).

T he standards promulgated in 2000 established emission limits for particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP, total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F, D/F expressed as toxicity equivalents, and HCl as a surrogate for acid gases including HF, chlorine and fluorine. HAP are emitted from the following affected sources: aluminum scrap shredders (subject to PM standards), thermal chip dryers (subject to standards for THC and D/F), scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns (subject to standards for PM, D/F, HCl and THC), sweat furnaces (subject to D/F standards), dross-only furnaces (subject to PM standards), rotary dross coolers (subject to PM standards), group 1 furnaces (subject to standards for PM, HCl and D/F), and in-line fluxers (subject to standards for PM and HCl). Group 2 furnaces and certain in-line fluxers are subject to work practice standards. Table 3 provides a summary of the current MACT emissions limits for existing and new sources under the 2000 NESAHP and the 2005

amendments.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **33** of **234 Table 3. Emission Standards for New and Existing Affected**  **Sources for the Secondary Aluminum Source Category**

**Affected source/ Emission unit Pollutant L**  **imit U**  **nits** All new and existing affected sources and emission units that are controlled with a PM add-on control device and that choose to monitor with a Continuous Opacity Monitor (COM) and all new and existing aluminum scrap shredders that choose to monitor with a COM or to monitor visible emissions Opacity 10 Percent

New and existing aluminum scrap shredder PM 0.01 gr/dscf New and existing thermal chip dryer THC D/F a 0.80 2.50 lb/ton of feed μg TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln

Or PM HCl THC D/F a 0.08 0.80 0.06 0.25 lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed μg TEQ/Mg of feed

Alternative limits if afterburner has a design residence time of at least 1 second and operates at a temperature of at least 1400 °F PM HCl THC D/F a 0.30 1.50 0.20

5.0 lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed μg TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing sweat furnace D/F a 0.80 ng TEQ/dscm @ 11% O 2 b New and existing dross-only furnace PM 0.30 lb/ton of feed New and existing in-line fluxer c HCl PM 0.04 0.01 lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed New and existing in-line fluxer with no reactive fluxing No limit Work practice: no reactive fluxing New and existing rotary dross cooler PM 0.04 gr/dscf New and existing clean furnace (Group 2) No limit Work practices: clean charge only and no reactive fluxing***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **34** of **234** New and existing group 1 melting/holding furnace (processing only clean charge) c PM HCl 0.80 0.40 or 10 lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed percent of the HCl upstream of an add-on control device New and existing group 1 furnace c PM HCl 0.40 0.40 or 10 lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed percent of the HCl upstream of an add-on control device D/F a 15.0 μg TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing group 1 furnace c with clean charge only PM HCl 0.40 0.40 or lb/ton of feed lb/ton of feed 10 percent of the HCl upstream of an add-on control device D/F a No Limit Clean charge only New and existing secondary aluminum processing unit a,d (consists of all existing group 1 furnaces and existing in-line flux boxes at the facility, or all simultaneously constructed new group 1 furnaces and new in-line fluxers) PM e 

#     

#  

  

### 

 n

i i n

i i i

t 

### T T L L PM

PM

1 1

HCl f 

#     

#  

  

### 

 n

i i n

i i i

t 

### T T L L l HC

HCl

1 1

D/F g 

#     

#  

  

### 

 n

i i n

i i i

t 

### T T L L F D

F D

1 1 /

/

a D/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area source. b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the specifications of §63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a performance test.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **35** of **234**

c These limits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to secondary aluminum processing units. d Equation definitions: L iPM = the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; T i = the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit; L tPM = the overall PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb-ton) of feed]; L iHCl = the HCl emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L tHCl = the overall HCl emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L iD/F = the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; L tD/F = the overall D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; n = the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit.

e In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the PM limit. f In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the HCl limit. g Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit. Control devices currently in use to reduce emissions from affected sources subject to the subpart RRR NESHAP include fabric filters for control of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners for control of THC and D/F from thermal chip dryers; afterburners plus lime-injected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of D/F from sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-only furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filtersfor control of PM and HCl from in-line fluxers; and limeinjected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. All affected sources with add-on controls are also subject to design requirements and operating limits to limit fugitive emissions.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **36** of **234** Compliance with the emission limits in the current rule is demonstrated by an initial performance test for each affected source. Repeat performance tests are required every 5 years. Area sources are only subject to one-time performance tests for D/F. After the compliance tests, facilities are required to monitor various control parameters or conduct other types of monitoring to ensure continuous compliance with the MACT standards. Owners or operators of sweat furnaces that operate an afterburner that meets temperature and residence time requirements are not required to conduct performance tests. B. What data collection activities were conducted to support

this action? For the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, we compiled a dataset from two primary sources: (1) an all-company information collection request (ICR) sent to companies in February 2011, and (2) a nine-company testing ICR, sent in May

2010. Responses to the all-company ICR contained data on stack release characteristics such as height, volumetric flow rate, temperature, and location (latitude/longitude) coordinates. Responses to the all-company ICR also contained data on maximum production capacity and actual production in tpy and testing results for pollutants regulated under subpart RRR.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **37** of **234** As mentioned above, the pollutants regulated under subpart RRR are PM, HCl, THC and D/F. PM is a surrogate for metal HAP and THC is a surrogate for organic HAP. Since subpart RRR compliance testing is performed for the surrogates PM and THC, there are limited test data available for HAP-speciated metaland organic HAP emissions. Therefore, responses to the ninecompany testing ICR were used to extrapolate the PM and THC testing results reported in the all-company ICR to specific metal and organic HAP emissions. In the nine-company testing ICR, companies were asked to provide speciated metal HAP concentrations (e.g. arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, nickel, etc.) in the particulate collected by fabric filters. These data were then used to estimate speciated metal HAP emissions, based on the PM emissions reported in the all-company ICR. For example, if a response to the all-company ICR indicated a particular piece of equipment at a specific secondary aluminum facility had 10 tpy of PM emissions, and based on an analysis of the results of the nine-company testing ICR the EPA determined that the cobalt concentration in the fabric filter particulate matter catch was 20 parts-per-million (ppm), the estimated emissions of cobalt would be 0.0002 tpy. In the nine-company testing ICR, companies were also required to conduct speciated organic HAP and THC emission testing for the two types of Comment [A4]: How did EPA determine that these facilities were representative and the speciated data could be used for all the other facilities? In other words, how were these nine companies chosen?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **38** of **234** equipment that have THC limits under subpart RRR, scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kilns and thermal chip dryers. The speciated organic HAPs for which data were provided included volatile HAPs (e.g., benzene, chloroprene, toluene, etc.) and semi-volatile HAPs (anthracene, chrysene, naphthalene, etc.). Using the reported amount of charge or production for the most recent year and the reported test results (in lb per ton of charge) from the all-company ICR, emissions were calculated. Where test results from the all-company ICR responses were expressed in terms of PM and THC surrogates, emissions were converted to speciated metal and organic HAP emissions using the nine-company test results, as described above. Allowable and actual emissions were calculated for each piece of equipment.

The derivation of allowable emissions estimates is described in Section III of this preamble. The emissions data, calculations and risk assessment inputs for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category are described further in the memorandum Draft Development of the RTR Risk Modeling Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. **III. Analyses Performed*****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **39** of **234** In this section we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR for this source category. A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category? The EPA conducted risk assessments that provide estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions for each source in the category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessments also provided estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects for the source category. The risk assessments consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed below. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category . The methods used to assess risks (as described in the six primary steps below) are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in their peer***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **40** of **234** review report issued in 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

3 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies – MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing , May 2010.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **41** of **234** QA of the emissions data and release characteristics to identify

outliers and then confirmed or corrected the data. 2. Establishing the relationship between actual emissions and

MACT-allowable emissions levels

The available emissions data in the MACT dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP actually emitted during the specified annual time period. These “actual” emission levels are often lower than the emission levels that a facility might be allowed to emit and still comply with the MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is

referred to as the “MACT-allowable” emissions level. This represents the highest emissions level that could be emitted by the facility without violating the MACT standards.

We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual

emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently

reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level sources could emit and still comply with national emission standards. But we also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **42** of **234** emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) As discussed above, allowable and actual emissions were calculated for each piece of equipment. The estimates of actual emissions are described in Section II of this preamble. Allowable emissions for this source category were calculated by assuming emissions were at the maximum level allowed by the MACT standard (i.e., we assume emissions would be emitted at a level equal to the MACT emission limit). Nevertheless, we note that these are conservative estimates of allowable emissions. It is unlikely that emissions would be at

the maximum limit at all times because sources cannot emit HAP at a level that is exactly equal to the limit at all times and remain in compliance with the standard due to day-to-day variability in process operations and emissions. On average,

facilities must emit at some level below the MACT limit to ensure that they are always in compliance. The derivation of

actual and allowable emissions estimates are discussed in more

detail in the document Draft Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **43** of **234** 3. Conducting dispersion modeling, determining inhalation exposures and estimating individual and population inhalation

risks Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from each facility in the source category were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM) (Community and Sector HEM–3 version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 km of the modeled sources and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information. The dispersion model used by HEM–3 is AERMOD, which is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant

concentrations from industrial facilities. 4 To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (1991) of hourly

4 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 2005).***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **44** of **234** surface and upper air observations for more than 158 meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States

Census Bureau census block 5 internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations (Census, 2000). In addition, for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is

used to estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are

discussed in more detail later in this section. In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of each of the HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the people

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

5 A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for which census statistics are tabulated.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **45** of **234** facility as the cancer risk associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration

at the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE), which is an upper bound estimate of an individual’s probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use URE values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA IRIS values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) URE values, where available. In cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.

Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from the source category were estimated as the sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **46** of **234** those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential 6 ) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km of any source were also estimated for the source category as part of these assessments by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.

To assess risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic exposures is the estimated chronic exposure divided by the chronic reference level, which is either the EPA reference concentration (RfC), defined as “an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous

6 These classifications also coincide with the terms "known carcinogen, probable carcinogen and possible carcinogen," respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment , published in 1986 (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's NATA entitled, NATA - Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data -- an SAB Advisory , available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007 A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **47** of **234** inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime,” or, in cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS database is not available, a value from the following prioritized sources: (1) the agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level, which is defined as “an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a specified duration of exposure”; (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL), which is defined as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration;” or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, in place of or

in concert with other values. Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site exposure for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids), assuming that a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak (hourly) emission rates from each emission point at the facility and worst-case dispersion Comment [A5]: The Risk Assessment document for lists the source of the dioxin value as “EPA ORD.” It is unclear where this value and where its derivation can be found. The discussion of sources does not include anything from EPA ORD that is not IRIS.

If the dioxin value is not an IRIS value, should this section mention EPA ORD and describe why it meets standards for regulatory use? Further, has the value undergone appropriate peer review?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **48** of **234** conditions occur. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure divided by the acute dose-response value. In each case, acute HQvalues were calculated using best available, short-term doseresponse values. These acute dose-response values, which are described below, include the acute REL, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations. As discussed below, we used conservative assumptions for emission rates, meteorology and exposure location for our acute analysis. As described in the CalEPA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants , an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined

as “the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.” Acute REL values are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature. Acute REL values are designed to protect the most sensitive sub-populations (e.g., asthmatics) by the inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the acute REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **49** of **234** AEGL values were derived in response to recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC). As described in Standing Operating Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf), 7 “the NRC’s previous name for acute exposure levels—community emergency exposure levels—was replaced by the term AEGL to reflect the broad application of these values to planning, response, and prevention in the community, the workplace, transportation, the military, and the remediation of Superfund sites.” This document also states that AEGL values “represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to eight hours.” The document lays out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by stating (page 21) that “the primary purpose of the AEGL program and the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances is to develop guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.” In detailing the intended application of AEGL values, the document states (page 31) that “[i]t is anticipated

7 NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals , page 2.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **50** of **234** that the AEGL values will be used for regulatory and nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal and state agencies and possibly the international community in conjunction with chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention programs. More specifically, the AEGL values will be used for conducting various risk assessments to aid in the development of emergency preparedness and prevention plans, as well as real-time emergency response actions, for accidental chemical releases at fixed facilities and from transport carriers.” The AEGL–1 value is then specifically defined as “the

airborne concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.” The document also notes (page 3) that, “Airborne concentrations below AEGL–1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.” Similarly, the document defines AEGL–2 values as “the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m 3 ) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **51** of **234** experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.” ERPG values are derived for use in emergency response, as described in the American Industrial Hygiene Association’s document entitled, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf)which states that, “Emergency Response Planning Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are intended as health based guideline concentrations for single exposures to

chemicals.” 8 The ERPG–1 value is defined as “the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.” Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined as “the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.”

8 ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities . November 1, 2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **52** of **234** As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values include the similarly defined severity levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has not been developed; in these instances, higher severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG–2 values are compared to our modeled exposure levels to assess potential for acute concerns. Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are typically lower than their corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 values. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL–1 values are often similar to the corresponding ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are often similar to ERPG–2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk assessments typically result when basing them on the acute REL value for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we developed estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual annual hourly emission rates by a factor to cover routinely variable emissions. We chose the factor to use based on process knowledge and engineering judgment and with awareness of a Texas study of short-term***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **53** of **234** emissions variability, which showed that most peak emissions events, in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area (Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than twice the annual average hourly emissions rate. The highest peak emissions event was 74 times the annual average hourly emissions rate, and the 99 th percentile ratio of peak hourly emissions rate to the annual average hourly emissions rate was

9. 9 This analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Secondary Aluminum Production which is 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 applythe assumption to most source categories that the maximum onehour emissions rate from any source other than those resulting in fugitive dust emissions are 10 times the average annual hourly emissions rate for that source. We use a factor other

than 10 in some cases if we have information that indicates that a different factor is appropriate for a particular source category. For this source category however, there was no such

information available and the default factor of 10 was used in the acute screening process..

9 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **54** of **234** When worst-case HQ values from the initial acute screen step were less than 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible andno further analysis was performed. In the cases where any worstcase acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, additional site-specific data were considered to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. However, for this source category no acute values were greater than 1 and therefore, further refinement was not performed. Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements over time to see how the emissions vary by each hour over an entire year. Having a frequency distribution of hourly emission rates over a year would allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and elements adopted in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that having this level of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier approach. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies, 10 we generally

10 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **55** of **234** examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in

chronic reference values. Comparisons of the estimated maximum off-site 1-hour exposure levels are not typically made to occupational levels for the purpose of characterizing public health risks in RTR assessments. This is because they are developed for working age adults and are not generally considered protective for the general public. We note that occupational ceiling values are, for most chemicals, set at levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL-1. 4. Conducting multipathway exposure and risk screening The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway exposures) and the potential for adverse environmental impacts were evaluated in a two-step process. In the first step, we determined whether any facilities emitted any HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment (PB-HAP). There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound classes identified for this screening in EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F006 68381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **56** of **234** (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlorinated biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and trifluralin. Since three of

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

are emitted by at least one facility in this source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the facility-specific emission rates of each of the emitted PB– HAP were large enough to create the potential for significant non-inhalation human or environmental risks under reasonable, worst-case conditions. To facilitate this step, we developed emission rate thresholds for each

PB–HAP using a hypothetical worst-case screening exposure

scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA’s

TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical screening scenario was subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key design parameters were established such that

e nvironmental media concentrations were not underestimated ( i.e. , to minimize the occurrence of false negatives or results that suggest that risks might be***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **57** of **234** acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high) and to

also minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health endpoints. We call this application of the

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

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

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

HAP identified in the source category datasets to assess the potential for significant human health risks or environmental risks via non-inhalation pathways. See Section IV for results of this screening analysis

. 5. Conducting other risk-related analyses: facilitywide

assessments To put the source category risks in context, for our residual risk reviews, we also typically examine the risks fromthe entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAPemitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In these facilitywide assessments we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category of interest, but

also emissions of HAP from all other emissions sources at the facility. For the secondary aluminum source category, a facilitywide assessment was performed for all major sources. A facilitywide assessment was not conducted for area sources. By definition, no major sources of HAP (e.g., primary***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **58** of **234** aluminum production or coil coating operations) are collocated with any of the secondary aluminum area sources. Further, at many area sources, equipment subject to the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP is the only HAP-emitting equipment. Therefore, the most significant HAP emissions from area sources were already being considered under the area source risk assessment, and low levels of HAP emissions from equipment not subject to the Secondary

Aluminum NESHAP at these facilities would not contribute appreciably to the risk profile. The results of the facilitywide assessment for major sources are provided in Section IV. 6. Considering uncertainties in risk assessment Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for the Secondary Aluminum source category addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships follows below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the risk assessment documentation (referenced earlier) available in the docket for this action.

a. Uncertainties in the emissions datasets***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **59** of **234** Although the development of the MACT dataset involved QA/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in estimating emissions values and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis were generally developed from one-time or periodic performance tests that do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on a multiplication factor of 10 applied to the average annual hourly emission rate,

which is intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations. b. Uncertainties in dispersion modeling While the analysis employed the EPA’s recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to choose between various model options, where possible, model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, chemistry) were selected to provide an overestimate of ambient air Comment [A6]: Uncertainty?

How was 10 chosen?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **60** of **234** concentrations of the HAP rather than underestimates. However, because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some factors (e.g., meteorology, building downwash) have the potential in some situations to overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. For example, meteorological data were taken from a single year (1991), and facility locations can be a significant distance from the sites where these data were taken. Despite these uncertainties, we believe that at off-site locations and census block centroids, the approach considered in the dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield

overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations. c. Uncertainties in inhalation exposure The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility between census blocks in the modeling

domain were not considered. 11 The assumption of not considering short or long-term population mobility does not bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does it affect the estimate of cancer incidence since the total population number remains the same. It does, however, affect the shape of the distribution of individual risks across the affected population, shifting it

11 Short-term mobility is movement from one micro-environment to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement from one residence to another over the course of a lifetime.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **61** of **234** toward higher estimated individual risks at the upper end and reducing the number of people estimated to be at lower risks, thereby increasing the estimated number of people at specific

risk levels. In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated census block as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block. Using the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for people in the census block who live further from the facility, and under-predict exposures for people in the census block who live closer to the facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures may lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of the true maximum impact, but it is an unbiased estimate of average risk and incidence.

The assessments evaluate the cancer inhalation risks associated with continuous pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e., more or less than 70 years) and the domestic growth or decline of the modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size of United States facilities) will influence the risks posed by a***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **62** of **234** given source category. Depending on the characteristics of the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an

overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total estimated number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility maintains or increases its emission levels beyond 70 years, residents live beyond 70 years at the same location, and the residents spend most of their days at that location, then the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual cancer incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of time emissions sources operate. The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most people spend the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures may not be as high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, these levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to result in an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures. 12 In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several other factors specific to the acute exposure

12 U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996 . (EPA 453/R– 01–003; January 2001; page 85.)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **63** of **234** assessment. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals remain for 1 hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as determined by the co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to overestimate actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case impact. d. Uncertainties in dose-response relationships There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is brought out in the

EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines ; namely, that “the primary goal of the EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be health protective.” (EPA 2005 Cancer***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **64** of **234**

Guidelines , pages 1–7.) This is the approach followed here as summarized in the next several paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of uncertainties and variability in dose-response relationships is given in the residual risk documentation, which

is available in the docket for this action.

Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit). 13 In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as zero; however, in other circumstances, the risk could also be greater. 14 When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring adequate health-protection, the EPA typically uses the upper bound estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses (e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).

13 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm). 14 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is considered to be equally plausible and which is based on maximum likelihood estimates.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **65** of **234** Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and reference dose (RfD)) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive values that are intended to be “without appreciable risk,” the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which includes consideration of both uncertainty and variability. When there are gaps in the available information, UF are applied to derive reference values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default values, 15 e.g.,

15 According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) “[Default] options are generic approaches, based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.” The 1983 NRC report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process , defined default option as “the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the absence of data to the contrary” (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, default options are not rules that bind the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public health and the environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices ,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **66** of **234** factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data; where data are available, UF may also be developed using compound-specific information. When data are limited, more assumptions are needed and more UF are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to overestimate risk in the sense that further study might support development of reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer default assumptions are needed. However, for some pollutants, it is possible that risks may be underestimated. While collectively termed “uncertainty factor,” these factors account for a number of different quantitative considerations when using observed animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) variation in susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data to obtain an estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse effects; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are

EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **67** of **234** problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of the UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations, but more often they use individual UF values that may be less than 10. UF are applied based on chemical-specific or health effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value derivation include: (1) heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect (exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of

an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **68** of **234** estimated exposures, the lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties. Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed

reference values for cancer and noncancer effects for all pollutants emitted by the sources included in this assessment,

some HAP continue to have no reference values for cancer or chronic noncancer or acute effects (see table 3.1-1 of the risk assessment document available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking). Since exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for these pollutants at environmental exposure levels is possible. For a group of compounds that are either unspeciated or do not have reference values for every individual compound (e.g., POM), we conservatively use the most protective reference value to estimate risk from individual compounds in the group of compounds. Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds included in this assessment are currently under the EPA IRIS review, and revised assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or less potent than the current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks for the final rulemaking if these reviews are completed prior to our taking final action for Comment [A7]: Should this page/section discuss the source of the dioxin value?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **69** of **234** this source category and a dose-response metric changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this notice may significantly understate human health risk. e. Uncertainties in the multipathway and environmental effects screening assessment We generally assume that when exposure levels are not anticipated to adversely affect human health, they also are not anticipated to adversely affect the environment. For each sourcecategory, we generally rely on the site-specific levels of PBHAP emissions to determine whether a full assessment of the multipathway and environmental effects is necessary. For this source category, we only performed a worst-case multipathway screening assessment for PB-HAP. Thus, it is important to note that potential PB-HAP multipathway risks are biased high. B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this proposal? In evaluating and developing standards under section 112(f)(2), as discussed in Section I.A of this preamble, we apply a two-step process to address residual risk. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination “considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **70** of **234** maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 16 of approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million]” (54 at FR 38045). In the second step of the process, the EPA sets the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety “in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately one in one million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision” Id. In past residual risk actions, the EPA has presented and

considered a number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer hazard index (HI); and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard ((72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In more recent proposals (75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010, and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010), the EPA also presented and considered additional measures of health information, such as estimates of the risks associated with the maximum level of emissions which might be allowed by the current MACT standards (see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010, and 75

16 Although defined as “maximum individual risk,” MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **71** of **234** FR 80220, December 21, 2010). The EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of information in support of the proposed determinations described in this Federal Register notice. The agency is considering all available health information to inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and thus “[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information” (54 FR at 38046). Similarly, with regard to making the ample margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP “[in the ample margin decision, the agency again considers all of the

health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.” Id. The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making determinations and how these factors might be weighed for***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **72** of **234** each source category. In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained that: “The policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are appropriate to determining what will ‘protect the public health’” (54 FR at 38057). For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that “an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **73** of **234** should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors” (54 FR at 38045). Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: “the EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source category” (54 FR at 38061). The EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not been considered to date in making residual risk determinations. In assessing risks to populations in the vicinity of the facilities in each category, we present

estimates of risk associated with HAP emissions from the source category alone (source category risk estimates) and HAP emissions from the entire facility at which the covered***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **74** of **234** source category is located (facilitywide risk estimates). We do not attempt to characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions impacting the populations living near the sources in these categories. That is, at this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category in question, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these categories. The agency understands the potential importance of considering an individual’s total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source categoryand facility. This is particularly important when assessing noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g. , Reference Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For example, the agency recognizes that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g. , other facilities)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **75** of **234** to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised us “... that RTR

assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background

concentrations and contributions from other sources in the

area.” 17 While we are interested in placing source category and facilitywide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we

believe that such estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated uncertainties than for the source category or facilitywide estimates hence compounding the uncertainty in any such comparison. This is because we have not

conducted a detailed technical review of HAP emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not previously undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such

17 The EPA’s responses to this and all other key recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F006 68381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf ) are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup, UESPA/OAQPS entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies

.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **76** of **234** review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate and evaluate total HAP exposure in our assessments and, in particular, on whether and how it might be appropriate to use information from EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to support such estimates. We are also seeking comment on how best to consider various types and scales of risk estimates when making our acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations under CAA section 112(f). C. How did we perform the technology review? Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP was promulgated. In cases where the technology review identified such developments, we conducted an analysis of the technical feasibility of applying these developments, along with the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions, etc.) of applying these developments. We then made decisions on whether it is appropriate or necessary to propose amendments to the 2000 NESHAP to require any of the identified developments. Based on our analyses of the data and information collected from industry and the trade organization representing facilities subject to the NESHAP, our general understanding of the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **77** of **234** industry, and other available information in the literature on potential controls for this industry, we identified several new developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of the following to be a “development”:

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the 2000 Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP.

 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the 2000 Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP) that could result in significant additional emissions reduction.

 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the 2000 Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP.

 Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the 2000 Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP. In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, or control technologies that were not considered at the time we***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **78** of **234** developed the 2000 NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our evaluation of whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to consider for the Secondary Aluminum Production industry. Among the data sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the 2000 NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions sources in the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed other information sources, suchas State or local permitting agency databases and industrysupported databases. In particular, we consulted the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify potential technology advances. Control technologies classified as RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology), BACT (Best Available Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate) apply to stationary sources depending on whether the sources are existing or new and on the size, age, and location of the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **79** of **234** facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by State or local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution technology information (including technologies required in source-specific permits) to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future possible control technology options that might apply broadly to numerous sources within a category or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant

emissions streams. We searched this database to determine whether it contained any practices, processes or control technologies for the types of processes covered by the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP. No such practices, processes or control technologies were identified in this database. D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal? In addition to the analyses described above, we also reviewed other aspects of the MACT standards for possible revision as appropriate and necessary. Based on this review we have identified aspects of the MACT standards that we believe

need revision.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **80** of **234** This includes proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the court decision in

Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). We are also proposing changes to the rule related to affirmative defense for exceedance of an emission limit during a malfunction. We are proposing other changes to address HF emissions, fugitive emissions during testing and numerous clarifications and corrections related to the existing provisions in the rule. Descriptions of each issue and the proposed revision to address the issue are presented in Section IV of this preamble. **IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions** This section of the preamble provides the results of our RTR for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and our proposed decisions concerning changes to the Secondary

Aluminum Production NESHAP.

A. What are the results of the risk assessments? For major sources in the Secondary Aluminum source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted. In addition, we performed a facilitywide risk assessment for the major sources in the secondary aluminum source category. For area sources, we conducted an inhalation***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **81** of **234** risk assessment for D/F since this is the only HAP covered by the subpart RRR MACT standards at area sources. For all sources, we conducted multipathway screening analyses for PB-HAP emitted (e.g., D/F). Although there are 53 major sources and 108 area sources covered by the subpart RRR MACT standards, 52 major

sources and 103 area sources were modeled due to the other sources’ lack of equipment with applicable emission standards. Results of the risk assessment are presented briefly below and

in more detail in the residual risk documentation referenced in Section III of this preamble, which is available in the docket

for this action. Table 4 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the

results of the inhalation risk assessment. **Table 4. Secondary Aluminum Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results** 

Category & No of Facilities

Modeled Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (in 1 million) 1 Estimate d Populati on at increase

d Risk

of cancer ≥

1 in 1 Million Estimat ed Annual Cancer Inciden ce (cases

per year) MaximumChronic Noncancer TOSHI 2 Worstcase Maximum Refined Screeni ng AcuteNoncancer

HQ 3 Based

on Actual Emissi

ons Level Based on Allowab le Emissio ns Level Based on Actual Emissio ns Level Based on Allowab le Emissio ns Level Major Source (52) 1 20 2 0.0006 0.05 1 HQ REL 0.7 (HCl)

Area Source (103) 0.4 6 0 0.0006 0.0003 0.004 -Facilitywide Major 20 - 62,000 0.006 0.9 - - Comment [A8]: Please clarify.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **82** of **234**

Source 1 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. We did not have allowable emissions information at the facilitywide level, therefore, risk estimates based on facilitywide allowable emissions were not calculated. 2 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the secondary aluminum source category is the respiratory system. 3 There is no acute dose-response value for dioxins, thus an acute HQ value for area sources was not calculated. See Section III.B of this preamble for explanations of acute dose-response values.

The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment for major sources indicate that the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk, considering actual emissions, could be up to 1 in 1 million, driven by dioxin emissions. The maximum cancer risks for this source category exceeded a cancer risk of

1 in 1 million at 1 of 52 facilities. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source category based on actual emission levels is 0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 1,666 years. No people were estimated to have cancer risks above 10 in a million and approximately 2 people

were estimated to have cancer risks above 1 in 1 million considering all major source facilities in this source category. Based on MACT-allowable emissions for the major sources in this category, the MIR could be up to 20 in 1 million. With respect to chronic inhalation noncancer risk from major sources, we estimate a maximum TOSHI value of 0.05 for the Secondary Aluminum source category, primarily from hydrochloric acid from Group 1 furnaces (handling clean charge only).***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **83** of **234** Considering MACT-allowable emissions, this maximum TOSHI value is estimated to be 1. Moreover, our worst-case highest acute screening value for major sources was 0.7 based on the REL for

HCL. Considering facility wide emissions at the 52 major sources, the MIR is estimated to be up to 20 in 1 million, the estimated annual incidence is 0.0006 cases per year and the

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is calculated to be 0.9. In addition, we estimated risks associated with dioxin emissions at the 103 area sources in the Secondary Aluminum Production source category. The results of the chronic

inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that the maximum

lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as up to 0.4 in 1 million and an estimated annual incidence of 0.0006 cases per year. Considering MACT-allowable emissions, the MIR could be up to 6 in 1 million. With respect to chronic inhalation noncancer risk from D/F emissions at area sources, we estimate a maximum TOSHI value of 0.0003. Considering MACT-allowable emissions,

this maximum TOSHI value is estimated to be 0.004 for area

sources. In addition to the analyses presented above, to screen for potential multipathway effects from emissions of PB-HAP (such as cadmium, dioxins and PAHs) we compared actual emission rates***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **84** of **234** from major source facilities in this source category to the screening values for these PB HAP described above (see Section III (A)(4)). For dioxins, we also screened for potential multipathway effects from emissions of D/F from area sources by comparing the estimated actual emission rates from these area sources to the screening value for D/F described above. (see Risk Assessment Document Appendix 4 for a more detaileddiscussion of screening emission rates). Results of this worstcase screen estimate that actual POM emissions from 20 of the 52 major source facilities exceed the POM screening emission rate. With respect to D/F, of the 46 major sources that emitted dioxins, 39 exceeded our screening emission rate. Similarly, 76 out of 103 area sources exceeded our D/F screening rate. These exceedances of the worst-case multipathway screening level for POM and dioxins indicate that there may be potential multipathway impacts of concern due to emissions of POM and dioxins. In general, emission rates below the worst-case multipathway screening level indicate no significant potential for multipathway-related health effects; whereas emission levels above this worst-case screening level only indicate the potential for multipathway-related health risks of concern based on a worst-case scenario. Thus, we note that these screening values are biased high for purposes of screening and are subject***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **85** of **234** to significant uncertainties. As such, they do not represent refined estimates of risk and thus, do not necessarily indicate that potential multipathway risks from the source category are significant

- only that we cannot rule out the possibility that they might be significant 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 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 Comment [A9]: Change made to track with the risk assessment and previously used language.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **86** of **234** 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 as high as up to 1 in 1 million due to

actual emissions and as high as 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 to the analyses presented above, to screen for potential multipathway effects from emissions of D/F and POM, we compared the estimated actual emission rates from facilities in this source category to the multipathway screening levels described in section III.B. With respect to POM and dioxins,both major and area sources in the category exceeded our worstcase screening levels. However, we note that this is a worstcase conservative screening level analysis, therefore these results are biased high for purposes of screening and are subject to significant uncertainties. Moreover, we note that due

to data limitations we were unable to further refine this worstcase screening scenario. As such, they do not necessarily***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **87** of **234** 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 risk, based on the low level of risk identified for the source category, a facilitywide analysis was not conducted for this source category. Considering all of the health risk information and factors discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Secondary Aluminum Production source category are acceptable. 2. Ample margin of safety analysis We next considered whether the existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment, along

with all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination described above. In this analysis we considered the results of the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **88** of **234** technology review, risk assessment and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine whether there are any cost-effective

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 inthis industry or in other industries that would be costeffective for further reduction of these emissions. Based on the estimated low risk levels and absence of new practices or control options, we conclude that the provisions of the current MACT provide for an ample margin of safety for public health with respect to emissions of POM, THC and metal HAP. Our multipathway screening analysis results indicated exceedances of the worst case screening levels which do not necessarily indicate any risks, however, they do suggest a potential for risks that cannot be ruled out. To evaluate the potential to reduce D/F emissions to ensure an ample margin of safety, our analysis for D/F focused on two options: 1) lowering the existing D/F limit from 15 to 10 μ g TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge at all facilities;***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **89** of **234** 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 μ g TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces handling other than clean charge, we estimate that about 11 facilities would need to reduce their D/F emissions and that the costs would be about $5.9 million in total capital costs with total annualized costs of about $2.7 million. This option would achieve an estimated 1.66 grams TEQ reduction of D/F emissions with an overall cost-effectiveness of about $1.61 million per gram D/F TEQ. The second option of lowering the emission limit based on a subcategorization according to facility production capacity yielded cost-effectiveness estimates of greater than $1 million per gram D/F TEQ reduced. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that these options would not result in significant emissions reductions and would not, therefore, result in significant changes to the potential risk levels. After considering the costs and the small reductions that would be achieved, we have decided not to propose any of these options that are based on ACI injection technology

. Comment [A10]: How was this estimated? Can you point the reader to supplementary document.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **90** of **234** 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 for this source category. Thus, we did not identify any feasible or applicable work practices for this industry beyond those that are currently

in the MACT rule. In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP, we weighed all health risk information and factors considered in the risk acceptability determination, including uncertainties, along with the cost and feasibility of control technologies and other measures that could be applied in this source category, in making our ample margin of safety Comment [A11]: Is there more information on this you can point the reader to?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **91** of **234**determination. In summary, we did not identify any costeffective approaches to further reduce POM, THC, metal HAP or D/F emissions beyond the reductions that are already being achieved by the current NESHAP. Further, our analysis indicates that none of the options considered would result in significant emissions reductions and would not, therefore, result in significant changes to the potential risk levels. Because of the high cost associated with the use of activated carbon injection systems and because work practices are already required to help ensure low emissions, we propose that the existing MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse

environmental effect. C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology review? As described above, the typical controls used to minimize emissions at secondary aluminum facilities include fabric filters for control of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners for control of THC and D/F from thermal chip dryers; afterburners plus lime-injected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of D/F from sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-only***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **92** of **234** furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filtersfor 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. There have been some developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that have been implemented in this source category since promulgation of the current NESHAP. However, these technologies do not clearly reduce HAP emissions relative to technologies that were available at the time of promulgation of the Secondary Aluminum

Production NESHAP in 2000. At least one company supplies multichamber furnaces that combine the functions of a delacquering kiln and a melting furnace. At least 16 of these furnaces are in operation in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. One furnace of this type is presently operating in the U. S. and is permitted as a group 1 furnace handling other than clean charge. However, the D/F emission test data for the one operating U.S. multichamber furnace are not lower than all other Group 1 furnaces handling other than clean charge and are not lower than all delacquering

kiln emission test data. Based on available information it is not clear that this technology would reduce HAP emissions relative to technologies that are already used by other facilities in the U.S. Overall, based on our analyses, we***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **93** of **234** conclude that it would not be appropriate to require other facilities in the U.S. to use this technology at this time. Eddy current separators are used to separate a concentrated aluminum fraction from a heterogeneous scrap feed. These units operate at ambient temperature and emit no D/F or other gaseous pollutants. They are used on the material output from mechanical shredders that shred automobiles and appliances (not on the scrap shredders used in the secondary aluminum industry). These units can potentially decrease the need for sweat furnaces. However, the product of eddy current separators is not clean charge, as with a sweat furnace. Therefore, the product of eddy current separators must undergo further processing to produce clean charge, and it is not possible to directly compare eddy current separators with sweat furnaces. Catalytic filtration systems, including catalytic filter bags, are available to reduce D/F emissions. These bags incorporate an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane coated with a precious metal catalyst which promotes the oxidation of D/F. The manufacturer claims that this system is installed in over 100 applications around the world, including at least 1 secondary aluminum processing plant. However, no respondents to our all-company ICR reported using this technology, and we have no data on the D/F emissions reductions that can be achieved at***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **94** of **234** secondary aluminum production facilities using this technology. We therefore conclude that catalytic filtration systems are not yet a demonstrated technology that can be broadly applied to the secondary aluminum production source category at this time. We also evaluated the potential to lower D/F emissions under the technology review by lowering the emissions limits which would likely result in the broader use of activated carbon injection technology. Under this analysis, we evaluated the exact same approach that was evaluated under the ample margin of safety analysis described in section IV.B. In summary, we evaluated two main options, as follows: 1) lower the existing D/F limit from 15 to 10 μ g TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge at all facilities; and 2) lower the existing D/F limit for Group 1 furnaces processingother than clean charge, after applying a subcategorizationbased on facility production capacity. The lower D/F emissions limits potentially could be met by using an activated carbon injection (ACI) system. With regard to the option of lowering

the emission limit to 10 μ g TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces handling other than clean charge, we estimate that about 11 facilities would need to reduce their D/F emissions and that the costs would be about $5.9 million in total capital costs with total annualized costs of about $2.7 million. This option would***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **95** of **234** achieve an estimated 1.66 grams TEQ reduction of D/F emissions with an overall cost-effectiveness of about $1.61 million per gram D/F TEQ. The second option of lowering the emission limit based on a subcategorization according to facility production capacity yielded cost-effectiveness estimates of greater than $1 million per gram D/F TEQ reduced. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that these options would not result in significant emissions reductions. After considering the costs and the small reductions that would be achieved, we have decided not to propose either of these options that are based on ACI injection technology under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. Overall, based on our technology review, we determined that the developments in practices, processes and control technologies identified do not clearly reduce emissions relative to technologies that were available at the time of promulgation of the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP in 2000. We did not identify any feasible and cost effective options to further reduce emissions as part of technology review. Therefore, we are not proposing any revisions to the NESHAP as part of our technology review. Additional details regarding these analyses can be found in the following technical document for this action which is available in the docket: Draft Technology Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category

.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **96** of **234** D. What other actions are we proposing? This section discusses revisions that are being proposed to correct and clarify provisions in the rule. We are proposing revisions to the rule to address SSM provisions within the rule that were vacated by a court ruling and we are adding a requirement for electronic submission of all test results to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. In addition, since promulgation of the subpart RRR NESAHP in March 2000 (65 FR 15689), individual representatives from state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and industry have submitted recommendations to the Agency to correct errors in the rule and to help clarify the intent and implementation of the rule. Table 5 provides a summary of these proposed changes. Following Table 5 are detailed descriptions of the proposed revisions. **Table 5. Summary of Technical Corrections/Clarifications to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP**  **Correction/Clarification Description** 1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions (63.1503, 63.1506(q), 63.1520)  Addresses vacated General Provision (GP) requirements.

 Deletes references to vacated GP sections.

 Adds work practices for periods of startup and shutdown for certain affected sources.

 Adds definition for affirmative defense. Adds affirmative defense requirements for malfunctions.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **97** of **234** 2. Electronic Reporting (63.1516(b)(3))  Requires owners and operators to report performance test results through the EPA Electronic Reporting System (ERT). 3. Capture and Collection Requirements (63.1506(c)(1))  Requires use of the 2003, or later, ACGIH manual.

 Requests comments on methods other than ACGIH manual to ensure capture and collection. 4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace without Add-on Air Pollutions Control Devices (63.1510(p))  Considering a requirement to require a scrap inspection program.

 Current requirement is optional.

 Requesting comments and information. 5. Multiple Tests for Worst Case Scenarios (63.1511(b)(6))  Clarifies that multiple tests may be required to reflect the worst case for each regulated pollutant. 6. Lime Injection Rate Verification (63.1510(i)(4))  Requires verification of the lime mass injection rate at least once per month. 7. Flux Monitoring (63.1510(j)(4))  Clarifies that solid flux must be tracked at each addition during the cycle or time period used in the performance test. 8. Cover fluxes (63.1503)  Clarifies definition of cover flux. 9. Capture and Collection Systems (63.1503)  Adds a definition of capture and collection systems. 10. Bale Breakers (63.1503)  Adds a definition of a bale breaker to clarify that the bale breaker is not a scrap shredder. 11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS) (63.1510(f)(1)(ii))  Removes reference to an outdated guidance document and requires use of manufacturer’s maintenance and operating instructions. 12. Sidewell Furnaces  Requires visual inspection***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **98** of **234** (63.1510(n)(1)) 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/Decoating Kiln and Scrap Shredder (63.1503)  Clarifies definition of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln to include delamination of aluminum from paper or plastic.

 Clarifies definition of scrap shredder to include granulation. 16. Transporting metal (63.1503)  Clarifies definition of Group 2 furnaces to exclude pots u sed to transport metal

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

 Invites comments and solicits information on appropriated cleaning procedures. 18. Measurements of HF in Addition to HCl (63.1503, 63.1505, 63.1511(c)(9), 63.1513)  Revises definition of HCl to account for HF; adds definition of HF.

 Revises emissions standards for HCl to include HF; combined HF and HCl emissions limit same as HCl.

 Requires EPA Method 26A for measurement of HF and HCl.

 Revises compliance equations. 19. Uncontrolled furnaces that do not Comply with ACGIH Hooding Guidelines (63.1512(e)(4))  Requires owner/operators with uncontrolled group 1 furnaces to construct hoods for performance testing to demonstrate compliance, or assume 67 percent capture***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **99** of **234** efficiency if hooding does not meet ACGIH guidelines.

 Seeks comments on alternative approaches. 20.”Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, 23 rd Edition (63.1506(c)(1))  Allows use of the 23 rd or late r editions, and takes out references to chapters 3 and 5. 21. Clarify the possible Number of SAPUs (63.1503)  Revises “SAPU” definition to clarify there can be more than 1 new SAPU. 22. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or Sealants (63.1503)  Clarifies “clean charge” definition to exclude anodized material coated with dyes or sealants that contain organic material. 23. Afterburner Residence Time (63.1503)  Clarifies “residence time” definition to include refractory lined ductwork up to the control thermocouple. 24. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate (63.1505(k))  Clarifies that daily throughput must be used to calculate allowable emissions within the SAPU. 25. Changing Furnace Designations (63.1514)  Allows owners/operators to switch furnace designations.

 Specifies requirements for switching. 26. ACGIH Hooding Requirements  Invites comments on alternatives to the currently r equired A CGIH guidelines

. 27. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces  Clarifies that owners/operators have the option to conduct performance tests under different operating conditions to address charge/flux changes. 28. Annual Hood Inspections (63.1510(d)(2))  Clarifies that annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements. 29. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources (63.1506(a), 63.1510(a))  Clarifies which operating, monitoring and other standards apply to area sources.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **100** of **234** 30. 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. 31. Controlled Furnaces that are Temporarily Idled (63.1506(q)(5))  Allows control device for furnaces to be shut down if furnace will remain idle for 24 hours or longer. 1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions We are proposing to amend the provisions of the subpart RRR NESHAP regarding compliance with the emissions limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These proposed revisions are necessary to remove references in the subpart RRR NESHAP to certain requirements of the General Provisions to part 63 regarding HAP emissions during SSM periods. These General Provision requirements were vacated by a

recent court decision. We are proposing to revise the subpart RRR NESAHP to require certain affected sources to comply with work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown and numerical emissions limits at all other times. Specifically, we are proposing several revisions to subpart RRR including revising Table 1 to indicate that certain requirements of the General Provisions pertaining to SSM do not apply. For reasons discussed below, we are also proposing to promulgate an affirmative***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **101** of **234** defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emissions standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense. These changes would go into effect upon the effective date of the final rule. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA Section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM).

Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the “General Provisions Rule,” that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When incorporated into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM. We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in

this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA , the EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 (the General Provisions Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **102** of **234** 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, for the reasons explained below, the EPA is proposing different standards for startup and shutdown periods for some types of process units. However, for other processes, for the reasons explained below, we are not proposing different standards for those periods. There are some processes that are part of the secondary aluminum production source category for which startup or shutdown has no relevance or for which the standard is already in the form of a work practice (e.g., scrap shredders, in-line fluxers, group 2 furnaces and rotary dross coolers). For most units subject to the current rule, emissions limits for PM, D/F, HCl, and THC during normal operations are expressed using a normalized format of mass of pollutant per unit of feed (e.g.,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **103** of **234** lb/ton of feed) or charge. Because aluminum feed and production are reduced or halted during startup and shutdown, determining compliance with such an emission limit format without any feed materials is mathematically unrealistic. To apply a numerical emissions limit during startup and shutdown operations would require that we have data not yet available to us in order to

address a suitable emissions limit format. We considered whether performance testing and enforcement of numeric emission limits would be practical during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA determined that there are a number of significant technical challenges associated with emissions measurements of PM and HAP emissions during periods of startup and shutdown that make establishing and complying with numerical emissions limits technically and economically impractical. The group 1 furnaces, dryers and kilns used in the secondary aluminum process are heated during periods of startup through slow feeding of natural gas with no scrap or other feed materials. During these periods, many stack gas characteristics including temperature, flow rate, pollutant and flow stratification, and stack gas molecular weight and moisture content of the gas change far more dramatically and rapidly than they would during normal operating conditions. An emissions tester must account for these changing parameters with near-***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **104** of **234** constant measurements and adjustment during each test run and also conduct multiple, sequential test runs in order to produce representative values. The durations of these startup or shutdown periods are variable depending on the state of the refractory or other equipment. These periods could be on the order of 36 hours to multiple days in duration (e.g., to cure new refractory) requiring many more than three test runs to collect a representative measurement. During a shutdown, the period over which process exhaust flow rate would change from full load conditions to zero could range from less than a day to longer. Such transient and variable conditions would make the conduct of multiple test runs meeting the isokinetic or other proportional sampling requirements physically problematic. In terms of staff scheduling, multiple test crews would have to be on-site ready to begin testing at the beginning of a startup or shutdown period. Further, test crews must be prepared to stop and restart measurements to coincide with process difficulties that can occur particularly during startup. Scheduling such testing to coincide with the beginning of less predictable shutdown periods would require having testing crews on-site nearly full time. These staff resource issues would dramatically increase the cost of testing to deal with startup and shutdown periods.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **105** of **234** In addition to the technical problems of collecting representative samples in stratified stack conditions, sampling for PM, HCl, and D/F must be isokinetic and sampling for THC concentrations must be proportional in order to assure representative results. Maintaining isokinetic or other proportional sampling when stack gas flows range from zero to nearly full load conditions during either startup or shutdown with measurement equipment commonly applied for this type of testing would be an extremely difficult measurement challenge and very likely lead to unacceptable test runs. For these technical and economic reasons, we have determined that conducting manual emissions testing during secondary aluminum startup or shutdown periods for dryers, kilns, sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces and group 1 furnaces is impracticable in the context of section 112(h)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act. As a result, we have established a separate work practice standard for emissions of PM, HCl, D/F, and THC during periods of startup and shutdown for these portions of the secondary aluminum manufacturing process. The EPA proposes in this rule to require sources to meet a work practice standard for many processes involved in secondary aluminum production. Work practice standards will define the beginning and end of startup and shutdown periods and require certain operating***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **106** of **234** procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC, PM, HCl, and D/F for each scenario anticipated. For purposes of this rule, startup begins upon usage of natural gas or other clean fuel to ignite a dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace or group 1 furnace from a cold start. Under the proposed work practice provisions for startup, the operator must engage and operate any associated exhaust fans, capture hoods and air pollution control devices whenever fuel is fired in the device. At the point that feed is introduced into the dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace or group 1 furnace, startup ends and the process is in its normal operating mode and subject to the numerical emission

limits. Similarly for shutdown conditions, when an operator halts the introduction of scrap or charge to and has removed all product (e.g., tapped a furnace) from an operating dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace or group 1 furnace, the shutdown phase has begun during which the work practice provisions apply and the numerical emission limits do not apply. During equipment shutdown, any associated exhaust fans, capture hoods and air pollution control devices must be engaged and operating until the kiln, furnace or dryer exhaust gas temperature falls below 200oF at which point shutdown ends.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **107** of **234** The continued operation of the existing control devices and emission capture systems will, in conjunction with the detailed proposed work practices described above, be consistent with maximum achievable control technology and will be adequate, along with all the other standards described above, to ensure that risks will be acceptable and the rule will provide an ample margin of safety. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operation. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner * * *” (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation “achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **108** of **234** best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in setting emission standards consistent with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses the concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best controlled” or “best performing” to a unit that is malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events. Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not impossible, given the countless types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g.,

Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to "invest the resources to***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **109** of **234** conduct the perfect study."). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation”). In addition, the goal of a best controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are significantly less stringentthan levels that are achieved by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is

consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **110** of **234** cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead “caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation” 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that

such failure can sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to add to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1503 (defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **111** of **234** to establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.1520 (40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only

where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit

meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner....” The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR §63.1506(a)(5) and §1520(a)(8) to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded...” and that “[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health....” In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **112** of **234** challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with Section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27).

The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.” 42 USC. §7602(k)(defining “emission limitation and emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure

that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **113** of **234** practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus , 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA Section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record does not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also, Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club v.

EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA , 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9 th Cir. 1977). But see , Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **114** of **234** the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the

reasonableness of the standard as a whole. Specifically, we are proposing the following rule changes:

 Add general duty requirements in 40 CFR §63.1506(a)(5) and §63.1520(a)(8) to replace General Provision requirements that reference vacated SSM provisions.

 Revise language in 40 CFR §63.1515 that references

notifications for SSM events.

 Add paragraphs in 40 CFR §63.1520 requiring the reporting of malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense provisions.

 Add paragraphs in 40 CFR §63.1517 requiring the keeping of certain records during malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense provisions.

 Revise Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 to reflect changes in the applicability of the General Provisions to this subpart resulting from a court vacatur of certain SSM requirements in the General Provisions. 2. Electronic reporting. The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **115** of **234** as for many other purposes including compliance determinations, emissions factor development and annual emissions rate determinations. In conducting these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source owners and operators, to locate, collect, and submit performance test data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. In recent years, though, stack testing firms have typically collected performance test data in electronic format, making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. Through this proposal the EPA is presenting a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of Secondary Aluminum Production facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports to

the EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database was constructed to store performance test data for use in developing emissions factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main

. As proposed above, data entry would be through an electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **116** of **234** Reporting Tool. The ERT would generate an electronic report which would be submitted using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The submitted report would be transmitted through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx ). The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html . We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to electronic data submittal. Having these data, the EPA would be able to develop improved emissions factors, make fewer information requests and promulgate better regulations. One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another advantage is that the ERT clearly***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **117** of **234** states what testing information would be required. Another important proposed benefit of submitting these data to the EPA

at the time the source test is conducted is that it should substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection activities in the future. When the EPA has performance test data in hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk assessments or technology reviews. This would result in a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests and assessing the results). State, local and tribal agencies could also benefit from

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data

submitted to them. The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than a manual data assessment making review and evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally, another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry operational***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **118** of **234** procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that emissions factors, when updated, represent the most current range of operational practices. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while also improving the quality of emissions inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations. Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is available for many records and is the form considered most suitable for expeditious review if available. Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged in this proposal and some records and reports are required to be kept in electronic format. 3. Capture and Collection Requirements

The current MACT rule uses the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual as the standard for acceptable capture and collection of***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **119** of **234** emissions from a source. Since the inception of the rule, several different methodologies of demonstrating compliance with capture and collection requirements have been accepted by the EPA. We are proposing that facilities must follow the ACGIH guidelines published in 2003 or, as an alternative that facilities can follow any updated versions published by ACGIH since that time. Nevertheless, we are considering allowing other acceptable methodologies for demonstration of compliance, which will provide more flexibility to the industry. We invite comments on other acceptable methodologies in addition to the ACGIH guidelines and how the secondary aluminum NESHAP could be revised to better characterize hooding requirements that would be adequate to ensure good capture of emissions. We are requesting information on minimum face velocity, elimination of visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other parameter(s) that may be used to demonstrate adequate capture. 4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace without Add-on

Air Pollutions Control Devices Under the current subpart RRR NESHAP, the owner or operator of a group 1 furnace that is not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device must prepare a written monitoring plan describing the measures that will be taken to ensure continuous compliance with all applicable emissions limits. One such***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **120** of **234** measure is the inspection of scrap to determine the levels of contaminants in the scrap that will be charged to the furnace. Section 63.1510(p) lists the requirements for a scrap inspection program. However, this scrap inspection program is not mandatory. Because the Agency considers a well designed and implemented scrap inspection program important to ensuring that emissions are maintained at levels below the applicable emissions limits, we are considering adding a requirement in the final rule that all owners and operators with uncontrolled group 1 furnaces develop and implement a scrap inspection program similar to the existing optional requirements in section 63.1510(p). We are requesting comments on what such a program should include. We are particularly interested in receiving comments and information from companies, organizations or individuals that may have experience with scrap inspection programs and may have been involved in developing and implementing such programs. 5. Multiple Tests for Worst-Case Scenarios The rule currently allows testing to demonstrate compliance under a “worst-case” scenario. Facilities that process a range of materials (including dross, used beverage containers (UBC), etc.) may have different “worst-case” scenarios (highest production levels, range of charge materials, and highest***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **121** of **234** reactive fluxing rate) for the different pollutants. For example, the worst-case scenario for HCl may be while processing dross; the worst-case scenario for D/F formation may be while processing UBC; and the worst-case scenario for PM is most likely UBC as well. The original rule and subsequent amendments did not make it clear that different testing conditions may be required for different HAP. We are proposing amendments to §63.1511 to clarify that performance tests under multiple scenarios may be required in order to reflect the worst-case for each regulated pollutant. 6. Lime Injection Rate Verification The rule currently requires owners/operators to verify that the continuous lime injection system maintain free-flowing lime in the hopper at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at the same level established during the performance test. However the rule does not specifically require that the feeder setting be verified with a pound per hour (lb/hr) injection rate as established in the performance test. Due to continuous usage of the equipment, the feeder setting and injection rate may not correlate as they did during the performance test. Periodic verification of the actual injection rate in pounds per hour would ensure that the necessary amount of lime is reaching the baghouse and it would give a better indication of continuous***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **122** of **234** compliance. We are proposing to revise §63.1510 by adding a requirement for the verification of the lime injection rate in pounds per hour at least once per month. 7. Flux Monitoring Flux monitoring provisions in §63.1510(j)(3)(ii) require the owner/operator to record, for each 15-minute block period during each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test during which reactive fluxing occurs, the time, weight and type of flux for each addition of solid reactive flux. Solid flux, however, may be added intermittently during the operating cycle dependent upon the needs of the bath. We are proposing amendments to revise these monitoring requirements to clarify that solid flux should be tracked at each addition during the cycle or time period used in the performance test.

8. Cover Fluxes Cover flux is defined in §63.1503 as “salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of the molten aluminum for the purpose of preventing oxidation”. We have received information indicating that most furnaces are agitated. Rotary furnaces are constantly rotated until the metal is tapped and reverberatory furnaces have a molten metal pump circulating aluminum from the hearth to the charge well providing agitation to melt the scrap. In order***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **123** of **234** to avoid major source status, a few secondary aluminum facilities have claimed that they were using cover fluxes when they were actually using reactive fluxes. Other sources claiming to be using a cover flux are using them in furnaces in which the melt is being agitated and, therefore, does not meet the definition of cover flux. To address this, we are proposing to clarify the definition of cover flux. 9. Capture and Collection System

Affected sources under the current rule that are controlled by an air pollution control device must use a capture and collection system meeting the guidelines of the ACGIH in order to minimize fugitive emissions and ensure that emissions are routed to the control device where the pollutants are removed from the exhaust gas stream. As part of efforts to clarify hooding and capture requirements we are proposing a definition for capture and collection systems, as follows: Capture and collection system means the system of hood(s), duct system and

fan used to collect a contaminant at or near its source and transport the contaminated air to the air cleaning device.

10. Bale Breakers The current regulation exempts bale breakers from the requirements for aluminum scrap shredders and the definition of shredders is intentionally broad. To clarify that a bale breaker***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **124** of **234** is not a scrap shredder, we are proposing a definition for bale breaker. We are also proposing to clarify in the definition of aluminum scrap shredder that both high speed and low speed shredding devices are considered scrap shredders. 11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS) The current requirements for BLDS in the rule cite a 1997 guidance document on bag leak detection systems that operate on the triboelectric effect (when materials become electrically charged through contact and separation from another material). BLDS currently in use operate digitally and are not addressed by the 1997 guidance. We are proposing to update §63.1510 to remove the reference to the 1997 guidance document and require that the manufacturer’s maintenance and operating instructions be

followed at all times.

12. Sidewell Furnaces The monitoring requirements for sidewell group 1 furnaces with uncontrolled hearths specify recording the level of molten metal (above or below the arch between the sidewell and hearth) for each charge to the furnace. Because there are emission units that add charge continuously and emission units that add charge intermittently, the requirements to record levels during each charge can be problematic for some sources. Also, the only option for verifying the molten level is visual observation***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **125** of **234** which may be difficult in some cases. To address these issues, we are proposing revisions to §63.1510 to require the monitoring to be done after each tap, rather than each charge. We are also proposing that where visual inspection of the molten metal level is not possible, physical measurement to determine the molten metal level in sidewell group 1 furnaces will be required. 13. Testing Representative Units Section §63.1511 allows testing of a representative

emissions unit to estimate emissions from other similar units. Some secondary aluminum facilities have conducted one test run on each of multiple emission units to comprise one test, rather than performing all test runs on the same unit. This is not the intent of the rule. We are proposing to amend §63.1511(f) to clarify that the three test runs must be conducted on the same

unit.

14. Initial Performance Tests Section 63.1511(b) of the current rule requires a source to conduct its initial performance tests for a new or modified source within 90 days of start-up to show compliance with emission limits and to establish its operating parameters. If a furnace is equipped with a baghouse, the temperature of the gas flow at the baghouse inlet must be determined. The inlet temperature is significantly affected by ambient air***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **126** of **234** temperatures. Exhaust gases going to the baghouse control system usually include more ambient air than furnace exhaust gas, because a substantial amount of ambient air is necessary to achieve adequate capture efficiency. The high ratio of ambient air to furnace gas in the control system means that the ambient air temperature often controls the baghouse inlet temperature. When a facility conducts an initial performance test in colder months (in order to meet the 90-day window in the MACT standard), it must frequently retest in warmer months because they cannot maintain the baghouse inlet temperature established during a cold month. Other MACT standards provide sources 180 days in which to conduct their initial performance test. The General Provisions in §63.7 set this time limit at 180 days. Because a period of 180 days to conduct testing would help the secondary aluminum industry avoid the cost of unnecessary repeat testing and it is consistent with the General Provisions, we are proposing to revise §63.1511 to allow 180 days to conduct an initial performance test. 15. Definitions of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln and Scrap Shredder We are proposing revisions to the definition of scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln to clarify that thermal***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **127** of **234** delaminating of aluminum scrap and mechanical granulation of the recovered metal are affected sources under Subpart RRR. Heat is used to separate foil from paper and plastic in scrap. The sources in question operate chambers with a maximum temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit and with no melting of the recovered aluminum. Subsequent melting of recovered aluminum need not occur at the same facility that conducts the recovery operation. We are also proposing to amend the definition of a scrap shredder to include granulation in addition to crushing, grinding, shearing and breaking of aluminum scrap into a more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or furnace. 16. Transporting Metal We are addressing questions as to the applicability of the rule to pots that are used to transport metal to customers. The rule does not currently regulate these pots and we are proposing to amend the definition of Group 2 furnace to clarify the fact that the rule does not regulate these pots. 17. Specifications for Cleaning Processes We considered whether to add specifications for cleaning processes such as those required for runaround scrap to ensure that scrap processed by certain methods qualifies as clean scrap. Specifications considered include minimum residence time***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **128** of **234** and temperature for thermal drying process and minimum speed and residence time for centrifuging processes. We are not proposing any of these revisions in today’s action. However, we invite comments on this issue and solicit information on appropriate specifications that could be applied to these processes to ensure that the cleaning process produces clean charge.

18. Measurements of HF in Addition to HCl The current standard contains limits for HCl emissions, and requires operators to conduct performance tests for HCl emissions. The EPA’s original intent was that HCl would serve as a surrogate for all acid gases, including HF and chlorine. Where fluorine fluxes were used along with chlorine-containing fluxes, lime coated fabric filters would effectively control HF as well as HCl so that measuring HF was not considered necessary. However, a facility that exclusively used fluorine-containing fluxes would not be required to test for HF, and if testing for HCl would have very low HCl emissions. Therefore, we are proposing amendments to clarify the conditions under which testing must be conducted for both HF and HCl. We are still confident that, where fluorine flux is used, lime coated fabric filter will effectively remove HF as well as HCl. However, in instances where there is no add-on control device and fluorine fluxes are used, we are proposing that***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **129** of **234** testing for HF be conducted. Where testing for HF and HCl must be conducted, we are proposing that EPA Method 26A, which is capable of measuring HCl and HF, be the measurement method used. We are also proposing that the emission limit for the combined HCl and HF measurements be equal to the current HCl limit, on the basis that the best performing facilities used to establish the current standard did not use any fluorine-containing fluxes. Testing for HF as well as HCl would be required at the next scheduled performance test. As an alternative to testing for HF and HCl, we are proposing that the owner or operator may choose

to determine the rate of reactive flux addition for an affected source, and may assume that, for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, all chlorine and

fluorine in the reactive fluxes added to the source are emitted

as HCl or HF. We estimate that approximately 20 facilities that are major sources use fluorine-containing fluxes. Since most of these facilities also use fluxes containing chlorine, they are required to determine HCl emissions at least once every five years. Therefore, the only additional costs would be the laboratory analysis for HF. We estimate these costs to be approximately $1,000 per test and that there are approximately 70 uncontrolled furnaces at major sources that use fluorine-***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **130** of **234** containing fluxes, and would be required to test every 5 years. Therefore, the total cost of this proposed rule revision is estimated to be $14,000 per year for the entire industry. 19. Requirements for Uncontrolled Furnaces that Do Not Presently Comply with ACGIH Ventilation Guidelines Section 63.1506(c)(1) requires that, for each affected source or emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the owner or operator must design and install a system for the capture and collection of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates as published by the American Council of Government Hygienists in chapters 3 and

5 of “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice(23 rd Edition).” However, there are no similar requirements for furnaces that are not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device. Furnaces that are uncontrolled for fugitive emissions do not account for fugitive emissions during testing that escape for example through open doors and therefore underestimate emissions during performance testing. Accordingly, we are proposing that owner/operators with uncontrolled affected sources either: (1) construct hooding for testing that meets the ACGIH guidelines, and include emissions captured by that hooding in the compliance determination, or (2) assume a capture efficiency of 66.67 percent (i.e., multiply***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **131** of **234** stack test results by a factor of 1.5) to account for emissions not captured. If the source fails to demonstrate compliance using the 66.67 percent capture efficiency approach, we are proposing that the owner/operator retest with hoods meeting the ACGIH guidelines within 180 days. These requirements would be implemented at the next scheduled performance test. We recognize that there may be situations (e.g., various furnace configurations) where constructing hooding may be problematic. Therefore, we are seeking comments and information on these proposed requirements and comments and information regarding other possible approaches that could be applied, such as emissions monitoring to address these unmeasured fugitive

emissions. We also seek comments and information on work practices that could be applied during compliance testing that would minimize these fugitive emissions, including approaches that could be adapted for different furnace configurations, and ensure that the vast majority of emissions from these units are accounted for during compliance testing.

We estimate that there are 107 uncontrolled furnaces that would be required to install hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines for testing or assume the 66.67 percent capture efficiency. We estimate that the capital cost of constructing the appropriate hooding would be $57,000 per affected furnace, resulting in a***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **132** of **234** total capital cost of up to $6,099,000 for the source category (conservatively assuming that all these furnaces choose the hooding option), and an annualized cost of up to $1,220,000 (again based on the conservative assumption that all facilities choose the option of constructing hooding). 20. “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”,

23 rd Edition The rule currently incorporates by reference “Chapters 3

and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 23 rd edition, 1998. This version of the manual is no longer in print. Therefore we are proposing that

the 23 rd or later editions to the manual may be used. 21. Clarify the Possible Number of New SAPUs The rule currently states that there can be only one existing SAPU at an aluminum plant but is not clear on whether there can be more than one new SAPU. We are proposing revisions to clarify that more than one new SAPU is allowed under the

rule. 22. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or Sealants The current definition of “clean charge” does not clearly

indicate the status of anodized aluminum. Some anodized aluminum parts contain dyes and/or sealants that contain organic***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **133** of **234** materials. Therefore, we propose to amend the definition of “clean charge” to indicate, that clean charge does not include anodized material that is coated with dyes or sealants that contain organic material.

23. Afterburner Residence Time Currently, the standard contains the following definition:

“ Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas streams in actual cubic feet per second.” At some secondary aluminum facilities, the ductwork has been included as part of the combustion chamber to increase the calculated residence time and meet the requirements to qualify for alternative limits in §63.1505(e). While this interpretation may not be consistent with the current definition, it can be shown that in some afterburners, the temperature in the duct work is adequate for D/F destruction, which would justify the

inclusion of the duct work in the calculation of residence time. We found that the basis for the residence time requirements for sweat furnaces and delacquering kilns in §63.1505 did include the refractory lined duct up to the thermocouple measurement location. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **134** of **234** definition of residence time as follows, “Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in actual cubic feet per second. The combustion zone volume

includes the reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream is exposed to the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory lined portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple.” 24. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate Some enforcement officials have interpreted the SAPU requirements such that a SAPU emission limit should be calculated based on feed/charge rates during performance test. Our interpretation has always been that allowable emissions are calculated on a daily basis using feed/charge throughput, which can change daily. Because of the confusion over the appropriate method, we are proposing clarifications that will make it clear that the daily throughput, and not the throughput at the time of the performance test, is used in the calculation of allowable emissions in each emissions unit (group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer) within the SAPU. Consistent with the existing rule, area sources of HAP would not be required to calculate, or comply with***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **135** of **234** a SAPU emission limit for PM or HCl. The owner or operator would be required to demonstrate compliance with these limits and these

calculated SAPU emission limits would be used to establish compliance in accordance with the procedures in §63.1513. 25. Changing Furnace Designations The rule currently does not address whether a facility may change furnace operating modes between group 1 controlled and group 1 uncontrolled, or between group 1 and group 2. The EPA sees no reason not to allow owner/operators to change a furnace operating mode, as long as the change is fully compliant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the rule. Because the rule does not expressly provide for such changes, we are proposing new provisions in §63.1516 that specify how owners/operators can switch furnace operating modes. The proposed amendments would apply to the following situations: 1) switching from a controlled group 1 furnace handling other than clean charge to an uncontrolled group 1 furnace handling other than clean charge, 2) switching from a controlled group 1 furnace processing other than clean charge to an uncontrolled clean charge group 1 furnace, 3) switching from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a group 2 furnace, and 4) switching from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a group 2 furnace, for furnaces capable of completely removing***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **136** of **234**

furnace content between batches. This would include furnaces with a sidewell. The proposed revisions specify the emissions testing that would be required to switch furnace designation; operating requirements, such as labeling, flux use, and scrap charging for the furnace before, during, and after switching; and requirements for records to be kept. The proposed revisions also would limit changes in furnace operating mode to occur no more frequently than once every 6 months, except situations wherein control device maintenance is being performed. When following the substantive and procedural requirements of this rule, the owners/operators would be able to turn off associated air pollution control devices. Because of this, we estimate an annual savings of $1,100,000, based on an estimate of controls for 50 furnaces being turned off for 6 months per year. We estimate additional testing costs of $500,000 per year. Therefore, we estimate the net cost to be -$600,000 per year (a savings of $600,000 per year). We request comment on our estimates of avoided costs and testing costs. 26. ACGIH Hooding Requirements The current rule requires that emissions capture and collection systems be designed consistent with the ACGIH industrial ventilation guidelines. Industry representatives point out that the manual contains “recommended” ventilation Comment [A12]: Suggest soliticing comment.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **137** of **234** practices and that EPA has inappropriately required compliance with the guidelines. For example, the guidance establish a design criteria for determining minimum hood dimensions and flow; however, the relevant equation is not appropriate for determining minimum flow requirements for “oversized” hoods that are used in the secondary aluminum industry. The equations for sizing hoods in Chapter 3 of the 23 rd edition were said to overpredict the required flow rates. According to industry representatives, the ACGIH manual should be used only as a guideline for judging the effectiveness of the hoods and that engineering evaluations of hoods can be performed similarly to those for other engineered processes. Also, there may be other rules and ventilation guidelines that are appropriate and could

be used. We are inviting comments on alternatives to the ACGIH guidelines or other suggestions for revising the rule to increase flexibility for the industry while ensuring that capture and collection systems are adequately designed and operated to insure that emissions are captured and fugitive emissions minimized. In particular, we would be interested in obtaining information on minimum face velocity, elimination of visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other suitable parameter(s) to determine capture effectiveness.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **138** of **234** 27. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces The EPA’s current interpretation of the existing rule is that dross only furnaces at area sources are not subject to D/F emission limitations and therefore not subject to the MACT operating parameter limitations. Industry representatives have inquired about the requirements for a furnace processing scrap

on some occasions and then dross at other times. We point out that dross only furnaces have been defined as furnaces that only process dross. A furnace that processes scrap may be a group 1 furnace or a group 2 furnace. Operators of group 1 furnaces have the option of conducting performance tests under different operating conditions to establish operating parameters applicable to different combinations of types of charge and fluxing rates. We have added language to clarify this in the proposed amendments. We note that dross is not clean charge, as defined, and thus any group 1 furnace processing dross is subject to limitations on emissions of D/F, and other requirements for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge. 28. Annual Hood Inspections Industry representatives have stated that our interpretation that annual hood inspections include an annual hood flow measurement represents an unnecessary cost burden for each***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **139** of **234** regulated facility. They 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 for leaks and possible verification of fan amperage. We disagree that these measures alone are sufficient to verify that flow is sufficient and that annual hood flow measurement represents an unnecessary cost burden. We are proposing changes to the rule to clarify that annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements. These flow rate measurements supplement the effectiveness of the required visual inspection for leaks (which may be difficult or uncertain for certain sections of ductwork), to reveal the presence of obstructions in the ductwork, confirm that fan efficiency has not declined, and provide a measured value for

air flow. 29. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources While the emissions standards that apply to area sources is evident in the current rule, the applicable operating, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements are***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **140** of **234** 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 standards apply to area sources. 30. Altering Parameters during Testing with New Sources of Scrap Currently, the rule requires that when a process parameter or add-on air pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the value or range established during a performance test, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action. However, when the owner or operator is conducting performance testing with a new type of scrap, it may be necessary to deviate from the previously established values. It was never our intent to prevent owners/operators from establishing new or revised operating parameters, if necessary to process different types of scrap. Accordingly, we are modifying the rule to allow deviations from the values and ranges in the OM&M plan during performance testing, provided that the site-specific test plan documents the intent to establish new or revised parametric limits. 31. Controlled Furnaces that are Temporarily Idled***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **141** of **234** 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 operating costs. Accordingly, we are modifying the rule to allow for the discontinued use of control

devices for these furnaces that will remain idle for 24 hours or longer. E. Compliance dates We are proposing that existing facilities must comply with all changes proposed in this action upon promulgation of the final rule. All new or reconstructed facilities must comply with all requirements in this rule upon startup. **V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts**

A. What are the affected sources ? We estimate that there are 161 secondary aluminum production facilities that will be affected by this proposed rule, of which 53 are major sources of HAPs, and 108 are area sources. We estimate that 10 secondary aluminum facilities have co-located primary aluminum operations. The affected sources at***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **142** of **234** 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. B. What are the air quality impacts? No reductions are being proposed to numerical emissions limits. The proposed amendments will add work practices for periods of startup and shutdown to help ensure that emissions from affected sources continue to be minimized. The proposed amendments would help to clarify the existing provisions and would help to improve compliance. The proposed amendment to limit and require testing of HF emissions for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces using fluorine fluxes is not expected to significantly reduce HF emissions but will help to ensure that HF emissions remain low. We believe that the proposed revisions would result in little or no emissions reductions. Therefore, no air quality impacts are expected. C. What are the cost impacts? We estimate that there will be minor cost impacts associated with these proposed requirements. We estimate the total cost of the proposed amendments to be up to approximately $614,000 per year. Our estimate includes an annualized cost of Comment [A13]: Can you add what the cost per facility will be?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **143** of **234** 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 $14,000 for testing for HF on uncontrolled furnaces that are already testing for HCl. Finally, we estimate cost savings of $600,000 per year for furnaces that switch furnace categories and turn off their control devices. Our estimate is based on 50 furnaces turning off their controls for approximately 6 months every year. This savings is net of the cost of testing to demonstrate that these furnaces remain in compliance with emission limits after their

control devices have been turned off. D. What are the economic impacts? Because there are only minor cost impacts, we do not expect economic impacts.

E. What are the benefits? We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as a result from these proposed amendments. However, we think that the proposed amendments would help to improve the clarity of the rule, which can help to improve compliance and help to ensure that emissions are kept to a minimum. Certain Comment [A14]: Why is $11,000 per facility considered a “minor” cost, especially when there are no quantifiable emissions reductions associated with this?

Comment [A15]: Is this cost savings explained in further detail somewhere?***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **144** of **234** 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***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **145** of **234** 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 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)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **146** of **234**

**Data Element Definition** Malfunction Emissions 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 (ft 3 /sec) REVISED Exit Gas Temperature Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (F) REVISED Exit Gas Velocity Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec) REVISED Facility Category Code Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source REVISED Facility Name Enter revised Facility Name here REVISED Facility Registry Identifier Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility Registry System REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here REVISED Latitude Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees) REVISED Longitude Enter revised 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)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **147** of **234**

**Data Element Definition** 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.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **148** of **234** 5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility. We request

that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Access files, which are provided on the RTR Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. **VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory

Review. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this

action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection requirements in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq

. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **149** of **234** prepared by the EPA has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2453.01. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart

B. We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Secondary Aluminum Production source category in the form of [To be completed on development of supporting statement] For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **150** of **234** assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,142 and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused an

exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the

affirmative defense. Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **151** of **234** emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to

assert the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of instances in which source operators might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. With respect to the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, we estimate the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden after the effective date of the proposed rule for affirmative defense to be 30 hours at a cost of $3,142. We expect to gather information on such events in the

future and will revise this estimate as better information becomes available. We estimate 161 regulated entities are currently subject to subpart RRR. The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments to subpart RRR is estimated to be $1,384,821 per year. This includes 1,725 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $165,521 per year, and total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $1,219,300 per year. The total burden for the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **152** of **234** is estimated to be 271 labor hours per year at an annual cost of $12,231. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICRs are approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numbers for the approved information collection requirements contained in the final

rules. To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. Submit any

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to

submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **153** of **234**

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL

REGISTER ], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of lessthan 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **154** of **234** is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has the NAICS code 331314, the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees according to the SBA small business standards

definitions. After considering the economic impacts of these proposed changes on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 31 entities affected by this proposed rule, ten of them are small. Of these ten, only one is estimated to experience a positive cost as a result of the rule, and that one small entity will have an impact that is an annualized cost of less than 0.01 percent of its sales. For more information, please refer to the Economic and Small Business Analysis that is

in the docket. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To reduce the impacts, we are correcting certain provisions of the rule as well as proposing revisions to help clarify the rule’s intent. We have also proposed new provisions that increase industry’s flexibility as to how they operate group 1 furnaces. We continue to be interested in the potential***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **155** of **234** impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **156** of **234** various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned or operated by State governments, and, because no new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed rule will supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments. This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no secondary aluminum production facilities that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **157** of **234** significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Nevertheless, the public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to HAP from Secondary Aluminum

sources. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined under Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business Comment [A16]: Please move to main body of the preamble if EPA is interested in soliciting comment on this issue; otherwise, please remove.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **158** of **234** practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking does not involve use of any new

technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United

States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **159** of **234** disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income or indigenous populations. These proposed standards may improve public health and welfare, now and in the future, by limiting HAP emissions that may contribute to adverse environmental and human health impacts. The control of HAP emissions associated with the rule are expected to benefit all populations living near the sources affected by this rule. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this rule to determine if there is an overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations near the sources such that they may currently face disproportionate risks from pollutants that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed HAP pollution from the sources affected by this rulemaking; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or

communities. The major source demographic analysis shows that while most demographic categories are below or within 10 percent of their corresponding national averages, the African American percentage***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **160** of **234** within 3 miles of any source affected by this rulemaking exceeds the national average by 3 percentage points (16 percent versus 13 percent), or +23 percent. The area source sector-wide analysis of near source populations reveals that several demographic categories exceed 10 percent of their corresponding national averages: Minority by +16 percentage points (44% vs. 28%), or +57%; Hispanic or Latino by +17 percentage points (34% vs. 17%), or +100%; Without a High School Diploma by +6 percentage points (16% vs. 10%), or +60%, and; Below National Poverty Line: +7 percentage points (21% vs. 14%), or +50%. The facility-level demographic analysis results and the details concerning their development are presented in the OAQPS Environmental Justice Analytical Team Report, Secondary Aluminum – Area Sources, and OAQPS Environmental Justice Analytical Team Report, Secondary Aluminum – Major Sources, copies of which are available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010-0544).***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **161** of **234 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:**  **Secondary Aluminum Production**

**List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63** Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

____________________________ Dated:

____________________________ Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **162** of **234** For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to

be amended as follows: **PART 63—[AMENDED]** 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as

follows: **Authority:** 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 2. Section 63.1502 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to

read as follows: **§63.1502 Incorporation by reference.** (a) * * * (1) “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,” American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998), IBR approved for §63.1506(c),

and

* * * * *

3. Section 63.1503 is amended by: a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions of “affirmative defense,” “bale breaker,” “capture and collection system,” “HCl/HF” and “HF”; and b. Revising the definitions of “aluminum scrap shredder,” “chips,” “clean charge,” “cover flux,” “Group 2 furnace,” “HCl,”***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **163** of **234** “residence time,” “scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln” and “secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU).” **§63.1503 Definitions.**

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Aluminum scrap shredder means a high speed or low speed unit that crushes, grinds, granulates or breaks aluminum scrap into a more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln , or furnace. A bale breaker is not an aluminum scrap shredder.

Bale breaker means a device used to break apart a bale of aluminum scrap for further processing. Bale breakers are not used to crush, grind, shear or break aluminum scrap into more uniform size pieces. Capture and collection system means the system of hood(s), duct system and fan used to collect a contaminant at or near its source and transport the contaminated air to the air cleaning

device. Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of aluminum scrap, typically below 1 1/4 inches in any dimension,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **164** of **234** primarily generated by turning, milling, boring, and machining of aluminum parts. Clean charge means furnace charge materials, including molten aluminum; T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; aluminum scrap known by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants; uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum scrap dried at 343 °C (650 °F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/decoated at 482 °C (900 °F) or higher, and runaround scrap. Anodized aluminum that contains dyes or sealants with organic compounds is not clean charge.

Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace , without agitation of the molten aluminum, for the purpose of preventing oxidation. Any flux added to a rotary furnace or other furnace that uses a molten metal pump or other device to circulate the aluminum is not a cover flux. Any reactive flux cannot be a cover flux. Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAPcontaining/non-HAP-generating gases or agents. Pots used to transport metal to customers are not furnaces.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **165** of **234**

HCl means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of hydrogen chloride that serve as a surrogate measure of the total emissions of the HAPs hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and chlorine. For an uncontrolled group 1 furnace that uses a flux that contains fluorine, HCl means the combined emissions of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. HCl/HF means the combined emissions of HCl and HF from an uncontrolled group 1 furnace that uses one or more fluxes containing chlorine and/or fluorine.

HF means hydrogen fluoride.

Residence time means, for an afterburner , the duration of time required for gases to pass through the afterburner

combustion zone. Residence time is calculated by dividing the

afterburner combustion zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in actual cubic feet per

second. The combustion zone volume includes the reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream is exposed to the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory lined portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple. Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit used primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint, lacquer, ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **166** of **234**

scrap (including used beverage containers) prior to melting, or that separates aluminum foil from paper and plastic in scrap. Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU)

. An existing SAPU means all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line

fluxers within a secondary aluminum production facility

. Each existing group 1 furnace or existing in-line fluxer is

considered an emission unit within a secondary aluminum processing unit

. A new SAPU means any combination of individual group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a secondary aluminum processing facility which either were constructed or reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently redesignated as new emission units pursuant to §63.1505(k)(6). Each of the group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new

SAPU is considered an emission unit within that secondary aluminum processing unit

. A secondary aluminum production facility may have more than one new SAPU

. * * * * * 4. Section 63.1505 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv); b. By revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv); c. By revising paragraph (i)(4); d. By revising paragraph (j)(1); e. By revising paragraph (k);***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **167** of **234** f. By revising paragraph (k)(1); g. By revising paragraph (k)(2); and h. By revising paragraph (k)(3)to read as follows:

**§63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission units.** 

* * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (iv) 0.40 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.80 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major

source.

* * * * * (e) * * * (1) * * * (iv) 0.75 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (1.50 lb per ton) of feed/charge from a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major

source.

* * * * * (i) * * * (4) 0.20 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl/HF per ton) of feed/charge or, if the furnace is equipped with an add-on air***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **168** of **234** pollution control device, 10 percent of the uncontrolled HCl/HF emissions, by weight, for a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source.

* * * * * (j) * * * (1) 0.02 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.04 lb of HCl/HF per ton) of feed/charge;

* * * * * (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the compliance date established by §63.1501, the owner or operator must comply with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM and HCl/HF in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with the emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph (k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area

source. (1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average

emissions of PM in excess of:***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **169** of **234** 

#     ) 1 (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti ti C PM

PM 

##  

  



Where,

L tiPM = The PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in paragraph (i)(1) and (2) of this section for a group 1 furnace or in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for an in-line fluxer;

T ti = The mass of feed/charge for 24 hours for individual emission unit i; and

L cPM = The daily PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour PM emission limit applicable to the SAPU. Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the

PM limit. (2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of HCl/HF in excess of: 

##     2) Eq. ( T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiHCl/HF cHCl/HF 

#  

  



Where,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **170** of **234**

L tiHCl /HF = The HCl/HF emission limit for individual emission unit i in paragraph (i)(4) of this section for a group 1 furnace or in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for an in-line fluxer; and

L cHCl /HF = The daily HCl/HF emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour HCl/HF emission limit applicable to the SAPU. Note: In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the HCl/HF limit. (3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of D/F in excess of: 

##     3) (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiD/F cD/F 

#  

  



Where,

L tiD/F = The D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 furnace; and

L cD/F = The daily D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour D/F emission limit applicable to the SAPU. Note: Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **171** of **234**

* * * * * 5. Section 63.1506 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph (a)(1); b. By adding paragraph (a)(5); c. By revising paragraph (c)(1); d. By revising paragraph (g)(5); e. By revising paragraph (k)(3); f. By revising paragraph (m)(4); g. By revising paragraph (n)(1); and h. By adding paragraph (q)to read as follows:

**§63.1506 Operating requirements.**

(a) * * * (1) On and after the compliance date established by §63.1501, the owner or operator must operate all new and existing affected sources and control equipment according to the requirements in this section. The affected sources, and their associated control equipment, listed in §63.1500(c)(1)through(4) of this subpart that are located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area source are subject to the operating requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (m), (n), (p), and (q) of this section.;

* * * * ****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **172** of **234** (5) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.

* * * * * (c) * * * (1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in the “Industrial

Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice” 23 rd edition or later (ACGIH Guidelines) (incorporated by reference in §63.1502 of this subpart);

* * * * * (g) * * *(5) For a continuous injection device, maintain freeflowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **173** of **234** maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance test.

* * * * * (k) * * *(3) For a continuous injection system, maintain freeflowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance test.

* * * * * (m) * * *(4) For a continuous lime injection system, maintain freeflowing lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance test.

* * * * * (n) * * * (1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and fluorine flux addition rate for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test at or below the average rate established during the performance test.

* * * * * (q) Work practices for periods of startup and shutdown

. During periods of startup and shutdown the owner or operator***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **174** of **234** must meet the requirements listed in (q)(1) through (7) of this

section. (1) Use natural gas or other clean fuels such as propane, kerosene or number 2 fuel oil during startup, which begins when a dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, or group 1 furnace begins ignition and equipment warming. (2) All associated exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air pollution control devices must be engaged and operated whenever fuel is fired to the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this

section. (3) Startup ends at the point that scrap or charge

materials are introduced into the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this section and the process is considered to be in normal operating mode. (4) Shutdown begins when an owner or operator halts the introduction of scrap or charge into and removes all scrap or charge from the affected sources listed in (q)(1). (5) During shutdown, any associated exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air pollution control devices must remain engaged and operating until the temperature of the exhaust gases fall below 200 °F at which point shutdown ends. If a furnace will be partially shutdown at the end of a cycle for at least 24 hours and will burn clean fuel only, will not receive new charge, will***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **175** of **234** not receive flux, and will not receive alloying materials, then the applicable exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air pollution control devices may be temporarily turned off. Before any new charge is added to the furnace, the applicable exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air pollution control devices must be engaged and operated. Any molten aluminum remaining in the furnace must

be covered to reduce the likelihood of emissions from the

furnace while the furnace is idle. When the furnace resumes operation, it must operate in its current furnace operating

mode. (6) For the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this section, the owner or operator must comply with all applicable emissions standards in §63.1505 at all time except for startup and shutdown periods. (7) The owner or operator must develop a written plan that describes the procedures to be followed for operating and maintaining the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this section during periods of startup and shutdown. Submit the plan to the applicable permitting authority for approval within [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RULE].

* * * * * 6. Section 63.1510 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph (a);***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **176** of **234** b. By revising paragraph (b); c. By revising paragraph (b)(5); d. By revising paragraph (d)(2); e. By revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii); f. By adding paragraph (i)(4); g. By revising paragraph (j)(4); h. By revising paragraph (n)(1); i. By revising paragraph (o)(1); j. By revising paragraph (o)(1)(ii); k. By revising paragraph (t); l. By adding paragraph (t)(2)(i); m. By adding paragraph (t)(2)(ii); n. By revising paragraph (t)(4); and o. By revising paragraph (t)(5)to read as follows: **§63.1510 Monitoring requirements.** (a) Summary . On and after the compliance date established by §63.1501, the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or emission unit must monitor all control equipment and processes according to the requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements for each type of affected source and emission unit are summarized in Table 3 to this subpart. Area sources are subject to monitoring requirements for those affected sources listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4)of this subpart,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **177** of **234** and associated control equipment as required by paragraphs (b) through (k), (n) through (q), and (s) through (w) of this section, including but not limited to: (1) The operation, maintenance and monitoring plan required in paragraph (b) of this section pertaining to each affected source listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart, (2) The labeling requirements described in paragraph (c) of this section pertaining to group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, (3) The requirements for capture and collection described in paragraph (d) of this section for each controlled affected source listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart, (4) The feed charge weight monitoring requirements described in paragraph (e) of this section applicable to group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and thermal chip dryers, (5) The bag leak detector requirements described in paragraph (f) of this section applicable to all bag leak detectors installed on fabric filters and lime injected fabric

filters used to control each affected source listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **178** of **234** (6) The requirements for afterburners described in paragraph (g) of this section applicable to sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, (7) The requirements for monitoring fabric filter inlet temperature described in paragraph (h) of this section for all lime injected fabric filters used to control group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, (8) The requirements for monitoring lime injection described in paragraph (i) of this section applicable to all lime injected fabric filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, (9) The requirements for monitoring total reactive flux injection described in paragraph (j) of this section for all group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, (10) The requirements described in paragraph (k) of this section for thermal chip dryers, (11) The requirements described in paragraph (n) of this section for controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean charge,***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **179** of **234** (12) The requirements described in paragraph (o) of this section for uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean charge, (13) The requirements described in paragraph (p) of this section for scrap inspection programs for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, (14) The requirements described in paragraph (q) of this section for monitoring scrap contamination level for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, (15) The requirements described in paragraph (s) of this section secondary aluminum processing units, limited to only to compliance with limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, (16) The requirements described in paragraph (t) of this section for secondary aluminum processing units limited only to compliance with limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, (17) The requirements described in paragraph (u) of this section for secondary aluminum processing units limited only to compliance with limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, (18) The requirements described in paragraph (v) of this section for alternative lime addition monitoring methods***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **180** of **234** applicable to lime coated fabric filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, and (19) The requirements described in paragraph (w) of this section for approval of alternate methods for monitoring group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and

sweat furnaces and associated control devices for the control of D/F emissions.

* * * * * (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan

. The owner or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing affected source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator of an existing affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority no later than the compliance date established by §63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority within 90 days after a successful initial performance test under §63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date established by §63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is required. The plan must be accompanied by a***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **181** of **234** written certification by the owner or operator that the OM&M plan satisfies all requirements of this section and is otherwise consistent with the requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must comply with all of the provisions of the OM&M plan as submitted to the permitting authority, unless and until the plan is revised in accordance with the following procedures. If the permitting authority determines at any time after receipt of the OM&M plan that any revisions of the plan are necessary to satisfy the requirements of this section or this subpart, the owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised plan. If the owner or operator determines that any other revisions of the OM&M plan are necessary, such revisions will not become effective until the owner or operator submits a description of the changes and a revised plan incorporating them to the permitting authority. The owner or operator must not begin operating under the revised plan until approval is received or until after 60 days, whichever is sooner. Each plan must contain the following information:

* * * * * (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device parameters, including lime injection rates, procedures for annual inspections of afterburners, and if applicable, the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **182** of **234** procedure to be used for determining charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a measurement device is not used.

* * * * * (d) * * * (2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in accordance with the operating requirements in §63.1506(c) and record the results of each inspection. This inspection shall include a volumetric flow rate measurement

taken at a location in the ductwork downstream of the hoods which will be representative of the actual volumetric flow rate without the interference of leaks, the introduction of ambient air for cooling, or other ducts manifolded from other hoods. The measurement shall be performed using EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

* * * * * (f) * * * (1) * * * (ii) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the manufacturer’s operating instructions.

* * * * * (i) * * ****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **183** of **234** (4) At least once per month, verify that the lime injection rate in lb/hr is no less than 90 percent of the lime injection rate used to demonstrate compliance during your performance

test.

* * * * * (j) * * * (4) Calculate and record the total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using the procedure in §63.1512(o). For solid flux that is added intermittently, record the amount added for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using the procedures in §63.1512(o).

* * * * * (n) * * * (1) Record in an operating log for each tap of a sidewell furnace that the level of molten metal was above the top of the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless the furnace hearth was also equipped with an add-on control device. If visual inspection of the molten metal level is not possible, the molten metal level must be determined using physical measurement methods. (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the operational standards in §63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **184** of **234** reporting period. Each certification must contain the information in §63.1516(b)(2)(iii).

* * * * * (o) * * * (1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultationwith the responsible permitting authority, a written sitespecific monitoring plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the permitting authority as part of the OM&M plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must contain sufficient procedures to ensure continuing compliance with all applicable emission limits and must demonstrate, based on documented test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl (and, for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF), and D/F and the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM, HCl (and, for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF), and D/F that will be emitted from the furnace. This may be determined by conducting performance tests and monitoring operating parameters while charging the furnace with feed/charge materials containing the highest anticipated levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest anticipated rate. If the permitting authority determines that any revisions of the site-specific monitoring plan are necessary to meet the requirements of this section or this subpart, the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **185** of **234** owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised plan to the permitting authority.

* * * * * (ii) The permitting authority will review and approve or disapprove a proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based on whether the plan contains sufficient provisions to ensure continuing compliance with applicable emission limits and demonstrates, based on documented test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF and the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF that will be emitted from the furnace. Subject to permitting agency approval of the OM&M plan, this may be determined by conducting performance tests and monitoring operating parameters while charging the furnace with feed/charge materials containing the highest anticipated levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest anticipated rate.

* * * * * (t) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Except as provided in paragraph (u) of this section, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **186** of **234** furnaces, HCl/HF for each secondary aluminum processing unit on a daily basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average, the owner or operator must:

* * * * * (2) * * * (i) Where no performance test has been conducted, for a particular emission unit, because the owner of operator has, with the approval of the permitting authority, chosen to determine the emission rate of an emission unit by testing a representative unit, in accordance with §63.1511(f), the owner of operator shall use the emission rate determined from the representative unit in the SAPU emission rate calculation required in §63.1510(t)(4). (ii) If the owner or operator has not conducted a performance test for HCl/HF for a group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer, in accordance with the provisions of §63.1512(d)(3), §63.1512(e)(3), or §63.1512(h)(2), the calculation required in §63.1510(t)(4) to determine SAPU wide HCl/HF emissions shall be made under the assumption that all reactive flux added to the

emission unit is emitted as HCl or HF.

* * * * * (4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using Equation 4:***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **187** of **234** 

##     4) (Eq. T ER T E n

1 i i n

1 i i i day 

#  

  



Where,

E day = The daily PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF emission rate for the secondary aluminum processing unit for the 24-hour period;

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

ER i = The measured emission rate for emission unit i as determined in the performance test (lb/ton or μg/Mg of feed/charge); and n = The number of emission units in the secondary aluminum processing unit. (5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for each pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for each pollutant over the 3 most recent consecutive days and dividing by 3. The SAPU is in compliance with an applicable emission limit if the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for each pollutant is no greater than the applicable SAPU emission limit determined in accordance with §63.1505(k)(1)-(3).

* * * * * 7. Section 63.1511 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph (a);***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **188** of **234** b. By revising paragraph (b); c. By revising paragraph (b)(1); d. By adding paragraph (b)(6); e. By revising paragraph (c)(9); f. By adding paragraph (f)(6); and g. By adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows: **§63.1511 Performance test/compliance demonstration general requirements.**  (a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance test required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare a site-specific test plan which satisfies all of the requirements, and must obtain approval of the plan pursuant to the procedures, set forth in §63.7(c). Performance tests

shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. (b) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or operator must demonstrate initial compliance with each applicable emission, equipment, work practice, or operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and report***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **189** of **234** the results in the notification of compliance status report as described in §63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any existing affected source for which an initial performance test is required to demonstrate compliance must conduct this initial performance test no later than the date for compliance established by §63.1501(a). The owner or operator of any new affected source for which an initial performance test is required must conduct this initial performance test within 180 days after the date for compliance established by §63.1501(b). Except for the date by which the performance test must be conducted, the owner or operator must conduct each performance test in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in §63.7(c). Owners or operators of affected sources located at facilities which are area sources are subject only to those performance testing requirements pertaining to D/F. Owners or operators of sweat furnaces meeting the specifications of §63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a performance test. (1) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest rate of production expected to be processed and using the highest reactive fluxing rate expected to be processed in controlled mode. Any subsequent performance tests for the purposes of establishing new or revised parametric***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **190** of **234** limits shall be allowed upon pre-approval from the permitting authorities as specified in the site-specific test plan. These new parametric settings shall be used to demonstrate compliance for the period being tested.

* * * * * (6) Apply paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section for each pollutant separately if a different production rate, charge material or, if applicable, reactive fluxing rate would apply and thereby result in a higher expected emissions rate for that pollutant.

* * * * * (c) * * * (9) Method 26A for the concentration of HCl and HF. Where a lime-injected fabric filter is used as the control device to comply with the 90 percent reduction standard, the owner or operator must measure the fabric filter inlet concentration of HCl at a point before lime is introduced to the system. Test to measure HCl and HF must be conducted at the next required performance test.

* * * * * (f) * * * (6) All 3 separate runs of a performance test must be

conducted on the same unit.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **191** of **234**

* * * * * (g) * * * (5) If the owner or operator wants to conduct a new performance test and establish different operating parameter values, they must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section and submit a revised site specific test plan and receive approval in accordance with paragraph (a)

of this section.

* * * * * 8. Section 63.1512 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph (c); b. By revising paragraph (d)(3); c. By revising paragraph (e)(1); d. By revising paragraph (e)(2); e. By revising paragraph (e)(3); f. By adding paragraphs (e)(4); g. By adding paragraphs (e)(5); h. By revising paragraph (h)(1); i. By revising paragraph (h)(2); j. By revising paragraph (j); k. By revising paragraph (j)(1); l. By revising paragraph (j)(2); m. By revising paragraph (j)(3)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **192** of **234** n. By revising paragraph (n)(1); o. By revising paragraph (o)(1); p. By revising paragraph (p); and q. By revising paragraph (p)(2)to read as follows: **§63.1512 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements and procedures.** 

* * * * * (c) Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln. The owner or operator must conduct performance tests to measure emissions of THC, D/F, HCl/HF, and PM at the outlet of the control device.

* * * * * (d) * * * (3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an emission test for HCl/HF.

* * * * * (e) * * * (1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge material, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure emissions of PM, HCl/HF, and D/F (2) If the***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **193** of **234** group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure emissions of PM and HF and HCl/HF. A D/F test is not required. Each test must be conducted while the group 1 furnace (including a melting/holding furnace) processes only clean charge. (3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an emission test for HF or HCl. (4) When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the owner or operator must either: (i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or (ii) Assume a 67 percent capture efficiency for the furnace exhaust (i.e., multiply emissions measured at the furnace exhaust outlet by 1.5) if hooding does not meet ACGIH guidelines. If the source fails to demonstrate compliance using the 67 percent capture efficiency assumption, the owner or operator must re-test with a hood that meets the ACGIH Guidelines within 90 days, or petition the permitting authority that such hoods are impracticable and propose testing procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **194** of **234** (iii) Comply with the requirements of paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section at the next required performance test. (5) When testing a new uncontrolled furnace the owner or operator must either: (i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or (ii) Petition the permitting authority that such hoods are impracticable and propose testing procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions.

* * * * * (h) * * * (1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer that uses reactive flux materials must conduct a performance test to measure emissions of HCl/HF and PM or otherwise demonstrate compliance in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If the in-line fluxer is equipped with an add-on control device,

the emissions must be measured at the outlet of the control

device. (2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which reactive chlorine flux is added to an in-line fluxer and assume, for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that all chlorine/fluorine in the reactive flux added to the in-line fluxer is emitted as HCl/HF. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an emission test for HCl/HF. If the owner or operator of any in-line flux box which has no ventilation***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **195** of **234** ductwork manifolded to any outlet or emission control device chooses to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for HCl/HF by limiting use of reactive chlorine/fluorine flux and assuming that all chlorine/fluorine in the flux is emitted as HCl/HF, compliance with the HCl/HF limit shall also constitute compliance with the emission limit for PM, and no separate emission test for PM is required. In this case, the owner or operator of the unvented in-line flux box must utilize the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the in-line flux boxes when determining the total emissions for any SAPU which includes

the flux box. * * * * * (j) Secondary aluminum processing unit. The owner or operator must conduct performance tests as described in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section. The results of the performance tests are used to establish emission rates in lb/ton of feed/charge for PM, HCl/HF and μg TEQ/Mg of feed/charge for D/F emissions from each emission unit. These emission rates are used for compliance monitoring in the calculation of the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emission rates using the equation in §63.1510(t). A performance test is required for: * *

* * * (1) * * * (i) Emissions of HCl/HF (for the emission limit); or (ii) The mass flow rate of HCl/HF at the inlet to and outlet from the control device (for the percent reduction standard).***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **196** of **234**

* * * * * (2) * * * (i) Emissions of HCl/HF (for the emission limit); or (ii) The mass flow rate of HCl/HF at the inlet to and outlet from the control device (for the percent reduction standard).

* * * * * (3) Each in-line fluxer to measure emissions of PM and HCl/HF.

* * * * * (n) * * * (1) Continuously measure and record the temperature at the inlet to the lime-injected fabric filter every 15 minutes during the HCl/HF and D/F performance tests;

* * * * * (o) * * * (1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl/HF and D/F tests, determine and record the 15- minute block average weights, and calculate and record the total weight of the gaseous or liquid reactive flux for the 3 test

runs; * * * * ****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **197** of **234** (p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected source or emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter system must use these procedures during the HCl/HF and D/F tests to establish an operating parameter value for the feeder setting and lime injection rate for each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.

* * * * * (2) Record the feeder setting and lime injection rate for the 3 test runs. If the feed rate setting and lime injection rates vary during the runs, determine and record the average feed rate and lime injection rate from the 3 runs.

* * * * * 9. Section 63.1513 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph (b) b. By revising paragraph (b)(1); c. By revising paragraph (e)(1); d. By revising paragraph (e)(2); and e. By revising paragraph (e)(3)to read as follows: **§63.1513 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements and procedures.** 

* * * * ****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **198** of **234** (b) PM, HCl/HF and D/F emission limits. (1) Use Equation 7 of this section to determine compliance with an emission limit for PM or HCl/HF:

7) (Eq. P K Q C E l    Where: E = Emission rate of PM or HCl/HF, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed; C = Concentration of PM or HCl, g/dscm (gr/dscf); Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);

K 1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and P = Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr). * * * * * (e) * * * (1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM emissions for a secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit (E cPM ) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (L cPM ) calculated using Equation 1 in §63.1505(k). 

#     9) (Eq. T E n

1 i ti n

1 i c PM 

#  

  

 ti ti T E PM

Where,

E cPM = The mass-weighted PM emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit;***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **199** of **234**

E tiPM = Measured PM emissions for individual emission unit, or group of co-controlled emission units, i;

T ti = The average feed rate for individual emission unit i during the operating cycle or performance test period, or the sum of the average feed rates for all emission units in the group of co-controlled emission unit i; andn= The number of individual emission units, and groups of cocontrolled emission units in the secondary aluminum processing

unit. (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl/HF emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit (E cHCl/HF ) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (L cHCl/HF ) calculated using Equation 2 in §63.1505(k). 

##     ) 10 (Eq. T T E n

1 i ti n

1 i ti / cHCl/HF 

#  

  

 HF tiHCl E

Where,

E cHCl/HF = The mass-weighted HCl and HF emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit; and

E tiHCl/HF = Measured HCl/HF emissions for individual emission unit, or group of co-controlled emission units i.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **200** of **234** (3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit is less than or equal to the emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit (L cD/F ) calculated using Equation 3 in §63.1505(k). 

#     11) (Eq. T T E E n

1 i ti n

1 i ti ti cD/F D/F 

#  

  



Where,

E cD/F = The mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit; and

E tiD/F = Measured D/F emissions for individual emission unit, or group of co-controlled emission units i.

* * * * *

10. Section 63.1514 is revised to read as follows:

**§63.1514 Change of Furnace Classification.** (a) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing other than clean charge to group 1 uncontrolled furnace processing other than clean charge

. An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes must conduct performance tests to demonstrate to the delegated***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **201** of **234** permitting authority that compliance can be achieved under both modes. Operating parameters relevant to each mode of operation must be established during the performance test.

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(d) with the capture system and control device operating normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed

in controlled mode.

(ii)Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) Operators of major sources must conduct additional performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e) without operating a control device.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **202** of **234** (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with scrap of the highest level of contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of §63.1512(e)(4) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be established during these tests.

(iv) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(3) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(d) with the capture system and control device operating normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processes and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed in controlled mode.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **203** of **234** (ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(4) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e) without operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with scrap of the highest level of contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of §63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be established during these tests. In addition the number of cycles of furnace operation with scrap of the highest level of contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode that elapsed prior to the performance test(s) conducted in uncontrolled mode is established as a parameter.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **204** of **234** (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(5) To switch modes of operation from uncontrolled to controlled, the owner or operator must, before charging scrap to

the furnace that exceeds the contaminant level established for uncontrolled mode,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled operation,

(ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device,

and

(iii) Begin lime addition to the control device at the rate

established for controlled mode.

(6) To switch modes of operation from controlled to uncontrolled, the owner or operator must, before turning off or bypassing the control device,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled operation,

(ii) Charge scrap with a level of contamination no greater than that used in the performance test for uncontrolled furnaces for the number of charge to tap cycles that elapsed with scrap***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **205** of **234** of a contamination level no higher than that used in the uncontrolled mode performance test(s), and

(iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the flux addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance

test.

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of §63.1517, the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode switch (controlled to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to controlled), the time the switch is initiated, and the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device to bypass or bypass to control device.

(b) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing other than clean charge and to group 1 uncontrolled furnace processing clean charge . An owner or operator wishing to operate under controlled mode with other than clean charge and uncontrolled mode with clean charge must conduct performance tests to demonstrate to the delegated permitting authority that compliance can be achieved in both modes. Operating parameters relevant to each mode of operation must be established during the performance test.

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **206** of **234** §63.1512 with the capture system and control device operating normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected in controlled mode.

(ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512 without operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles with clean charge.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of §63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **207** of **234** (iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be established during these tests.

(iv) Emissions of D/F during this test must not exceed 1.5 μg TEQ/Mg of feed/charge processed, or this mode of operation is

not allowed.

(v) The emission factors for PM and HCl/HF for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be

determined.

(3) Operators of area sources must conduct additional performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512 with the capture system and control device operating normally.

(i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected

in controlled mode. (ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **208** of **234** (iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(4) Operators of area sources must conduct additional performance tests for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e) without operating a control device.

(i) Testing may be conducted at any time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles with scrap of the highest level of contamination at the expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode at the highest throughput expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.

(ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of §63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.

(iii) Parameters for flux rate must be established during these tests. In addition the number of cycles of furnace operation with scrap of the highest level of contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode that elapsed prior to the performance test(s) conducted in uncontrolled mode is established as a parameter.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **209** of **234** (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(5) To switch modes of operation from uncontrolled to controlled, the owner or operator must, before charging scrap to

the furnace that exceeds the contaminant level established for uncontrolled mode,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled operation, (ii)Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, and

(iii) Begin lime addition to the control device at the rate

established for controlled mode.

(6) To switch modes of operation from controlled to uncontrolled, the owner or operator must, before turning off or bypassing the control device,

(i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled operation,

(ii) Charge clean charge for the number of charge to tap cycles that elapsed before the uncontrolled mode performance test was conducted, and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **210** of **234** (iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the flux addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance

test.

(7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of §63.1517, the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode switch (controlled to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to controlled), the time the switch is initiated, and the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device to bypass or bypass to control device.

(c) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a group 2 furnace . An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes must conduct additional performance tests to demonstrate to the delegated permitting authority that compliance can be achieved under group 1 mode and establish the number of cycles of operation with clean charge and no reactive flux addition necessary to elapse before switching to group 2 mode. Operating parameters relevant to group 1 operation must be established during the performance test.

(1) Operators of major sources must conduct additional performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **211** of **234** performance tests with the capture system and control device operating normally. (i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed in controlled mode.

(ii) Parameters for throughput, capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests.

(iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined.

(2) While in compliance with the operating standards of §63.1506(o) for group 2 furnaces, operators of major sources must conduct additional performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e) without operating a control device.

(i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge-to-tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with clean charge, and without

reactive flux addition.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **212** of **234** (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of §63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested. (iii) Owners or operators must demonstrate that emissions are no greater than: (A) 1.5 μg D/F (TEQ) per ton of feed/charge, (B) 0.04 lb HCl/HF per ton of feed charge, and (C) 0.04 lb PM per ton of feed/charge. (iv) The number of charge-to-tap cycles, or operating hours elapsed before the group 2 furnace performance tests were conducted is established as an operating parameter to be met before switching to group 2 mode. (3) Operators of area sources must conduct additional performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests with the capture system and control device operating normally. (i) The performance test must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed in group 1 mode.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **213** of **234** (ii) Parameters for throughput, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests. (iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device parameter(s) for capture must be established. (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined. (4) While in compliance with the operating standards of §63.1506(o) for group 2 furnaces, operators of area sources must conduct an additional performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512(e), without operating a control device. (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after the furnace has completed 1 or more charge-to-tap cycles, or 24 operating hours with clean charge, and without

reactive flux addition. (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of §63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested. (iii) Owners or operators must demonstrate that emissions are no greater than 1.5 μg D/F (TEQ) per ton of feed/charge. (iv) The number of charge-to-tap cycles, or operating hours elapsed before the group 2 furnace performance tests were***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **214** of **234** conducted is established as an operating parameter to be met before switching to group 2 mode. (d) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to group 2 furnace, for tilting reverberatory furnaces capable of completely removing furnace contents between batches. An owner or operator of a tilting reverberatory furnace capable of completely removing furnace contents between batches, wishing to change operating modes, must conduct additional performance tests to demonstrate that compliance can be achieved under group 1 mode. Operating parameters relevant to group 1 operation must be established during the performance test. (1) Operators of major sources must conduct additional performance tests for PM, HCl/HF and D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests with the capture system and control device operating normally. The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed in controlled mode. (i) Parameters for throughput, capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **215** of **234** (ii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined. (2) Operators of area sources must conduct an additional performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in §63.1512. Operators of controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests with the capture system and control device operating normally. (i) The performance test must be conducted with the scrap containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of reactive flux injection expected to be processed in group 1 mode. (ii) Parameters for throughput, flux rate, and lime injection must be established during these tests. (iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device parameter(s) for capture must be established. (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs specified in §63.1505(k) must be determined. (3) To switch modes between group 1 and group 2, the operator must (i) Completely remove all aluminum from the furnace;***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **216** of **234** (ii) Change the furnace label; (iii) Use only clean charge; and (iv) Use no reactive flux; (4)To switch modes between group 2 and group 1, the owner or operator must, before charging other than clean charge or reactive flux to the furnace; (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 1 operation, (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, if any, and, (iii) Begin lime addition to the control device, if any. (5) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of §63.1517, the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode switch (group 1 to group 2, or group 2 to group 1), the time the switch is initiated, and, if the furnace is equipped with a control device, the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device to bypass or bypass to control

device. (e) Frequency of switching furnace status. Switching furnace status as provided in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section may not be done more frequently than once every 6 months unless necessary to perform maintenance on the furnace.

* * * * ****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **217** of **234** 11. Section 63.1515 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(10).

12. Section 63.1516 is amended by: a. By removing and reserving paragraph (a); b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii); c. By adding paragraph (b)(3); d. By revising paragraph (c); and e. By adding paragraph(d)to read as follows: **§63.1516 Reports.**

* * * * * (a) [Reserved] (b) * * * (2) * * * (iii) For each sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution control devices: “Each furnace was operated such that the level of molten metal remained above the top of the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive fluxing, and reactive flux, except for cover flux, was added only to the sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped with an add-on air pollution control device for PM, HCl/HF, and D/F emissions during this reporting period.”

* * * * * (3)(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test(defined in §63.2) as required by this subpart***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **218** of **234** you must transmit the results of the performance tests required by this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be submitted in the file format generated through use of EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html ). Only data collected using test methods on the ERT website are subject to this requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some of the information being submitted for performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI

omitted must be submitted to EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the confidential***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **219** of **234** business information, to the delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority. (ii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (1)(i) and (ii) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (1)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.

* * * * * (c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual certifications of compliance required by 40 CFR part 70 or 71, the owner or operator of a major or area source subject to this subpart must certify continuing compliance based upon, but not limited to, the following conditions:

* * * * * (d) If there was a malfunction during the reporting period, the owner or operator must submit a report that includes the number, duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **220** of **234** be exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an

affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with §§63.1506(a)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8), including actions taken to

correct a malfunction.

* * * * * 13. Section 63.1517 is amended by: a. By revising paragraph( b)(3); b. By revising paragraph (b)(10); c. By revising paragraph (b)(16)(i); d. By adding paragraph (b)(18); and e. By adding paragraph (c)to read as follows: **§63.1517 Records.**

* * * * * (b) * * * (3) For each scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln and group 1 furnace, subject to D/F and HCl/HF emission standards with emissions controlled by a lime-injected fabric filter, records of 15-minute block average inlet temperatures for each lime-injected fabric filter, including any period when the 3-hour block average temperature exceeds the compliant operating parameter value +14 °C (+25 °F), with a brief***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **221** of **234** explanation of the cause of the excursion and the corrective

action taken.

* * * * * (10) Operating logs for each group 1 sidewell furnace with add-on air pollution control devices documenting conformance with operating standards for maintaining the level of molten metal above the top of the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection and for adding reactive flux only to the sidewell or a furnace hearth equipped with a control device for PM, HCl/HF, and D/F emissions.

* * * * * (16) * * * (i) Startup and shutdown plan;

* * * * * (18) For each malfunction for which the owner or operator chooses to claim coverage under the affirmative defense provisions, the owner or operator must maintain the following records; (i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment. (ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with §§63.1506(a)(5) and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **222** of **234** 63.1520(a)(8), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. (c) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (b) of this section in paper format.

* * * * *

14. Section 63.1520 is revised to read as follows:

**§63.1520 Affirmative defense for exceedance of emission limit during malfunction.**  In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at §63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **223** of **234**

defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief. (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (1) The excess emissions: (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for. (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs; and***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **224** of **234** (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods of such emissions; and (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions;

and (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **225** of **234** shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were

the result of the malfunction. (b) Notification . The owner or operator of the affected source experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a malfunction, shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense, shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 45 days of

the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standards in this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (e) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance.

* * * * ****E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **226** of **234** 15. Table 1 to Subpart RRR is amended to read as follows:

**Table 1 to Subpart RRR – Emission standards for New and Existing**

**Affected Sources**

**Affected source/Emission**  **unit Pollutant**  **L imit**  **U nits** 

All new and exi s ting affected sources and emission units that are controlled with a PM add-on control device and that choose to monitor with a COM; and all new and existing aluminum scrap shredders that choose to monitor with a COM or to monitor visible emissions Opacity 10 Percent

New and existing aluminum scrap shredder PM 0.01 Gr/dscf

New and existing thermal chip dryer THC 0.8 lb/ton of feed D/F a 2.5 ug TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln h or PM 0.08 lb/ton of feed HCl /HF 0.8 lb/ton of feed THC 0.06 lb/ton of feed D/F a 0.25 ug TEQ/Mg of feed Alternative limits if afterburner has a design residence time of at le a st 1 second and PM 0.08 lb/ton of feed HCl /HF 0.8 lb/ton of feed THC 0.06 lb/ton of***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **227** of **234**

oper a tes a t a temperature of at least 1400 F feed D/F a 0.25 ug TEQ/Mg of feed New or existing sweat furnace h D/Fa 0.8 ng T EQ/dscm @ 11% O2 b New or existing dross-only furnace h PM 0.3 lb/ton of feed New or existing in-line fluxer footnote HCL /HF 0.04 lb/ton of feed PM 0.01 lb/ton of feed New and existing in-line fluxer with no reactive fluxing No limit work practice: no reactive fluxing New and existing rotary dross cooler PM 0.04 gr/dscf

New and existing clean furnace (Group 2) No limit Work p ractices: clean charge only and no reactive fluxing New and existing group 1 melting/holding fur nac e (processing only clean charge) c, h PM 0.8 lb/ton of feed HCL/ HF 0.4 lb/ton of feed or 10 p ercent of the HCl upstream of the add-on control device New and existing group 1 furnace c, h PM 0.4 lb/ton of feed HCL /HF 0.4 lb/ton of feed or***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **228** of **234**

10 p ercent of the HCl upstream of the add-on control device D/F a 15 ug/TEQ/Mg of feed New and existing group 1 furnace with clean charge only h PM 0.4 lb/ton of feed HCL /HF 0.4 lb/ton of feed or 10 p ercent of the HCl upstream of the add-on control device D/F a No limit Clean charge only New and existing group 1 furnace, uncontrolled for HCl /HF , and using flux containing fluorine h Combined HCl and HF 0.40 lb/ton of feed

New and existing secondary aluminum process i ng unit a,d (consists of all existing group 1 furnaces and existing in-line flux boxes at the facility, or all simultaneously constructed new group 1 furnaces and new in-lie fluxers) PM e 

#     ) 1 (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti ti C PM

PM 

##  

  

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **229** of **234**

HCl /HF 

##     2) Eq. ( T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiHCl/HF cHCl/HF 

##  

  



D/F g 

##     3) (Eq. T T L L n

1 i ti n

1 i ti tiD/F cD/F 

##  

  



a D/F limit applies to a unit at a major or area sour c e. b Sweat furnaces equipped with afterburners meeting the s pec ifications of § 63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a performa n ce test.

c These limits are also used to calculate the limits applicable to secondary aluminum processing units. d Equation defin i tions: L iPM = the PM emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; T i = the feed rate for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit; L tPM = the overall PM emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/Ton of feed)]; L iHCL /HF = the HCL /HF emission limit for individual emission unit i in the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/Ton) of feed]; L tHCl /HF = the overall HCl /HF emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed]; L iD/F = the D/F emission limit for individual emission unit i [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/ton) of feed]; L tD/F = the overall D/F emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit [μg TEQ/Mg (gr TEQ/Ton) of feed]; n = the number of units in the secondary aluminum processing unit. (Need to check. These are slightly different that what is in the text of the rule)

e In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the PM limit. f In-line fluxers using no reactive flux materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the HCL /HF limit. g Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit. h During periods of startup and shutdown, affected source is not subject to numerical emissions limits but must be operated according to the work practice provisions in section §63.1506(q). * * * * * 16. Appendix A to Subpart RRR is amended to read as follows:***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **230** of **234 Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63 – Applicability of General**  **Provisions 40 CFR 63, Subpart RRR**

Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment §63.1(a)(1)

– (4) General Applicability Y es. §63.1(a)(5) No [Reserved]. §63.1(a)(6)– (8) Yes. §63.1(a)(9) No [Reserved]. §63.1(a) (10)– (14) Yes. §63.1(b) Initial Applicability Determination Yes EPA retains approval authority. §63.1(c)(1) Applicability After Standard Established Yes. §63.1(c)(2) Yes §63.1500(e) exempts area sources subject to this subpart from the obligation to obtain Title V operating permits. §63.1(c)(3) No [Reserved]. §63.1(c)(4)– (5) Yes. §63.1(d) No [Reserved]. §63.1(e) Applicability of Permit Program Yes. §63.2 Definitions Yes Additional definitions in §63.1503. §63.3 Units and Abbreviations Yes §63.4(a)(1)– (3) Prohibited Activities Yes. §63.4(a)(4) No [Reserved] §63.4(a)(5) Yes. §63.4(b)–(c) Circumvention/ Severability Yes. §63.5(a) Construction and Reconstruction—Applicability Yes. §63.5(b)(1) Existing, New, Reconstructed Sources—Requirements Yes. §63.5(b)(2) No [Reserved]. §63.5(b)(3)– (6) Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **231** of **234**

§63.5(c) No [Reserved]. §63.5(d) Application for Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Yes. §63.5(e) Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Yes. §63.5(f) Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review Yes.

§63.6(a) Compliance with Standards and Maintenance—Applicability Yes. §63.6(b)(1)– (5) New and Reconstructed Sources—Dates Yes. §63.6(b)(6) No [Reserved]. §63.6(b)(7) Yes. §63.6(c)(1) Existing Sources Dates Yes §63.1501 specifies dates. §63.6(c)(2) Yes. §63.6(c)(3)– (4) No [Reserved]. §63.6(c)(5) Yes. §63.6(d) No [Reserved]. 63.6(e)(1)(i) No See 63.1506(A)(5) and 63.1520(a)(8) for general duty requirement. 63.6(e)(1)(ii) No 63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes §63.6(e)(2) Operation & Maintenance Requirements Yes §63.1510 requires plan. §63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown Plan No Startup and Shutdown Plan Only §63.6(f) Compliance with Emission Standards Yes. §63.6(g) Alternative Standard No §63.6(h) Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards Yes. §63.6(i)(1)– (14) Extension of Compliance Yes. §63.6(i)(15) No [Reserved]. §63.6(i)(16) Yes. §63.6(j) Exemption from Compliance Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **232** of **234**

§63.7(a)–(h) Performance Test Requirements-Applicability and Dates Yes Except §63.1511 establishes dates for initial performance tests. §63.7(b) Notification Yes. §63.7(c) Quality Assurance/Test Plan Yes. §63.7(d) Testing Facilities Yes. §63.7(e) Conduct of Tests Yes. §63.7(f) Alternative Test Method Yes. §63.7(g) Data Analysis Yes. §63.7(h) Waiver of Tests Yes. §63.8(a)(1) Monitoring Requirements— Applicability Yes. §63.8(a)(2) Yes. §63.8(a)(3) No [Reserved] §63.8(a)(4) Yes §63.8(b) Conduct of Monitoring Yes. 63.8(c)(1)(i) No See 63.843(f) and 63.844(f) for general duty requirement. §63.8(c)(1)(ii)– (3) CMS Operation and Maintenance Yes.

§63.8(c)(4)– (8) Yes. §63.8(d) Quality Control Yes. §63.8(e) CMS Performance Evaluation Yes. §63.8(f)(1)–(5) Alternative Monitoring Method No §63.1510(w) includes provisions for monitoring alternatives. §63.8(f)(6) Alternative to RATA Test Yes. §63.8(g)(1) Data Reduction Yes. §63.8(g)(2) No §63.1512 requires five 6-minute averages for an aluminum scrap shredder. §63.8(g)(3)– (5) Yes. §63.9(a) Notification Requirements— Applicability Yes. §63.9(b) Initial Notifications Yes. §63.9(c) Request for Compliance Extension Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **233** of **234**

§63.9(d) New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements Yes.

63.9(e) Notification of Performance Test Yes. §63.9(f) Notification of VE/Opacity Test Yes. §63.9(g) Additional CMS Notifications Yes. §63.9(h)(1)– (3) Notification of Compliance Status Yes Except §63.1515 establishes dates for notification of compliance status reports. §63.9(h)(4) No [Reserved]. §63.9(h)(5)– (6) Yes. §63.9(i) Adjustment of Deadlines Yes. §63.9(j) Change in Previous Information Yes. §63.10(a) Recordkeeping/Reporting— Applicability Yes. §63.10(b) General Requirements Yes §63.1517 includes additional requirements. See 63.1517(x),(y) and (z) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. §63.10(c)(1) Additional CMS Recordkeeping Yes. §63.10(c)(2)– (4) No [Reserved]. §63.10(c)(5) Yes. §63.10(c)(6) Yes. §63.10(c)(7)– (8) Yes. §63.10(c)(9) No [Reserved]. §63.10(c)(10)– (13) Yes. See 63.1517(e)(4)(xvi) and (xvii)for recordkeeping of malfunctions. §63.10(c)(14) Yes. §63.10(d)(1) General Reporting Requirements Yes. §63.10(d)(2) Performance Test Results Yes. §63.10(d)(3) Opacity or VE Observations Yes. §63.10(d)(4)– (5) Progress Reports/Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports Yes.

§63.10(e)(1)– (2) Additional CMS Reports Yes.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/30/2011) Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page **234** of **234**

§63.10(e)(3) Excess Emissions/CMS Performance Reports Yes Reporting deadline given in §63.1516. §63.10(e)(4) COMS Data Reports Yes. §63.10(f) Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver Yes. §63.11(a)–(b) Control Device Requirements No Flares not applicable. §63.12(a)–(c) State Authority and Delegations Yes. EPA retains authority for applicability determinations. §63.13 Addresses Yes. §63.14 Incorporation by Reference Yes ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual for capture/collection systems; and Interim Procedures for Estimating Risk Associated with Exposure to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update (incorporated by reference in §63.1502). §63.15 Availability of Information/Confidentiality Yes.