Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034-0236
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-04-17T04:00Z

June 21, 2004

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building – 1101 A

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Re:  Petition for Reconsideration:  Iron and Steel Foundry MACT
Standards

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Iron
and Steel Foundries (“Foundry MACT”) were published in the Federal
Register on April 22, 2004.  See 69 Fed. Reg.21906.  Extensive comments
on the proposed rule (see 67 Fed. Reg. 78273, December 23, 2002) were
filed by trade associations and companies representing the foundry
industry, including the Steel Founders’ Society of America
(“SFSA”).  These comments addressed many facets of the proposed rule
and in some cases asked for revisions or clarifications to the
regulatory language.  Several of these issues were also raised in
communications with EPA staff.  However, in the preamble, background
documents, and the rule itself, EPA has failed adequately to respond to
these concerns, make the necessary clarifications or corrections, or
provide the rationale for its actions or inaction.

	For these reasons, and as explained in more detail below, we believe
the final rule is flawed.  Therefore, on behalf of SFSA, we hereby
petition EPA for reconsideration of the rule in accordance with section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act.  As described below, we believe steel
foundries do not pose a significant environmental risk from hazardous
air pollutants (“HAPs”) and should be exempt from the standards
promulgated or be regulated as a separate subcategory.

	In light of the compliance timetable faced by facilities that are
subject to the Foundry MACT – including a deadline of April 22, 2005,
to comply with specified work practice standards and April 23, 2007, to
meet applicable emissions standards – it is important that the Agency
act with expediency in responding to this petition.  In recognition of
the need for a timely decision, representatives of SFSA stand ready to
meet with you to discuss these issues and answer questions or provide
clarification at your staff’s convenience.

	The comments below make the following requests:

Steel foundries should be evaluated as a separate category or
subcategory of sources under the Foundry MACT with separate
requirements, if justified, specific to the subcategory.

EPA should entertain an industry initiative to make a demonstration that
steel foundries can be exempted from MACT standards as a subcategory
based upon acceptable risks.

EPA should entertain an industry initiative to make a demonstration for
justifying formation of a low-risk subcategory of steel foundries that
would be exempt from Foundry MACT standards and provide a regulatory
basis for other steel foundry facilities to quality for placement in the
low risk subcategory.

Steel Foundries Should Be Placed in a Separate Subcategory

	When EPA first listed source categories as candidates for considering
regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, iron foundries and
steel foundries were listed as separate source categories.  Separation
of ferrous foundries into these two groups was and is appropriate
because of significant differences in the raw materials, processes,
operations, control technologies, and types and quantities of HAP
emissions that are characteristic of the two industry classifications. 
During the Foundry MACT rulemaking process, iron and steel foundries
were combined into a single source category, ostensibly for no other
reason than administrative and regulatory convenience and efficiency,
and that action has led to the imposition of regulatory requirements for
steel foundries that are not justified by the magnitude of HAP risks
posed by steel foundries.  Early discussions with the Agency during the
development of the rule suggested an understanding of the need for
separate categorization of steel foundries, but the rule was proposed
without consideration of the distinct differences from iron foundries.

In the background information document (“BID”) produced to respond
to comments on the proposed rule, EPA acknowledges its original intent
to develop separate standards for iron and steel foundries but justifies
its decision for setting a common standard by asserting there are
process similarities and that some foundries produce both iron and steel
castings.  However, neither of these arguments effectively responds to
industry comments or provides justification for the sweeping application
of iron foundry standards to steel foundries.

Steel Foundry Processes Differ from Iron Foundries

While there are some similarities in processes, there are far more
differences.  Following is a summary of factors to substantiate this
conclusion.

Steel foundries produce different products and serve different markets
than iron foundries.  The technical requirements of these products
dictate different processes that have different emissions and controls.

Steel foundries employ either electric induction or electric arc
furnaces to melt steel scrap to produce steel for castings.  Although
some iron foundries also use electric furnaces, they more typically use
cupolas to produce iron castings.  Emissions from both induction and
electric arc furnaces are much lower than cupolas.  Moreover, electric
furnaces are controlled with fabric filters, which characteristically
have higher removal efficiencies than scrubbers, which are used to
control emissions from many iron cupolas.

Most steel foundries also have lower production capacities than iron
foundries.  In fact, the largest iron foundry has a capacity greater
than the entire output of the steel foundry industry.  Most steel
foundries do not qualify as major sources or have achieved synthetic
minor status and would not be subject to the MACT rule as a stand-alone
facility.  However, because some steel foundries are located at larger
production facilities where other HAP sources may make the larger
facility a major source, the steel foundry operations at those
facilities would be subject to Foundry MACT requirements, absent an
exclusion, even if minor of their own accord.

Steel foundries also use significantly different molding methods, binder
formulations, and pouring methods as compared to iron casting
operations.  Steel foundries using green sand molding do not use sea
coal, which has been identified as the largest source of HAPs in
casting.  In fact, four of the six largest steel foundries (based on
steel throughput) use graphite molds instead of sand.  Steel foundries
also use different chemical binders for core making and no-bake molds
because of different requirements for set times.  Pouring practices also
vary significantly.

These fundamental differences in processes result in significant
differences in types and amounts of HAP emissions and require separate
calculation of MACT floors and emission limits.  EPA has failed
adequately to explain its decision not to regulate steel foundries as a
separate subcategory.

With respect to production of both iron and steel castings at the same
facilities, because iron castings require lower temperatures, a few
steel foundries do produce iron castings as well, but the practice is
relatively rare.  In those cases, iron foundry MACT standards would
apply to iron casting operations, but that is no justification for
applying the iron foundry requirements to all steel casting operations. 
Just as it would be inappropriate to apply Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing MACT standards to facilities that also have electric arc
furnace steelmaking capability, it is also improper to apply standards
developed for iron foundries to steel foundries.

Finally, EPA notes in the BID that because at least one steel foundry
facility has a permit-based potential to emit greater than 25 tons/year
of HAPs, the Agency is “obligated to develop MACT standards for steel
foundries.”  Section 2.1 of BID.  However, the BID also notes that
some steel foundries with the estimated potential to emit more than 25
tons/year of HAPs have opted to accept limits through a federally
enforceable State operating permit to reduce their potential to emit to
less than major source threshold limits.  The Agency thus acknowledges
that facilities with potential to emit more than 25 tons/year of HAPs
can obtain synthetic minor status and be excluded from MACT
applicability.  Accordingly, EPA should not use a single example of a
facility that has not yet sought that status as justification for
establishing MACT limits for an entire industry, especially since those
emission limits are based primarily upon data from iron foundry
processes.

Based upon these factors, SFSA requests that EPA reconsider the
applicability of the Foundry MACT standard to steel foundries.  At the
very least, the Agency should consider steel foundries as a separate
subcategory and develop and re-propose requirements suited to that
subcategory.  The creation of a separate steel foundry subcategory is an
essential step to allow for consideration of a risk-based delisting as
described below.

EPA Should Consider Deleting Steel Foundries as a Subcategory Based on
Risk

	SFSA also requests that EPA consider a steel foundry subcategory based
on HAP risks associated with steel foundries.  Section 112 (c)(9) of the
Clean Air Act provides authority to EPA to delete sources from the list
of source categories subject to MACT rules if the Agency, in
consideration of a petition, determines that HAP emissions from all
sources in a category or subcategory are below prescribed risk
thresholds.

	SFSA believes the industry can make such a determination and proposes
to meet with EPA staff to determine the scope of work that would
constitute an adequate petition for EPA to delete steel foundries as a
subcategory of the Iron and Steel Foundry source category, based on risk
assessments.  We believe that by modeling appropriate HAPs emissions
data and conducting risk assessments for those steel foundries with the
greatest potential impact on risk we can demonstrate insignificant risk
for the entire steel foundry subcategory, and we wish to work closely
with EPA to be assured that we are addressing all relevant and
appropriate factors as we seek to make that demonstration in accordance
with section 112(c)(9).

EPA Should Establish a Low Risk Subcategory

	SFSA also requests that EPA consider the formation of a low-risk
subcategory for steel foundries, designate facilities that are clearly
within that subcategory, and provide a process for other facilities to
qualify for placement in that subcategory.  As part of the recently
signed (but not yet published) National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (“Plywood
MACT”), EPA cites authority in section 112(c)(9) to establish a
low-risk subcategory of sources that would not be subject to the
categorical MACT requirements.  In that rule, EPA identified eight
specific facilities that clearly qualified as low-risk facilities
according to specified conservative criteria and established procedures
for other facilities in the Plywood source category to qualify for the
low-risk subcategory if certain criteria are met.

	If SFSA is unsuccessful in demonstrating that all steel foundry sources
have HAP risk levels that justify deletion of a steel foundry
subcategory, we would like to have the opportunity to show that a large
number of steel foundries otherwise subject to the MACT rule could make
a demonstration of low risk and justify the formation of a low-risk
subcategory as was done in the Plywood MACT rule.  This would then
provide the opportunity for other steel foundry facilities that may not
clearly fall into the low-risk subcategory to demonstrate, following
prescribed procedures, that they qualify for the low-risk subcategory.

	Neither of the risk-based delisting alternatives described above was
proposed or commented upon as part of this rule because EPA did not
recognize the extent of its authority under section 112(c)(9).  SFSA
understands that the burden to demonstrate the minimal HAP risks of
steel foundries rests with the industry and is prepared to undertake the
necessary analyses.  We wish to cooperate with EPA in defining the scope
of work and the criteria on which a determination will be based.

---

	We strongly urge EPA to take the necessary administrative action to
make the changes requested.  The foundry industry and EPA were making
significant progress toward the delisting of steel foundries before
numerous changes in EPA’s personnel working on this rule and time
constraints led to a decision to include all foundries in a single rule
simply for sake of convenience.  We believe the steel foundry industry
poses minimal environmental risk as a source of HAPs and should be
exempted altogether from the Foundry MACT rule or be regulated as a
subcategory to reflect the different processes and lower risk from these
facilities.  As a minimum, the Agency should provide a mechanism for
steel foundries that may qualify as major sources of HAPs to make a
demonstration that individual facilities in the source category pose
risks below thresholds set forth in the Clean Air Act and are therefore
not subject to the Foundry MACT regulatory requirements.

	We look forward to a timely response to this petition, and
representatives of SFSA stand ready and willing to meet with EPA staff
at your convenience to clarify our comments or elaborate on their
importance.  Please have your appropriate staff contact Raymond Monroe
(815-455-8240 or   HYPERLINK "mailto:Monroe@sfsa.org"  monroe@sfsa.org )
or John Wittenborn (202-342-8514 or   HYPERLINK
"mailto:jwittenborn@colliershannon.com"  jwittenborn@colliershannon.com
) with questions or to make arrangements for further discussion.

Sincerely,

John L. Wittenborn

Counsel to Steel Founders’ Society of America

cc:	Steve Fruh

	Jeffrey R. Holmstead

	Raymond W. Monroe

 See “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Iron and Steel Foundries – Background Information for
Promulgated Standards,” Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034-0144, August 2003.

(...continued)

(...continued)

 PAGE   

 PAGE   5