Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Aluminum Production
Posted Date: 2012-02-14T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8576-8629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2874]

[[Page 8575]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 30

February 14, 2012

Part V

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 
Aluminum Production; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 8576]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544; FRL-9628-8]
RIN 2060-AQ40

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Secondary Aluminum Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions 
standards for hazardous air pollutants for Secondary Aluminum 
Production to address the results of the residual risk and technology 
review that the EPA is required to conduct by the Clean Air Act. In 
addition, the EPA is proposing amendments to correct and clarify rule 
requirements and provisions. These proposed amendments would require 
emission sources to comply with the emission limits at all times 
including periods of startup and shutdown; add a definition of 
affirmative defense; add a requirement to report performance testing 
through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); add rule provisions 
allowing owners and operators to change furnace classifications; add 
rule requirements regarding testing of uncontrolled furnaces; add 
compliance provisions for hydrogen fluoride (HF) for uncontrolled group 
1 furnaces; add operating requirements such as monitoring of lime 
injection rates; and make technical corrections and clarifications to 
the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring, and performance 
testing requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2012. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before March 15, 2012.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by February 24, 2012, a public hearing will be held on 
February 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0544, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0544.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0544, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 
DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0544. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and 
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. The proposed rulemaking also 
used material from Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0469 in the 
development of this rule. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. on February 29, 2012 and will be held at the EPA's campus in 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility 
nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as 
to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Virginia 
Hunt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, (D243-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-0832.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone (919) 541-1390; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email 
address: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Dr. Michael Stewart, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts 
Division, Air Toxics Assessment Group (C504-06), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;

[[Page 8577]]

telephone number: (919) 541-7524; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email 
address: stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the 
applicability of the national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact the appropriate 
person listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Proposed
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          NESHAP for:             OECA Contact\1\      OAQPS Contact\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Aluminum Production.  Scott Throwe, (202)  Rochelle Boyd,
                                 564-7013             (919) 541-1390,
                                 throwe.scott@epa.g   boyd.rochelle@epa.
                                 ov.                  gov
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\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
APCD air pollution control devices
AMOS ample margin of safety
ANPRM advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrogen chloride
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3
HF hydrogen fluoride
HHRAP human health risk assessment protocols
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MACT Code code within the NEI used to identify processes included in 
a source category
MDL method detection level
mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/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
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
[mu]g/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
    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

[[Page 8578]]

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified categories of 
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the 
CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA calls for us to promulgate national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for those 
sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to 
emit (PTE) 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or 
more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-
based standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions 
of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-
air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred 
to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions 
reduction achievable through the application of measures, processes, 
methods, systems or techniques including, but not limited to, measures 
which (1) reduce the volume of or eliminate emissions of pollutants 
through process changes, substitution of materials or other 
modifications, (2) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions, 
(3) capture or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, 
storage or fugitive emissions point, (4) are design, equipment, work 
practice or operational standards (including requirements for operator 
training or certification) or (5) are a combination of the above. CAA 
section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standard may take the form of a 
design, equipment, work practice or operational standard where the EPA 
first determines that either (1) a pollutant cannot be emitted through 
a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant 
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be 
inconsistent with law, or (2) the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2).
    The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 
best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing sources 
can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be 
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the 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 (DC Cir. 2008).
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any 
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This 
provision requires, first, that the EPA prepare a Report to Congress 
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk posed (or 
potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT 
standards, the public health significance of those risks, and the EPA's 
recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. The 
EPA prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to 
Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in 
response to the report, thereby triggering the EPA's obligation under 
CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.
    CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine, for source 
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether the emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or 
possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 
the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category 
or subcategory to less than one in one million,'' the EPA must 
promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or 
subcategory), as necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. In doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal 
to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that the existing 
standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 
(DC Cir. 2008). (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the agency is free 
to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'') The 
EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if necessary, to prevent 
an adverse environmental effect \1\ but must consider cost, energy, 
safety and other relevant factors in doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of a two-
step process for developing standards to address any residual risk and 
our interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 
Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The 
first step in this process is the determination of acceptable risk. The 
second step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, which is the level at which the standards are set (unless a 
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into 
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an 
adverse environmental effect).
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA's interpretation 
set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia

[[Page 8579]]

Circuit in NRDC v. EPA concluded that the EPA's interpretation of 
subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 
1077 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (``[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 
incorporates the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act from the 
Benzene standard, complete with a citation to the Federal Register''); 
see also A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference Report). We notified 
Congress in the Residual Risk Report to Congress that we intended to 
use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual 
risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11).
    In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 FR at 38044-38045, we stated as an 
overall objective:

    In protecting public health with an ample margin of safety under 
section 112, EPA strives to provide maximum feasible protection 
against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) 
protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual 
lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and 
(2) limiting to no higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand [i.e., 
100 in 1 million] the estimated risk that a person living near a 
plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant 
concentrations for 70 years.

    The agency stated that ``[t]he EPA also considers incidence (the 
number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health 
effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an important 
measure of the health risk to the exposed population. Incidence 
measures the extent of health risk to the exposed population as a 
whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other 
serious health effects in the exposed population.'' 54 FR at 38045. The 
agency went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed 
along with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' 54 
FR at 38046. As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to 
Congress, the EPA does not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' 
but considers rather broad objectives to be weighed with a series of 
other health measures and factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The 
determination of what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a 
judgment of ``what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' 
(Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride 
decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume 
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than 
approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that risk level is considered 
acceptable.'' 54 FR at 38045. We discussed the maximum individual 
lifetime cancer risk (or maximum individual risk (MIR)) as being ``the 
estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or 
she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 
years.'' Id. We explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate of 
the upper bound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as 
continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' Id. We 
acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk ``does not 
necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a conservative risk 
level which is an upper bound that is unlikely to be exceeded.'' Id.
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining 
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that 
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account 
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id. 
Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100 in 1 million (1 in 10 
thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 
for making that determination.
    The agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP: ``[i]n 
establishing a presumption for MIR, rather than a rigid line for 
acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of other 
health measures and factors. These include the overall incidence of 
cancer or other serious health effects within the exposed population, 
the numbers of persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk 
range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 km [kilometer] 
exposure radius around facilities, the science policy assumptions and 
estimation uncertainties associated with the risk measures, weight of 
the scientific evidence for human health effects, other quantified or 
unquantified health effects, effects due to co-location of facilities, 
and co-emission of pollutants.'' Id.
    In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though 
the risks judged `acceptable' by the EPA in the first step of the Vinyl 
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 
determining an `ample margin of safety,' again includes consideration 
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even 
further * * *.'' Beyond that information, additional factors relating 
to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including 
costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, 
uncertainties and any other relevant factors. Considering all of these 
factors, the Agency will establish the standard at a level that 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health, as 
required by CAA section 112.'' 54 FR at 38046.
    As discussed above, we apply a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 8580]]

regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making our 
determinations and how they might be weighed for each source category. 
In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the 
EPA explained that: ``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits 
consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR 
figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer 
health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 
way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed 
in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride 
mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to 
the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It 
also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did 
not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk 
from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 
regulations and thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all 
measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, 
believes are appropriate to determining what will `protect the public 
health.' '' 54 FR at 38057.
    For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed 
in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explains ``an 
MIR of approximately 1 in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper 
end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this 
benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 
112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and 
information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the 
agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR 
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the 
light of other health risk factors.'' 54 FR at 38045. Similarly, with 
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the Benzene NESHAP 
states that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors 
that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only 
be determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly 
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' 54 FR 
at 38061.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated industrial source category that is the subject of 
this proposal is listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 of this 
preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities likely to be affected by this 
proposed action. These standards, once finalized, will be directly 
applicable to affected sources. Federal, State, local, and tribal 
government entities are not affected by this proposed action. The EPA 
defined the Secondary Aluminum source category in 1992 as any 
establishment using clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from 
aluminum production, as the raw material and performing one or more of 
the following processes: Scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/
decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, 
holding, sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of 
aluminum from dross, in-line fluxing, or dross cooling.

                Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                NAICS     MACT
            Source category                                     NESHAP                        code \1\  code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Aluminum Production..........  Secondary Aluminum Production......................    331314      0044
Primary aluminum production facilities.  ...................................................    331312
Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil          ...................................................    331315
 manufacturing facilities.
Aluminum extruded product manufacturing  ...................................................    331316
 facilities.
Other aluminum rolling and drawing       ...................................................    331319
 facilities.
Aluminum die casting facilities........  ...................................................    331521
Aluminum foundry facilities............  ...................................................    331524
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

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

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

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

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk 
or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD 
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544.

[[Page 8581]]

II. Background

A. What is this source category and how did the MACT standard regulate 
its HAP emissions?

    The Secondary Aluminum Production source category includes 
facilities that produce aluminum from scrap aluminum material and 
consists of the following operations: (1) Preprocessing of scrap 
aluminum, including size reduction and removal of oils, coatings, and 
other contaminants; (2) Furnace operations including melting, in-
furnace refining, fluxing, and tapping; (3) Additional refining, by 
means of in-line fluxing; and (4) Cooling of dross. The following 
sections include descriptions of the affected sources in the secondary 
aluminum production source category, the origin of HAP emissions from 
these affected sources, and factors affecting the emissions.
    Scrap aluminum is often preprocessed prior to melting. 
Preprocessing steps may include shredding to reduce the size of 
aluminum scrap; drying of oily scrap such as machine turnings and 
borings; and/or heating in a scrap dryer, delacquering kiln or 
decoating kiln to remove coatings or other contaminants that may be 
present on the scrap. Heating of high iron content scrap in a sweat 
furnace to reclaim the aluminum content is also a preprocessing 
operation.
    Crushing, shredding and grinding operations are used to reduce the 
size of scrap aluminum. Particulate matter (PM) and HAP metals 
emissions are generated as dust from coatings and other contaminants 
contained in the scrap aluminum as they are processed.
    A chip dryer is used to evaporate oil and/or moisture from uncoated 
aluminum chips and borings. Chip dryers typically operate at 
temperatures ranging between 150 [deg]C to 400 [deg]C (300 [deg]F to 
750 [deg]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 [deg]C (1,000 [deg]F) to volatilize and remove 
various organic contaminants such as paints, oils, lacquers, rubber, 
and plastic laminates prior to melting. An uncontrolled scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln emits PM (of which some fraction is 
particulate metal HAP), HCl, THC (of which some fraction is organic 
HAP), and D/F.
    A sweat furnace is typically used to reclaim (or ``sweat'') the 
aluminum from scrap with high levels of iron. These furnaces operate in 
batch mode at a temperature that is high enough to melt the aluminum 
but not high enough to melt the iron. The aluminum melts and flows out 
of the furnace while the iron remains in the furnace in solid form. The 
molten aluminum can be cast into sows, ingots, or T-bars that are used 
as feedstock for aluminum melting and refining furnaces. Alternately, 
molten aluminum can be fed directly to a melting or refining furnace. 
An uncontrolled sweat furnace may emit D/F.
    Process (i.e. melting, holding or refining) furnaces are 
refractory-lined metal vessels heated by an oil or gas burner to 
achieve a metal temperature of about 760 [deg]C (1,400 [deg]F). The 
melting process begins with the charging of scrap into the furnace. A 
gaseous (typically, chlorine) or salt flux may be added to remove 
impurities and reduce aluminum oxidation. Once molten, the chemistry of 
the bath is adjusted by adding selected scrap or alloying agents, such 
as silicon. Salt and other fluxes contain chloride and fluoride 
compounds that may be released when introduced to the bath. HCl may 
also be released when chlorine-containing contaminants (such as 
polyvinyl chloride coatings) present in some types of scrap are 
introduced to the bath. Argon and nitrogen fluxes are not reactive and 
do not produce HAPs. In a sidewell melting furnace, fluxing is 
performed in the sidewell and fluxing emissions from the sidewell are 
controlled. In this type of furnace, fluxing is not typically done in 
the hearth and hearth emissions (which include products of combustion 
from the oil and gas fired furnaces) are typically uncontrolled.
    Process furnaces may process contaminated scrap which can result in 
HAP emissions. In addition, fluxing agents may contain HAPs, some 
fraction of which is emitted from the furnace. Process furnaces are 
significant sources of HAP emissions in the secondary aluminum 
industry. An uncontrolled melting furnace which processes contaminated 
scrap and uses reactive fluxes emits PM (of which some fraction is 
particulate metal HAP), HCl, and D/F.
    Process furnaces are divided into group 1 and group 2 furnaces. 
Group 1 furnaces are unrestricted in the type of scrap they process and 
the type of fluxes they can use. Group 2 furnaces process only clean 
charge and conduct no reactive fluxing.
    Dross-only furnaces are furnaces dedicated to reclamation of 
aluminum from drosses formed during the melting/holding/alloying 
operations carried out in other furnaces. Exposure to the atmosphere 
causes the molten aluminum to oxidize, and the flotation of the 
impurities to the surface along with any salt flux creates ``dross.'' 
Prior to tapping, the dross is periodically skimmed from the surface of 
the aluminum bath and cooled. Dross-only furnaces are typically rotary 
barrel furnaces (also known as salt furnaces). A dross-only furnace 
without controls emits PM (of which some fraction is particulate metal 
HAP).
    Rotary dross coolers are devices used to cool dross in a rotating, 
water-cooled drum. A rotary dross cooler without controls emits PM (of 
which some fraction is particulate metal HAP).
    In-line fluxers are devices used for aluminum refining, including 
degassing, outside the furnace. The process involves the injection of 
chlorine, argon, nitrogen or other gases to achieve the desired metal 
purity. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAPs. 
In-line fluxers are found primarily at facilities that manufacture very 
high quality aluminum or in facilities with no other means of 
degassing. An in-line fluxer operating without emission controls emits 
HCl and PM.
    The Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP was promulgated on March 
23, 2000, (65 FR 15690) and codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. 
The rule was amended at 67 FR 79808, December 30, 2002; 69 FR 53980, 
September 3, 2004; 70 FR 57513, October 3, 2005 and 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005. The existing subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP 
emissions from secondary aluminum production facilities that are major 
sources of HAP that operate aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip 
dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 
furnaces, group 2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary 
dross coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs). The 
SAPUs include group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. The subpart RRR 
NESHAP regulates HAP

[[Page 8582]]

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 aluminum, coil coating, and 
possibly other source category facilities. Natural gas boilers or 
process heaters may also be co-located at a few secondary aluminum 
facilities.
    The HAP emitted by these facilities are metals, organic HAP, D/F, 
hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
    The standards promulgated in 2000 established emission limits for 
particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP, total 
hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F, D/F 
expressed as toxicity equivalents, and HCl as a surrogate for acid 
gases including HF, chlorine and fluorine. HAP are emitted from the 
following affected sources: aluminum scrap shredders (subject to PM 
standards), thermal chip dryers (subject to standards for THC and D/F), 
scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns (subject to standards 
for PM, D/F, HCl and THC), sweat furnaces (subject to D/F standards), 
dross-only furnaces (subject to PM standards), rotary dross coolers 
(subject to PM standards), group 1 furnaces (subject to standards for 
PM, HCl and D/F), and in-line fluxers (subject to standards for PM and 
HCl). Group 2 furnaces and certain in-line fluxers are subject to work 
practice standards. Table 3 provides a summary of the current MACT 
emissions limits for existing and new sources under the 2000 NESAHP and 
the 2005 amendments.

[[Page 8583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.031

[[Page 8584]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.032

[[Page 8585]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.033

    Control devices currently in use to reduce emissions from affected 
sources subject to the subpart RRR NESHAP include fabric filters for 
control of PM from aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners for control 
of THC and D/F from thermal chip dryers; afterburners plus lime-
injected fabric filters for control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap 
dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of 
D/F from sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-
only furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filters 
for control of PM and HCl from in-line fluxers; and lime-injected 
fabric filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. 
All affected sources with add-on controls are also subject to design 
requirements and operating limits to limit fugitive emissions.
    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.
    As mentioned above, the pollutants regulated under subpart RRR are 
PM, HCl, THC and D/F. PM is a surrogate for metal HAP and THC is a 
surrogate for organic HAP. Since subpart RRR compliance testing is 
performed for the surrogates PM and THC, there are limited test data 
available for speciated metal HAP and organic HAP emissions. Therefore, 
responses to the nine-company testing ICR were used to extrapolate the 
PM and THC testing results reported in the all-company ICR to specific 
metal and organic HAP emissions. In the nine-company testing ICR, 
companies were asked to provide speciated metal HAP concentrations 
(e.g. arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, lead, nickel, etc.) in the particulate 
collected by fabric filters. For more information on the selection of 
these facilities, see the Draft Technical Support Document for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category located in the docket. 
These data were then used to estimate speciated metal HAP emissions, 
based on the PM emissions reported in the all-company ICR. For example, 
if a response to the 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 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

[[Page 8586]]

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

    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 review report issued in 2010;\3\ they 
are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
    As discussed in Section II.B. of this preamble, we used a dataset 
based on the estimated actual and allowable emissions as the basis for 
the risk assessment. This dataset was based on responses to an 
Information Collection Request (ICR) sent to approximately 425 
facilities potentially subject to the subpart RRR NESHAP. Approximately 
161 sources subject to the NESHAP responded, approximately 166 
facilities confirmed that they were not subject to the NESHAP and no 
responses were received to approximately 51 ICRs. In addition to these 
responses, as described in section II.B, an earlier ICR was sent to 9 
companies requiring them to provide speciated metal and organic HAP 
concentrations for purposes of calculating speciated HAP emissions 
based on reported emissions of the surrogate pollutants, THC and PM. As 
part of our quality assurance (QA) process, we checked the coordinates 
of every facility in the dataset using tools such as Google Earth. We 
corrected coordinates that were found to be incorrect. We also 
performed QA of the emissions data and release characteristics to 
identify outliers and then confirmed or corrected the data.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and 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 emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)
    As discussed above, allowable and actual emissions were calculated 
for each piece of equipment. The estimates of actual emissions are 
described in Section II of this preamble.
    Allowable emissions for this source category were calculated by 
assuming emissions were at the maximum level allowed by the MACT 
standard (i.e., we assume emissions would be emitted at a level equal 
to the MACT emission limit). Nevertheless, we note that these are 
conservative estimates of allowable emissions. It is unlikely that 
emissions would be at the maximum limit at all times because sources 
cannot emit HAP at a level that is exactly equal to the limit at all 
times and remain in compliance with the standard due to day-to-day 
variability in process operations and emissions. On average, facilities 
must emit at some level below the MACT limit to ensure that they are 
always in compliance.
    The derivation of actual and allowable emissions estimates are 
discussed in more detail in the document Draft Development of the RTR 
Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category 
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures and 
Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from each facility in the source category were 
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM) (Community and Sector 
HEM-3 version 1.1.0). The HEM-3 performs three primary risk assessment 
activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the 
concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and 
short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 km of 
the modeled sources and (3) estimating individual and population-level 
inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative 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

[[Page 8587]]

facilities.\4\ To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the 
preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The 
first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 
calculations. This library includes 1 year (1991) of hourly surface and 
upper air observations for more than 158 meteorological stations, 
selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A 
second library of United States Census Bureau census block \5\ internal 
point locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure 
calculations (Census, 2000). In addition, for each census block, the 
census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height, 
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of 
pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to 
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the 
latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air 
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are discussed in more detail later in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \5\ A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for 
which census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used 
the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of each of the 
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the 
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block 
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We 
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with 
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks 
per year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at 
the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer risks were 
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the 
ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic 
meter) by its unit risk estimate (URE), which is an upper bound 
estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer over a 
lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant 
per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use 
URE values from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 
For carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA IRIS values, we look to 
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using 
California EPA (CalEPA) URE values, where available. In cases where 
new, scientifically credible 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposures, 
we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ 
system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or target organ-
specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic exposures is the estimated 
chronic exposure divided by the chronic reference level, which is 
either the EPA reference concentration (RfC), defined as ``an estimate 
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including 
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk 
of deleterious effects during a lifetime,'' or, in cases where an RfC 
from the EPA's IRIS database is not available, a value from the 
following prioritized sources: (1) The agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level, which is defined as ``an estimate 
of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an 
appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a 
specified duration of exposure''; (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference 
Exposure Level (REL), which is defined as ``the concentration level at 
or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a 
specified exposure duration;'' or (3) as noted above, a scientifically 
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner 
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review 
process similar to that used by the EPA, in place of or in concert with 
other values.
    Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also 
evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site exposure 
for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids), assuming 
that a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak 
(hourly) emission rates from each emission point at the facility and 
worst-case dispersion conditions occur. The acute HQ is the estimated 
acute exposure divided by the acute dose-response value. In each case, 
acute HQ values were calculated using best available, short-term dose-
response values. These acute dose-response values, which are described 
below, include the acute REL, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) 
and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure 
durations. As discussed below, we used conservative assumptions for 
emission rates, meteorology and exposure location for our acute 
analysis.
    As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference 
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the 
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are 
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' Acute REL values are 
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported 
in the medical and toxicological literature. Acute REL values are 
designed to protect the most sensitive sub-populations (e.g., 
asthmatics) by the inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of 
safety are incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, 
exceeding the acute REL does not automatically indicate an adverse 
health impact.

[[Page 8588]]

    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 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AEGL-1 value is then specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the 
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 
effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and 
reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes (page 
3) that, ``Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure 
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Similarly, the document defines 
AEGL-2 values as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m 
\3\) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 
population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or 
an impaired ability to escape.''
    ERPG values are derived for use in emergency response, as described 
in the American Industrial Hygiene Association's document entitled, 
Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 
Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, ``Emergency Response Planning 
Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \8\ The ERPG-1 value is defined as ``the maximum airborne 
concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals 
could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 
transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly 
defined, objectionable odor.'' Similarly, the ERPG-2 value is defined 
as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that 
nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 
experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects 
or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take 
protective action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. November 1, 
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values 
include the similarly defined severity levels 1 and 2. For many 
chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has not been 
developed; in these instances, higher severity level AEGL-2 or ERPG-2 
values are compared to our modeled exposure levels to assess potential 
for acute concerns.
    Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are typically lower 
than their corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values. Even though their 
definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1 values are often similar to 
the corresponding ERPG-1 values, and AEGL-2 values are often similar to 
ERPG-2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk 
assessments typically result when basing them on the acute REL value 
for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest acute 
dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1 value).
    To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we developed 
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average 
actual annual hourly emission rates by a factor to cover routinely 
variable emissions. We chose the factor to use based on process 
knowledge and engineering judgment and with awareness of a Texas study 
of short-term emissions variability, which showed that most peak 
emissions events, in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area (Harris, 
Galveston, Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than twice 
the annual average hourly emissions rate. The highest peak emissions 
event was 74 times the annual average hourly emissions rate, and the 
99th percentile ratio of peak hourly emissions rate to the annual 
average hourly emissions rate was 9.\9\ This analysis is provided in 
Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Secondary Aluminum 
Production which is available in the docket for this action. 
Considering this analysis, unless specific process knowledge or data 
are available to provide an alternate value, to account for more than 
99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we generally apply the 
assumption to most source categories that the maximum one-hour 
emissions rate from any source other than those resulting in fugitive 
dust emissions are 10 times the average annual hourly emissions rate 
for that source. We use a factor other than 10 in some cases if we have 
information that indicates that a different factor is appropriate for a 
particular source category. For this source category however, there was 
no such information available and the default factor of 10 was used in 
the acute screening process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When worst-case HQ values from the initial acute screen step were 
less than 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible and no further 
analysis was performed. In the cases where any worst-case acute HQ from 
the screening step was greater than 1, additional site-specific data 
were considered to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for 
acute impacts of concern. However, for this source category no acute 
values were greater than 1 and therefore, further refinement was not 
performed.
    Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements over time 
to

[[Page 8589]]

see how the emissions vary by each hour over an entire year. Having a 
frequency distribution of hourly emission rates over a year would allow 
us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold 
exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could 
include a more complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and 
elements adopted in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that 
having this level of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier 
approach.
    To better characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key 
recommendation from the SAB's peer review of the EPA's RTR risk 
assessment methodologies,\10\ we generally examine a wider range of 
available acute health metrics than we do for our chronic risk 
assessments. This is in response to the SAB's acknowledgement that 
there are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute 
reference values than there are in chronic reference values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated 
dibenzodioxins and furans, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 
heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, 
mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlorinated biphenyls, POM, 
toxaphene, and trifluralin. Since three of these PB-HAP (cadmium 
compounds, POM and chlorinated D/F) are emitted by at least one 
facility in this source category, we proceeded to the second step of 
the evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the facility-
specific emission rates of each of the emitted PB-HAP were large enough 
to create the potential for significant non-inhalation human or 
environmental risks under, worst-case conditions. To facilitate this 
step, we developed emission rate thresholds for each PB-HAP using a 
hypothetical worst-case screening exposure scenario developed for use 
in conjunction with the EPA's TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical 
screening scenario was subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure 
that its key design parameters were established such that environmental 
media concentrations were not underestimated (i.e., to minimize the 
occurrence of false negatives or results that suggest that risks might 
be acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high) and to also 
minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health endpoints. 
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The 
facility-specific emission rates of each of the PB-HAP were compared to 
the TRIM-Screen emission threshold values for each of the PB-HAP 
identified in the source category datasets to assess the potential for 
significant human health risks or environmental risks via non-
inhalation pathways. See Section IV for results of this screening 
analysis.
5. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses: Facilitywide Assessments
    To put the source category risks in context, for our residual risk 
reviews, we also typically examine the risks from the entire 
``facility,'' where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations 
within a contiguous area and under common control. In these 
facilitywide assessments we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other 
emissions sources at the facility. For the secondary aluminum source 
category, a facilitywide assessment was performed for all major 
sources.
    A facilitywide assessment was not conducted for area sources. By 
definition, no major sources of HAP (e.g., primary aluminum production 
or coil coating operations) are collocated with any of the secondary 
aluminum area sources. Further, at many area sources, equipment subject 
to the Secondary Aluminum NESHAP is the only HAP-emitting equipment. 
Therefore, the most significant HAP emissions from area sources were 
already being considered under the area source risk assessment, and low 
levels of HAP emissions from equipment not subject to the Secondary 
Aluminum NESHAP at these facilities would not contribute appreciably to 
the risk profile. The results of the facilitywide assessment for major 
sources are provided in Section IV.
6. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the Secondary Aluminum 
source category addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty 
exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and 
assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief 
discussion of the uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion 
modeling, inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships 
follows below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is 
included in the risk assessment documentation (referenced earlier) 
available in the docket for this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Datasets
    Although the development of the MACT dataset involved QA/quality 
control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending 
on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or 
missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets 
are accurate, errors in estimating emissions values and other factors. 
The emission estimates considered in this analysis were generally 
developed from one-time or periodic performance tests that do not 
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year.
    The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects 
screening assessment were based on a default factor of 10 applied to 
the average annual hourly emission rate, which is intended to account 
for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    While the analysis employed the EPA's recommended regulatory 
dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in 
ambient concentration estimates

[[Page 8590]]

associated with any model, including AERMOD. In circumstances where we 
had to choose between various model options, where possible, model 
options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, chemistry) were selected 
to provide an overestimate of ambient air concentrations of the HAP 
rather than underestimates. However, because of practicality and data 
limitation reasons, some factors (e.g., meteorology, building downwash) 
have the potential in some situations to overestimate or underestimate 
ambient impacts. For example, meteorological data were taken from a 
single year (1991), and facility locations can be a significant 
distance from the sites where these data were taken. Despite these 
uncertainties, we believe that at off-site locations and census block 
centroids, the approach considered in the dispersion modeling analysis 
should generally yield overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
    The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the 
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility 
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\11\ 
The assumption of not considering short or long-term population 
mobility does not bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does it 
affect the estimate of cancer incidence since the total population 
number remains the same. It does, however, affect the shape of the 
distribution of individual risks across the affected population, 
shifting it toward higher estimated individual risks at the upper end 
and reducing the number of people estimated to be at lower risks, 
thereby increasing the estimated number of people at specific risk 
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. 
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several other factors specific to the acute exposure assessment. The 
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the 
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, 
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human activity 
patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals remain for 1 
hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as determined by the 
co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case meteorological 
conditions. These assumptions would tend to overestimate actual 
exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at the 
point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and 
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a 
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is 
brought out in the EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the 
primary goal of the EPA actions is protection of human health; 
accordingly, as an agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including 
default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the 
contrary, should be health protective.'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 
pages 1-7.) This is the approach followed here as summarized in the 
next several paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of 
uncertainties and variability in dose-response relationships is given 
in the residual risk documentation, which is available in the docket 
for this action.
    Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have 
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit).\13\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as 
low as zero; however, in other circumstances, the risk could also be 
greater.\14\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to 
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective 
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 
adequate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 8591]]

estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of 
daily oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) 
to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely 
to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a 
lifetime. To derive values that are intended to be ``without 
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor 
(UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which includes consideration of 
both uncertainty and variability. When there are gaps in the available 
information, UF are applied to derive reference values that are 
intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. 
The UF are commonly default values,\15\ e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used 
in the absence of compound-specific data; where data are available, UF 
may also be developed using compound-specific information. When data 
are limited, more assumptions are needed and more UF are used. Thus, 
there may be a greater tendency to overestimate risk in the sense that 
further study might support development of reference values that are 
higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer default assumptions are 
needed. However, for some pollutants, it is possible that risks may be 
underestimated. While collectively termed ``uncertainty factor,'' these 
factors account for a number of different quantitative considerations 
when using observed animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in 
the development of the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) 
Variation in susceptibility among the members of the human population 
(i.e., inter-individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating 
from experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies 
differences); (3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a 
study with less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-
chronic to chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the 
observed data to obtain an estimate of the exposure associated with no 
adverse effects; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or 
there are problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of 
the UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the 
development of acute reference values are quite similar to those 
developed for chronic durations, but more often they use individual UF 
values that may be less than 10. UF are applied based on chemical-
specific or health 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, EPA/100/B-04/001 available 
at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose, 
and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute 
assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or 
values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the 
lack of 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 this source category and a dose-response metric 
changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this 
notice may significantly understate human health risk. More information 
regarding the dose-response values used in this assessment is provided 
in the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production Source Category, which is available in the docket.
e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Effects 
Screening Assessment
    We generally assume that when exposure levels are not anticipated 
to adversely affect human health, they also are not anticipated to 
adversely affect the environment. For each source category, we 
generally rely on the site-specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to 
determine whether a full assessment of the multipathway and 
environmental effects is necessary. Our screening methods use worst-
case scenarios to determine whether multipathway impacts might be 
important. The results of such a process are biased high for the 
purpose of screening out potential impacts. Thus, when individual 
pollutants or facilities screen out, we are confident that the 
potential for multipathway impacts is negligible. On the other hand, 
when individual pollutants or facilities do not screen out, it does not 
mean that multipollutant impacts are significant, only that we cannot 
rule out that possibility. For this source category, we only performed 
a worst-case multipathway screening assessment for PB-HAP. Thus, it is 
important to note that potential PB-HAP multipathway risks are biased 
high.

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

    In evaluating and developing standards under section 112(f)(2), as 
discussed in Section I.A of this preamble, we apply a two-step process 
to address residual risk. In the first step, the EPA determines whether 
risks are acceptable. This determination

[[Page 8592]]

``considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual 
lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) \16\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand 
[i.e., 100 in 1 million]'' (54 FR at 38045). In the second step of the 
process, the EPA sets the standard at a level that provides an ample 
margin of safety ``in consideration of all health information, 
including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately one in one million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past residual risk actions, the EPA has presented and considered 
a number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from 
the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers of persons 
in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer hazard 
index (HI); and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 
3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In more recent proposals the EPA 
also presented and considered additional measures of health 
information, such as estimates of the risks associated with the maximum 
level of emissions which might be allowed by the current MACT standards 
(see, e.g., 76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011, 76 FR 72508, November 23, 
2011, 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010, and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 
2010). The EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation 
uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of information in 
support of the proposed determinations described in this Federal 
Register notice.
    The agency is considering all available health information to 
inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the 
Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be 
reduced to any single factor'' and thus ``[t]he Administrator believes 
that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best 
judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and 
information'' (54 FR at 38046). Similarly, with regard to making the 
ample margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP 
``[in the ample margin decision, the agency again considers all of the 
health risk and other health information considered in the first step. 
Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate 
level of control will also be considered, including cost and economic 
impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any 
other relevant factors.'' Id.
    The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides 
flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making 
determinations and how these factors might be weighed for each source 
category. In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene 
NESHAP, the EPA explained that: ``The policy chosen by the 
Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health 
risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, 
the presence of 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 should ordinarily be 
the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above 
this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA 
section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures 
and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the 
agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR 
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the 
light of other health risk factors'' (54 FR at 38045). Similarly, with 
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the 
Benzene NESHAP that: ``the EPA believes the relative weight of the many 
factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety 
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs 
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the 
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category'' 
(54 FR at 38061).
    The EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not 
been considered to date in making residual risk determinations. In 
assessing risks to populations in the vicinity of the facilities in 
each category, we present estimates of risk associated with HAP 
emissions from the source category alone (source category risk 
estimates) and HAP emissions from the entire facility at which the 
covered source category is located (facilitywide risk estimates). We do 
not attempt to characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions 
impacting the populations living near the sources in these categories. 
That is, at this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks 
that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not 
include the source category in question, mobile source emissions, 
natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or 
atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these 
categories.
    The agency understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. This is 
particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where 
pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., Reference 
Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the assumption that thresholds 
exist for adverse health effects. For example, the agency recognizes 
that, although exposures attributable to emissions from a source 
category or facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased 
risk of adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the 
exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in combination 
with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) 
to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to result in 
increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 2010, the 
Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised us ``* * * that RTR assessments 
will be most useful to decision makers and communities if results are 
presented in the broader context of aggregate and cumulative risks, 
including background concentrations and contributions from other 
sources in the area.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8593]]

    While we are interested in placing source category and facilitywide 
HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources combined 
in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the 
uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such 
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than for the source category or facilitywide estimates 
hence compounding the uncertainty in any such comparison. This is 
because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP 
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not 
previously undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such 
review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate 
and evaluate total HAP exposure in our assessments and, in particular, 
on whether and how it might be appropriate to use information from 
EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) to support such estimates. 
We are also seeking comment on how best to consider various types and 
scales of risk estimates when making our acceptability and ample margin 
of safety determinations under CAA section 112(f).

C. How did we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP was 
promulgated. In cases where the technology review identified such 
developments, we conducted an analysis of the technical feasibility of 
applying these developments, along with the estimated impacts (costs, 
emissions reductions, risk reductions, etc.) of applying these 
developments. We then made decisions on whether it is appropriate or 
necessary to propose amendments to the 2000 NESHAP to require any of 
the identified developments.
    Based on our analyses of the data and information collected from 
industry and the trade organization representing facilities subject to 
the NESHAP, our general understanding of the industry, and other 
available information in the literature on potential controls for this 
industry, we identified several new developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, 
we considered any of the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the 2000 Secondary 
Aluminum Production NESHAP.
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the 2000 Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP) that could result in 
significant additional emissions reduction.
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the 2000 Secondary 
Aluminum Production NESHAP.
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the 2000 Secondary 
Aluminum Production NESHAP.
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, or control 
technologies that were not considered at the time we developed the 2000 
NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our evaluation of 
whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to 
consider for the Secondary Aluminum Production industry. Among the data 
sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were 
promulgated after the 2000 NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory 
requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory 
actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies 
considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions 
sources in the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, as well 
as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with 
the use of these technologies.
    Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding 
developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, 
we reviewed other information sources, such as State or local 
permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases. In 
particular, we consulted the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) 
to identify potential technology advances. Control technologies 
classified as RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology), BACT 
(Best Available Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest Achievable 
Emissions Rate) apply to stationary sources depending on whether the 
sources are existing or new and on the size, age, and location of the 
facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-
by-case basis, usually by State or local permitting agencies. The EPA 
established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution 
technology information (including technologies required in source-
specific permits) to promote the sharing of information among 
permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future possible control 
technology options that might apply broadly to numerous sources within 
a category or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains 
over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help 
identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant 
emissions streams. We searched this database to determine whether it 
contained any practices, processes or control technologies for the 
types of processes covered by the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP. 
No such practices, processes or control technologies were identified in 
this database.

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

    In addition to the analyses described above, we also reviewed other 
aspects of the MACT standards for possible revision as appropriate and 
necessary. Based on this review we have identified aspects of the MACT 
standards that we believe need revision.
    This includes proposing revisions to the startup, shutdown and 
malfunction (SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that 
they are consistent with the court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    We are also proposing changes to the rule related to affirmative 
defense for violation of an emission limit during a malfunction. We are 
proposing other changes to address HF emissions, fugitive emissions 
during testing and numerous clarifications and corrections related to 
the existing provisions in the rule. Descriptions of each issue and the 
proposed revision to address the issue are presented in Section IV of 
this preamble.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

    This section of the preamble provides the results of our RTR for 
the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and our proposed 
decisions concerning changes to the Secondary Aluminum Production 
NESHAP.

A. What are the results of the risk assessments?

    For major sources in the Secondary Aluminum source category, we

[[Page 8594]]

conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted. In 
addition, we performed a facilitywide risk assessment for the major 
sources in the secondary aluminum source category. For area sources, we 
conducted an inhalation risk assessment for D/F since this is the only 
HAP covered by the subpart RRR MACT standards at area sources. For all 
sources, we conducted multipathway screening analyses for PB-HAP 
emitted (e.g., D/F). Although there are 53 major sources and 108 area 
sources covered by the subpart RRR MACT standards, 52 major sources and 
103 area sources were modeled due to the other sources' lack of 
equipment subject to the applicable emission standards. Results of the 
risk assessment are presented briefly below and in more detail in the 
residual risk documentation referenced in Section III of this preamble, 
which is available in the docket for this action.
    Table 4 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results 
of the inhalation risk assessment.

                                        Table 4--Secondary Aluminum Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Maximum individual cancer risk                                    Maximum chronic non-cancer
                                       (in 1 million) \1\           Estimated       Estimated               TOSHI \2\
                               ---------------------------------  population at   annual cancer --------------------------------    Worst-case maximum
     Category & number of                           Based on     increased risk     incidence       Based on        Based on     refined screening acute
      facilities modeled        Based on actual     allowable    of cancer >= 1    (cases per        actual         allowable       non-cancer HQ \3\
                                emissions level     emissions     in 1 million      year) \4\       emissions       emissions
                                                      level            \4\                            level           level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Source (52).............              1                20               2          0.0006          0.05             1      HQREL 0.7 (HCl)
Area Source (103).............              0.4               6               0          0.0006          0.0003           0.005  .......................
Facility-wide Major Source....             20    ..............          62,000          0.006           0.4     ..............  .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\4\ These estimates are based on actual emissions.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment for 
major sources indicate that the maximum lifetime individual cancer 
risk, considering actual emissions, could be up to 1 in 1 million, 
driven by dioxin emissions. The maximum cancer risks for this source 
category exceeded a cancer risk of 1 in 1 million at 1 of 52 
facilities. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source 
category based on actual emission levels is 0.0006 excess cancer cases 
per year, or one excess case in every 1,666 years. No people were 
estimated to have cancer risks above 10 in a million and approximately 
2 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1 in 1 million 
considering all major source facilities in this source category. Based 
on MACT-allowable emissions for the major sources in this category, the 
MIR could be up to 20 in 1 million.
    With respect to chronic inhalation noncancer risk from major 
sources, we estimate a maximum TOSHI value of 0.05 for the Secondary 
Aluminum source category, primarily from hydrochloric acid from Group 1 
furnaces. Considering MACT-allowable emissions, this maximum TOSHI 
value is estimated to be 1. Moreover, our worst-case highest acute 
screening value for major sources was 0.7 based on the REL for HCL.
    Considering facility wide emissions at the 52 major sources, the 
MIR is estimated to be up to 20 in 1 million, the estimated annual 
incidence is 0.006 cases per year, and the chronic non-cancer TOSHI 
value is calculated to be 0.4.
    In addition, we estimated risks associated with dioxin emissions at 
the 103 area sources in the Secondary Aluminum Production source 
category. The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment 
indicate that the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be up 
to 0.4 in 1 million and an estimated annual incidence of 0.0006 cases 
per year. Considering 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 0.005 for area sources.
    In addition to the analyses presented above, to screen for 
potential multipathway effects from emissions of PB-HAP (such as 
cadmium, dioxins and PAHs) we compared actual emission rates from major 
source facilities in this source category to the screening values for 
these PB HAP described above (see Section III(A)(4)). For dioxins, we 
also screened for potential multipathway effects from emissions of D/F 
from area sources by comparing the estimated actual emission rates from 
these area sources to the screening value for D/F described above. (see 
Risk Assessment Document Appendix 4 for a more detailed discussion of 
screening emission rates). Results of this worst-case screen estimate 
that actual POM emissions from 10 of the 52 major source facilities 
exceed the POM screening emission rate. With respect to D/F, of the 46 
major sources that emitted dioxins, 39 exceeded our screening emission 
rate. Similarly, 76 out of 103 area sources exceeded our D/F screening 
rate. These exceedances of the worst-case multipathway screening level 
for POM and dioxins indicate that there may be potential multipathway 
impacts of concern due to emissions of POM and dioxins. In general, 
emission rates below the worst-case multipathway screening level 
indicate no significant potential for multipathway-related health or 
environmental effects; whereas emission levels above this worst-case 
screening level only indicate the potential for multipathway-related 
health or environmental risks of concern based on a worst-case 
scenario. Thus, we note that these screening values are biased high for 
purposes of screening and are subject to significant uncertainties. As 
such, they do not represent refined estimates of risk and thus, do not 
necessarily indicate that potential multipathway risks from the source 
category may be a concern; we can only say that we cannot rule them 
out.
    With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects 
from non PB-HAP, we note that for both major

[[Page 8595]]

and area sources all chronic non-cancer HQ values for all pollutants 
considering actual emissions are well below 1 using human health 
reference values. Thus, we believe that it is unlikely that adverse 
environmental effects would occur at the actual HAP concentrations 
estimated in our human health risk assessment.

B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and 
ample margin of safety?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in Section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
MIR, the numbers of persons in various risk ranges, cancer incidence, 
the maximum noncancer HI, the maximum acute noncancer hazard, the 
extent of noncancer risks, the potential for adverse environmental 
effects, distribution of risks in the exposed population, and risk 
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    For the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, the risk 
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed 
could be up to 1 in 1 million due to actual emissions and up to 20 in 1 
million due to MACT-allowable emissions. These risks are considerably 
less than 100 in 1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of 
acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence 
(0.0006 cases per year), as well as no potential for adverse chronic or 
acute non-cancer health effects. In addition, the risk assessment 
indicates no significant potential for adverse environmental effects.
    In addition to the analyses presented above, to screen for 
potential multipathway effects from emissions of D/F and POM, we 
compared the estimated actual emission rates from facilities in this 
source category to the multipathway screening levels described in 
section III.B. With respect to POM and dioxins, both major and area 
sources in the category exceeded our worst-case screening levels. 
However, we note that this is a worst-case conservative screening level 
analysis, therefore these results are biased high for purposes of 
screening and are subject to significant uncertainties. Moreover, we 
note that due to data limitations we were unable to further refine this 
worst-case screening scenario. As such, they do not necessarily 
indicate that significant multipathway risks actually exist at 
secondary aluminum facilities, only that we cannot rule them out as a 
possibility. With regard to facilitywide multipathway risk, based on 
the low level of risk identified for the source category, a 
facilitywide multipathway risk analysis was not conducted for this 
source category.
    Considering all of the health risk information and factors 
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section 
IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
    We next considered whether the existing MACT standard provides an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin 
of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied in this source category to further reduce the risks (or 
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk 
assessment, along with all of the health risks and other health 
information considered in the risk acceptability determination 
described above. In this analysis we considered the results of the 
technology review, risk assessment and other aspects of our MACT rule 
review to determine whether there are any 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 in this industry or in other 
industries that would be cost-effective for further reduction of these 
emissions. Based on the estimated low risk levels and absence of new 
practices or control options, we conclude that the provisions of the 
current MACT provide for an ample margin of safety for public health 
with respect to emissions of POM, THC and metal HAP.
    Our multipathway screening analysis results indicated exceedances 
of the worst-case screening levels which do not necessarily indicate 
any risks, however, they do suggest a potential for risks that cannot 
be ruled out. To evaluate the potential to reduce D/F emissions to 
ensure an ample margin of safety, our analysis for D/F focused on two 
options: (1) Lowering the existing D/F limit from 15 to 10 [mu]g TEQ/Mg 
feed for Group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge at all 
facilities; and (2) lowering the existing D/F limit for Group 1 
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 [mu]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. For more 
information, please refer to the Draft Technical Document for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category that is available in the 
public docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    We also evaluated possible options based on work practices to 
achieve further emissions reductions. The current subpart RRR NESHAP 
includes work practices to minimize D/F emissions which include scrap 
inspection, limitations on materials processed by group 2 furnaces, 
temperature and residence time requirements for afterburners 
controlling sweat furnaces, labeling requirements, capture/collection 
requirements, and requirements for an operations, maintenance and 
monitoring plan that contains details on the proper operation and 
maintenance of processes and control equipment. We searched for and 
evaluated other possible work practices such as good combustion 
practices, better scrap inspection and cleaning, and process 
monitoring. However, none of these potential work practices were 
determined to be feasible and effective in reducing D/F emissions

[[Page 8596]]

for this source category. Thus, we did not identify any feasible or 
applicable work practices for this industry beyond those that are 
currently in the MACT rule. Further detail on work practices and 
control options are provided in the Draft Technology Review for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category, which is available in 
the docket.
    In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP, 
we weighed all health risk information and factors considered in the 
risk acceptability determination, including uncertainties, along with 
the cost and feasibility of control technologies and other measures 
that could be applied in this source category, in making our ample 
margin of safety determination. In summary, we did not identify any 
cost-effective approaches to further reduce POM, THC, metal HAP or D/F 
emissions beyond the reductions that are already being achieved by the 
current NESHAP. Further, our analysis indicates that none of the 
options considered would result in significant emissions reductions and 
would not, therefore, result in significant changes to the potential 
risk levels.
    Because of the high cost associated with the use of activated 
carbon injection systems and because work practices are already 
required to help ensure low emissions, we propose that the existing 
MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.

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

    As described above, the typical controls used to minimize emissions 
at secondary aluminum facilities include fabric filters for control of 
PM from aluminum scrap shredders; afterburners for control of THC and 
D/F from thermal chip dryers; afterburners plus lime-injected fabric 
filters for control of PM, HCl, THC, and D/F from scrap dryers/
delacquering kilns/decoating kilns; afterburners for control of D/F 
from sweat furnaces; fabric filters for control of PM from dross-only 
furnaces and rotary dross coolers; lime-injected fabric filters for 
control of PM and HCl from in-line fluxers; and lime-injected fabric 
filters for control of PM, HCl and D/F from group 1 furnaces. There 
have been some developments in practices, processes, or control 
technologies that have been implemented in this source category since 
promulgation of the current NESHAP. However, based on information 
available to the EPA, these technologies do not clearly reduce HAP 
emissions relative to technologies that were considered by the EPA when 
promulgating the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP in 2000. In 
addition, we evaluated whether lime-injection fabric filters with 
activated carbon injection could be used to further reduce D/F from 
group 1 furnaces in a cost-effective manner.
    At least one company supplies multichamber furnaces that combine 
the functions of a delacquering kiln and a melting furnace. At least 16 
of these furnaces are in operation in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, 
however emission test data for these facilities is not available. One 
furnace of this type is presently operating in the U.S. and is 
permitted as a group 1 furnace handling other than clean charge.
    However, the limited D/F emission test data available for the one 
operating U.S. multichamber furnace is within the range of test data 
for Group 1 furnaces and delacquering kilns that are in compliance with 
subpart RRR using control technologies considered by the EPA in the 
subpart RRR NESHAP. Based on available information it is not clear that 
this technology would reduce HAP emissions relative to technologies 
that were considered by the EPA in promulgating the subpart RRR NESHAP 
and are already used by other facilities. Based on our analysis, we 
conclude that it would not be appropriate at this time to revise 
subpart RRR standards based on use of this technology.
    Eddy current separators are used to separate a concentrated 
aluminum fraction from a heterogeneous scrap feed. These units operate 
at ambient temperature and emit no D/F or other gaseous pollutants. 
They are used on the material output from mechanical shredders that 
shred automobiles and appliances (not on the scrap shredders used in 
the secondary aluminum industry). These units can potentially decrease 
the need for sweat furnaces. However, the product of eddy current 
separators is not clean charge, as with a sweat furnace. Therefore, the 
product of eddy current separators must undergo further processing to 
produce clean charge, and it is not possible to directly compare eddy 
current separators with sweat furnaces.
    Catalytic filtration systems, including catalytic filter bags, are 
available to reduce D/F emissions. These bags incorporate an expanded 
polytetrafluoroethylene membrane coated with a precious metal catalyst 
which promotes the oxidation of D/F. The manufacturer claims that this 
system is installed in over 100 applications around the world, 
including at least 1 secondary aluminum processing plant. However, no 
respondents to our all-company ICR reported using this technology and 
we have no data on the D/F emission levels that can be achieved at 
secondary aluminum production facilities using this technology. 
Therefore we cannot conclude that they are more effective at reducing 
D/F emissions than the control technologies considered by the EPA in 
the 2000 subpart RRR NESHAP. We therefore conclude, based on 
information available to the EPA, that catalytic filtration systems are 
not at present a demonstrated control technology that should be used as 
the technical basis to require more stringent emission limits for the 
secondary aluminum production source category.
    We also evaluated the potential to lower D/F emissions under the 
technology review by lowering the emissions limits based on the broader 
use of activated carbon injection technology. Under this analysis, we 
evaluated the same approach that was evaluated under the ample margin 
of safety analysis described in section IV.B. In summary, we evaluated 
two main options, as follows: (1) Lower the existing D/F limit from 15 
to 10 [mu]g TEQ/Mg feed for Group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge at all facilities; and (2) lower the existing D/F limit 
for Group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, after applying 
a subcategorization based on facility production capacity. The lower D/
F emissions 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 [mu]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. After considering the compliance costs and the small 
associated emission reductions that would be achieved, we are not 
proposing revised subpart RRR standards based on either of these 
options that rely on the use of ACI

[[Page 8597]]

injection technology under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
    Overall, based on our review of developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies, we have not identified any control 
approaches that clearly reduce HAP emissions in a cost-effective manner 
relative to technologies that were available and considered by the EPA 
at the time of promulgation of the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP 
in 2000. Therefore, we are not proposing any revisions to the NESHAP as 
a result of our technology review. Additional details regarding these 
analyses can be found in the following technical document for this 
action which is available in the docket: Draft Technology Review for 
the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category.

D. What other actions are we proposing?

    This section discusses revisions that are being proposed to correct 
and clarify provisions in the rule as well as solicitations of comments 
and requests for additional information. We are proposing revisions to 
the rule to address SSM provisions within the rule that were vacated by 
a court ruling and we are adding a requirement for electronic 
submission of all test results to increase the ease and efficiency of 
data submittal and improve data accessibility. In addition, since 
promulgation of the subpart RRR NESHAP in March 2000 (65 FR 15689), we 
have received recommendations and suggestions from individual 
representatives from state regulatory agencies and industry, as well as 
within EPA, to correct errors in the rule and to help clarify the 
intent and implementation of the rule. Table 5 provides a summary of 
these proposed changes. Following Table 5 are detailed descriptions of 
the proposed revisions.

     Table 5--Summary of Technical Corrections/Clarifications to the
                  Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Correction/Clarification                    Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Startup, shutdown and             Addresses vacated General
 malfunctions (63.1503, 63.1506(l)   Provision (GP) requirements.
 and (m), 63.1506(q),and 63.1520).   Deletes references to
                                     vacated GP sections.
                                     Requires all sources to
                                     comply with emission limits
                                     including during periods of startup
                                     and shutdown.
                                     Adds definition for
                                     affirmative defense. Adds
                                     affirmative defense provisions for
                                     malfunctions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Electronic Reporting              Requires owners and
 (63.1516(b)(3)).                    operators to report performance
                                     test results through the EPA
                                     Electronic Reporting System (ERT).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ACGIH Guidelines...............   The capture and collection
                                     provision of Sec.   63.1506(c)(1)
                                     that reference the ''Industrial
                                     Ventilation: A Manual of
                                     Recommended Practice'', is revised
                                     to allow 23rd or 27th Editions and
                                     take out specific references to
                                     chapters 3 and 5.
                                     Requests comments on
                                     methods other than ACGIH Guidelines
                                     to ensure capture and collection
                                     and alternatives to the currently
                                     required hooding requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Scrap Inspection Program for      Considering improvements to
 Group 1 Furnace without Add-on      scrap inspection program.
 Air Pollutions Control Devices      Requesting comments and
 (63.1510(p)).                       information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Multiple Tests for Worst Case     Clarifies that multiple
 Scenarios (63.1511(b)(6)).          tests may be required to reflect
                                     the range of emissions likely for
                                     each regulated pollutant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Lime Injection Rate               Requires verification of
 Verification (63.1510(i)(4)).       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    Adds a definition of
 (63.1503).                          capture and collection systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Bale Breakers (63.1503).......   Adds a definition of a bale
                                     breaker to clarify that a bale
                                     breaker is not a scrap shredder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Bag Leak Detection Systems       Removes reference to an
 (BLDS) (63.1510(f)(1)(ii)).         outdated guidance document and
                                     requires use of manufacturer's
                                     maintenance and operating
                                     instructions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sidewell Furnaces                Requires visual inspection
 (63.1510(n)(1)).                    after each tap rather than after
                                     each charge.
                                     Allows other means of
                                     measuring molten metal level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Testing Representative Units     Clarifies that all
 (63.1511(f)(6)).                    performance test runs must be
                                     conducted on the same affected
                                     source or emission unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Inital Performance Tests         Revises performance test
 (63.1511(b)).                       requirements to allow 180 days to
                                     conduct initial performance test
                                     consistent with GP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Definition of Scrap Dryer/       Clarifies definition of
 Delacquering Kiln/Decoating Kiln    Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating
 and Scrap Shredder (63.1503).       Kiln to include delamination of
                                     aluminum from paper or plastic.
                                     Clarifies definition of
                                     scrap shredder to include
                                     granulation and shearing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Transporting metal (63.1503)..   Clarifies definition of
                                     Group 2 furnace to exclude pots
                                     used to transport metal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Specifications for Cleaning      Not proposing cleaning
 Processes.                          specifications at this time.

[[Page 8598]]

 
                                     Invites comments and
                                     solicits information on appropriate
                                     cleaning procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. HF Emissions Compliance          Adds definition of HF.
 Provisions (63.1503, 63.1505,       Adds emissions standard for
 63.1511(c)(9), 63.1513).            HF.
                                     Requires EPA Method 26A for
                                     measurement of HF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Uncontrolled furnaces that do    Requires owner/operators
 not Comply with ACGIH Hooding       with uncontrolled group 1 furnaces
 Guidelines (63.1512(e)(4)).         to construct hoods for performance
                                     testing to demonstrate compliance,
                                     or assume 67 percent capture
                                     efficiency if hooding does not meet
                                     ACGIH guidelines.
                                     Seeks comments on
                                     alternative approaches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clarify the possible Number of   Revises ``SAPU'' definition
 SAPUs (63.1503).                    to clarify there can be more than 1
                                     new SAPU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Aluminum Scrap Containing        Clarifies ``clean charge''
 Anodizing Dyes or Sealants          definition to exclude anodized
 (63.1503).                          material that contains dyes or
                                     sealants that contain organic
                                     material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Afterburner Residence Time       Clarifies ``residence
 (63.1503).                          time'' definition to include
                                     refractory lined ductwork up to the
                                     control thermocouple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate            Clarifies that daily
 (63.1505(k)).                       throughput must be used to
                                     calculate allowable emissions
                                     within the SAPU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Changing Furnace                 Allows owners/operators to
 Classifications (Sec.   63.1514).   change furnace classifications.
                                     Specifies requirements for
                                     changing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap    Clarifies that owners/
 Furnaces.                           operators have the option to
                                     conduct performance tests under
                                     different operating conditions to
                                     address charge/flux changes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Annual Hood Inspections          Clarifies that annual hood
 (63.1510(d)(2)).                    inspections include flow rate
                                     measurements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Applicability of Rule to Area    Clarifies which operating,
 Sources (63.1506(a), 63.1510(a)).   monitoring and other standards
                                     apply to area sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Altering Parameters during       Clarifies that owners/
 Testing with New Scrap Streams      operators can deviate from
 (63.1511(b)(1)).                    established parametric limits
                                     during performance testing being
                                     done to establish new parametric
                                     limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Controlled Furnaces that are     Allows control device for
 Temporarily Idled (63.1506(q)(5)).  furnaces to be shut down if furnace
                                     will remain idle for 24 hours or
                                     longer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Annual Compliance                Clarifies that area sources
 Certification for Area Sources      must submit an annual compliance
 (63.1516(c)).                       certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunctions
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA Section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained 
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a 
regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' 
that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When incorporated into 
CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 
two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 
periods of SSM.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in 
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several 
revisions to Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 (the General 
Provisions Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to 
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that 
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate or 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not 
included in the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM 
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether there are any 
such provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
    In proposing standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account 
startup and shutdown periods and is proposing standards for startup and 
shutdown periods for all process units.
    We are proposing that the subpart RRR standards apply at all times, 
including periods of startup and shutdown. Because the scrap processed 
at secondary aluminum production facilities is the source of emissions, 
we expect that emissions during startup and shutdown would be no higher 
and probably much lower than emissions during normal operations since 
no scrap would be processed. We know of no reason why the existing 
standards should not apply at all times. For production processes in 
the secondary aluminum production source category where the standards 
are expressed in units of pounds per ton of feed or similar units (i.e. 
thermal chip dyers, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, 
dross-only furnaces, in-line

[[Page 8599]]

fluxers using reactive flux, and group 1 furnaces), we are proposing 
certain methods for demonstrating compliance with those limits, as 
discussed further in the Technical Document for the Secondary Aluminum 
Production Source Category that is available in the docket for this 
proposed rulemaking.
    We solicit comment on the proposed standards during startup and 
shutdown periods. Specifically, for those processes that have 
production-based limits (i.e., thermal chip dyers, scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, in-line fluxers 
using reactive flux, and group 1 furnaces), we solicit comment as to 
whether work practices under section 112(h) of the CAA should be 
applied during startup and shutdown. If you believe work practices 
would be appropriate for such processes, please explain how the 
requirements of section 112(h)(2) are met and identify any work 
practices that would be effective in limiting HAP emissions during 
periods of startup and shutdown for such processes.
    For these processes (thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering 
kilns/decoating kilns, dross-only furnaces, group 1 furnaces, in-line 
fluxers, dross only furnaces, sweat furnaces, and group 2 furnaces), 
startup begins with ignition and equipment warming from a cold start or 
a complete shutdown, using natural gas or other clean fuel. At the 
point that feed is introduced, startup ends and the process is in 
normal operation. Similarly for shutdown periods, when an operator 
halts the introduction of feed or charge to, and has removed all 
product (e.g., tapped a furnace), the shutdown phase has begun. For 
more information about the application of subpart RRR standards to 
periods of Startup and shutdown, including revised methods to 
demonstrate compliance, see the Technical Support Document for the 
Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category that is available in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operation. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA 
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods 
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 
standards. Under section 112, emissions standards for new sources must 
be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled 
similar source and for existing sources generally must be no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best 
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in 
section 112 that directs the agency to consider malfunctions in 
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing or best 
controlled sources when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the 
EPA accounts for variability in setting emission standards consistent 
with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the 
agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 
of the CAA uses the concept of ``best controlled'' and ``best 
performing'' unit in defining the level of stringency that CAA section 
112 performance standards must meet. Applying the concept of ``best 
controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a unit that is malfunctioning 
presents significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and 
unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. 
Cir. 1999) (The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the 
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally 
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect 
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to 
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general 
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate 
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of 
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' 
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative 
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification 
in advance by regulation''). In addition, the goal of a best controlled 
or best performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid 
malfunctions of the source, and accounting for malfunctions could lead 
to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels that are 
achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's 
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause a violation of the relevant emission standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on 
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to add to 
the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations 
of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1503 
(defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an 
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other 
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to 
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set 
forth in 40 CFR 63.1520 (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that 
the affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes a 
violation of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of 
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless 
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative 
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
excess emissions ``[w]ere

[[Page 8600]]

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 Sec.  1520(a)(8) and to prevent future malfunctions. 
For example, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 
that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that 
``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess 
emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health * * 
*.'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator 
may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the 
respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in 
the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in 
accordance with Section 113 of the Clean Air Act (see also 40 CFR 
22.27).
    The EPA included an affirmative defense in the proposed rule in an 
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, 
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that 
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded 
under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must 
establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or 
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' 
42 U.S.C. Sec.  7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation and emission 
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 
emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for 
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where 
there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable 
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' limitations, on the one 
hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many 
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical 
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 
486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that 
in setting standards under CAA Section 111 ``variant provisions'' such 
as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and 
equipment malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness 
of the standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 
`never to be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, 
Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 
1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the 
CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they 
support the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of 
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for 
a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be 
beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative 
defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a 
Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 
formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the 
permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th 
Cir. 1977). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 
(D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The 
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both 
ensure that its emission limitations are ``continuous'' as required by 
42 U.S.C. Sec.  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 
Sec.  63.1520(a)(8) to replace General Provision requirements that 
reference vacated SSM provisions.
     Revise language in 40 CFR 63.1515 that references 
notifications for SSM events.
     Add paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1520 concerning the reporting 
of malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense provisions.
     Add paragraph in 40 CFR 63.1516(d) regarding reporting of 
malfunctions and revised Sec.  63.1516(b)(1)(v) to remove reference to 
malfunction.
     Revise paragraph in 40 CFR 63.1510(s)(iv) to remove 
reference to malfunction.
     Add paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1517 concerning the keeping of 
certain records relating to malfunctions as part of the affirmative 
defense provisions.
     Revise Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 to reflect 
changes in the applicability of the General Provisions to this subpart 
resulting from a court vacatur of certain SSM requirements in the 
General Provisions.
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective 
reviews of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many 
other purposes including compliance determinations, emissions factor 
development and annual emissions rate determinations. In conducting 
these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 
consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source 
owners and operators, to locate, collect, and submit performance test 
data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data 
storage methods. In recent years, though, stack testing firms have 
typically collected performance test data in electronic format, making 
it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would 
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data 
accessibility.
    Through this proposal the EPA is presenting a step to increase the 
ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. 
Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of 
Secondary Aluminum Production facilities submit electronic copies of 
required performance test reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The 
WebFIRE database was constructed to store performance test data for use 
in developing emissions factors. A description of the WebFIRE database 
is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    As proposed above, data entry would be through an electronic 
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool. 
The ERT would generate an electronic report which would be submitted 
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 
The submitted report would be transmitted through EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making 
submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the 
ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and 
CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). The 
proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA 
would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test 
methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific 
electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference 
methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the 
ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.

[[Page 8601]]

We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to 
electronic data submittal. Having these data, the EPA would be able to 
develop improved emissions factors, make fewer information requests and 
promulgate better regulations.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test 
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much 
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another 
advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing information would 
be required. Another important proposed benefit of submitting these 
data to the EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it 
should substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection 
activities in the future. When the EPA has performance test data in 
hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection 
requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk 
assessments or technology reviews. This would result in a reduced 
burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to 
respond to data collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing 
and distributing data collection requests and assessing the results).
    State, local and tribal agencies could also benefit from more 
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them. 
The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than a 
manual data assessment making review and evaluation of the source 
provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally, 
another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE 
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall 
quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool 
of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by 
ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry 
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and 
regulators is that emissions factors are outdated or not representative 
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation 
of data from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure 
that emissions factors, when updated, represent the most current range 
of operational practices. In summary, in addition to supporting 
regulation development, control strategy development and other air 
pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated 
with performance test data would save industry, state, local, tribal 
agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while also 
improving the quality of emissions inventories and, as a result, air 
quality regulations.
3. ACGIH Guidelines
Capture and Collection Requirements
    Subpart RRR specifies the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual as 
the standard for acceptable capture and collection of emissions from a 
source with an add-on air pollution control device. See Sec.  
63.1506(c)(1) and Table 3 to subpart RRR. The rule currently 
incorporates by reference ``Chapters 3 and 5 of Industrial Ventilation: 
A Manual of Recommended Practice'', American Conference of Government 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 23rd edition, 1998. Two issues have been 
raised with respect to the ACGIH Guidelines since inception of the 
rule.
    First the referenced version of the manual is no longer in print. 
Therefore we are proposing that the 23rd edition or the most recent 
27th edition to the manual may be used. Further we are proposing to 
remove the specific chapter reference due to difference in the manual 
versions.
    Second, the current rule requires that emissions capture and 
collection systems be designed consistent with the ACGIH industrial 
ventilation guidelines and that the methodologies of demonstrating 
compliance with capture and collection are consistent with ACGIH 
requirements. We are proposing that affected sources that are equipped 
with air pollution control devices must follow the ACGIH Guidelines, 
23rd or 27th editions. Industry representatives point out that the 
manual contains ``recommended'' ventilation practices and assert that 
subpart RRR inappropriately requires compliance with the guidelines. 
For example, the guidance establishes design criteria for determining 
minimum hood dimensions and flow; however, industry representatives 
allege that the relevant equation is not appropriate for determining 
minimum flow requirements for ``oversized'' hoods that are used in the 
secondary aluminum production industry. The equations for sizing hoods 
in Chapter 3 of the 23rd edition were said to over-predict the required 
flow rates. According to industry representatives, the ACGIH manual 
should be used only as a guideline for judging the effectiveness of the 
hoods and that engineering evaluations of hoods can be performed 
similarly to those for other engineered processes. Also, there may be 
rules and ventilation guidelines developed by other professional 
organizations, governmental agencies or industry organizations that are 
appropriate and could be used.
    Therefore, we are considering allowing other recognized design 
criteria and methodologies for the capture and collection of emissions 
in the demonstration of compliance, which will provide more flexibility 
to the industry. We are inviting comments on alternatives to the ACGIH 
guidelines or other suggestions for revising the rule to increase 
flexibility for the industry while ensuring that capture and collection 
systems are adequately designed and operated to insure that emissions 
are captured and fugitive emissions minimized. In particular, we would 
be interested in obtaining information on minimum face velocity, 
elimination of visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other 
suitable parameter(s) to determine capture effectiveness.
4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace Without Add-on Air 
Pollution Control Device
    Under the current subpart RRR NESHAP, the owner or operator of a 
group 1 furnace that is not equipped with an add-on air pollution 
control device must prepare a written monitoring plan describing the 
measures that will be taken to ensure continuous compliance with all 
applicable emissions limits. One such measure is the inspection of 
scrap to determine the levels of contaminants in the scrap that will be 
charged to the furnace. Section 63.1510(p) lists the requirements for a 
scrap inspection program although this scrap inspection program is not 
mandatory. Because the Agency considers a well designed and implemented 
scrap inspection program important to ensuring that emissions are 
maintained at levels below the applicable emissions limits, we are 
interested in how we could improve the current scrap inspection 
provisions as well as how we would make the scrap inspection program 
more usable. Therefore, we are soliciting comments and information on 
what such a program should include. We are particularly interested in 
receiving comments and information from companies, organizations or 
individuals that may have experience with scrap inspection programs and 
may have been involved in developing and implementing such programs.
5. Multiple Tests for Worst Case Scenarios
    The existing rule currently allows testing to demonstrate 
compliance under a range of operating scenarios. Facilities that 
process a range of

[[Page 8602]]

materials (such as dross, used beverage containers (UBC), etc.) may 
have different scenarios (production levels, range of charge materials, 
and reactive fluxing rates) that result in a range of emissions for the 
different regulated pollutants. For example, the scenario resulting in 
the highest emissions of HCl may be while processing dross; the 
scenario resulting in the highest emissions of D/F formation may be 
while processing UBC; and the scenario resulting in the highest 
emissions of PM is most likely UBC as well. The EPA is aware of 
concerns that under the original rule and subsequent amendments, there 
may be some uncertainty about different testing conditions that may be 
required for different HAP. We are proposing amendments to Sec.  
63.1511 to clarify that performance tests under multiple scenarios may 
be required in order to reflect the emissions ranges for each regulated 
pollutant.
6. Lime Injection Rate Verification
    The rule currently requires owners/operators to verify that 
continuous lime injection system maintains free-flowing lime in the 
hopper at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at the same 
level established during the performance test. However the rule does 
not specifically require that the feeder setting be verified with a 
pound per hour (lb/hr) injection rate as established in the performance 
test. Due to continuous usage of the equipment, the feeder setting and 
injection rate may not correlate as they did during the performance 
test. Periodic verification of the actual injection rate in pounds per 
hour would ensure that the necessary amount of lime is reaching the 
baghouse and it would give a better indication of continuous 
compliance. We are proposing to revise Sec.  63.1510 by adding a 
requirement for the verification of the lime injection rate in pounds 
per hour at least once per month. We are also proposing changes to 
clarify that for the purposes of monitoring the rate of lime injection, 
the lime injection feeder setting must be set no lower than that 
determined in the performance test; however, it may be set above that 
level.
7. Flux Monitoring
    Flux monitoring provisions in Sec.  63.1510(j)(3)(ii) require the 
owner/operator to record, for each 15-minute block period during each 
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test during 
which reactive fluxing occurs, the time, weight and type of flux for 
each addition of solid reactive flux. Solid flux, however, may be added 
intermittently during the operating cycle dependent upon the needs of 
the furnace. We are proposing amendments to revise these monitoring 
requirements to clarify that solid flux should be tracked at each 
addition during the cycle or time period used in the performance test.
8. Cover Fluxes
    Cover flux is defined in Sec.  63.1503 as ``salt added to the 
surface of molten aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace, without 
agitation of the molten aluminum for the purpose of preventing 
oxidation''. We have received information from industry and state 
agencies indicating that most furnaces are agitated. Rotary furnaces 
are constantly rotated until the metal is tapped and reverberatory 
furnaces have a molten metal pump circulating aluminum from the hearth 
to the charge well providing agitation to melt the scrap. In order to 
avoid major source status, a few secondary aluminum facilities have 
claimed that they were using cover fluxes when they were actually using 
reactive fluxes which may lead to higher emissions. Other sources 
claiming to use a cover flux were using them in furnaces in which the 
melt was being agitated and, therefore, did not meet the definition of 
cover flux. To address this, we are proposing to clarify the definition 
of cover flux by adding to the definition the following: Any flux added 
to a rotary furnace or other furnace that uses a molten metal pump or 
other device to circulate the aluminum is not a cover flux. Any 
reactive flux cannot be a cover flux.
9. Capture and Collection System
    Affected sources under the current rule that are controlled by an 
air pollution control device must use a capture and collection system 
meeting the guidelines of the ACGIH in order to minimize fugitive 
emissions and ensure that emissions are routed to the control device 
where the pollutants are removed from the exhaust gas stream. As part 
of efforts to clarify hooding and capture requirements we are proposing 
a definition for capture and collection systems, as follows: Capture 
and collection system means the system of hood(s), duct system and fan 
used to collect a contaminant at or near its source, and for affected 
sources equipped with an air pollution control device, transport the 
contaminated air to the air cleaning device.
10. Bale Breakers and Scrap Shredders
    The current regulation exempts bale breakers from the requirements 
for aluminum scrap shredders and the definition of shredders is 
intentionally broad. To clarify that a bale breaker is not a scrap 
shredder, we are proposing a definition for bale breaker. We are also 
proposing to clarify in the definition of aluminum scrap shredder that 
both high speed and low speed shredding devices are considered scrap 
shredders.
11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS)
    The current requirements for BLDS in the rule cite a 1997 guidance 
document on bag leak detection systems that operate on the 
triboelectric effect (when materials become electrically charged 
through contact and separation from another material). BLDS currently 
in use operate digitally and are not addressed by the 1997 guidance. We 
are proposing to update Sec.  63.1510(f) to remove the reference to the 
1997 guidance document and require that the manufacturer's maintenance 
and operating instructions be followed at all times.
12. Sidewell Furnaces
    The monitoring requirements for sidewell group 1 furnaces with 
uncontrolled hearths specify recording the level of molten metal (above 
or below the arch between the sidewell and hearth) for each charge to 
the furnace. Because there are emission units that add charge 
continuously and emission units that add charge intermittently, the 
requirements to record levels during each charge can be problematic for 
some sources. Also, the only option for verifying the molten level is 
visual observation which may be difficult in some cases. To address 
these issues, we are proposing revisions to Sec.  63.1510(n) to require 
the monitoring to be done after each tap, rather than each charge. We 
are also proposing that where visual inspection of the molten metal 
level is not possible, physical measurement to determine the molten 
metal level in sidewell group 1 furnaces will be required. We are also 
proposing to add a definition of tap to mean the end of an operating 
cycle when processed molten aluminum is poured from a furnace.
13. Testing Representative Units
    Section 63.1511 allows testing of a representative uncontrolled 
Group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer to determine the emission rate of 
other similar units. Some secondary aluminum facilities have conducted 
one test run on each of multiple emission units to comprise one test, 
rather than performing all test runs on the same unit. This is not the 
intent of the rule. We are proposing to amend Sec.  63.1511(f) to 
clarify that the three test

[[Page 8603]]

runs must be conducted on the same unit.
14. Initial Performance Tests
    Section 63.1511(b) of the current rule requires a new source (i.e., 
a source that commences construction after 1999) to conduct its initial 
performance tests for a new or modified source within 90 days of start-
up to show compliance with emission limits and to establish its 
operating parameters. Other MACT standards provide sources 180 days in 
which to conduct their initial performance test. The General Provisions 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1511 to 
allow 180 days to conduct an initial performance test.
15. Definitions of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering Kiln/Decoating Kiln and 
Aluminum Scrap Shredder
    We are proposing revisions to the definition of scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln to clarify that thermal delaminating 
of aluminum scrap and mechanical granulation of the recovered metal are 
affected sources under Subpart RRR. Heat is used to separate foil from 
paper and plastic in scrap. These sources operate chambers with a 
maximum temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit and with no melting of 
the recovered aluminum. Under the proposed definition, subsequent 
melting of recovered aluminum need not occur at the same facility that 
conducts the recovery operation. We are also proposing to amend the 
definition of a scrap shredder to include granulation and shearing in 
addition to crushing, grinding, and breaking of aluminum scrap into a 
more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or furnace.
16. Transporting Metal
    We are addressing questions as to the applicability of the rule to 
pots that are used to transport metal to customers. The rule does not 
currently regulate these pots and we are proposing to amend the 
definition of Group 2 furnace to clarify the fact that the rule does 
not regulate these pots.
17. Specifications for Cleaning Processes
    We considered whether to add specifications for cleaning processes 
such as those required for runaround scrap to ensure that scrap 
processed by certain methods qualifies as clean scrap. Specifications 
considered include minimum residence time and temperature for thermal 
drying process and minimum speed and residence time for centrifuging 
processes. We are not proposing these revisions in today's action. 
However, we invite comments on this issue and solicit information on 
appropriate specifications that could be applied to these processes to 
ensure that the cleaning process produces clean charge.
18. HF Emissions Compliance Provisions
    The current subpart RRR standards applicable to major sources 
contain limits for HCl emissions from group 1 furnaces and require 
operators to conduct performance tests for HCl emissions. The EPA 
stated in the subpart RRR NESHAP that HCl would serve as a surrogate 
for all acid gases, including HF. Where chlorine-containing fluxes were 
used along with fluorine-containing fluxes, lime-injected fabric 
filters would effectively control HCl and HF so that determining 
compliance with the HCl limit was considered sufficient, and a separate 
compliance measure for HF was not required.
    In this rulemaking, we are proposing to modify the compliance 
provisions in subpart RRR to ensure that HF emissions from group 1 
furnaces without add-on control devices are addressed consistent with 
the intent of the promulgated standards. Specifically, a secondary 
aluminum facility with an uncontrolled Group 1 furnace may use 
fluorine-containing fluxes without using chlorine-containing fluxes, 
and would not be required under the current rule to test the furnace 
for HF, so any HF emissions would be neither controlled nor accounted 
for in any HCl testing.
    We are proposing to require owners and operators of uncontrolled 
group 1 furnaces to test for both HF and HCl. We are proposing that the 
limits for HF from these furnaces would be 0.4 lb/ton of feed, 
equivalent to the existing subpart RRR limits for HCl from Group 1 
furnaces. Our reasoning is that secondary aluminum facilities use 
chlorine-containing and fluorine-containing fluxes to perform the same 
function of enabling the removal of impurities (such as magnesium) from 
aluminum. They are also chemically similar, in that both are halogens. 
Therefore, if an uncontrolled Group 1 furnace has a given mass of 
impurities to be removed from the aluminum, the owner/operator may 
either use a chlorine-containing or fluorine-containing flux, and based 
on the information currently available to EPA, we propose that 
uncontrolled Group 1 furnaces be subject to testing for HF and an 
associated HF emission limit that is the same as the currently 
applicable HCl emission limit. We are proposing that EPA Method 26A be 
used, which is capable of measuring HCl and HF. The testing requirement 
for HF would coincide with HCl testing at the next scheduled 
performance test after the effective date of the final rule. As an 
alternative to testing for HF, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator may choose to determine the rate of reactive flux addition for 
an affected source, and may assume that, for the purposes of 
demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, all fluorine in 
the reactive fluxes added to the source are emitted as HCl or HF. This 
alternative is already available for operators using chlorine-
containing reactive fluxes.
    Based on information received from industry, we estimate that 
approximately 199 group 1 furnaces at approximately 29 secondary 
aluminum production facilities are uncontrolled. These furnaces are 
already required to be tested to determine HCl emissions at least once 
every five years. Therefore, the only additional costs for these 
sources would be the laboratory analysis for HF. We estimate these 
costs to be approximately $1,000 per test. We expect that only furnaces 
that use fluorine-containing fluxes would potentially test for HF. 
Approximately 55 furnaces at eight facilities use fluorine-containing 
fluxes. Therefore, the total cost of this proposed rule revision is 
approximately $55,000 every 5 years, or approximately $11,000 per year. 
More information is available in the Cost Estimates for 2012 Proposed 
Rule Changes to Secondary Aluminum NESHAP which is available in the 
docket for this proposed rule.
19. Requirements for Uncontrolled Furnaces That Do Not Presently Comply 
With ACGIH Ventilation Guidelines
    Section 63.1506(c)(1) requires that, for each affected source or 
emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the 
owner or operator must design and install a system for the capture and 
collection of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum 
exhaust rates as published by the ACGIH in chapters 3 and 5 of 
``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.'' However, 
there are no similar requirements for furnaces that are not equipped 
with an add-on air pollution control device. Furnaces that are 
uncontrolled for fugitive emissions do not account for

[[Page 8604]]

fugitive emissions that escape during testing for example through open 
doors and therefore underestimate emissions during performance testing.
    Accordingly, we are proposing that owner/operators with 
uncontrolled affected sources either: (1) Construct hooding for testing 
that meets the ACGIH guidelines, and include emissions captured by that 
hooding in the compliance determination, or (2) assume a capture 
efficiency of 66.67 percent (i.e., multiply stack test results by a 
factor of 1.5) to account for emissions not captured. The basis for 
this proposed requirement is further discussed in the Draft Technical 
Support Document for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category 
included in the docket for this rule. If the source fails to 
demonstrate compliance using the 66.67 percent capture efficiency 
approach, we are proposing that the owner/operator retest with hoods 
meeting the ACGIH guidelines within 180 days. These proposed 
requirements would be implemented at the next scheduled performance 
test after the effective date of the final rule. We recognize that 
there may be situations (e.g., various furnace configurations) where 
constructing hooding may be problematic. Therefore, we are seeking 
comments and information on these proposed requirements and regarding 
other possible approaches that could be applied, such as emissions 
monitoring to address these unmeasured fugitive emissions. We also seek 
comments and information on work practices that could be applied during 
compliance testing that would minimize the escape of these fugitive 
emissions, including approaches that could be adapted for different 
furnace configurations, and to ensure that the vast majority of 
emissions from these units are accounted for during compliance testing.
    We estimate that there are 107 uncontrolled furnaces that would be 
required to either install hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines for 
testing or to assume the 66.67 percent capture efficiency. We estimate 
that the capital cost of constructing the appropriate hooding would be 
$57,000 per affected furnace, resulting in a total capital cost of up 
to $6,099,000 for the source category (conservatively assuming that all 
these furnaces choose the hooding option), and an annualized cost of up 
to $1,220,000 (again based on the conservative assumption that all 
facilities choose the option of constructing hooding).
20. Clarify the Possible Number of New SAPUs
    The rule currently states that there can be only one existing SAPU 
at an aluminum plant but is not clear on whether there can be more than 
one new SAPU. We are proposing revisions to clarify that more than one 
new SAPU is allowed under the rule.
21. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or Sealants
    The current definition of ``clean charge'' does not clearly 
indicate the status of anodized aluminum. Some anodized aluminum parts 
contain dyes and/or sealants that contain organic materials. Therefore, 
we propose to amend the definition of ``clean charge'' to indicate that 
clean charge does not include anodized material that contains dyes or 
sealants that contain organic material.
22. Afterburner Residence Time
    Currently, the standard contains the following definition: 
``Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time 
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. 
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion 
zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream 
in actual cubic feet per second.''
    At some secondary aluminum facilities, the ductwork has been 
included as part of the combustion chamber to increase the calculated 
residence time and meet the requirements to qualify for alternative 
limits in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1505 did include the 
refractory lined duct up to the thermocouple measurement location. 
Therefore, we are proposing to amend the definition of residence time 
as follows, ``Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of 
time required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion 
zone. Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner 
combustion zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the 
gas stream in actual cubic feet per second. The combustion zone volume 
includes the reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas 
stream is exposed to the direct combustion flame and the complete 
refractory lined portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement 
thermocouple.''
23. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate
    There has been confusion over the interpretation of certain SAPU 
requirements such that a SAPU emission limit should be calculated based 
on feed/charge rates during performance test. Our interpretation has 
always been that allowable emissions are calculated on a daily basis 
using feed/charge throughput, which can change daily. Because of the 
confusion over the appropriate method, we are proposing clarifications 
that will make it clear that the daily throughput, and not the 
throughput at the time of the performance test, is used in the 
calculation of allowable emissions in each emissions unit (group 1 
furnace or in-line fluxer) within the SAPU. Consistent with the 
existing rule, area sources of HAP would not be required to calculate, 
or comply with a SAPU emission limit for PM or HCl. The owner or 
operator would be required to demonstrate compliance with these limits 
and these calculated SAPU emission limits would be used to establish 
compliance in accordance with the procedures in Sec.  63.1513.
24. Changing Furnace Classification
    The current subpart RRR regulatory text does not explicitly address 
whether and under what conditions a secondary aluminum production 
furnace may change its classification between group 1 furnace with add-
on air pollution control device (APCD) (i.e., group 1 controlled 
furnace), group 1 furnace without add-on APCD (i.e., group 1 
uncontrolled furnace), and group 2 furnace. This has led to uncertainty 
for facilities when considering available compliance options. The EPA 
proposes a new Sec.  63.1514 that would allow an owner/operator to 
change a furnace's classification (also called an operating mode), as 
long as the change and new operating mode are fully compliant with all 
substantive and procedural requirements of the subpart RRR. The 
proposed procedures include limits on the frequency with which furnace 
operating modes can be changed. Practical implementation and 
enforcement of requirements such as SAPU compliance, Operation, 
Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) plans, and labeling require that 
furnace operating modes are not in a state of constant change. 
Therefore, we are proposing that a change in furnace operating mode and 
reversion to the

[[Page 8605]]

previous operating mode occurs no more frequently than once every 6 
months, with an exception for control device maintenance requiring 
shutdown. Furnaces equipped with APCDs that meet the requirements for 
changing furnace classifications would be permitted to change operating 
mode and revert to the previous operating mode without restriction on 
frequency in cases where an APCD was shut down for planned maintenance 
activities such as bag replacement.
    These proposed revisions specify the emissions testing that would 
be required to change furnace operating modes; operating requirements, 
such as labeling, flux use, scrap charging for the furnace before, 
during, and after changing; and recordkeeping requirements. These 
proposed revisions will provide industry with the flexibility to 
efficiently operate furnaces in response to changes in the availability 
of feed materials and other operational conditions. While providing 
increased flexibility, it is also important that EPA maintain its 
compliance oversight of these affected sources to ensure furnace 
operations are compliant with the rule. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
certain limitations on how and when furnaces can change from one 
operating mode to another. For example, when a furnace is changed from 
a group 1 furnace to a group 2 furnace, we are proposing that 
performance testing be conducted when the furnace is changed to the 
group 2 mode to verify that the furnace is not emitting HAP at levels 
above the relevant limits as a result of any HAP-containing feed or 
flux left in the furnace. We are also proposing requirements for this 
scenario to confirm that HAP emissions are sufficiently low to ensure 
that the furnace, while operating as a group 2 furnace, is performing 
as a group 2 furnace, that is, with little or no HAP emissions. To 
ensure that furnaces have had sufficient throughput (or time) in their 
new operating mode such that performance tests are representative of 
their new operating mode, the proposed amendments would require waiting 
periods of one or more charge-to-tap cycles or 24 operating hours 
before conducting performance testing. For alternate operating modes we 
are proposing that the testing be required in order to demonstrate that 
the furnace remains compliant with all applicable emission limits. 
Major sources would be required to repeat the required tests at least 
once every 5 years. When following the substantive and procedural 
requirements of this rule, some owners/operators may be able to turn 
off associated air pollution control devices. Because of this increased 
flexibility, we estimate an annual savings of $1,100,000, based on an 
estimate of controls for 50 furnaces being turned off for 6 months per 
year. We estimate additional testing costs of $500,000 per year. 
Therefore, we estimate the net cost to be negative $600,000 per year (a 
savings of $600,000 per year). We solicit comment on our estimates of 
avoided costs and testing costs.
25. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces
    Dross only furnaces at area sources are not subject to subpart RRR 
D/F emission limitations and therefore are not subject to the MACT 
operating parameter limitations. Industry representatives have inquired 
about the requirements for a furnace processing scrap on some occasions 
and then dross at other times.
    We note that dross only furnaces are defined as furnaces that only 
process dross. A furnace that processes scrap may be a group 1 furnace 
or a group 2 furnace. Operators of group 1 furnaces have the option of 
conducting performance tests under different operating conditions to 
establish operating parameters applicable to different combinations of 
types of charge and fluxing rates. We have added language to clarify 
this in the proposed amendments. We note that dross is not clean 
charge, as defined in the rule, and thus any group 1 furnace processing 
dross is subject to limitations on emissions of D/F, and other 
requirements for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge.
26. Annual Hood Inspections
    Industry representatives have stated that our interpretation that 
annual hood inspections include an annual hood flow measurement 
represents an unnecessary cost burden for each regulated facility. 
Industry representatives recommended that flow testing should only be 
required after modifications to the hood, furnace, and/or controls that 
could negatively impact the capture and, only then if they cannot be 
demonstrated by alternate engineering calculations or operating 
parameters. They contend that due to stringent OM&M protocols, it 
should be sufficient to certify that there have been no changes, with 
possible verification of flow by visual inspections of hoods and 
ductwork for leaks and possible verification of fan amperage. We 
disagree that these measures alone are sufficient to verify that flow 
is sufficient and that annual hood flow measurement represents an 
unnecessary cost burden. We are proposing to codify in the rule our 
existing interpretation that annual hood inspections include flow rate 
measurements. These flow rate measurements supplement the effectiveness 
of the required visual inspection for leaks (which may be difficult or 
uncertain for certain sections of ductwork), to reveal the presence of 
obstructions in the ductwork, confirm that fan efficiency has not 
declined, and provide a measured value for air flow.
27. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources
    While the emissions standards that apply to area sources are 
evident in the current rule, the applicable operating, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are less clear. In general, 
the intent of the rule is to subject area sources to standards for D/F 
with corresponding monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping. 
We are proposing amendments that would clarify which of the operating, 
monitoring and other requirements apply to area sources.
28. Altering Parameters During Testing With New Sources of Scrap
    Currently, the rule requires that when a process parameter or add-
on air pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the 
value or range established during a performance test, the owner or 
operator must initiate corrective action. However, when the owner or 
operator is conducting performance testing with a new type of scrap, it 
may be necessary to deviate from the previously established values. The 
rule was not intended to prevent owners/operators from establishing new 
or revised operating parameters, if necessary to process different 
types of scrap. Accordingly, we are modifying the rule to allow 
deviations from the values and ranges in the OM&M plan during 
performance testing only, provided that the site-specific test plan 
documents the intent to establish new or revised parametric limits.
29. Controlled Furnaces That Are Temporarily Idled
    Currently, the rule does not specify if an owner or operator may 
discontinue the operation of its control device if a furnace is not in 
use, but is not completely empty or shut down. Industry has requested 
that the EPA provide allowances for control devices to be turned off 
while the furnaces are not in operation or being charged with aluminum 
scrap or fluxing agents. This typically occurs over the weekend and 
accounts for unnecessary electrical and

[[Page 8606]]

operating costs. Accordingly, we are modifying the rule to allow for 
the discontinued use of control devices for these furnaces that will 
remain idle for 24 hours or longer.
30. Annual Compliance Certification for Area Sources
    Because area sources that are subject to subpart RRR are exempt 
from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 71, it 
was not clear how area sources certified their annual compliance. To 
clarify that area sources are required to certify their annual 
compliance, we are proposing clarifying language to Sec.  63.1516(c).

E. Compliance Dates

    We are proposing that existing facilities must comply with all 
changes proposed in this action 90 days after promulgation of the final 
rule. All new or reconstructed facilities must comply with all 
requirements in the final rule upon startup.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We estimate that there are 161 secondary aluminum production 
facilities that will be affected by this proposed rule, of which 53 are 
major sources of HAPs, and 108 are area sources. We estimate that 10 
secondary aluminum facilities have co-located primary aluminum 
operations. The affected sources at secondary aluminum production 
facilities include new and existing scrap shredders, thermal chip 
dryers, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, group 2 
furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces, rotary dross cooler and 
secondary aluminum processing units containing group 1 furnaces and in-
line fluxers.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    No reductions are being proposed to numerical emissions limits. The 
proposed amendments include requirements that affected sources comply 
with the numerical emissions limits at all times including periods of 
startup and shutdown to help ensure that emissions from those affected 
sources are minimized. The proposed amendments would help to clarify 
the existing provisions and would help to improve compliance. The 
proposed amendment to limit and require testing of HF emissions for 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces is not expected to significantly reduce 
HF emissions but will help to ensure that HF emissions remain low. We 
believe that the proposed revisions would result in little or no 
emissions reductions. Therefore, no air quality impacts are expected.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate the total cost of the proposed amendments to be up to 
approximately $611,000 per year. We estimate that 56 unique facilities 
are affected and that the cost per facility ranges from negative 
$36,000 per year for a facility changing furnace operating modes to 
$112,000 per year for a facility installing hooding for testing. Our 
estimate includes an annualized cost of up to $1,200,000 for installing 
uncontrolled furnace testing hooding that meets ACGIH requirements, 
assuming that 107 furnaces choose that option (rather than assuming a 
67 percent capture efficiency for their existing furnace exhaust 
system). Our estimate also includes an annualized cost of $11,000 for 
testing for HF on uncontrolled furnaces that are already testing for 
HCl. Finally, we estimate cost savings of $600,000 per year for 
furnaces that change furnace operating modes and turn off their control 
devices. Our estimate is based on 50 furnaces turning off their 
controls for approximately 6 months every year. This savings is net of 
the cost of testing to demonstrate that these furnaces remain in 
compliance with emission limits after their control devices have been 
turned off. The estimated costs are explained further in the Cost 
Estimates for 2012 Proposed Rule Changes to Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, 
which is available in the docket.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We performed an economic impact analysis for the proposed 
modifications in this rulemaking. That analysis estimates total 
annualized costs of approximately $0.6 million at 28 facilities and 
cost to sales ratios of less than 0.02 percent for the Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category. For more information, please refer 
to the Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Secondary Aluminum 
NESHAP that is available in the public docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as 
a result from these proposed amendments. However, we think that the 
proposed amendments would help to improve the clarity of the rule, 
which can help to improve compliance and help to ensure that emissions 
are kept to a minimum. Certain provisions may also provide operational 
flexibility to the industry at no increase in HAP emissions.

VI. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action. 
In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also 
interested in any additional data that may help to reduce the 
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments and other analyses. We 
are specifically interested in receiving corrections to the site-
specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should 
include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow 
characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or 
information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on 
submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses are available for download on the RTR web 
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 
include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for 
the facility included in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may 
be revised include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure........................  Are control measures in place?
                                          (yes or no).
Control Measure Comment................  Select control measure from
                                          list provided, and briefly
                                          describe the control measure.
Delete.................................  Indicate here if the facility
                                          or record should be deleted.

[[Page 8607]]

 
Delete Comment.........................  Describes the reason for
                                          deletion.
Emissions Calculation Method Code For    Code description of the method
 Revised Emissions.                       used to derive emissions. For
                                          example, CEM, material
                                          balance, stack test, etc.
Emissions Process Group................  Enter the general type of
                                          emissions process associated
                                          with the specified emissions
                                          point.
Fugitive Angle.........................  Enter release angle (clockwise
                                          from true North); orientation
                                          of the y-dimension relative to
                                          true North, measured positive
                                          for clockwise starting at 0
                                          degrees (maximum 89 degrees).
Fugitive Length........................  Enter dimension of the source
                                          in the east-west (x-)
                                          direction, commonly referred
                                          to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width.........................  Enter dimension of the source
                                          in the north-south (y-)
                                          direction, commonly referred
                                          to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions..................  Enter total annual emissions
                                          due to malfunctions (tpy).
Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly.......  Enter maximum hourly
                                          malfunction emissions here (lb/
                                          hr).
North American Datum...................  Enter datum for latitude/
                                          longitude coordinates (NAD27
                                          or NAD83); if left blank,
                                          NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment........................  Enter general comments about
                                          process sources of emissions.
REVISED Address........................  Enter revised physical street
                                          address for MACT facility
                                          here.
REVISED City...........................  Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name....................  Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emissions Release Point Type...  Enter revised Emissions Release
                                          Point Type here.
REVISED End Date.......................  Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate.............  Enter revised Exit Gas Flow
                                          Rate here (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  Enter revised HAP Emissions
 Code.                                    Performance Level here.
REVISED Latitude.......................  Enter revised Latitude here
                                          (decimal degrees).
REVISED Longitude......................  Enter revised Longitude here
                                          (decimal degrees).
REVISED MACT Code......................  Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code.................  Enter revised Pollutant Code
                                          here.
REVISED Routine Emissions..............  Enter revised routine emissions
                                          value here (tpy).
REVISED SCC Code.......................  Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter.................  Enter revised Stack Diameter
                                          here (ft).
REVISED Stack Height...................  Enter revised Stack Height here
                                          (ft).
REVISED Start Date.....................  Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State..........................  Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code....................  Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code.......................  Enter revised Zip Code here.
Shutdown Emissions.....................  Enter total annual emissions
                                          due to shutdown events (tpy).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly..........  Enter maximum hourly shutdown
                                          emissions here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment..........................  Enter general comments about
                                          emissions release points.
Startup Emissions......................  Enter total annual emissions
                                          due to startup events (tpy).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly...........  Enter maximum hourly startup
                                          emissions here (lb/hr).
Year Closed............................  Enter date facility stopped
                                          operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544 (through one of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite 
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a 
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition 
to submitting them to the docket.
    5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only 
submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested 
changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data 
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[reg] 
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.

[[Page 8608]]

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has 
been assigned the EPA ICR number 2453.01. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The 
information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to 
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Secondary 
Aluminum Production source category in the form of reporting for 
furnace changes in classification and affirmative defense and 
recordkeeping with regard to verification of lime injection rates and 
change in furnace classifications. New monitoring requirements under 
the proposed revisions include testing for HF, and testing related to 
furnace classification changes.
    For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to 
the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an 
estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an 
assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the 
EPA has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what 
the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated 
with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's 
estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any 
individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,142 
and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review 
relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events 
surrounding a malfunction that has caused a violation of an emissions 
limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record 
and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 
illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only 
incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take 
advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in 
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number 
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition 
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions 
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. 
Thus we believe the number of instances in which source operators might 
be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be 
extremely small.
    With respect to the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, 
we estimate the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden after the 
effective date of the proposed rule for affirmative defense to be 30 
hours at a cost of $3,142.
    We expect to gather information on such events in the future and 
will revise this estimate as better information becomes available. We 
estimate 161 regulated entities are currently subject to subpart RRR. 
The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) for these amendments to subpart RRR is estimated to be 
$1,876,521 per year. This includes 1,725 labor hours per year at a 
total labor cost of $165,521 per year, and total non-labor capital and 
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $1,711,000 per year. The total 
burden for the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years 
after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 271 labor 
hours per year at an annual cost of $12,231. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these 
ICRs are approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment 
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
numbers for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in the final rules.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket 
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0544. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and 
OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for 
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after February 14, 2012, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by March 15, 
2012. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has 
the NAICS code 331314, the SBA small business size standard is 750 
employees according to the SBA small business standards definitions.

[[Page 8609]]

    After considering the economic impacts of these proposed changes on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We 
determined in the economic and small business analysis that, using the 
results from the cost memorandum, 28 entities will incur costs 
associated with the proposed rule. Of these 28 entities, nine of them 
are small. Of these nine, all of them are estimated to experience a 
negative cost (i.e., a cost savings) as a result of the rule according 
to our analysis. For more information, please refer to the Economic and 
Small Business Analysis that is in the docket.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless 
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To 
reduce the impacts, we are correcting certain provisions of the rule as 
well as proposing revisions to help clarify the rule's intent. We have 
also proposed new provisions that increase industry's flexibility as to 
how they operate group 1 furnaces. We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the 
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or 
the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures 
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this proposed 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 
UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject 
to this action are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

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

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as 
defined in Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the agency does not believe 
the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available 
and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve use of any new technical 
standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations because we 
have concluded that the existing rules adequately protect human health 
with an ample margin of safety and the proposed amendments do not 
decrease the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. Our analyses show that adverse environmental effects, 
human health multi-pathway effects and acute and chronic noncancer 
health impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of facilitywide 
risks for major sources showed that the maximum facilitywide cancer 
risks are within the range of acceptable risks and that the maximum 
chronic noncancer risks are unlikely to cause health impacts. Because 
our residual risk assessment determined that there was minimal residual 
risk associated with the emissions from facilities in this source 
category, a demographic risk analysis was not necessary for this 
category.
    However, the Agency reviewed this rule to determine if there is an 
overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations 
near the sources such that they may currently face disproportionate 
risks from pollutants that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. This 
demographic distribution analysis only gives some indication of the 
prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to HAP pollution from 
the sources affected by this rulemaking; it does not identify the 
demographic characteristics of the

[[Page 8610]]

most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify 
the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities.
    The demographic distribution analysis shows that while most 
demographic categories are below or within 10 percent of their 
corresponding national averages, the African American percentage within 
3 miles of any source affected by this rulemaking exceeds the national 
average by 3 percentage points (16 percent versus 13 percent), or +23 
percent. The area source sector-wide analysis of near source 
populations reveals that several demographic categories exceed 10 
percent of their corresponding national averages: Minority by +16 
percentage points (44% vs. 28%), or +57%; Hispanic or Latino by +17 
percentage points (34% vs. 17%), or +100%; Without a High School 
Diploma by +6 percentage points (16% vs. 10%), or +60%, and; Below 
National Poverty Line: +7 percentage points (21% vs. 14%), or +50%. The 
facility-level demographic analysis results and the details concerning 
their development are presented in the OAQPS Environmental Justice 
Analytical Team Report, Secondary Aluminum--Area Sources, and OAQPS 
Environmental Justice Analytical Team Report, Secondary Aluminum--Major 
Sources, copies of which are available in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544).

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 
Aluminum Production

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 63.1501 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1501  Dates.

* * * * *
    (d) The owner or operator of an existing affected source must 
comply with the following requirements of this subpart by [DATE 90 DAYS 
FROM PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]: Sec.  
63.1505(a), (i)(4), (k), (k)(1),(k)(2), (k)(3); Sec.  63.1506 (a)(1), 
(a)(5), (c)(1),(g)(5), (k)(3), (m)(4),(n)(1); Sec.  63.1510 (a), (b), 
(b)(5),(b)(9), (d)(2), (f)(1)(ii), (i)(4), (j)(4), (n)(1), (o)(1), 
(o)(1)(ii), (s)(2)(iv), (t), (t)(2)(i), (t)(2)(ii), (t)(4), (t)(5); 
Sec.  63.1511(a), (b), (b)(1), (b)(6), (c)(9), (f)(6), (g)(5); Sec.  
63.1512(e)(1), (e)(2),(e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), (h)(1), (h)(2), (j), 
(j)(1)(I, (j)(2)(i), (o)(1), (p), (p)(2); Sec.  63.1513(b), (b)(1), 
(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3); Sec.  63.1514; Sec.  63.1516(a), (b), (b) 
(1)(v), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(3), (c),(d); Sec.  63.1517(b)(16)(i), (b)(18), 
(c); Sec.  63.1520.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.1502 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and 
adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1506(c), and
* * * * *
    (3) ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,'' 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, (27rd 
edition, 2010), IBR approved for Sec.  63.1506(c).
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1503 is amended by:
    a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions of ``affirmative 
defense,'' ``bale breaker,'' ``capture and collection system,'' ``HF'' 
and ``Tap''; and
    b. Revising the definitions of ``aluminum scrap shredder,'' ``clean 
charge,'' ``cover flux,'' ``Group 2 furnace,'' ``HCl,'' ``residence 
time,'' ``scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln'' and 
``secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU).''

Sec.  63.1503  Definitions.

    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
    Aluminum scrap shredder means a high speed or low speed unit that 
crushes, grinds, granulates, shears or breaks aluminum scrap into a 
more uniform size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. A bale breaker is not an 
aluminum scrap shredder.
    Bale breaker means a device used to break apart a bale of aluminum 
scrap for further processing. Bale breakers are not used to crush, 
grind, granulate, shear or break aluminum scrap into more uniform size 
pieces.
    Capture and collection system means the system of hood(s), duct 
system and fan used to collect a contaminant at or near its source, and 
for affected sources equipped with an air pollution control device, 
transport the contaminated air to the air cleaning device.
    Clean charge means furnace charge materials, including molten 
aluminum; T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; aluminum 
scrap known by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints, 
coatings, and lubricants; uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have 
been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum 
scrap dried at 343 [deg]C (650[emsp14][deg]F) or higher; aluminum scrap 
delacquered/decoated at 482 [deg]C (900[emsp14][deg]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-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating 
gases or agents. Pots used to transport metal to customers are not 
furnaces.
    HCl means hydrogen chloride.
    HF means hydrogen fluoride.
    Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time 
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. 
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion 
zone volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream 
in actual cubic feet per second. The combustion zone volume includes 
the reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream 
is exposed to the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory 
lined portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple.
    Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit used 
primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint, 
lacquer, ink, plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including 
used

[[Page 8611]]

beverage containers) prior to melting, or that separates aluminum foil 
from paper and plastic in scrap.
    Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU). An existing SAPU means 
all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a 
secondary aluminum production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace 
or existing in-line fluxer is considered an emission unit within a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of 
individual group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a secondary 
aluminum processing facility which either were constructed or 
reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently 
redesignated as new emission units pursuant to Sec.  63.1505(k)(6). 
Each of the group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new SAPU is 
considered an emission unit within that secondary aluminum processing 
unit. A secondary aluminum production facility may have more than one 
new SAPU.
    Tap means the end of an operating cycle when processed molten 
aluminum is poured from a furnace.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1505 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (i)(4);
    c. Revising paragraph (k);
    d. Revising paragraph (k)(1)
    e. Revising paragraph (k)(2); and
    f. Revising paragraph (k)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1505  Emission standards for affected sources and emission 
units.

    (a) Summary. (1) The owner or operator of a new or existing 
affected source must comply at all times with each applicable limit in 
this section, including periods of startup and shutdown. Table 1 to 
this subpart summarizes the emission standards for each type of source.
    (2) For a new or existing affected sources subject to an emissions 
limit in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section expressed in units 
of pounds per ton of feed, or [mu]g TEQ or ng TEQ per Mg of feed, 
calculate your emissions during periods of startup and shutdown by 
dividing your measured emissions in lb/hr or [mu]g/hr or ng/hr by the 
appropriate feed rate in tons/hr or Mg/hr from your most recent or 
current performance test.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) 0.20 kg of HF per Mg (0.40 lb of HF per ton) of feed/charge 
from an uncontrolled group 1 furnace and 0.20 kg of HCl per Mg (0.40 lb 
of HCl per ton) of feed/charge or, if the furnace is equipped with an 
add-on air pollution control device, 10 percent of the uncontrolled HCl 
emissions, by weight, for a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum 
production facility that is a major source.
* * * * *
    (k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. On and after the compliance 
date established by Sec.  63.1501, the owner or operator must comply 
with the emission limits calculated using the equations for PM, HCl and 
HF in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section for each secondary 
aluminum processing unit at a secondary aluminum production facility 
that is a major source. The owner or operator must comply with the 
emission limit calculated using the equation for D/F in paragraph 
(k)(3) of this section for each secondary aluminum processing unit at a 
secondary aluminum production facility that is a major or area source.
    (1) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of PM in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.034

Where,

LtiPM = The PM emission limit for individual emission 
unit i in paragraph (i)(1) and (2) of this section for a group 1 
furnace or in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for an in-line 
fluxer;
Tti = The mass of feed/charge for 24 hours for individual 
emission unit i; and
LcPM = The daily PM emission limit for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-
hour PM emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

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

    (2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of HCl or HF in excess of:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.035

Where,
LtiHCl/HF = The HCl emission limit for individual 
emission unit i in paragraph (i)(4) of this section for a group 1 
furnace or in paragraph (j)(1) of this section for an in-line 
fluxer; or the HF emission limit for individual emission unit i in 
paragraph (i)(4) of this section for an uncontrolled group 1 
furnace; and
LcHCl/HF = The daily HCl or HF emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-
day, 24-hour HCl or HF emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

    Note:  Only uncontrolled group 1 furnaces are included in this 
HF limit calculation and in-line fluxers using no reactive flux 
materials cannot be included in this calculation since they are not 
subject to the HCl limits.

    (3) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any 3-day, 24-hour rolling average 
emissions of D/F in excess of:

[[Page 8612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.036

Where,
    LtiD/F = The D/F emission limit for individual 
emission unit i in paragraph (i)(3) of this section for a group 1 
furnace; and
    LcD/F = The daily D/F emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit which is used to calculate the 3-
day, 24-hour D/F emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

    Note:  Clean charge furnaces cannot be included in this 
calculation since they are not subject to the D/F limit.

* * * * *
    6. Section 63.1506 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
    b. Adding paragraph (a)(5);
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
    d. Revising paragraph (g)(5);
    e. Revising paragraph (k)(3);
    f. Revising paragraph (m)(4); and
    g. Revising paragraph (n)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1506  Operating requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) On and after the compliance date established by Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1500(c)(1) through (4) of this subpart that are 
located at a secondary aluminum production facility that is an area 
source are subject to the operating requirements of paragraphs (b), 
(c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (m), (n), and (p) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain 
any affected source, including associated air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety 
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are 
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator 
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of 
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and 
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of 
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates 
as published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists in ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended 
Practice'' 23rd or 27th edition (ACGIH Guidelines) (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  63.1502 of this subpart);
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) For a continuous injection device, maintain free-flowing lime 
in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime 
feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance 
test.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) For a continuous injection system, maintain free-flowing lime 
in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime 
feeder setting at or above the level established during the performance 
test.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (4) For a continuous lime injection system, maintain free-flowing 
lime in the hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the 
lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the 
performance test.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Maintain the total reactive chlorine flux injection rate and 
fluorine flux addition rate for each operating cycle or time period 
used in the performance test at or below the average rate established 
during the performance test.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.1510 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(5);
    d. Adding paragraph (b)(9);
    e. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
    f. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii);
    g. Adding paragraph (i)(4);
    h. Revising paragraph (j)(4);
    i. Revising paragraph (n)(1);
    j. Revising paragraph (o)(1);
    k. Revising paragraph (o)(1)(ii);
    l. Revising paragraph (s)(2)(iv);
    m. Revising paragraph (t) introductory text;
    n. Adding paragraph (t)(2)(i);
    o. Adding paragraph (t)(2)(ii);
    p. Revising paragraph (t)(4); and
    q. Revising paragraph (t)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1510  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Summary. On and after the compliance date established by Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.1500(c)(1)-
(4) of this subpart, and associated control equipment as required by 
paragraphs (b) through (k), (n) through (q), and (s) through (w) of 
this section, including but not limited to:
    (1) The operation, maintenance and monitoring plan required in 
paragraph (b) of this section pertaining to each affected source listed 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,
    (4) The feed charge weight monitoring requirements described in 
paragraph (e) of this section applicable to group 1 furnaces processing 
other than clean charge, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns 
and thermal chip dryers,
    (5) The bag leak detection system requirements described in 
paragraph (f) of this section applicable to all bag leak detection 
systems installed on fabric filters and lime injected fabric filters 
used to control each affected source listed in Sec.  63.1500(c)(1)-(4) 
of this subpart,
    (6) The requirements for afterburners described in paragraph (g) of 
this section applicable to sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, and 
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,
    (7) The requirements for monitoring fabric filter inlet temperature 
described

[[Page 8613]]

in paragraph (h) of this section for all lime injected fabric filters 
used to control group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, 
sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,
    (8) The requirements for monitoring lime injection described in 
paragraph (i) of this section applicable to all lime injected fabric 
filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces processing 
other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap 
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,
    (9) The requirements for monitoring total reactive flux injection 
described in paragraph (j) of this section for all group 1 furnaces 
processing other than clean charge,
    (10) The requirements described in paragraph (k) of this section 
for thermal chip dryers,
    (11) The requirements described in paragraph (n) of this section 
for controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean 
charge,
    (12) The requirements described in paragraph (o) of this section 
for uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean 
charge,
    (13) The requirements described in paragraph (p) of this section 
for scrap inspection programs for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces,
    (14) The requirements described in paragraph (q) of this section 
for monitoring scrap contamination level for uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces,
    (15) The requirements described in paragraph (s) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units, limited to compliance with 
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge,
    (16) The requirements described in paragraph (t) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units limited to compliance with 
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge,
    (17) The requirements described in paragraph (u) of this section 
for secondary aluminum processing units limited to compliance with 
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than 
clean charge,
    (18) The requirements described in paragraph (v) of this section 
for alternative lime addition monitoring methods applicable to lime 
coated fabric filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces 
processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces 
and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, and
    (19) The requirements described in paragraph (w) of this section 
for approval of alternate methods for monitoring group 1 furnaces 
processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryer/
delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and sweat furnaces and associated 
control devices for the control of D/F emissions.
    (b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner 
or operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing 
affected source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance, 
and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator of an existing 
affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting 
authority no later than the compliance date established by Sec.  
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 Sec.  
63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the compliance date established by 
Sec.  63.1501(b) if no initial performance test is required. The plan 
must be accompanied by a written certification by the owner or operator 
that the OM&M plan satisfies all requirements of this section and is 
otherwise consistent with the requirements of this subpart. The owner 
or operator must comply with all of the provisions of the OM&M plan as 
submitted to the permitting authority, unless and until the plan is 
revised in accordance with the following procedures. If the permitting 
authority determines at any time after receipt of the OM&M plan that 
any revisions of the plan are necessary to satisfy the requirements of 
this section or this subpart, the owner or operator must promptly make 
all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised plan. If the owner or 
operator determines that any other revisions of the OM&M plan are 
necessary, such revisions will not become effective until the owner or 
operator submits a description of the changes and a revised plan 
incorporating them to the permitting authority. The owner or operator 
must not begin operating under the revised plan until approval is 
received or until after 60 days, whichever is sooner. Each plan must 
contain the following information:
* * * * *
    (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device 
parameters, including lime injection rates, procedures for annual 
inspections of afterburners, and if applicable, the procedure to be 
used for determining charge/feed (or throughput) weight if a 
measurement device is not used.
* * * * *
    (9) Procedures to be followed when changing furnace classification 
under the provisions of Sec.  63.1514.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at least 
once each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in 
accordance with the operating requirements in Sec.  63.1506(c) and 
record the results of each inspection. This inspection shall include a 
volumetric flow rate measurement taken at a location in the ductwork 
downstream of the hoods which will be representative of the actual 
volumetric flow rate without the interference of leaks, the 
introduction of ambient air for cooling, or other ducts manifolded from 
other hoods. The measurement shall be performed using EPA Reference 
Methods 1 and 2 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, calibrated, 
operated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's operating 
instructions.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) At least once per month, verify that the lime injection rate in 
pound per hour (lb/hr) is no less than 90 percent of the lime injection 
rate used to demonstrate compliance during your performance test.
    (j) * * *
    (4) Calculate and record the total reactive flux injection rate for 
each operating cycle or time period used in the performance test using 
the procedure in Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.1512(o).
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Record in an operating log for each tap of a sidewell furnace 
whether the level of molten metal was above the top of the passage 
between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless 
the furnace hearth was also equipped with an add-on control device. If 
visual inspection of the molten metal level is not possible, the molten 
metal level must be determined using physical measurement methods.
    (2) Submit a certification of compliance with the operational 
standards in Sec.  63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month reporting period. 
Each certification must contain the information in Sec.  
63.1516(b)(2)(iii).

[[Page 8614]]

    (o) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the 
responsible permitting authority, a written site-specific monitoring 
plan. The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the 
permitting authority as part of the OM&M plan. The 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, HF), and D/F and the 
proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data must 
establish the highest level of PM, HCl (and, for uncontrolled group 1 
furnaces, HF), and D/F that will be emitted from the furnace. This may 
be determined by conducting performance tests and monitoring operating 
parameters while charging the furnace with feed/charge materials 
containing the highest anticipated levels of oils and coatings and 
fluxing at the highest anticipated rate. If the permitting authority 
determines that any revisions of the site-specific monitoring plan are 
necessary to meet the requirements of this section or this subpart, the 
owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and 
resubmit the revised plan to the permitting authority.
* * * * *
    (ii) The permitting authority will review and approve or disapprove 
a proposed plan, or request changes to a plan, based on whether the 
plan contains sufficient provisions to ensure continuing compliance 
with applicable emission limits and demonstrates, based on documented 
test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl (for 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HF) and D/F and the proposed monitoring 
parameters for each pollutant. Test data must establish the highest 
level of PM, HCl (for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HF) and D/F that 
will be emitted from the furnace. Subject to permitting agency approval 
of the OM&M plan, this may be determined by conducting performance 
tests and monitoring operating parameters while charging the furnace 
with feed/charge materials containing the highest anticipated levels of 
oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest anticipated rate.
* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup or shutdown in 
emission calculations.
* * * * *
    (t) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Except as provided in 
paragraph (u) of this section, the owner or operator must calculate and 
record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of PM, HCl (for 
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HF) and D/F for each secondary aluminum 
processing unit on a daily basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour 
rolling average, the owner or operator must:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Where no performance test has been conducted, for a particular 
emission unit, because the owner of operator has, with the approval of 
the permitting authority, chosen to determine the emission rate of an 
emission unit by testing a representative unit, in accordance with 
Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1510(t)(4).
    (ii) If the owner or operator has not conducted performance tests 
for HCl and HF for an uncontrolled group 1 furnace or for HCL for an 
in-line fluxer, in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1512(d)(3), (e)(3), or (h)(2), the calculation required in Sec.  
63.1510(t)(4) to determine SAPU-wide HCl and HF emissions shall be made 
under the assumption that all chlorine-containing reactive flux added 
to the emission unit is emitted as HCl and all fluorine-containing 
reactive flux added to the emission unit is emitted as HF.
* * * * *
    (4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using Equation 4:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.037
    
Where:

Eday = The daily PM, HCl, D/F and, for uncontrolled group 
1 furnaces, HF emission rate for the secondary aluminum processing 
unit for the 24-hour period;
Ti = The total amount of feed, or aluminum produced, for 
emission unit i for the 24-hour period (tons or Mg);
ERi = The measured emission rate for emission unit i as 
determined in the performance test (lb/ton or [micro]g/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 Sec.  
63.1505(k)(1)-(3).
* * * * *
    8. Section 63.1511 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
    d. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
    e. Revising paragraph (c)(9);
    f. Adding paragraph (f)(6); and
    g. Adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 8615]]

operational standard for each affected source and emission unit, and 
report the results in the notification of compliance status report as 
described in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.1505(f)(1) are not required to 
conduct a performance test.
    (1) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination, at the highest rate of 
production and using the highest reactive fluxing rate while an air 
pollution control device is operating. Any subsequent performance tests 
for the purposes of establishing new or revised parametric limits shall 
be allowed upon pre-approval from the permitting authorities as 
specified in the site-specific test plan. These new parametric settings 
shall be used to demonstrate compliance for the period being tested.
* * * * *
    (6) Apply paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section for each 
pollutant separately if a different production rate, charge material 
or, if applicable, reactive fluxing rate would apply and thereby result 
in a higher expected emissions rate for that pollutant.
    (c) * * *
    (9) Method 26A for the concentration of HCl and HF. Where a lime-
injected fabric filter is used as the control device to comply with the 
90-percent reduction standard, the owner or operator must measure the 
fabric filter inlet concentration of HCl at a point before lime is 
introduced to the system.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) All 3 separate runs of a performance test must be conducted on 
the same unit.
    (g) * * *
    (5) If the owner or operator wants to conduct a new performance 
test and establish different operating parameter values, they must meet 
the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section and 
submit a revised site specific test plan and receive approval in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.1512 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
    b. Revising paragraph (e)(2);
    c. Revising paragraph (e)(3);
    d. Adding paragraphs (e)(4);
    e. Adding paragraphs (e)(5);
    f. Revising paragraph (h)(1);
    g. Revising paragraph (h)(2);
    h. Revising paragraph (j);
    i. Revising paragraph (j)(1)(i);
    j. Revising paragraph (j)(2)(i);
    k. Revising paragraph (o)(1);
    l. Revising paragraph (p)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1512  Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements 
and procedures.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge 
material, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure 
emissions of PM, HCl, HF, and D/F.
    (2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean charge, the owner 
or operator must conduct emission tests to simultaneously measure 
emissions of PM, HCl and HF. A D/F test is not required. Each test must 
be conducted while the group 1 furnace (including a melting/holding 
furnace) processes only clean charge.
    (3) The owner or operator may choose to determine the rate of 
reactive flux addition to the group 1 furnace and assume, for the 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that 
all reactive flux added to the group 1 furnace is emitted. Under these 
circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an 
emission test for HCl or HF.
    (4) When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the owner or 
operator must comply with the requirements of either paragraph 
(e)(4)(i) or paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section at the next required 
performance test.
    (i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or
    (ii) Assume a 67-percent capture efficiency for the furnace exhaust 
(i.e., multiply emissions measured at the furnace exhaust outlet by 
1.5) if hooding does not meet ACGIH Guidelines. If the source fails to 
demonstrate compliance using the 67-percent capture efficiency 
assumption, the owner or operator must re-test with a hood that meets 
the ACGIH Guidelines within 90 days, or petition the permitting 
authority that such hoods are impracticable and propose testing 
procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions.
    (5) When testing a new uncontrolled furnace the owner or operator 
must either:
    (i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or
    (ii) Petition the permitting authority that such hoods are 
impracticable and propose testing procedures that will minimize 
fugitive emissions.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator of an in-line fluxer that uses reactive 
flux materials must conduct a performance test to measure emissions of 
HCl and PM or otherwise demonstrate compliance in accordance with 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If the in-line fluxer is equipped 
with an add-on control device, the emissions must be measured at the 
outlet of the control device.
    (2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which 
reactive flux is added to an in-line fluxer and assume, for the 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that 
all chlorine in the reactive flux added to the in-line fluxer is 
emitted as HCl. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not 
required to conduct an emission test for HCl. If the owner or operator 
of any in-line flux box which has no ventilation ductwork manifolded to 
any outlet or emission control device chooses to demonstrate compliance 
with the emission limits for HCl by limiting use of reactive flux and 
assuming that all chlorine in the flux is emitted as HCl, compliance 
with the HCl limit shall also constitute compliance with the emission 
limit for PM, and no separate emission test for PM is required. In this 
case, the owner or operator of the unvented in-line flux box must 
utilize the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the 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 and HF 
and [micro]g TEQ/Mg of feed/charge for D/F emissions from each emission 
unit.

[[Page 8616]]

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 Sec.  63.1510(t). A performance test is required for:
    (1) * * *
    (i) Emissions of HCl or HF (for the emission limits); or
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Emissions of HCl or HF (for the emission limits); or
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (1) Continuously measure and record the weight of gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux injected for each 15 minute period during the HCl, HF and 
D/F tests, determine and record the 15-minute block average weights, 
and calculate and record the total weight of the gaseous or liquid 
reactive flux for the 3 test runs;
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (2) Record the feeder setting and lime injection rate for the 3 
test runs. If the feed rate setting and lime injection rates vary 
during the runs, determine and record the average feed rate and lime 
injection rate from the 3 runs.
* * * * *
    10. Section 63.1513 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
    c. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
    d. Revising paragraph (e)(2); and
    e. Revising paragraph (e)(3)to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1513  Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements 
and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) PM, HCl, HF and D/F emission limits. (1) Use Equation 7 of this 
section to determine compliance with an emission limit for PM, HCl or 
HF:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.038

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM, HCl or HF, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of feed;
C = Concentration of PM, HCl or HF, g/dscm (gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P = Production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Use Equation 9 to compute the mass-weighted PM emissions for a 
secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is achieved if the mass-
weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(EcPM) is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcPM) calculated using 
Equation 1 in Sec.  63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.039

Where,

EcPM = The mass-weighted PM emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit;
EtiPM = Measured PM emissions for individual emission 
unit, or group of co-controlled emission units, i;
Tti = The average feed rate for individual emission unit 
i during the operating cycle or performance test period, or the sum 
of the average feed rates for all emission units in the group of co-
controlled emission unit i; and
n = The number of individual emission units, and groups of co-
controlled emission units in the secondary aluminum processing unit.
    (2) Use Equation 10 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted HCl or HF 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit (EcHCl/HF) is less than or equal to the 
emission limit for the secondary aluminum processing unit 
(LcHCl/HF) calculated using Equation 2 in Sec.  63.1505(k).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.040

Where,

EcHCl/HF = The mass-weighted HCl or HF emissions for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit; and
EtiHCl/HF = Measured HCl or HF emissions for individual 
emission unit, or group of co-controlled emission units i.
    (3) Use Equation 11 to compute the aluminum mass-weighted D/F 
emissions for the secondary aluminum processing unit. Compliance is 
achieved if the mass-weighted emissions for the secondary aluminum 
processing unit is less than or equal to the emission limit for the 
secondary aluminum processing unit (LcD/F) calculated using 
Equation 3 in Sec.  63.1505(k).

[[Page 8617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.041

Where,

EcD/F = The mass-weighted D/F emissions for the secondary 
aluminum processing unit; and
EtiD/F = Measured D/F emissions for individual emission 
unit, or group of co-controlled emission units i.
* * * * *
    11. Section 63.1514 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1514  Change of Furnace Classification.

    The requirements of this section are in addition to the other 
requirement of this subpart that apply to group 1 and group 2 furnaces.
    (a) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing other 
than clean charge to group 1 uncontrolled furnace processing other than 
clean charge.
    An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes must conduct 
performance tests to demonstrate to the regulatory authority that 
compliance can be achieved under both modes. Operating parameters 
relevant to each mode of operation must be established during the 
performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with 
the capture system and control device operating normally. Performance 
tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to demonstrate 
compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, 
at the highest throughput expected and using the highest rate of 
reactive flux injection expected to be processed in controlled mode.
    (ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be 
established during these tests.
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.1512(e) without operating a control device. Performance tests must 
be repeated at least once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance with 
each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after 
the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles, or 24 
operating hours with scrap of the highest level of contamination 
expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (3) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(d) with the capture 
system and control device operating normally.
    (i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, 
at the highest throughput expected to be processes and using the 
highest rate of reactive flux expected to be injected in controlled 
mode.
    (ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be 
established during these tests.
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (4) Operators of area sources must conduct performance tests for D/
F, according to the procedures in Sec.  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 Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be established 
during these tests. In addition, the number of cycles of furnace 
operation with scrap of the highest level of contamination expected to 
be processed in uncontrolled mode that elapsed prior to the performance 
test(s) conducted in uncontrolled mode is established as a parameter.
    (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (5) To change modes of operation from uncontrolled to controlled, 
the owner or operator must, before charging scrap to the furnace that 
exceeds the contaminant level established for uncontrolled mode,
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 
operation,
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, and
    (iii) Begin lime addition to the control device at the rate 
established for controlled mode.
    (6) To change modes of operation from controlled to uncontrolled, 
the owner or operator must, before turning off or bypassing the control 
device,
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 
operation,
    (ii) Charge scrap with a level of contamination no greater than 
that used in the performance test for uncontrolled furnaces for the 
number of charge to tap cycles that elapsed with scrap of a 
contamination level no higher than that used in the uncontrolled mode 
performance test(s), and
    (iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the flux 
addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance test.
    (7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (controlled to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to controlled), the 
time the change is initiated, and the time the exhaust gas is diverted 
from control device to bypass or bypass to control device.
    (b) Changing from a group 1 controlled furnace processing other 
than clean charge to a group 1 uncontrolled furnace processing clean 
charge. An owner or operator wishing to operate under controlled mode 
with other than clean charge and uncontrolled mode with clean charge 
must conduct performance tests to demonstrate to the delegated 
regulatory authority that

[[Page 8618]]

compliance can be achieved in both modes. Operating parameters relevant 
to each mode of operation must be established during the performance 
test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct performance tests for 
PM, HCl and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512 with the 
capture system and control device operating normally. Performance tests 
must be repeated at least once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance 
for each operating mode.
    (i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, 
at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the 
highest rate of reactive flux injection expected in controlled mode.
    (ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be 
established during these tests.
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1512 without 
operating a control device. Performance tests must be repeated at least 
once every 5 years to demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after 
the furnace has completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles with clean 
charge.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Parameters for capture and flux rate must be established 
during these tests.
    (iv) Emissions of D/F during this test must not exceed 1.5 [micro]g 
TEQ/Mg of feed/charge processed, or this mode of operation is not 
allowed.
    (v) The emission factors for PM, HCl and HF for this mode of 
operation, for use in the demonstration of compliance with the emission 
limits for SAPUs specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (3) Operators of area sources must conduct additional performance 
tests for D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512 with the 
capture system and control device operating normally.
    (i) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, 
at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the 
highest rate of reactive flux injection expected in controlled mode.
    (ii) Parameters for capture, flux rate, and lime injection must be 
established during these tests.
    (iii) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use 
in the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (4) Operators of area sources must conduct additional performance 
tests for D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512(e) without 
operating a control device.
    (i) Testing may be conducted at any time after the furnace has 
completed 1 or more charge to tap cycles with scrap of the highest 
level of contamination expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode at 
the highest throughput expected to be processed in uncontrolled mode.
    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
63.1506(c) and directed to the stack or vent tested.
    (iii) Parameters for flux rate must be established during these 
tests. In addition the number of cycles of furnace operation with scrap 
of the highest level of contamination expected to be processed in 
uncontrolled mode that elapsed prior to the performance test(s) 
conducted in uncontrolled mode is established as a parameter.
    (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (5) To change modes of operation from uncontrolled to controlled, 
the owner or operator must, before charging scrap to the furnace that 
exceeds the contaminant level established for uncontrolled mode,
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 
operation,
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, and
    (iii) Begin lime addition to the control device at the rate 
established for controlled mode.
    (6) To change modes of operation from controlled to uncontrolled, 
the owner or operator must, before turning off or bypassing the control 
device,
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect controlled 
operation,
    (ii) Charge clean charge for the number of charge to tap cycles 
that elapsed before the uncontrolled mode performance test was 
conducted, and
    (iii) Decrease the flux addition rate to no higher than the flux 
addition rate used in the uncontrolled mode performance test.
    (7) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (controlled to uncontrolled, or uncontrolled to controlled), the 
time the furnace operating mode change is initiated, and the time the 
exhaust gas is diverted from control device to bypass or bypass to 
control device.
    (c) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a 
group 2 furnace. An owner or operator wishing to change operating modes 
must conduct additional performance tests to demonstrate to the 
delegated regulatory authority that compliance can be achieved under 
group 1 mode and establish the number of cycles of operation with clean 
charge and no reactive flux addition necessary to elapse before 
changing to group 2 mode. Operating parameters relevant to group 1 
operation must be established during the performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct additional performance 
tests for PM, HCl, HF and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests 
with the capture system and control device operating normally. 
Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to 
demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) The performance tests must be conducted with scrap containing 
the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the 
highest throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate 
of reactive flux expected to be injected in controlled mode.
    (ii) Parameters for throughput, capture, flux rate, and lime 
injection must be established during these tests.
    (iii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (2) While in compliance with the operating requirements of Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.1512(e) without operating a control 
device. Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years 
to demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Testing under this paragraph may be conducted at any time after 
the furnace has completed 1 or more charge-to-tap cycles, or 24 
operating hours with clean charge, and without reactive flux addition.

[[Page 8619]]

    (ii) Testing under this paragraph must be conducted with furnace 
emissions captured in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
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 [micro]g D/F (TEQ) per ton of feed/charge,
    (B) 0.04 lb HCl or HF per ton of feed/charge, and
    (C) 0.04 lb PM per ton of feed/charge.
    (iv) The number of charge-to-tap cycles, or operating hours elapsed 
before the group 2 furnace performance tests were conducted is 
established as an operating parameter to be met before changing to 
group 2 mode.
    (3) Operators of area sources must conduct an additional 
performance test for D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  63.1512. 
Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests with the 
capture system and control device operating normally.
    (i) The performance test must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, 
at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the 
highest rate of reactive flux expected to be injected in group 1 mode.
    (ii) Parameters for throughput, flux rate, and lime injection must 
be established during these tests.
    (iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device parameter(s) 
for capture must be established.
    (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (4) While in compliance with the operating standards of Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 [micro]g D/F (TEQ) per ton of feed/charge.
    (iv) The number of charge-to-tap cycles, or operating hours elapsed 
before the group 2 furnace performance tests were conducted is 
established as an operating parameter to be met before changing to 
group 2 mode.
    (5) To change modes of operation from a group 1 furnace to a group 
2 furnace, the owner or operator must
    (i) discontinue addition of other than clean charge;
    (ii) discontinue addition of reactive flux;
    (iii) change the label on the furnace to reflect group 2 operation;
    (iv) and if the furnace is equipped with a control device, allow 
the number of cycles of operation established in paragraph (c) of this 
section to elapse before turning off the control device or diverting 
emissions from the control device. In addition control device 
parameters related to lime addition, capture, and inlet temperature 
must be maintained during this period.
    (6) To change mode of operation from a group 2 furnace to group 1 
furnace, the owner or operator must change the label to reflect group 1 
operation. If a control device is required for group 1 operation, the 
owner or operator must direct the emissions to the control device and 
maintain control device parameters related to lime addition, capture, 
and inlet temperature.
    (d) Changing from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to 
group 2 furnace, for tilting reverberatory furnaces capable of 
completely removing furnace contents between batches. An owner or 
operator of a tilting reverberatory furnace capable of completely 
removing furnace contents between batches, wishing to change operating 
modes, must conduct additional performance tests to demonstrate that 
compliance can be achieved under group 1 mode. Operating parameters 
relevant to group 1 operation must be established during the 
performance test.
    (1) Operators of major sources must conduct additional performance 
tests for PM, HCl, HF and D/F, according to the procedures in Sec.  
63.1512. Controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests 
with the capture system and control device operating normally. The 
performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing the 
highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the highest 
throughput expected to be processed and using the highest rate of 
reactive flux expected to be injected in controlled mode. Performance 
tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to demonstrate 
compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) Parameters for throughput, capture, flux rate, and lime 
injection must be established during these tests.
    (ii) The emission factors for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.1512. 
Operators of controlled group 1 furnaces must conduct performance tests 
with the capture system and control device operating normally. 
Performance tests must be repeated at least once every 5 years to 
demonstrate compliance for each operating mode.
    (i) The performance test must be conducted with the scrap 
containing the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, 
at the highest throughput expected to be processed and using the 
highest rate of reactive flux injection expected in group 1 mode.
    (ii) Parameters for throughput, flux rate, and lime injection must 
be established during these tests.
    (iii) If the furnace is equipped with a control device parameter(s) 
for capture must be established.
    (iv) The D/F emission factor for this mode of operation, for use in 
the demonstration of compliance with the emission limits for SAPUs 
specified in Sec.  63.1505(k) must be determined.
    (3) To change modes from group 1 to group 2 the operator must:
    (i) Completely remove all aluminum from the furnace;
    (ii) Change the furnace label;
    (iii) Use only clean charge; and
    (iv) Use no reactive flux;
    (4) To change modes from group 2 to group 1 the owner or operator 
must, before charging other than clean charge and before adding 
reactive flux to the furnace;
    (i) Change the label on the furnace to reflect group 1 operation,
    (ii) Direct the furnace emissions to the control device, if any, 
and,
    (iii) Begin lime addition to the control device, if any.
    (5) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  63.1517, 
the owner or operator must maintain records of the nature of each mode 
change (group 1 to group 2, or group 2 to group 1), the time the change 
is initiated, and, if the furnace is equipped with a control device, 
the time the exhaust gas is diverted from control device to bypass or 
bypass to control device.
    (e) Frequency of changing furnace operating mode. Changing furnace 
operating mode and reversion to the previous mode, as provided in 
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section

[[Page 8620]]

may not be done more frequently than once every 6 months, except that 
controlled furnaces may change operating modes (and revert to prechange 
operating mode) without restriction on frequency, when the air 
pollution control device must be shut down for planned maintenance.
* * * * *

Sec.  63.1515  [Amended]

    12. Section 63.1515 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(10).
    13. Section 63.1516 is amended by:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a);
    b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    c. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(v);
    d. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii);
    e. Adding paragraph (b)(3);
    f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
    g. Adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1516  Reports.

    (a) [Reserved]
    (b) Excess emissions/summary report. The owner or operator of a 
major or area source must submit semiannual reports according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.10(e)(3). Except, the owner or operator must 
submit the semiannual reports within 60 days after the end of each 6-
month period instead of within 30 days after the calendar half as 
specified in Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(v). When no deviations of parameters 
have occurred, the owner or operator must submit a report stating that 
no excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) For each sidewell group 1 furnace with add-on air pollution 
control devices: ``Each furnace was operated such that the level of 
molten metal remained above the top of the passage between the sidewell 
and hearth during reactive fluxing, and reactive flux, except for cover 
flux, was added only to the sidewell or to a furnace hearth equipped 
with an add-on air pollution control device for PM, HCl, HF and D/F 
emissions during this reporting period.''
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (defined in Sec.  63.2) as required by this subpart you must 
transmit the results of the performance tests required by this subpart 
to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA's Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test data must be 
submitted in the file format generated through use of EPA's Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). 
Only data collected using test methods on the ERT Web site are subject 
to this requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. 
Owners or operators who claim that some of the information being 
submitted for performance tests is confidential business information 
(CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including information claimed to 
be CBI on a compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage 
media (including, but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA. The 
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI 
omitted must be submitted to EPA via CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph. At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also 
submit these reports, including the confidential business information, 
to the delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated 
authority.
    (ii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (1)(i) and (ii) of this section must be sent 
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. 
The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in 
any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used 
electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (1)(i) and (ii) of this section in paper format.
    (c) Annual compliance certifications. For the purpose of annual 
certifications of compliance required by 40 CFR part 70 or 71, the 
owner or operator of a major or area source subject to this subpart 
must certify continuing compliance based upon, but not limited to, the 
following conditions:
* * * * *
    (d) If there was a malfunction during the reporting period, the 
owner or operator must submit a report that includes the number, 
duration, and a brief description for each type of malfunction which 
occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have 
caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded. The report 
must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or 
operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize 
emissions in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1506(a)(5) and 
63.1520(a)(8), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.1517 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(16)(i);
    b. Adding paragraph (b)(18); and
    c. Adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1517  Records.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) * * *
    (i) [Reserved];
* * * * *
    (18) For each malfunction for which the owner or operator chooses 
to claim coverage under the affirmative defense provisions, the owner 
or operator must maintain the following records;
    (i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. Sec.  63.1506(a)(5) and 
63.1520(a)(8), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its 
normal or usual manner of operation.
    (c) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section must be sent to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13. If 
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a 
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The 
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject 
to paragraph (b) of this section in paper format.
* * * * *
    15. Section 63.1520 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1520  Affirmative defense for violation of emission limit 
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this 
subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil 
penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by 
malfunction, as defined at Sec.  63.2. Appropriate penalties may be 
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of 
the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense 
shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.

[[Page 8621]]

    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for.
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions; and
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction 
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that 
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Reports. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator within 45 
days of the initial occurrence of the violation of the standards in 
this subpart, which may be the end of any applicable averaging period, 
to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it 
has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. 
The owner or operator may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 
30 additional days by submitting a written request to the Administrator 
before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an 
extension has been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator 
is subject to the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of 
the initial occurrence of the violation.
* * * * *
    16. Table 1 to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended to read as 
follows:

[[Page 8622]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.042

[[Page 8623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.043

[[Page 8624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE12.044

* * * * *
    17. Table 2 to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by:
    a. Revising the entry All affected sources and emission units with 
an add-on air pollution control device;
    b. Revising the entry Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 
with afterburner and lime-injected fabric filter;
    c. Revising the entry In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric 
filter (including those that are part of a secondary aluminum 
processing unit);
    d. Revising entry Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric filter 
(including those that are part of a secondary of aluminum processing 
unit);
    e. Adding the entry Thermal chip dryer, scrap dryer/delacquering 
kiln/decoating kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace, and group 1 
furnace; and
    f. Adding footnote d to Table 2 to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart RRR of Part 63--Summary of Operating Requirements for
          New and Existing Affected Sources and Emission Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Monitor type/         Operating
  Affected source/emission unit    operation/process     requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
All affected sources and          Emission capture    Design and install
 emission units with an add-on     and collection      in accordance
 air pollution control device.     system.             with Industrial
                                                       Ventilation: A
                                                       Handbook of
                                                       Recommended
                                                       Practice, 23rd or
                                                       27th edition;
                                                       operate in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       OM&M plan.\b\
 

[[Page 8625]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/    Afterburner         Maintain average
 decoating kiln with afterburner   operating           temperature for
 and lime-injected fabric filter.  temperature.        each 3-hr period
                                                       at or above
                                                       average operating
                                                       temperature
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test.
                                  Afterburner         Operate in
                                   operation.          accordance with
                                                       OM&M plan.\b\
                                  Bag leak detector   Initiate
                                   or.                 corrective action
                                                       within 1-hr of
                                                       alarm and
                                                       complete in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the OM&M plan;\b\
                                                       operate such that
                                                       alarm does not
                                                       sound more than
                                                       5% of operating
                                                       time in 6-month
                                                       period.
                                  COM...............  Initiate
                                                       corrective action
                                                       within 1-hr of a
                                                       6-minute average
                                                       opacity reading
                                                       of 5% or more and
                                                       complete in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the OM&M plan.\b\
                                  Fabric filter       Maintain average
                                   inlet temperature.  fabric filter
                                                       inlet temperature
                                                       for each 3-hr
                                                       period at or
                                                       below average
                                                       temperature
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test
                                                       +14 [deg]C (+25
                                                       [deg]F).
                                  Lime injection      Maintain free-
                                   rate.               flowing lime in
                                                       the feed hopper
                                                       or silo at all
                                                       times for
                                                       continuous
                                                       injection
                                                       systems; maintain
                                                       feeder setting at
                                                       level established
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test
                                                       for continuous
                                                       injection
                                                       systems.
 
                              * * * * * * *
In-line fluxer with lime-         Bag leak detector   Initiate
 injected fabric filter            or.                 corrective action
 (including those that are part                        within 1-hr of
 of a secondary aluminum                               alarm and
 processing unit).                                     complete in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the OM&M plan;\b\
                                                       operate such that
                                                       alarm does not
                                                       sound more than
                                                       5% of operating
                                                       time in 6-month
                                                       period.
                                  COM...............  Initiate
                                                       corrective action
                                                       within 1-hr of a
                                                       6-minute average
                                                       opacity reading
                                                       of 5% or more and
                                                       complete in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       the OM&M plan.\b\
                                  Lime injection      Maintain free-
                                   rate.               flowing lime in
                                                       the feed hopper
                                                       or silo at all
                                                       times for
                                                       continuous
                                                       injection
                                                       systems; maintain
                                                       feeder setting at
                                                       level established
                                                       during
                                                       performance test
                                                       for continuous
                                                       injection
                                                       systems.
                                  Reactive flux       Maintain reactive
                                   injection rate.     flux injection
                                                       rate at or below
                                                       rate used during
                                                       the performance
                                                       test for each
                                                       operating cycle
                                                       or time period
                                                       used in the
                                                       performance test.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime-        Bag leak detector   Initiate
 injected fabric filter            or.                 corrective action
 (including those that are part                        within 1-hr of
 of a secondary of aluminum                            alarm; operate
 processing unit)..                                    such that alarm
                                                       does not sound
                                                       more than 5% of
                                                       operating time in
                                                       6-month period;
                                                       complete
                                                       corrective action
                                                       in accordance
                                                       with the OM&M
                                                       plan.\b\
                                  COM...............  Initiate
                                                       corrective action
                                                       within 1-hr of a
                                                       6-minute average
                                                       opacity reading
                                                       of 5% or more;
                                                       complete
                                                       corrective action
                                                       in accordance
                                                       with the OM&M
                                                       plan.\b\
                                  Fabric filter       Maintain average
                                   inlet temperature.  fabric filter
                                                       inlet temperature
                                                       for each 3-hour
                                                       period at or
                                                       below average
                                                       temperature
                                                       during the
                                                       performance test
                                                       +14 [deg]C (+25
                                                       [deg]F).
                                  Reactive flux       Maintain reactive
                                   injection rate.     flux injection
                                                       rate (kg/Mg) (lb/
                                                       ton) at or below
                                                       rate used during
                                                       the performance
                                                       test for each
                                                       furnace cycle.
                                  Lime injection      Maintain free-
                                   rate.               flowing lime in
                                                       the feed hopper
                                                       or silo at all
                                                       times for
                                                       continuous
                                                       injection
                                                       systems; maintain
                                                       feeder setting at
                                                       level established
                                                       at performance
                                                       test for
                                                       continuous
                                                       injection
                                                       systems.

[[Page 8626]]

 
                                  Maintain molten     Operate sidewell
                                   aluminum level.     furnaces such
                                                       that the level of
                                                       molten metal is
                                                       above the top of
                                                       the passage
                                                       between sidewell
                                                       and hearth during
                                                       reactive flux
                                                       injection, unless
                                                       the hearth is
                                                       also controlled.
                                  Fluxing in          Add reactive flux
                                   sidewell furnace    only to the
                                   hearth.             sidewell of the
                                                       furnace unless
                                                       the hearth is
                                                       also controlled.
 
                              * * * * * * *
                                  Furnaces that will  Associated fans,
                                   be idle for at      hoods and APCD
                                   least 24 hours      may be
                                   and will burn       temporarily
                                   clean fuel only,    turned off.
                                   will not receive   Before charging
                                   new charge, flux    resumes, all
                                   or alloying         associated fans,
                                   material.           hoods and APCD
                                                       must be turned on
                                                       and operated
                                                       continuously.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\d\ APCD--Air pollution control device.

* * * * *
    18. Table 3 to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by:
    a. Revising the entry All affected sources and emission units with 
an add-on air pollution control device;
    b. Revising the entry Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric filter;
    c. Revising the entry Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 
with afterburner and lime-injected fabric filter;
    d. Revising entry Dross-only furnace with fabric filter;
    e. Revising the entry Rotary dross cooler with fabric filter;
    f. Revising the entry In-line fluxer with lime-injected fabric 
filter;
    g. Revising the entry Group 1 furnace with lime-injected fabric 
filter;
    h. Removing footnote c to Table 3; and
    i. Revising footnote d to Table 3 to read as follows:

 Table 3 to Subpart RRR of Part 63--Summary of Monitoring Requirements for New and Existing Affected Sources and
                                                 Emission Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Monitor type/Operation/
     Affected source/Emission unit               Process                      Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
All affected sources and emission       Emission capture and       Annual inspection of all emission capture,
 units with an add-on air pollution      collection system.         collection, and transport systems to ensure
 control device.                                                    that systems continue to operate in
                                                                    accordance with ACGIH standards. Inspection
                                                                    includes volumetric flow rate measurements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Aluminum scrap shredder with fabric     Bag leak detector or.....  Install and operate in accordance with
 filter.                                                            manufacturer's operating instructions.
                                        COM or...................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                    collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                    40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-
                                                                    minute block averages.
                                        VE.......................  Conduct and record results of 30-minute daily
                                                                    test in accordance with Method 9.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/          Afterburner operating      Continuous measurement device to meet
 decoating kiln with afterburner and     temperature..              specifications in Sec.   63.1510(g)(1);
 lime-injected fabric filter.                                       record temperature for each 15-minute block;
                                                                    determine and record 3-hr block averages.
                                        Afterburner operation....  Annual inspection of afterburner internal
                                                                    parts; complete repairs in accordance with
                                                                    the OM&M plan.
                                        Bag leak detector or.....  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                    manufacturer's operating instructions.
                                        COM......................  Design and Install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                    collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                    40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-
                                                                    minute block averages.
                                        Lime injection rate......  For continuous injection systems, inspect
                                                                    each feed hopper or silo every 8 hours to
                                                                    verify that lime is free flowing; record
                                                                    results of each inspection. If blockage
                                                                    occurs, inspect every 4 hours for 3 days;
                                                                    return to 8-hour inspections if corrective
                                                                    action results in no further blockage during
                                                                    3-day period, record feeder setting daily.
                                                                   Verify monthly that lime injection rate is no
                                                                    less than 90 percent of the rate used during
                                                                    the compliance demonstration test.
                                        Fabric filter inlet        Continuous measurement device to meet
                                         temperature..              specifications in Sec.   63.1510(h)(2);
                                                                    record temperatures in 15-minute block
                                                                    averages; determine and record 3-hr block
                                                                    averages.
 

[[Page 8627]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Dross-only furnace with fabric filter.  Bag leak detector or.....  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                    manufacturer's operating instructions.
                                        COM......................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                    collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                    40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-
                                                                    minute block averages.
                                        Feed/charge material.....  Record identity of each feed/charge; certify
                                                                    charge materials every 6 months.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Rotary dross cooler with fabric filter  Bag leak detector or.....  Install and operate in accordance with
                                                                    manufacturer's operating instructions.
                                        COM......................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                    collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                    40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-
                                                                    minute block averages.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
In-line fluxer with lime-injected       Bag leak detector or.....  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter.                                                     manufacturer's operating instructions.
                                        COM......................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                    collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                    40 CFR part 63; determine and record 6-
                                                                    minute block averages.
                                        Reactive flux injection    Weight measurement device accuracy of 1% \b\; calibrate according to
                                                                    manufacturer's specifications or at least
                                                                    once every 6 months; record time, weight and
                                                                    type of reactive flux added or injected for
                                                                    each 15-minute block period while reactive
                                                                    fluxing occurs; calculate and record total
                                                                    reactive flux injection rate for each
                                                                    operating cycle or time period used in
                                                                    performance test; or
                                                                   Alternative flux injection rate determination
                                                                    procedure per Sec.   63.1510(j)(5). For
                                                                    solid flux added intermittently, record the
                                                                    amount added for each operating cycle or
                                                                    time period used in the performance test.
                                        Lime injection rate......  For continuous injection systems, record
                                                                    feeder setting daily and inspect each feed
                                                                    hopper or silo every 8 hrs to verify that
                                                                    lime is free-flowing; record results of each
                                                                    inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect
                                                                    every 4 hrs for 3 days; return to 8-hour
                                                                    inspections if corrective action results in
                                                                    no further blockage during 3-day period.\d\
                                                                   Verify monthly that the lime injection rate
                                                                    is no less than 90 percent of the rate used
                                                                    during the compliance demonstration test.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace with lime-injected      Bag leak detector or.....  Install and operate in accordance with
 fabric filter.                                                     manufacturer's operating instructions.
                                        COM......................  Design and install in accordance with PS-1;
                                                                    collect data in accordance with subpart A of
                                                                    40 part CFR 63; determine and record 6-
                                                                    minute block averages.
                                        Lime injection rate......  For continuous injection systems, record
                                                                    feeder setting daily and inspect each feed
                                                                    hopper or silo every 8 hours to verify that
                                                                    lime is free-flowing; record results of each
                                                                    inspection. If blockage occurs, inspect
                                                                    every 4 hours for 3 days; return to 8-hour
                                                                    inspections if corrective action results in
                                                                    no further blockage during 3-day period.\d\
                                                                   Verify monthly that the lime injection rate
                                                                    is no less than 90 percent of the rate used
                                                                    during the compliance demonstration test.
                                        Reactive flux injection    Weight measurement device accuracy of 1% \b\; calibrate every 3 months;
                                                                    record weight and type of reactive flux
                                                                    added or injected for each 15-minute block
                                                                    period while reactive fluxing occurs;
                                                                    calculate and record total reactive flux
                                                                    injection rate for each operating cycle or
                                                                    time period used in performance test; or
                                                                    Alternative flux injection rate
                                                                    determination procedure per Sec.
                                                                    63.1510(j)(5). For solid flux added
                                                                    intermittently, record the amount added for
                                                                    each operating cycle or time period used in
                                                                    the performance test.
                                        Fabric filter inlet        Continuous measurement device to meet
                                         temperature.               specifications in Sec.   63.1510(h)(2);
                                                                    record temperatures in 15-minute block
                                                                    averages; determine and record 3-hour block
                                                                    averages.
                                        Maintain molten aluminum   Maintain aluminum level operating log;
                                         level in sidewell          certify every 6 months. If visual inspection
                                         furnace.                   of molten metal level is not possible, use
                                                                    physical measurement methods.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Group 1 furnace without add-on          Fluxing in sidewell        Maintain flux addition operating log; certify
 controls.                               furnace hearth.            every 6 months.
                                        Reactive flux injection    Weight measurement device accuracy of +1%
                                         rate.                      \b\; calibrate according to manufacturers
                                                                    specifications or at least once every six
                                                                    months; record weight and type of reactive
                                                                    flux added or injected for each 15-minute
                                                                    block period while reactive fluxing occurs;
                                                                    calculate and record total reactive flux
                                                                    injection rate for each operating cycle or
                                                                    time period used in performance test. For
                                                                    solid flux added intermittently, record the
                                                                    amount added for each operating cycle or
                                                                    time period used in the performance test.

[[Page 8628]]

 
                                        OM&M plan (approved by     Demonstration of site-specific monitoring
                                         permitting agency).        procedures to provide data and show
                                                                    correlation of emissions across the range of
                                                                    charge and flux materials and furnace
                                                                    operating parameters.
                                        Feed material (melting/    Record type of permissible feed/charge
                                         holding furnace).          material; certify charge materials every 6
                                                                    months.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\c\ Permitting agency may approve other alternatives including load cells for lime hopper weight, sensors for
  carrier gas pressure, or HCl monitoring devices at fabric filter outlet.

* * * * *
    19. Appendix A to Subpart RRR of part 63 is amended by:
    a. Removing entry 63.6(e)(1)-(2);
    b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 63.6(e)(1)ii);
    c. Adding entry 63.6(e)(2);
    d. Revising entry 63.6(e)(3)
    e. Removing entry 63.6(f);
    f. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(f)(2);
    g. Removing entries 63.6((h);
    h. Adding entries 63.6(h)(1) and 63.6(h)(2);
    i. Removing entries 63.7((e);
    j. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2);
    k. Removing entries 63.8((c)(1)-(3);
    l. Adding entries 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 
63.8(c)(1)(iv) and 63.7(e)(2)-(3);
    m. Removing entries 63.10((b);
    n. Adding entries 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv) and (v), 
and 63.10(b)(2)(iii;
    o. Revising entry 63.10(c)(10)-(13);
    p. Revising entry 63.10(d)(4)-(5); and
    q. Revising entries 63.14 to read as follows:

      Appendix A to Subpart RRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                      Requirement             Applies to RRR              Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................  .......................  No.....................  See Sec.
                                                                                          63.1506(a)(5) for
                                                                                          general duty
                                                                                          requirement. Any other
                                                                                          cross reference to
                                                                                          Sec.   63.6(3)(1)(i)
                                                                                          in any other general
                                                                                          provision incorporated
                                                                                          by reference shall be
                                                                                          treated as a cross
                                                                                          reference to Sec.
                                                                                          63.1506(a)(5).
63.6(e)(1)(ii).......................  .......................  No.....................  .......................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(2))..........................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown Plan.  No.....................  .......................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance with          No.....................  .......................
                                        Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)....................  Compliance with          Yes....................  .......................
                                        Emission Standards.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  Compliance with Opacity/ No.....................  .......................
                                        VE Standards.
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)....................  Compliance with Opacity/ Yes....................  .......................
                                        VE Standards.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Tests.......  No.....................  See 63.1511(a).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)....................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes....................  .......................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................  .......................  No.....................  See 63.1506(a)(5) for
                                                                                          general duty
                                                                                          requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii).......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  CMS Operation and        NO.....................  .......................
                                        Maintenance.
 

[[Page 8629]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Quality Control........  Yes, except for last     .......................
                                                                 sentence, which refers
                                                                 to an SSM plan. SSM
                                                                 plans are not required.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  General Requirements...  Yes....................  See 63.1517 includes
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and  General Requirements...  No.....................  See 63.1517(b)(18) for
 (v).                                                                                     recordkeeping of
                                                                                          occurrence and
                                                                                          duration of
                                                                                          malfunctions and
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          actions taken during
                                                                                          malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii) and (vi) to    General Requirements...  Yes....................  See 63.1517 includes
 (ix).                                                                                    additional
                                                                                          requirements.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(13).............  .......................  No.....................  See 63.1517(b)(18) for
                                                                                          recordkeeping of
                                                                                          malfunctions.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..................  General Requirements...  No.....................  .......................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)-(5)...............  Progress Reports/        No.....................  .......................
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and
                                        Malfunction Reports.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Yes....................  ACGIH Industrial
                                        Reference.                                        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 Sec.
                                                                                          63.1502).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-2874 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P