Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0034-0232
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-04-17T04:00Z

Since our  ‘Request for Clarification’ documents, dated October 9,
2003 and April 1, 2004, the following additional issues have been
identified by AFS members as items in need of clarification.  

20.  §63.7751(c) – Immediate Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
Reporting

Section 63.7751(c) indicates that an immediate “startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report” must be submitted when a source has “a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not
consistent with” the SSM plan.  This requirement is not in agreement
with the NESHAP General Provisions at §63.10(d)(5)(ii) which requires
an immediate report only if the action taken is not consistent with the
source’s SSM plan, “and the source exceeds any applicable emission
limitation in the relevant emission standard.”

AFS requests that the Agency review this requirement to determine
whether “immediate” notifications are necessary for SSM events that
do not exceed any applicable emissions limitation.  AFS believes that
such reporting is more properly included in the semi-annual compliance
report as provided in the NESHAP General Provisions.

21. - §63.7790 and 63.7700 - Applying both Work Practices and Emission
Limits is Inconsistent with CAA

The final rule contains both numerical emission limitations as well as
work practice requirements, both designed to regulate the same
pollutants from a single source of emissions.   AFS believes that such
duplicative, overlapping, requirements are not consistent with the
authority granted the Agency within the CAA.  The requirement that scrap
materials be inspected for precursors of VOHAP (e.g., oils, organic
liquids, plastics) and PMHAP (e.g., lead components) emissions is
redundant of numeric emission limits.  Specifically, cupola furnaces are
subject to both numeric VOHAP and PMHAP limitations and the scrap
selection requirements.

§112(d)(2) of the Act provides that the Administrator may utilize items
multiple means or, as provided in (E), a combination of such means, to
achieve the necessary emissions reductions.  However, paragraph (D)
states that any work practice standards that are promulgated must
comport with subsection (h) of §112.

§112(h)(1) of the Act states “if it is not feasible … to prescribe
or enforce an emission standard … the Administrator may, in lieu
thereof, promulgate a … work practice, or operational standard …” 
Further, §112(h)(4) states “Numerical Standard Required. – Any
standard promulgated under paragraph (1) shall be promulgated in terms
of an emission standard whenever it is feasible to promulgate and
enforce a standard in such terms.”  Since the final rule promulgates
emission standards for these sources, the work practices are not being
promulgates “in lieu thereof” and are outside the authority of the
Act.

22.  §63.7710(b) – Potential Applicability of O&M Plan to Non-NESHAP
Sources 

Section 63.7710(b) requires a written operation and maintenance plan for
each capture and collection system and control device for an emission
source subject to an emissions limit in §63.7690(a).  This operation
and maintenance plan must include, per §63.7710(b)(1), monthly
inspections of capture systems; and per (b)(2) operational parameter
limits for the capture systems.



AFS is concerned that, since §63.7690(a)(7) establishes an emissions
limitation (i.e., 20percent opacity) for those buildings housing NESHAP
emission units, the §63.7710(b) requirement to comply with an O&M plan
could be misinterpreted to apply to all ventilation equipment within the
building.  Specifically, we are concerned that, since a building may be
considered a NESHAP regulated source, the O&M requirements could be
misinterpreted to require monthly inspections and operational limits for
each general ventilation device within the building.  Likewise, these
requirements could be misinterpreted to apply to capture and control
device serving non-NESHAP sources within the NESHAP regulated building.

23.  §63.7732(g)(v) – Alternate TEA Test Method

The rule establishes a TEA emission standard of one ppmv and requires
foundries to use EPA Method 18 to demonstrate compliance with the TEA
emission standard.  AFS is concerned that compliance demonstration will
be difficult since Method 18 has a detection limit of one ppmv. 
Foundries may be unable to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit since valid data demonstrating compliance would be difficult to
generate.  EPA should allow the use of a silica gel adsorption tube
sampling technique, as allowed under Section 8.2.4 of Method 18, in
conjunction with gas chromatography analysis techniques consistent with
NIOSH Method 2010, as an alternative to Method 18.

24.  § 63.7734 – Compliance Demonstrations for Sources Sharing a
Control Device

The final rule, at §63.7734(a)(2), states that compliance with the
emissions limitations is demonstrated when, “for each cupola metal
melting furnace" the PM concentration determined according to the
performance test complies with the emissions limitation.  AFS seeks
confirmation from the Agency that, where a facility operates two similar
cupola furnaces controlled by a single APCD system, and only one cupola
may operate at a given time, redundant emissions tests will not be
required (i.e., one test for each furnace).  AFS seeks confirmation from
the Agency that, in these circumstances, the results of a single
performance test of the control device will be deemed adequate to
demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitation for both furnaces.

25.  §63.7733 - Establishing Operating Parameters 

Section 63.7690(b)(2), (4) and (5) requires each foundry to operate
control devices on NESHAP-regulated units “such that the 3-hour
average” of the parametric (e.g., pressure drop, water or scrubbing
liquid flow rate, temperature) “does not fall below the minimum levels
established during the initial and subsequent performance test.” 
Further, §63.7733(b), (c) and (d) requires that foundries “must
establish site-specific operating limits” based on the 3-hour average
“for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is
met.”

The provision requiring that operating limits be based on the “3-hour
average” for each sampling run is inconsistent with the remainder of
the regulation.  Specifically, as provided in §63.7732, the required
performance tests range in minimum sampling time from one hour [e.g.,
paragraphs (e) and (g)] to three hours [e.g., paragraph (f)] and
includes some tests of unspecified duration [e.g., paragraphs (b) and
(c)].  Thus, many test results will not have a “3-hour average.”

Further, AFS is concerned that the “3-hour average” requirement
could be misinterpreted to require, for tests of less that 3-hours
duration, the averaging of the three one-hour sampling runs which
typical compose an emissions test.  AFS believes, based upon discussions
with the Agency and the statements contained in the US EPA document
titled “Background Information for Promulgated Standards,” that such
an interpretation is not consistent with the intent of the regulations. 
The “Background” document states:

While we acknowledge that control devices can be operated over a range
of operating values, we do not believe that the entire range of
operating values will necessarily meet the performance limits required
by the standard.  For example, during our source test of a cupola wet
scrubber, we performed 4 test runs.  The test runs performed while the
venturi scrubber operated at 38 and 42 inches of water both met the
0.005 gr/dscf emission limit, while the test runs performed while the
venturi scrubber operated at 33 and 35 inches of water both exceeded
0.005 gr/dscf.  In selecting the operating limits from a performance
test, we allow you to select the least stringent value for any test run
that meets the emission limit.  In this example, an operating limit of
38 inches of water pressure drop could be established.  (page 79,
emphasis added).

AFS requests that the Agency clarify this issue by amending
§63.7733(b), (c) and (d) to remove the phrase “3-hour average” from
these paragraphs.  By doing so the operating parameter selection will be
determined based on the sampling runs of appropriate duration as
required by the performance testing provisions. 

26. §63.7741(f) – Requirement for 100 Percent CPMS Data   

The rule states that a CPMS must have a minimum of three of the required
four data points to constitute a valid hour of data, and that each CPMS
must have valid hourly data for 100 percent of every averaging period. 
AFS requests that the Agency reconsider this provision because it does
not allow for the inevitable malfunction of CPMS.

The regulation, in order to be achievable, must account for the
inevitable malfunction of the monitoring systems.  AFS requests that the
Agency include within this requirement an exemption for CPMS
malfunctions that are promptly identified and repaired or replaced.  

27.  §63.7690(a)(2) – Emissions Limitations for Cupola Furnaces

The final rule establishes a PM emissions limitation for cupola furnaces
which is solely based on the utilization of fabric filter control
systems.  AFS requests that the Agency reevaluate this approach to
consider the significant increase in sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions that
will result from the wholesale replacement of wet collection system. 
AFS believes that the significant increase in SOx emissions may
represent a greater health impact than the minimal gain in PMHAP
emissions that would be achieved by converting these systems.

AFS requests US EPA create a separate subcategory for cupolas equipped
with wet scrubber control devices and establish separate particulate
matter ("PM") emission limits for existing sources within this
subcategory.  A separate subcategory is necessary to avoid requiring
facilities with state-of-the-art wet scrubber control devices to spend
millions of dollars to retrofit with fabric filter baghouses for
relatively minor additional HAP emission reductions.



28. §63.7690(b) - Required Capture and Collection Systems 

§63.7690(b)(1) requires a capture and collection system be installed,
operated, and maintained "for all emissions sources subject to an
emissions limit or standard for VOHAP or TEA."  AFS is concerned that
this provision could be misinterpreted to mandate capture and collection
systems for EAF/EIF furnaces, even though these furnaces are not
directly subject to a VOHAP limit or standard.

Specifically, the rules could be interpreted to contain, at
§63.7700(a), (b), and (c), work practice "standards" to limit organics
from entering these furnaces.  As such, it could be interpreted that a
"standard" (i.e., a work practice standard) limiting VOHAP does exist
for these units and, therefore, they would be required to have a capture
and collection system.  Likewise, a similar problem exists for those
foundries with preheaters that decided to meet the work practice
requirement of "certified metals" as opposed to the 20 ppm VOHAP
standard.

Since the scrap certification or inspection/selection requirements will
ensure that the precursors to VOHAPs do not enter these sources, a
capture and collection system for these pollutants is nonsensical.  AFS
requests that the Agency confirm that the scrap certification and
inspection/selection requirements are not considered a VOHAP work
practice standard which dictates the capture and collection system
requirements.

29. §63.7765 – Definition of a scrap preheater

A clarification is needed to differentiate a scrap dryer from a scrap
preheater. This so that the former is not inappropriately regulated as a
scrap preheater. §63.7765 defines a scrap preheater as: 

Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate moisture and other volatile
impurities or tramp materials by direct flame heating or similar means
of heating.

The primary purpose of a scrap preheater is to add sufficient energy to
the charge material to affect a change (shorten) in the melting cycle. 
To do so, sufficient BTUs must be added to raise the temperature of the
charge material to above 800°F (typically 900° F to 1200° F)

A scrap dryer is a vessel or other piece of equipment in which metal
scrap to be charged into an electric induction or electric arc furnace
is heated to a temperature just sufficient to remove only water. These
units sole purpose are to remove moisture from the charge materials.
This is done as a safety measure to prevent explosions that occur when
moisture inadvertently comes in contact with or becomes submerged in
molten metal. Scrap dryers operate at much lower temperatures (typically
400 - 600° F) than scrap pre-heaters  and have minimal or no impact on
the melting cycle.

NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries

Request for Clarification

Prepared by American Foundry Society

Submitted to EPA on May 12, 2004

Page   PAGE  4  of   NUMPAGES  4